A 'God' Thread
- Thread starter Shadows
- Start date
There's little to "believe" about the piece of ooze. By now, evolution is a pretty validated scientific "theory".
The idea that in the core of our sun hydrogen fuses into helium sounds pretty wild as well. Not to mention shit like cell phones. You talk in a box and 1000 miles away your voice comes out again. Invisible light waves? CRAZY!
But these things are, in one form or another, documented, validated, tried, tested. I'm not a scientist or an archeaologist, but seeing that science usually "gets it right" it's not a big leap of faith (hehehehe, get it?) to assume that these science people could very well be right about this evolution thing.
Whether there is a God, gods, aliens, divine beings, Flying Spaghetti Monsters at the start of this physical process, that's a different question. But evolution itself is a physical process, a process that we can witness and document, there is no "belief" in evolution the same way as people "believe" in God.
I "believe" in evolution as the way species exist, just as I "believe" it is gravity that holds us down and that invisible lightwaves make my cell-phone work.
Although I'm already very pleased you yourself worked in the possibility of a divine being having STARTED the whole evolution thing. THAT's the real "unexisting" discussion between science and religion. Religion says there's a God, science doesn't know. Unworkeable thesis.
These discussions begin at the same point where my personal annoyance begins. When religious people let their scientifically unfounded beliefs conflict with actual science. Creationism being a brilliant example.
Well, when you obviously ignore proven facts with a personal belief that can't be proven.. you kind of leave yourself open for ridicule.
I haven't seen anyone here (maybe Casey LOL) say "Hey, you believe in God/Allah/Flying Spaghetti Monster so you're an idiot."
No one cares who you believe in or who you choose to worship.
HOWEVER, when you dispute facts with opinions.. people will insult you, regardless of the topic.. this topic just happened to be religion.
The Himalayas Mountains are still growing... why?
1. I can easily say some made up creature is doing this as so: Flying Spaghetti Monster makes the mountains grow ever higher so that pirates don't attack us again
2. I can do some research online and find out that there is already a proven answer out there so I don't need to make up an answer. The Indo-Australian plate is still moving into Asia so the mountains are still growing higher.
I haven't seen anyone here (maybe Casey LOL) say "Hey, you believe in God/Allah/Flying Spaghetti Monster so you're an idiot."
No one cares who you believe in or who you choose to worship.
HOWEVER, when you dispute facts with opinions.. people will insult you, regardless of the topic.. this topic just happened to be religion.
The Himalayas Mountains are still growing... why?
1. I can easily say some made up creature is doing this as so: Flying Spaghetti Monster makes the mountains grow ever higher so that pirates don't attack us again
2. I can do some research online and find out that there is already a proven answer out there so I don't need to make up an answer. The Indo-Australian plate is still moving into Asia so the mountains are still growing higher.
The Bible is a text written by man. Its credibility is immediately thrown into question because of this. This is the word of "God" as seen through man. Therefore it ultimately becomes corrupted by subjectivity; by individual perception and interpretation. To use an analogy of what I mean, consider an optical illusion - particularly the one where it's an image, and depending on how you look at it, some people see the face of an old woman, and some people see the face of a young woman (or something like that). The image is there, but different people view it in a different way. Some people comprehend things in X, and others comprehend it in Y.
This analogy can also be applied to the whole concept of God as purported by the Church. They see God in the only way they know how, based on their level of comprehension. They perceive God through the eyes of "man", and "man" is only able to comprehend things to a point. Their comprehension and understanding is limited because they are incapable of seeing things outside of "man's" frame of mind. They see this "God" in the only way they know - demonstrated by the fact that this "God" speaks like man, "sees" like man, "hears" like man, "walks" amongst us like man. Essentially you have this image of some guy with a long beard perched up in the clouds somewhere. In my view, this is kind of "humanising" God, because as humans we are essentially incapable of seeing and perceiving things beyond our frame of mind. We are incapable of viewing him in any different way. He's been made out to be some form of physical entity, and has been written in a way and described based on a very narrow "human" way of thinking.
Take the whole concept of alien life as an example. We impose our perception and idea of what "life" is based on what we know about "life" on Earth. But isn't this narrow minded? Isn't this very limited? We envisage alien forms as having limbs, and a similar body structure to humans, just as an example. Who's to say that this same structure can be applied to all living entities in the Universe? Furthermore, does "survival of the fittest" apply to anything outside of the realm of Earth? Maybe what I'm saying is ridiculous, but my point is that we only see what we know. We only understand what we can understand. Perhaps God should be placed in this same category. Perhaps, due to the lack of concrete understanding of this concept of "God", he has been written and understood in the only way man is capable of understanding "God" - by making him seem more 'human'. This "God" has been made to be seen as a person.
Why is God some sort of entity? Why is God just not something that's "there"? Why is God even a person?
I guess I'm open to the concept of God, but not as suggested by the Church. And I also feel that science is limited in explaining the nature of certain things. Humans are on a journey of knowledge. Except this knowledge is limited to a number of things. Let me put something to everyone:
Thousands of years ago, if you tried to explain the phenomenon of the internet to someone living in Ancient Egypt, they would have no idea what you're talking about. Their ability to understand and comprehend it is limited to their context.. their frame of mind at that particular time.
And on the topic of human knowledge.. we may have progressed and evolved in terms of technology and understanding the things around us. But in my opinion, humans, despite all this time and all this progress, have not really progressed in understanding themselves and their own minds. Philosophy was borne to fill that void, because humans have been on this never-ending journey aimed at understanding themselves. But yet, what progress has been made? Nothing.
Scientific processes cannot reveal everything. Science will tell you that you are "thinking" or when you are "lying" by measuring your brain waves, your heart rate, your level of perspiration (among other things). But science is limited in understanding other components of the mind. Science lacks the ability to tell you why I dream what I dream during my sleep (in terms of content of the dream...science will point to brain activity during your sleep which induces a dream, but science will not tell you the basis of the content); what the "sub-conscious" is, why we forget things and where those things go when we do forget them.. There are a multitude of questions relating to the mind which science is incapable of answering.
Furthermore, compare the great number of philosophical works spanning over the centuries and what you'll find is most of the themes are recurring.. The same concept is being examined but at different angles, yet no resolution has been made. There has never been an instance where someone has said "ahuh! i have cracked the maze that is the human mind!". This proves that despite everything we know, there is still an unlocked passage.. an unread chapter which we are still yet to stumble across. It proves that we are not "all-knowing" and that there are still many, many things which elude our comprehension and understanding - one of which is our own mind.
And it is because of this, that I am open to the concept of a God.
This analogy can also be applied to the whole concept of God as purported by the Church. They see God in the only way they know how, based on their level of comprehension. They perceive God through the eyes of "man", and "man" is only able to comprehend things to a point. Their comprehension and understanding is limited because they are incapable of seeing things outside of "man's" frame of mind. They see this "God" in the only way they know - demonstrated by the fact that this "God" speaks like man, "sees" like man, "hears" like man, "walks" amongst us like man. Essentially you have this image of some guy with a long beard perched up in the clouds somewhere. In my view, this is kind of "humanising" God, because as humans we are essentially incapable of seeing and perceiving things beyond our frame of mind. We are incapable of viewing him in any different way. He's been made out to be some form of physical entity, and has been written in a way and described based on a very narrow "human" way of thinking.
Take the whole concept of alien life as an example. We impose our perception and idea of what "life" is based on what we know about "life" on Earth. But isn't this narrow minded? Isn't this very limited? We envisage alien forms as having limbs, and a similar body structure to humans, just as an example. Who's to say that this same structure can be applied to all living entities in the Universe? Furthermore, does "survival of the fittest" apply to anything outside of the realm of Earth? Maybe what I'm saying is ridiculous, but my point is that we only see what we know. We only understand what we can understand. Perhaps God should be placed in this same category. Perhaps, due to the lack of concrete understanding of this concept of "God", he has been written and understood in the only way man is capable of understanding "God" - by making him seem more 'human'. This "God" has been made to be seen as a person.
Why is God some sort of entity? Why is God just not something that's "there"? Why is God even a person?
I guess I'm open to the concept of God, but not as suggested by the Church. And I also feel that science is limited in explaining the nature of certain things. Humans are on a journey of knowledge. Except this knowledge is limited to a number of things. Let me put something to everyone:
Thousands of years ago, if you tried to explain the phenomenon of the internet to someone living in Ancient Egypt, they would have no idea what you're talking about. Their ability to understand and comprehend it is limited to their context.. their frame of mind at that particular time.
And on the topic of human knowledge.. we may have progressed and evolved in terms of technology and understanding the things around us. But in my opinion, humans, despite all this time and all this progress, have not really progressed in understanding themselves and their own minds. Philosophy was borne to fill that void, because humans have been on this never-ending journey aimed at understanding themselves. But yet, what progress has been made? Nothing.
Scientific processes cannot reveal everything. Science will tell you that you are "thinking" or when you are "lying" by measuring your brain waves, your heart rate, your level of perspiration (among other things). But science is limited in understanding other components of the mind. Science lacks the ability to tell you why I dream what I dream during my sleep (in terms of content of the dream...science will point to brain activity during your sleep which induces a dream, but science will not tell you the basis of the content); what the "sub-conscious" is, why we forget things and where those things go when we do forget them.. There are a multitude of questions relating to the mind which science is incapable of answering.
Furthermore, compare the great number of philosophical works spanning over the centuries and what you'll find is most of the themes are recurring.. The same concept is being examined but at different angles, yet no resolution has been made. There has never been an instance where someone has said "ahuh! i have cracked the maze that is the human mind!". This proves that despite everything we know, there is still an unlocked passage.. an unread chapter which we are still yet to stumble across. It proves that we are not "all-knowing" and that there are still many, many things which elude our comprehension and understanding - one of which is our own mind.
And it is because of this, that I am open to the concept of a God.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.