|
Post by Qwerty on Aug 19, 2009 19:07:04 GMT -5
Everyone is arrogant...
I'm talking about the physicists I didn't agree with, by the way.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Aug 19, 2009 23:06:58 GMT -5
Who is this physicist(s) you speak of?
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Aug 20, 2009 16:15:48 GMT -5
Some professors at UCLA, I don't remember their actual names. One of them had a baloon in Antarctica, measuring neutrinos.
|
|
|
Post by BlueWinter on Aug 20, 2009 17:08:13 GMT -5
It's incredibly unlikely. I respect your beliefs, but I don't think there are any supernatural beings.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Aug 20, 2009 19:14:38 GMT -5
What does that have to do with me? I'm agnostic, remember?
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Master on Aug 23, 2009 10:51:36 GMT -5
I think he was talking to the world in general....
|
|
Buggy793
Legendary Member
{S=6}One Fish, Two Fish. Red Fish, Blue Fish.[M:-793]
I never pronounce names wrong. People just want them mispronounced for some reason.
Posts: 815
|
Post by Buggy793 on Aug 25, 2009 0:28:06 GMT -5
I really do like these numbered lists. Also, my dad was gone for the weekend, and that was why I was gone, because as stated before, my stupid, stupid, stupid home computer won't load the forums. Only this laptop will. Anyways... 1) There is nearly no proof that other worlds exist. Besides, there are various "many world" theories. Several of which would prove impossible without "outside" help. 2) The Cambrian explosion was a point in history where hundreds of new bodies types and parts were formed, in an relatively short period of time. Darwin even admitted that this is a problem with his theory. What well-supported theory would I use to explain the Cambrian explosion and the other problems with evolution/Darwinian naturalism? Creation. Would you like me to name a few more problems with evolution? 3) I guess I asked for that... 4) I hate typos even more than my computer... lol Sorry, I meant that I hate the word Christian. It (conveniently) has to do with arrogance. The word christian has religion splattered all over the place. God has always hated religion becuase it's made people act arrogant. I prefer to be considered a Christ Follower rather than a Christian. 5) I suppose that's true... Maybe I should say fully understanding? You know, all this time I've just been defending without actually making my point. I guess I should do just that. Vinster: You know how you said that we are just meat, and all thoughts, emotions, etc. are just electrical impulses in the brain? Yeah... That doesn't stand up too well. I truly believe that people have souls. Let me give you an example. If physicalism is true, then you would assume there is no such thing as consciousness. I'm gonna quote from a book here, so bare(I'm not sure which bear to use there) with me. This is from Lee Strobel's Case for a Creator, in an interview with a J. P. Moreland. Go ahead and look it up if you wish. So yeah, attack that if you wish. Personally, I don't see any problems with this, but I suppose I'm a little biased. Yes, everyone is arrogant at some point. It annoys me when someone only posts once in this thread. This is in the Serious Debate section for a reason...
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Aug 25, 2009 3:18:42 GMT -5
Of course, by Sandmaster's account, we all are.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Aug 25, 2009 14:13:06 GMT -5
1) There is nearly no proof that other worlds exist. Besides, there are various "many world" theories. Several of which would prove impossible without "outside" help. People have found minuscule irregularities with stars motion, implying other objects surrounding the star that must be large enough for this. More recently, they discovered Jovian planets in hundreds of starts. Even more recently, they discovered rocky ones, and even obtained pictures. Describe a 'many-world' theory, please. 2) The Cambrian explosion was a point in history where hundreds of new bodies types and parts were formed, in an relatively short period of time. Darwin even admitted that this is a problem with his theory. What well-supported theory would I use to explain the Cambrian explosion and the other problems with evolution/Darwinian naturalism? Creation. Would you like me to name a few more problems with evolution? You have an X-sided die. You also have a list of numbers, currently only Y1 is on the list. You roll the die once a day. Every time you don't get a number on the list, you mark that day as a 'red' day. Every time you get a number on your list, you mark the day as a 'green' day. Every time you roll a number on the list, you add another random number between 1 and X (including 1 and X) to the list. If you continue this, you should see that slowly you start getting more green days, and as time goes on, the amount of green days explodes in comparison to red days. This is a very simple version of the Cambrian explosion, because a random statistic that gives birth to a possibility, which is itself a random statistic. Of course, evolution is much more complex, and makes a little more sense. God has always hated religion becuase it's made people act arrogant. That's pretty arrogant of you, thinking you know what God thinks. You know how you said that we are just meat, and all thoughts, emotions, etc. are just electrical impulses in the brain? Yeah... That doesn't stand up too well. I truly believe that people have souls. Let me give you an example. If physicalism is true, then you would assume there is no such thing as consciousness. Prove that a consciousness exists. Prove that a soul exists. I'm gonna quote from a book here, so bare(I'm not sure which bear to use there) with me. This is from Lee Strobel's Case for a Creator, in an interview with a J. P. Moreland. Go ahead and look it up if you wish. So yeah, attack that if you wish. Personally, I don't see any problems with this, but I suppose I'm a little biased. "It could be described entirely from a third-person point of view. And yet we know that we have first-person..." First of all, if it COULD be third-person, and we have first-person, then why does this disprove the theory? Just because we're incompetent doesn't make us right. Second of all, prove that you have a first-person point of view. Third of all, to me, I (subconsciously) see everyone else as third-person point of view people, and myself alone as the first-person person. So does everyone else. So you think you have first-person point of view? Six billion people say otherwise, and I think I'll trust statistics.
|
|
|
Post by artik on Aug 25, 2009 18:40:13 GMT -5
-says intelligently-
Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Aug 25, 2009 19:12:44 GMT -5
Proof plz.
|
|
|
Post by SilentWaves on Aug 25, 2009 19:53:30 GMT -5
thats just it. They can't prove it they just have a book that also can not be proven. In the same principle you could say star wars really happened because there are books AND VIDEO EVIDENCE it occured! Yet when science is proven every day when you move or i dont know TYPE ON A KEYBOARD they just ignore it. Most religion is based off ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by V.I.R.O.S. on Aug 25, 2009 21:09:12 GMT -5
thats just it. They can't prove it they just have a book that also can not be proven. In the same principle you could say star wars really happened because there are books AND VIDEO EVIDENCE it occured! Yet when science is proven every day when you move or i dont know TYPE ON A KEYBOARD they just ignore it. Most religion is based off ignorance. Yeah, that doesn't work. Star Wars was designed as a fiction movie, produced by a person, and makes liberal use of special effects. Therefore it isn't the filming of actual people blowing up an actual moon sized space station, making your theory utterly null. ____ I don't mean to seem evil or anything here, but I would like to say very simply and plainly that souls do not exist. My proof of this, is that even if souls do exist they do not affect the physical world in even the slightest manner, don't have weight, don't have gravity, don't have a composition of any materials, are not visible, don't have a magnetic field, and don't do anything at all, except magically wing there way off in to the "after-life", or perhaps reincarnate. That being said, I would also like to say that I consider it EXTREMELY arrogant to think that humans aren't animals. This is utterly ridiculous, and is the peak of human arrogance in my opinion. Thirdly, maybe we aren't sentient at all. You have to consider that monkeys and antelope and lions don't make up intelligence tests. Only we do that, and thus we are grading our own species. It is impossible to grade a test you don't know the answers to, so it is only possible to make a test which the answers are known. Thus, the humans are making it impossible to actually grade themselves, as they can't compare themselves to any other "sentient species" as of yet. Next, don't try to tell me we are sentient because we have invented all this technology, and a whole civilization, because we are the only ones that are saying that having technology and civilization is a sign of sentience, seeing as we think all these things are very nifty. It's possible that the lion, or the monkey, or the antelope think that they are all big wastes of time, that could be better used hunting or escaping from hunters. Finally, it would also be nice to inform you all that what I say here is all purely logic (My own theories), and may not all be my express views on the matter, though many of them are.
|
|
|
Post by artik on Aug 25, 2009 21:24:23 GMT -5
I saw him on TV!! Lol I'll stop now..
|
|
Buggy793
Legendary Member
{S=6}One Fish, Two Fish. Red Fish, Blue Fish.[M:-793]
I never pronounce names wrong. People just want them mispronounced for some reason.
Posts: 815
|
Post by Buggy793 on Sept 7, 2009 23:56:42 GMT -5
Sandmaster, you realize that you just said that everyone thinks they have a first-person view, don't you? I don't it's arrogant at all saying that God hated religion. You see him repeatedly getting down-right annoyed with the Pharisees(the "religious" people) all through the Gospel books of the Bible. (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) How's that different than me saying my friend Sage is antisocial because he hates hanging out with other people? Sandmaster, those statistics for the Cambrian explosion are nice, but you don't understand. The Cambrian explosion included whole bodily systems suddenly... appearing. It literally went from sponge and "simple(If you can possibly call a cell simple)" organisms to full-blown dinosaurs(feel free to interpret dinosaur here). Things that couldn't just be built over time through random selection. Ever heard of the mousetrap analogy for this?
Meh. I just believe that the multiple-universe theory is a total cop-out answer. Say you're playing poker and you get a royal flush. Lucky you, you just happen to be in the universe that this scenario happened in. Of course, the chances are much more minute than a royal flush, but the idea is still valid. OK, I'll explain: One popular multiple-universe theory is the one where this universe came from a "universe generator" of sorts, where this... "thing" generates "universe bubbles" of sorts. You would need vast amounts of energy in order to make these universes. Not only that, but it would have to be an unlimited reserve of energy in order for it to have existed forever and made our universe, which in turn would make this universe finite, but that's besides the point. Then you would need a mechanism of some sort to make that energy into matter, then another mechanism to "allow enough variation in the constants of physics among the constants of physics so that by random chance he would produce some universes, like ours, that have the right fine-tuning to sustain life." (Quoted from Lee Strobel's Case for Christ) In other words, the physics would either be the same in all universes and be able to produce themselves from the Big Bang onward, or they would have to have this mechanism. Big problem: Where did the energy come from, and how could it be infinite along with the Rule of the Conservation of Energy?
To clear a small thing up, a soul is immaterial. It's not tangible, but it's there. You would have to believe that you have no free will and you could figure out exactly what will happen if you believe in you have no soul. I just don't see how a sane person could believe that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but then there would be no such thing as justice, because you couldn't be held accountable for your actions, as I wouldn't be able to be held accountable for mine. Yet you know there is such a thing as justice. Deny it, but you know as a little kid, you said," That's not fair!" A soul is also why you dream. You can go ahead and chart brain movement all you want, you'll never be able to figure what people are dreaming, because it's private. It's inner thought.
Just as an off-topic thing, I love books. Feel free to suggest some to me.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Master on Sept 8, 2009 10:44:50 GMT -5
Buggy, this whole debate is 'correct me if I'm wrong'....
In the Bible, God didn't get annoyed with religion, he got annoyed with those who wouldn't agree with his. That's why in the Bibble it says he didn't like the Pharisees. Bugs, we know the Big Bang (it's actually wrong to call it the'big bang', because a 'bang' is a nloise, not an explosion., Anyway...) but that's all we know. Nobody knows the specific details, although some people claim they do. But if one theory hasn't got all the answers doesn't make the other right... Things just didn't 'appear'. It started from scratch, and grew. Sure, it took millions of years but it did. The gas hardened as the universe cooled, and the simplest of chemicals reacted and grew aswell, evolving... Simple organisms just didn't turn into dinosaurs, they adapted to the Earth's atomsphere and climate, and grew because it could. The basic instinct of all living creatures is to survive, and it adapted and evolved to survive. One question: Do you actually believe in dinosaurs?
There is free-will, but it doesn't come some 'soul'. I'm sane (ish) and I believe that. We act like we do because of how we grow up. If you grow up knowing no school or law, than that is why you would commit crimes, not because of some 'soul'. If you grew up in a strict Christian family, you would be a Christian. And beleive it or not, Bugs, if you grew up in an atheistic family, you would be atheist. You act on what people have told you, because that is all you know. And dreams are caused by our brain re-running things in our mind that we say the day before, or are thinking about. I read an article on The Matrix, and I had a dream about that. It's nutin' spirtual.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Sept 8, 2009 14:07:43 GMT -5
I'm sorry Buggy, but nearly everything you said was bullsh*t. Nobody cares about multiple universes because you can NOT interact with other universes. We can't prove they exist in the first place. Saying it is not arrogant to KNOW that God hates religion is arrogant (because you have no proof), and denying it by giving evidence from the Bible (which is not proof for ANYTHING), which directly OPPOSES your point, is hypocrisy. The Bible was written by people. People are generally stupid and don't like each other. Therefore, the Bible (representing their opinions) puts many people below others (uhhh...EVERYONE versus Straight White Jewish Males). There is no such thing as justice. We can hold people responsible for their actions because they are programmed to act badly to something, which is their fault. The Cambrian explosion was incredibly fast because of the introduction of sexual reproduuction. This caused an explosion of evolution which shows no sign of slowing down (though lifespans getting longer may affect a species' rate of evolution). Souls don't exist. The end.
Sorry, I am pissed as Soccerking noobs who upload with his account.
|
|
KuraiOorora
Supreme Member
{S=39}[M:575]
Grand Mist Samurai
Posts: 322
|
Post by KuraiOorora on Sept 8, 2009 14:53:10 GMT -5
A bit....harsh there....but moving along....
Answering VIROS's question on sentience: being sentient means you have the ability to think and make decisions based on reasoning, rather than instinct. You are correct in the fact that advanced technology and civilization doesn't mean we're sentient. It is the fact that we can make logical decisions that does.
Now as for a soul. (My view) a soul is what gives us consciousness. Each one is unique in certain aspects. How other way do would you explain something such as personality? Not every human has the exact same personality.
I find that as an invalid comment. That doesn't mean you would commit crimes. Even if you had no education something such as stealing is common sense. And with Atheism, even if the world was just filled with Atheists, people have the ability to question their beliefs. And there will be those who do not like how their religion's views are, not because of education, but because of their own outlooks on the world.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Master on Sept 8, 2009 16:01:01 GMT -5
Even though for educated people stealing would be a valid option, but if they had no concept of law whatsoever, it would be the norm, and the concept of law would never exist for you. If the world was populated entirely of Atheists, there would be no concept of religion or beleifs, like we cannot imagine a new colour.
|
|
KuraiOorora
Supreme Member
{S=39}[M:575]
Grand Mist Samurai
Posts: 322
|
Post by KuraiOorora on Sept 8, 2009 16:38:27 GMT -5
The concept would exist because it is instinctively humanely wrong. And you're not getting my point on a world of Atheism. Certain individuals will always rebel from what they are taught. Even if there is no concept they could indeed imagine something, such as the case with the first humans. They had no concept, yet here we are debating whether God exists whose belief happened thousands of years ago.
|
|