[Tyler]

QUOTE (bluetops @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 06:33)

I can compare God to 'zero' in the number line. Zero is the origin. Infinite numbers, both negative and positive, extends from all sides. We know that this numbers came from the origin or zero, but we do not know how did zero existed in the first place. We accept the number line as true, or a fact, as much as how theists(like me) believe in the existence of God.

There's a bit wrong with this idea. Mainly, comparing an ineffable God or gods to a totally relatable number line. It diminishes the idea of your God and it also does not work properly. We know zero. We know how the concept of zero came to be, and we know how it fits in the natural world. We do not know how God fits in the natural world.

Saying "we accept the number line as true" does not matter. Even if you did not hold it true in your mind, it would still be the fundamental language of the universe. Numbers do not need you to validate themselves, they are independent of us. God, is disputable.

[3niX]

Well...

@Tyler - The first part of your post is actually quite interesting and I somewhat agree. However, I think he was right in using numbers as a way of explaining his point of view because the only other option would be to leave it unclarified (since we can only explain things in terms others can understand and relate to).

QUOTE

Numbers do not need you to validate themselves, they are independent of us. God, is disputable.

Actually, the existence of the concept of numbers depends on us (because we created them) and hence they arent really independent in the complete meaning of the word. Now, we could argue whether a concept dies when its forgotten or whether it lives forever as an independent and abstract entity but I fear that might detract from the topic at hand. Though you are correct that numbers dont need the acceptance of an individual to be valid.

Furthermore, the literal interpretation of God found in the bible might be disputable (in fact it is) but you cant disprove the concept of God in its entirety. Theres just no way of proving nor disproving God. The issue is pretty much ingrained in the concept.

[Tyler]

QUOTE (3niX @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 15:15)

...but you cant disprove the concept of God in its entirety. Theres just no way of proving nor disproving God. The issue is pretty much ingrained in the concept.

Oh, I didn't intend to touch on that. I don't have the resources or clarity to argue if a god exists, but I can dispute it's need in the world. Which, is really the only absolute way to change someone's mind on the subject. Comparing God to flying spaghetti monsters or teacups around Saturn is no way to open one's mind, I've found.

[3niX]

Well...

QUOTE

Oh, I didn't intend to touch on that. I don't have the resources or clarity to argue if a god exists, but I can dispute it's need in the world. Which, is really the only absolute way to change someone's mind on the subject. Comparing God to flying spaghetti monsters or teacups around Saturn is no way to open one's mind, I've found.

Oh, Im glad were on the same wavelength then.



Theres nothing worse than trying to persuade someone to accept your view without even trying to understand the other side of the view.

[Irviding]

QUOTE

smells like bullsh*t. when God is merely Superman and can do anything and exist outside the purview of all rationale explanation, then I don't see how we (as the human race) can ever have a fair/reasonable discussion about spirituality or existence at all. if people want to believe in god they have to admit (first and foremost) that they believe in something that has zero evidence and zero logic behind it. only then can we move on to the more important questions about life and reality.

But what if God is that very rationale explanation? You're debating me on this as one would debate a regular born-again Christian. I've said at least 10 times now I don't subscribe to the bearded man casting magic upon people. What if it is a spiritual force simply unknown to science? What if that spiritual force truly is science? Some of the greatest physicists in history, like Einstein, held that view.

What's wrong with Deism in its simplest form to you anyway? You're very close-minded here, compared to your normal, more liberal viewpoints elsewhere. But then again, we liberals seem to have that problem in general; we have an open mind towards all lifestyles and accept everyone, except religion. Accepting that is not allowed.

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 16:32)

But what if God is that very rationale explanation?

and what if I'm the rightful King of England?

you'd better find some rational evidence if you're going to say that god is a rationale explanation to anything.

QUOTE

You're debating me on this as one would debate a regular born-again Christian.

I'm debating the words that you typed.

QUOTE

What if it is a spiritual force simply unknown to science?

then why believe in something that cannot be known?

QUOTE

What if that spiritual force truly is science? Some of the greatest physicists in history, like Einstein, held that view.

then call it science.

why call it god?

QUOTE

What's wrong with Deism in its simplest form to you anyway?

there's not a single piece of credible evidence for it.

QUOTE

You're very close-minded here, compared to your normal, more liberal viewpoints elsewhere.

because I suddenly disagree with you; I'm closed minded?

I think not.
I've studied virtually every religion that can be studied (has source text, has a history dating back at least 200 years).

when I wasn't filling my major with political science and economics I was taking philosophy and comparative religious classes because they were fascinating. I may only be in my twenties, but I've already considered many possibilities regarding the big questions in life; who are we? where are we from? where are we going?

chalking these answers up to a an all-powerful, unquestionable, infallible, and unshakable dictator in the sky seems like THE LEAST rationale way to explain the natural world.

QUOTE

But then again, we liberals seem to have that problem in general; we have an open mind towards all lifestyles and accept everyone, except religion. Accepting that is not allowed.

I think you're wrong.
you're painting with too large a brush.

most liberals I know - myself included - accept religion.
we accept spirituality.

we accept that it has a place in life to some extent.
we accept that it will probably never go away (the weak need their crutch, their opiate).

what we have a problem with is blind faith.
blind faith makes otherwise good people do evil things.

the Pope makes public addresses in which he states that using condoms is a greater blasphemy than living with HIV/AIDS.
how many millions of people will suffer and die because of such ludicrous dogma that has no basis in reality?

this is where our problem with religion comes from.
I have no problem if you want to be religious in your personal life with your family.

but check that sh*t at the door.
leave it at home. it has no place in the modern world.

[Leftcoast]

QUOTE ((HydraulicWaRiOr)

According to the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, you would still indeed be alive after death.

that's not exactly how the Law of Conservation works.
matter (as far as we know it) cannot be entirely destroyed or created from nothing. but this doesn't mean you're "alive after death." that would be a very poor way to describe the point you're trying to make. the Law simply means that our bio-electrical energy exists after our flesh and blood body deteriorates. the energy that animates and gives us life (which can be measured, by the way) is contained within our metabolic systems as long as our physical body is intact.

that energy is finally free to leave the human shell the moment we die, because it's no longer being used to power our metabolism or cell functions.
but once it leaves the body we obviously have no idea what happens to it or what it experiences. we don't know if it dissipates and becomes the energy in the plants or animals or sky, or if it stays together and retains the human spirit/soul or whatever you want to call it of the person it used to be.

The first law of thermodynamic = "law of conservation"

The 1st law states: E in - E out = Delta E system ... Energy In -(minus) Energy out = Change in Energy of the system. Or Net energy transfer by heat, work and mass = change in internal, kinetic, potential, and more... energies.

Basically, when making engineering or scientific calculations, you must account for all energy in any form that it can exist.

The second law of thermodynamics basically states that energy flows from high energy to low energy. It's certainly more complicated than that but I don't have a simple explanation so feel free to in read/learn more on your own.

Short story long, any energy retained by a body would leave predominantly as heat and chemical energy nothing more... of course if the body was on a cliff it will still have potential energy but that is neither here nor there for this discussion.

QUOTE

I don't believe in the Big Bang for instance. only because the Big Bang purports to be the beginning of the universe based on measurable laws of physics. I think the Big Bang might have happened, for whatever reason. I think it might have happened and had some profound and important effect on what our universe looks like right now. but I sincerely doubt that it was the beginning of everything. I tend to believe that the universe has always been, and that it will always be. but people have such a hard time wrapping their heads around that concept because it doesn't match the small, petty life cycle of individual beings like us.

I agree completely, just because we don't have a scientific way/law/ect to say there was something before doesn't mean it happened the way it would if that was "truly the beginning".


Last drunk thought: Science and religion are like oil and water, they really don't mix and can't be used in conjunction, well the cook in me says other wise, but you catch my drift. If there is an all powerful god, god could just make the rules of science and it would appear to us that it's all just a day in the life.

I fixed your quotes (ish)- SVP

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Sunday, May 6 2012, 09:29

[Eviscero]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 18:32)

QUOTE smells like bullsh*t. when God is merely Superman and can do anything and exist outside the purview of all rationale explanation, then I don't see how we (as the human race) can ever have a fair/reasonable discussion about spirituality or existence at all. if people want to believe in god they have to admit (first and foremost) that they believe in something that has zero evidence and zero logic behind it. only then can we move on to the more important questions about life and reality. But what if God is that very rationale explanation? You're debating me on this as one would debate a regular born-again Christian. I've said at least 10 times now I don't subscribe to the bearded man casting magic upon people. What if it is a spiritual force simply unknown to science? What if that spiritual force truly is science? Some of the greatest physicists in history, like Einstein, held that view. What's wrong with Deism in its simplest form to you anyway? You're very close-minded here, compared to your normal, more liberal viewpoints elsewhere. But then again, we liberals seem to have that problem in general; we have an open mind towards all lifestyles and accept everyone, except religion. Accepting that is not allowed.

The answer to the question "Why not believe, what if?" is simple. If your reasoning behind your defense of that position is, "What if this is the case and science just doesn't understand it?" you must see that that was the case for volumes of religious concepts. Floods, earthquakes, the sun, the wind...everything people didn't understand in an earlier time attributed them to some deity. Over time, we found that that is not a productive way to experience and learn about our world. Science continues to develop, and in this process, religion continues to deconstruct. The pattern is clear.

To suggest what you have suggested would be on par with saying, "Maybe there are dragons and unicorns in the world. Maybe we've just not found them yet. What if they simply can't be seen?"

You see, believing in "some spiritual force" is just as irrational and illogical as believing in "the bearded man." Without scientific evidence, ascribing existence to definitively unobservable entities is basically ludicrous.