RE: Define God

RE: Define God (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

lynk09 -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 12:08:11 PM)
quote: Why are we arguing about the fact if Behe suggested the eye is IC or not. Behe's work has been refuted time and time again Yes I know people keep saying that in this forum but when I ask for examples I don't get any. willbeyourdaddy suggested that Behe was wrong because the eye has been shown that it can evolve.I asked will to tell me where Behe claimed that the eye couldn't evolve. He still has yet to show it. And regarding the Kitzmiller kerfuffle, all i have to say is that you don't judge science in a court of law, it's done in the lab. Pun intended.

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 12:16:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened God is that personal source of inner strength, courage, inspiration, immagination, and will that seems to spring from nowhere at those times when we really need it. As such it is personal and indefinable to others. God is god on a strictly personal level, as definable as thought itself. My god is my god and cannot be anyone else's god. God is a form of energy that we know exists but have not yet given any specific scientific name to. Physicists are aware of this energy and have not defined it. Some people may have given it the term 'god'. God's existance is so hotly debated because god exists personally not universally. My thoughts cannot be your thoughts therefore my thoughts do not exist universally but universally we can agree that thoughts themselves are real. As real as my thoughts are (but so pooly expressed) they can never be yours. Your thoughts can never be mine. Is that such a bad thing? I find it most interesting that according to Moses "god" indentified him(its)self simply as "I Exist". One can either accept that or not and it changes nothing. This is another outstanding definition of god. This thing we call god exists in our mind. We experience it subjective and personally as we would expect with any creation which existed in our mind. Except through the power of the person infected with these thoughts, faith or beliefs god is absolutely unable to act upon the world. Thanks! Oddly though you call upon a belief system of Jews. This clearly identifies god as an absolute thing. I do not think this is relevant just something I wanted to point out. Another spooky thing you implied that thoughts seem to exist outside the mind? Should I get the twilight zone music? quote: My thoughts cannot be your thoughts therefore my thoughts do not exist universally but universally we can agree that thoughts themselves are real Or am I just misunderstanding? Anyhow - thanks. I agree 100% god does not exist outside of our thoughts.

NorthernGent -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 12:18:14 PM)
No governor in his right mind would let his flock run 'round doing whatever they want. He needs to give us a sign to bring us into line; otherwise the lunatics will dominate the asylum.

FullCircle -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 12:24:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 Perhaps we were meant to evolve. Humm.[8\|] That could be the case but for what purpose? I've often asked why a creator intent on the creation of human beings would create a universe where 99.99..% of the space is uninhabitable to humans. The answer I often get is "To give us something to think about because the scope of human thought is limitless thus a human being created in a tiny fishbowl would lead to instant suicide because they'd have nothing to wonder about." I think it malevolent to create such a space and give humans no realistic means of exploring it; wouldn't that be a contradiction as for the majority of us we are in this fishbowl but worst still we can see into the room outside the fishbowl but not escape the fish bowl. Perhaps this evolution needed to occur so that people could wonder but couldn't they have wondered to the same extent without the need for dinosaurs to exist for no other reason than for humans to wonder about them? The problem and I suppose the genius of intelligent design is that as soon as a scientific discovery is made an ID believer will say "Well it's about time you scientists found out that which the rest of us knew about since the beginning of time." I think that sentiment very dangerous. I like it when people can admit they were wrong because it gives them credibility in my eyes for wanting to find the truth, strangely I've never heard an ID believer admit they were wrong. The most famous example is the six day metaphor or the earth only metaphorically being at the centre of the universe. The fact is ID isn't a science because science occasionally proves itself wrong, if anything it is just a belief system which only holds up to poetic/creative scrutiny. I know you didn’t mention specifically a lot of this stuff but my thoughts often just spew forth into unrelated areas.

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 12:24:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 quote: Why are we arguing about the fact if Behe suggested the eye is IC or not. Behe's work has been refuted time and time again Yes I know people keep saying that in this forum but when I ask for examples I don't get any. willbeyourdaddy suggested that Behe was wrong because the eye has been shown that it can evolve.I asked will to tell me where Behe claimed that the eye couldn't evolve. He still has yet to show it. And regarding the Kitzmiller kerfuffle, all i have to say is that you don't judge science in a court of law, it's done in the lab. Pun intended. Behe is wrong because his I.D.E.As(pun intended - get it?) have been refuted .[:-] I do not think it is anyone's right to judge science.

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 12:33:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The Bible is a beautifully written story... and its just that. Designed to give a moral compass. This is true if you ignore the smut, ignorance, bullshit, hate, pious fraud, racism, sex, violence, rape, murder, torture, immoral actions, fear mongering, flawed concepts, dumb ideas, slavery, contradictions. . . I bet if we ignored all that in Mein Kampf Hitler has some gems of wisdom too.

eyesopened -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 12:42:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Esinn quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened God is that personal source of inner strength, courage, inspiration, immagination, and will that seems to spring from nowhere at those times when we really need it. As such it is personal and indefinable to others. God is god on a strictly personal level, as definable as thought itself. My god is my god and cannot be anyone else's god. God is a form of energy that we know exists but have not yet given any specific scientific name to. Physicists are aware of this energy and have not defined it. Some people may have given it the term 'god'. God's existance is so hotly debated because god exists personally not universally. My thoughts cannot be your thoughts therefore my thoughts do not exist universally but universally we can agree that thoughts themselves are real. As real as my thoughts are (but so pooly expressed) they can never be yours. Your thoughts can never be mine. Is that such a bad thing? I find it most interesting that according to Moses "god" indentified him(its)self simply as "I Exist". One can either accept that or not and it changes nothing. This is another outstanding definition of god. This thing we call god exists in our mind. We experience it subjective and personally as we would expect with any creation which existed in our mind. Except through the power of the person infected with these thoughts, faith or beliefs god is absolutely unable to act upon the world. Thanks! Oddly though you call upon a belief system of Jews. This clearly identifies god as an absolute thing. I do not think this is relevant just something I wanted to point out. Another spooky thing you implied that thoughts seem to exist outside the mind? Should I get the twilight zone music? quote: My thoughts cannot be your thoughts therefore my thoughts do not exist universally but universally we can agree that thoughts themselves are real Or am I just misunderstanding? Anyhow - thanks. I agree 100% god does not exist outside of our thoughts. Science absolutely proves the existance of thoughts, brain activity can be observed but the thoughts themselves cannot be read. Without thought, there is no action. How do we create anything, do anything, improve anything, help anything, enrich anything, without the thought to do so? So we take our thoughts and put them into action so that our thoughts can exist outside ourselves. What I don't understand is, how can my god as I know it have any effect on your life? Bad people can use anything to justify their evil deeds whether they wage war in the name of religion or patriotism or a talking dog, it's not the country, the dog, or the god that is evil. How will your life be enriched should I suddenly say "Why you are soooooooo right and I now will convert to atheism!" Atheism has become as much a religion as any other. I reject religion because of it. I do not reject my spiritual beliefs and I do not thrust them upon others. My god is mine alone and cannot be anyone else's.

lynk09 -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 12:43:22 PM)
quote: Humm.[8\|] That could be the case but for what purpose? I've often asked why a creator intent on the creation of human beings would create a universe where 99.99..% of the space is uninhabitable to humans. The answer I often get is "To give us something to think about because the scope of human thought is limitless thus a human being created in a tiny fishbowl would lead to instant suicide because they'd have nothing to wonder about." If the universe weren't as big as it is, there would be no stars like our sun. If there were no stars like our sun, then we would not be here to wonder why our universe is 99.99 % uninhabitable. quote: I think it malevolent to create such a space and give humans no realistic means of exploring it; wouldn't that be a contradiction as for the majority of us we are in this fishbowl but worst still we can see into the room outside the fishbowl but not escape the fish bowl. I'm sure the oceans and mountains looked just as daunting to those wanting to explore it, but it didn't stop them. Maybe someday we weill colonize the universe. Our expanding life spans will certainly force us to eventually move on from the earth. As far as I know ID has little to do with Genesis 1 or the belief that the earth is the centre of the universe. That would be Young Earth Creationism.

RCdc -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 12:54:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Esinn quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The Bible is a beautifully written story... and its just that. Designed to give a moral compass. This is true if you ignore the smut, ignorance, bullshit, hate, pious fraud, racism, sex, violence, rape, murder, torture, immoral actions, fear mongering, flawed concepts, dumb ideas, slavery, contradictions. . . I bet if we ignored all that in Mein Kampf Hitler has some gems of wisdom too. If you know your german history (pre Hitler)... he did. It's one of those 'what did Hitler ever do for us' kinda things. Bad taste in the mouth an all that, cannot ignore the fact that he did have some sterling ideas... just some verrrrrreeeeeeeee fucked up ones too. the.dark.

FullCircle -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 1:05:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 If the universe weren't as big as it is, there would be no stars like our sun. If there were no stars like our sun, then we would not be here to wonder why our universe is 99.99 % uninhabitable. If you were responsible as creator for what are to us physical constants you could achieve the very same but with far less space. This is a kind of playing it safe looking for the ultimate answer that can't be disproven or refuted by science. I guess it becomes a question of ‘just what is this creator bound by when they are going about creating something?’ quote: I'm sure the oceans and mountains looked just as daunting to those wanting to explore it, but it didn't stop them. Maybe someday we weill colonize the universe. Our expanding life spans will certainly force us to eventually move on from the earth. You are an optimist. When you consider the distances involved we'd have to travel so fast that we’d go back in time before reaching some of these places by a far greater time than a lifetime would allow for. (Not that I 100% believe in that whole time starting to go backwards once we go beyond the speed of light theory of relativity stuff. This for me is what a mathematical equation will lead to if it is only part of the answer.) How does that work when we travel at non sub light speeds; like in star trek they never end up going backwards in time? You try to travel out to the far reaches of space but because you are going backwards in time (from travelling so quickly) the universe is contracting back to the single element it was at the big bang and so people aren’t actually going anywhere because the universe is contracting as they travel, curious. quote: As far as I know ID has little to do with Genesis 1 or the belief that the earth is the centre of the universe. That would be Young Earth Creationism. Yeah that might be true but I think the systems of reasoning very similar, i.e. the question itself is the answer.

RCdc -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 1:09:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle I guess it becomes a question of ‘just what is this creator bound by when they are going about creating something?’ Vanity. the.dark.

eyesopened -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 1:13:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I agree (from a spiritual perspective) - but mammals surviving where dinosaurs became extinct doesn't have anything to do with the evolution of the sight pathway, does it? As far as science is concerned, the mammals mostly surviving was coincidence, though. Yes, survival is random. I cannot stand to hear Evolutionists spout on about how the eye evolved or how an organism evolved to adapt to its environment like the oranisms had a meeting and said "we would be just so much cooler than the other orgaisms if we had an eye" and someone suggested hell let's grow two eyes! There are successful mutations and unsuccesful ones. The giraffe did not grow a long neck cuz it likes the leaves on the treetops, it eats the leaves because it has a long neck and there isn't any competion for that food source. It lives in an area that suits its mutation and where the mutation is successful, it did not mutate to fit the environment it found itself in. Damn Evoltionists can be as fucked up as the religions nuts, in my observation.

tazzygirl -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 1:19:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Esinn quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The Bible is a beautifully written story... and its just that. Designed to give a moral compass. This is true if you ignore the smut, ignorance, bullshit, hate, pious fraud, racism, sex, violence, rape, murder, torture, immoral actions, fear mongering, flawed concepts, dumb ideas, slavery, contradictions. . . I bet if we ignored all that in Mein Kampf Hitler has some gems of wisdom too. Some of my most favorite fiction has those elements... lol... sex, smut, ignorance, bullshit, racism, violence, rape, torture, immoral actions, fear mongering, flawed concepts, dumb ideas, slavery, contradictions? look at what site you are on... the only thing we dont have on these boards is murder... lol.. unless you include murdering the english language. oh, and the pious fraud... not sure about that one. but Master said you forgot to include junk food... i think he is hungry

FullCircle -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 1:19:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle I guess it becomes a question of ‘just what is this creator bound by when they are going about creating something?’ Vanity. the.dark. Look at this big black hole I created on the edge of the milky way, oh no you can't see it damn I forgot to give you pitiful humans infra red vision. You pitiful humans naming the part of the universe I created for you after a chocolate bar! Prepare to be smited with a verb that doesn't exist yet..

whippedboy678 -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 1:29:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Esinn quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The Bible is a beautifully written story... and its just that. Designed to give a moral compass. This is true if you ignore the smut, ignorance, bullshit, hate, pious fraud, racism, sex, violence, rape, murder, torture, immoral actions, fear mongering, flawed concepts, dumb ideas, slavery, contradictions. . . I bet if we ignored all that in Mein Kampf Hitler has some gems of wisdom too. There is a lot of, "smut, ignorance, bullshit, hate, pious fraud" etc but the Bible does not promote that activity. It simply gives stories (or however you want to classify them) involving "smut, ignorance, bullshit, hate, pious fraud..." and then tells you the punishment for being involved in those activities. If you actually read it, whoever is doing the act usually gets screwed over pretty badly.

pyroaquatic -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 1:34:13 PM)
It is interesting to see how this thread has evolved. Such great minds. I would comment but everything I wanted to say has already been said... well almost. The universe is so big and our consciousness has yet to break the surface, whatever that surface may be. Good stuff I have been reading from you folks.

whippedboy678 -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 1:42:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I agree (from a spiritual perspective) - but mammals surviving where dinosaurs became extinct doesn't have anything to do with the evolution of the sight pathway, does it? As far as science is concerned, the mammals mostly surviving was coincidence, though. Yes, survival is random. I cannot stand to hear Evolutionists spout on about how the eye evolved or how an organism evolved to adapt to its environment like the oranisms had a meeting and said "we would be just so much cooler than the other orgaisms if we had an eye" and someone suggested hell let's grow two eyes! There are successful mutations and unsuccesful ones. The giraffe did not grow a long neck cuz it likes the leaves on the treetops, it eats the leaves because it has a long neck and there isn't any competion for that food source. It lives in an area that suits its mutation and where the mutation is successful, it did not mutate to fit the environment it found itself in. Damn Evoltionists can be as fucked up as the religions nuts, in my observation. Survival is definitely NOT random. And no, creatures don't have a meeting to make evolutionary decisions. Doesn't it make sense that if leaves are scarce only the tallest giraffes would survive? Well, that leaves the tallest giraffes left to mate so their offspring will also likely take on those traits. And mating in the wild, females either "choose" or are chosen by the biggest/strongest or most adept at fighting male--also an adaptation. No way survival is random from a molecular level on up. Creatures automatically strive to be as likely as possible to survive. Environmental stresses and changes bring on the changes in the animals that live there, in part.

GotSteel -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 1:47:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 How about the fastest growing religion the world has ever seen. Buddhism, Christianity, Deism, Falun Gong, Hinduism, Islam and Wicca all have claims to be the fastest growing religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest_growing_religion

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 2:09:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 I can't tell if you're joking or if you are serious, light sensitivity certainly does depend on 11-cis-retinal pathway. My Harper's is lost again. +sigh+ Doesn't matter. I studied this pathway. It is just an ordinary biochemical pathway. Once a light sensitive molecule arose - thousands are possible (and likely there are variations in other animals) - other proteins and molecules would be affected by it and evolution would have its merry way. Edited to add: I googled "the 3-dehydroretinal chromophore in the salamander long-wavelength- sensitive (red) cone" as an example of another light sensitive molecule. You dont have to go that far. Silver halides are light sensitive, as is silver nitrate.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 2:12:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 quote: Why are we arguing about the fact if Behe suggested the eye is IC or not. Behe's work has been refuted time and time again Yes I know people keep saying that in this forum but when I ask for examples I don't get any. willbeyourdaddy suggested that Behe was wrong because the eye has been shown that it can evolve.I asked will to tell me where Behe claimed that the eye couldn't evolve. He still has yet to show it. And regarding the Kitzmiller kerfuffle, all i have to say is that you don't judge science in a court of law, it's done in the lab. Pun intended. Yes, I did. Irreducible complexity is just the "improbability of random events producing such and such" argument. It is the blind watchmaker redux, with some incorrect probability theory thrown in to make it sound scientific.

Page: << < prev 20 21 [22] 23 24 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875