The Existence of God

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: fukuda

Originally posted by: manticorefan

quote>

I just said that they don't, lol! ", it was (morally) right before, it isn't (morally right) now,"quote>

 

Sorry, read too quick.

 

The main reason for this within Christianity was that Christ fulfilled The Law (which as Christ said, had no power to redeem, only to condemn). No man could live up to The Law because it demanded perfection, and no man could achieve that in the eyes of God. The kosher commandments like stoning of adulterers were no longer necessary (His defense of the Samaritan 'woman at the well' from the Pharisees who wanted to kill her).

[wir3d 2]

There is no way to prove that God does not or does exist. It is impossible. Same with evolution. It is impossible. That is why it is called "faith".

[2nerdy4u 1]

Science is not called faith.

No proof of evolution? You sure have a lot of reading to do.

[wir3d 2]

Evolution is not at all science according to the purpose of science: The purpose of science is to observe nature carefully and use the laws of SCIENCE to benefit mankind.

[fukuda 351]

science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

That's all, nothing more, nothing less.

[wir3d 2]

Well you can think that. What evolution teaches is that we are all animals and we die and that is just all. Then why try to do anything good. Just live your life and do whatever you can to survive. Just follow your own rules. So why even try to find an explenation for the world. It doesn't matter right? But just imagine this when you die, then what will become of you. And IF the spiritual world exist will go to Heaven or Hell?

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: wir3d Well you can think that. What evolution teaches is that we are all animals and we die and that is just all. Then why try to do anything good. Just live your life and do whatever you can to survive. Just follow your own rules. So why even try to find an explenation for the world. It doesn't matter right? But just imagine this when you die, then what will become of you. And IF the spiritual world exist will go to Heaven or Hell?quote>

What? Evolution is just a theory, it doesn't teach anything like that. We are animals, yes, but we are not anarchic animals, we live in societies, and those societies have rules. The interest in knowledge is also a big part of our human nature, that has allowed us to achieve the societies that we are living in now. Trying to deny our human nature, partly animal and partly original is just useless and is a part of the naivety of some systems and beliefs.

And by the way, we are discussing evolution in the wrong topic.

[Zelgadis 638]

Fukuda is correct. Discussions pertaining specifically to creationism and evolution should be discussed in the creationism thread over in Current Events. It is only relevant here when it pertains to the discussion of the thread's title, "The Existence of God." Which is to say, it usually isn't relevant here.

~Zel~

[Terring 6,476]

Hello

Many of us believe in God, many of us don’t. But let’s suppose that there is God. What is God? Is like our religions said… or something else?In my opinion, what we call “God” is a state of intelligence, a matter of evolution. Let me explain what I mean.

An Amoeba is a single organism, without senses like vision and without intelligence. Even if it has a brain, it can’t imagine creatures more advance than itself. The time distance between amoebas and us is about billions of years.

A bird is much more advance than amoebas. It has senses and a limited intelligence, but it doesn’t have our abilities. The time distance between us and the birds is about millions of years

Humans are the most advance animals on Earth, because we are the only that create tools, develop a civilization and begin space exploration. It’s also the only animal that can chance its future.

In the near future, robotics and genetics will transform us from humans to superhumans with more advance physical and mental abilities. We must use these transhumanistic technologies with caution and responsibility to create a future utopia for us and the Earth, if we want to live longer.

But how about in the far future? Remember Arthur Clarke’s quote “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. I believe that in the next millions or billions of years, we will have abilities so advance that our sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from GODDESS! And is there something beyond Goddess? Why not?

And guess what. According to Michio Kaku, a hyper-advance civilization can create a new artificial universe like our own! So are we living in an artificial universe, created by... alien gods?

It sound like "Space Odyssey"? Believe my, for me this is the most logical explanation about what is God.

 

Molecules --> Life --> Intelligence --> Goddess --> Who Knows?

 

What is your opinion? Remember that i don't want to harm anybodie's believes, i just want to tell my believes

 

Moved from own topic.

-SC4M

[csgcseri 0]

What's with all that emoticon?

That's a bit of philosophical answer to the existence of God. If i recall correctly, you're close to Descartes in the matter of what is exactly God. Although, a bit technocrat. And in my oppinion, God is humanity's handhold.

But isn't there a topic for this kind of discussion?

Moved from own topic.

-SC4M

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[SC4 meister 7]

I agree, it should be in this thread. However I didn't even know this thread existed so I can hardly blame him for starting a new one. I must say that it's a very interesting idea. No so different from MIB (Men In Black) where they have the micro-cosom in the locker. Agent J, (I think, whichever one is Smith) is then like, shouldn't we let them know that there's more to the world? K responds by saying, 'you just don't get it, do you?' and opens a door which shows that they are in a locker, (though how they have a door to the locker when they have a whole galaxy is beyond me, but I digress).

Now I'm a Christ-follower myself and believe the Bible on everything, including my views on God. However I think with a matter this important that it's stupid to not consider other beliefs at the very least, if not questioning your beliefs. All that said, I've wondered similar things, but looking at how much we suck at running this world, we're going to go extinct before we get to anything close to the level of science that you're talking about. And like I said, I think there is an Almighty God, and I do not think He is an ascended being that had beginnings like our own, but that's just my 2 cents.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: SC4 meister  No so different from MIB (Men In Black) where they have the micro-cosom in the locker. Agent J, (I think, whichever one is Smith) is then like, shouldn't we let them know that there's more to the world? K responds by saying, 'you just don't get it, do you?' and opens a door which shows that they are in a lockerquote>

That was the second movie. The first one had the "Galaxy on Orion's belt". They were fond of playing with scale like that.

Also...

Agent J, (I think, whichever one is Smith)quote>

?

[SC4 meister 7]

Ah yes, I did just watch the third Matrix, so Agent J is on my brain. You're right, it was MIIB, and I meant whichever one was played by Will Smith.

[ShortStraw 1]

Originally posted by: wir3d Well you can think that. What evolution teaches is that we are all animals and we die and that is just all. Then why try to do anything good. Just live your life and do whatever you can to survive. Just follow your own rules. So why even try to find an explenation for the world. It doesn't matter right? But just imagine this when you die, then what will become of you. And IF the spiritual world exist will go to Heaven or Hell?quote>

"Then why try to do anything good."  Is the specific sentence that piqued my interest here.  Just thought I would suggest some reasons why you might still adhere to moral and ethical standards should you ever find your faith in religion too damaged to offer you any guidance in that department.

It is often in your best interest to behave in a positive manner.  This could include anything from caring for loved ones and striving to improve their lot in life to generally helping folks in your neighborhood or community out.  If you are considered a "Good" person by your community, then  your day to day life will almost certainly be more rewarding as others out there will be more inclined to treat you as they wish to be treated. . . regardless of their religious affiliation or personal code of conduct.  I guess that would be reciprocity, I mean, you do good things so you can expect good things in return.  That's just one small reason to do good things.

I would hope as well that the act of doing something "Good" would cause you to feel positive emotions like satisfaction, happiness, joy, contentment, or even humility to name a few.  It may also be a way to specifically avoid or soothe negative emotions such as sadness, anger, guilt, self pity, etc.

I'm afraid I'm doing a terrible job of getting my point across but what I mainly wanted to say is this-  While religion is terribly important to a strong moral and/or ethical system of belief, it is not the only aspect to consider.  If you feel good about your life, if you feel that your existence is making the world a better place in any kind of way, then you're doing ok, whether God exists or not.  If your only excuse for doing good things is because you fear the wrath of God, then you are probably morally deficient and you should really work on that.

At least, I think that's what I'm trying to say here.

I apologize for my shoddy sentence structure and hope I havent offended or posted inappropriately in any way (This is more or less on topic right?) this was all much clearer before I actually typed it out.

[Terring 6,476]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa Wow, can you get rid of the smileys?  I think you composed this in Word.  Use notepad, it will make it much more legible.quote>

I use Word to correct my mistakes

Originally posted by: SC4 meister I agree, it should be in this thread. However I didn't even know this thread existed so I can hardly blame him for starting a new one.quote>

Oops, i didn't know that

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Actually, the oldest fossilized evidence of life on Earth is <600 million yrs.  a long time surely, but there is little proof for life beyond 1 billion yrs.quote>

According to Wikipedia, the oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), just a few hundred million years younger than Earth itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

In this aspect, I think a definition of "advanced" is in order.  Let's keep in mind that there is no ladder of development of life.  There is something more akin to a tree of life.  If we want to discuss "advanced", then let's take a good long look at the animal kingdom.  Many, if not most, species in existence today are advanced for the environment in which they live.  Human interaction has impacted this balance, though, and many animals are unable to adapt.  Regardless, are we advanced because we have consciousness (elephants recognize themselves in a mirror)?  Are we advanced because we use tools (chimpanzees use sticks to collect termites, crows drop shells from a height to break them)?  What is a civilization?  Does a pride of lions not constitute a society?  Are ants or bees uncivilized, given their behavior?quote>

It's true that intelligence in not oneway for a specie to survive. According to Darwin, the species must be enable to react at the changes of the environment no matter how strong or smart they are. Now let's see the other animals and how advance they are.

It's true that elephants recognize themselves in a mirror and they even recognize the dead elephants and even mourn for them. Monkeys also recognize themselves in a mirror but... do you know that dolphins use names to recognize its other? Humans are not the only animals with names

Chimpanzees and other animals can use tools to find food and build their homes, but humans can create more sophisticated tools

Lions and not only are social animals, but not as social as humans. Humans were nomads, but with the development of agriculture can build cities and become more social

Ants and bees can not create art or science, 2 vital elements to create a civilization like our

But remember that humans are the only animals that can protect or destroy their home planet. If we are as smart as we think, why we have wars and pollution?

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Only technology allows for anything remotely "superhuman".  Remove it and it is quickly evident how imperfect the human race really is... diseases "cured" by a pill will reassert themselves, common ailments become debilitating, knowledge and communication collapse, etc.quote>

This is true, without technology humans will be doomed to vanish. We need to learn that we and our civilization can live with respect with the environment. We must protect our planet, not destroy it. How? http://www.thevenusproject.com/

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Clarke was brilliant, but there is a reason why his writings are called science fiction.  It is all conjecture and dependent on things beyond our control.quote>

I think that this quote is not only for science fiction. We all ready have technologies that are "magical" for primitive humans. Ancient people would not explain how a helicopter works and maybe believe that this is a magic vehicle for gods. That's why i believe in technologies indistinguishable from magic and ever from goddess. Who knows?

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

The simplest answer is "I don't follow your train of thought".  Just my opinion, mind you.quote>

No problem

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke of York 23]

Science Looks at the Bible......

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s,many archaeological discoveries shed new light on the Bible and the accounts contained in it..U.S News and World Report magazine reported in it's August 24,1981 issue that such discoveries were

" affirming that the Bible is more historically accurate than many scholars thought. " Most critics and scholars long ago

dismissed as myth the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The very existence of the cities themselves

was widely doubted. " Now two highly regarded American archaeologists, Walter E. Rast and R. Thomas Schaub, believe they have found the remains of those cities, plus the three other settlements referred to in Genesis as the

' Cities of the plain. ' The Ruins lie where the Bible indicates they would be....within a few miles of the dead sea....

Moreover, at least three of the cities appear to have been destroyed by fire, which the Bible says was rained down

by God in Vengeance" Another discovery that not only corroborates the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah as

historical cities, but also sheds light on many other Biblical narratives, is the clay tablets of Ebla. The ancient city

of Ebla was excavated in the northern part of what is today Syria. An Italian professor, Giovanni Pettinato, has

translated cuneiform tablets found there containing commercial transactions involving both the cities of Sodom and

Gomorrah. As Time magazine noted: " Findings from Ebla may have an even broader impact. Other tablets at Ebla

have provided information about the Exodus, when Isreal fled from Egypt. Hans Goedicke, a prominent Egyptologist

from Johns Hopkins University, has identified a tablet describing the Exodus from the Egyptian perspective, and dating

the event to approximately 1475 B.C....That date is two centuries earlier than many of the world's scholars accept, yet

is in accord with the time-frame set by the Bible itself !......What about scolars who say that one author, Moses, did not

write the first five books of the Bible? According to Time magazine, Bible scholars Yehuda Radday of Haifia's Isreal

Institute of Technology reports that a five-Year computer study of the book of Genesis shows that it is the work of a single writer. Professor Radday and three associates studied the words of the Hebrew text and concentrated on 56

criteria of language behavior that are outside the conscious control of an author. He has reached the conclusion from

his analysis that Genesis is the work of a single writer and that the "JEDP hypothesis" (the theory that Genesis is the work of multiple authors over a period of centuries) should be rejected.......

We could go on and on...What we find, when we shine the light of scientific scrutiny on the Bible, is that the critics

are the ones shown to be lacking, not the Bible....

Just something to think on.......

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

US News and World Report is a magazine. It's not a peer-reviewed publication, and it's certainly not scientific.

Bear that in mind whenever you read anything about science in a newspaper or magazine. As a second hand source, things get garbled and, very often, spun according to the author's opinions.

And, as Barby-boy pointed out, we've gone through a refuting of the whole "Soddom and Gommorah under the Dead Sea" thing already.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Duke87

And, as Barby-boy pointed out, we've gone through a refuting of the whole "Soddom and Gommorah under the Dead Sea" thing already.

quote>

#1) Get 'im, Barbarossa!

#2) Refuted? By whose definition? Maybe for you it's been refuted, but for those who have done the archaelogical digging and research, it's quite the opposite; the story as given in Genesis has held up well. Even when I posted the satellite images, you just dismissed it as probably being some other cities.

But I digress, it is covered in the other thread.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

I am {...} hardly a "boy".quote>

Well in that case, I'll call you Barby-girl.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

I am {...} hardly a "boy".quote>

Well in that case, I'll call you Barby-girl.

quote>

[Duke of York 23]

Reply to Duke,

Well...To be most clear...I wasn't discussing the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah....I was

utilizing it as an account for the existence of God......

U.S News and World report are second hand?And are not viewed if wanted to by Society?

I guess Time Magizine(A Liberal Magizine) is to? Plus,what type of spin could he News

Magizines put on it...Since the sources Quated it....Professors even....Very educated individuals?

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Duke of York

... Plus,what type of spin could he News

Magizines put on it...

quote>

News is pretty much a lot of spin. It may surprise you but the purpose of the popular news is not necessarily to inform, but to advertise.  Basically as with any other program they aim to entertain their watchers or readers enough that they stay to watch the ads. The ads are where the station or magazine gets a proportion (or all of) their revenue from, and the more viewers or readers they get the more they can charge the companies that want to advertise products. 

Viewers like controversies, they like stories that reinforce their own views, they like stories they can get outraged by. For example stories about banks charging customers unfair fees, or reposessing homes of people who've lost their jobs are pretty popular in the current economic climate as are stories about CEO's of failed companies.The news reports stories that people want to hear, in a way they want to hear it.

The bias can sometimes be subtle. Schools often teach classes in detecting bias in the media, usually as part of English, citizenship or consumer education or studies of history and society. Its an important life skill to learn, and its one I'm very glad I did learn (even if I'm not very good at it). The ability to detect bias and analyse articles can be especially important professionally.

Time or space constraints also affect the reliability of the information you hear or read in the news. Its important for news services to make their articles short so they are more interesting to readers. But this makes it almost impossible to convey anything other than brief points (not enought to fully explain the topic), especially for stories on technical subjects.

For these reasons, it is important to resist the temptation to accept uncritically something you read in a magazine or see on the tv news.

This is why I appreciated that you included names in your post. Apart from giving credit to those who came up with an idea, its also important for readers who want to verify the accuracy of what has been written or find out further information.

Originally posted by: Duke of York

U.S News and World report are second hand?

quote>

Yes, reputable scientific (and archaeological) research is never reported first in the popular press or straight to the general public. It is reported to the scientific community first, usually in peer reviewed journals. A popular press release is usually only authorised by the research group once publication in a scientific journal is confirmed and is usually timed to coincide with the publication of the journal article.

The first hand source is the peer reviewed journal article announcing the discovery to the research community.

That is why the names you gave are useful, as I can check to see what peer reviewed articles these people may have written about it.

Originally posted by: Duke of York

U.S News and World report are second hand?

...

quote>

You've quoted something that is itself a quote from another webpage, as I found several very similar quotes on other pages. Given the quotes on the other web pages are so similar each other, they are probably quoting it from another person who is quoting the Time article, which is quoting it from the individual researchers (or perhaps even quoting some other source which is quoting them).

So what you've got is at least a quote of a quote of a quote (and possibly several more).

Quotes need to be treated with caution. Often people don't know how to do them properly, and its very easy to misrepresent someone either deliberately or accidentally, especially if the quote has been re-quoted several times. So again it pays to not accept uncritically something you read or see on the news. And if a quote is involved, always check the source, especially if its on a topic that is important to you. Check the text around the source too, and also look at what other educated commentators are writing about the findings as well.

[Duke87 1,070]

There are two problems here, with this line:

affirming that the Bible is more historically accurate than many scholars thought.quote>

The first is that it's disembodied. Yes, they point to US News and World Report, but they make no indication of who wrote the article, who first said that, and in what context.

The second is the weasel wording. "more accurate than many scholoars thought". Define "many scholars". Who?

Not to mention that even if one proves Sodom and Gommorah actually existed and were destroyed by some cataclysmic event (which is not impossible), it... well, two things.

First, it says nothing about the overall historical accuracy of the bible as the whole. Just because one thing is true does not mean everything else is. There's a hasty generalization there. Each story can only be taken as a story unless it, specifically, can be confirmed.

Second, it does not at all imply that there was anything supernatural involved. Pompeii was suddenly destroyed cataclysmically, but it happened by perfectly natural forces, not by the wrath of god or anything like that. So, proving that Sodom and Gommorah existed and were destroyed proves that Sodom and Gommorah existed and were destroyed. It does not at all suggest that god destroyed them to smite all the sinners there or anything of the sort. Only the bible suggests that. And it's pretty easy to sensibly postulate why that is: the ancients saw some pretty nasty chaos there, came to the conclusion that god must have been responsible beause nobody in those days would believe that such massive destruction could occur except by divine will, and that that then is how the story got told, subsequently written down, and eventually incorporated into what is now the bible.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: terring

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Wow, can you get rid of the smileys?  I think you composed this in Word.  Use notepad, it will make it much more legible.quote>

I use Word to correct my mistakes quote>

 

Which is totally understandable.   Here's a trick:  

After you have composed it in Word, hit Edit, Select All, Copy.

Go to Word Pad,  hit Paste, Select All, Copy.

Paste that into the post and there will be no smilies.

---

As to some of the rest of you, let's stop calling each other name, eh?

 

[s.i.X 13]

I honestly think Simtropolis was a much better place before we allowed crap like this to divide us.

I miss the old days. The golden era of innocence and fun.