"It would be interesting to see if the OP had some thoughts on wet shaving with straight razors once in awhile rather than thread after thread on "hot button" issues that seem to be calculated to generate controversy and divisiveness."
Actually, I have a really, really long beard and haven't shaved for as long as I can remember...
Who created the creator of the universe?Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
And why believe it came from nothing?
That's easy. God describes himself as "I Am" without beginning or ending.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCshaver
But, you already knew that, didn't you?
Like I said, both sides boil down to some sort of belief, and neither know definitively. ;)
So the Universe needs a creator but God doesn't? If you are admitting that there can be something eternal why invent a god to be that thing when there is no evidence for one?Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
One fish says to the other, "I love the ocean." The other one replies,"There is no ocean." :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCshaver
First, I'm not inventing anything.
Second, one could argue that the Universe is the evidence of God, and he revealed himself to the world through different events throughout the history of the world.
Third, why do you have a problem with me saying that none of us know definitively something that none of us know definitively?
We will know one day, though...
There is no evidence for god. The concept of god was invented by humans.Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
That's begging the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
Why do you think I have a problem with it? I'm just pointing out there is no reason to bring the idea of a god into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
Saying there is no god is begging the question as well. ;)
No it's not. And I never said there was no god. I said there was no evidence of god.Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
Yes it is. You said man invented God. That means you said there is no god (outside of the realm of man's imagination). That means, by necessity, that God did not inspire the writing of the Bible (according to you). Again, begging the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCshaver
Either way, you believe something. If you take any stance one way or the other, it requires you to beg the question.
I'm the only one in this conversation (that I recall) that says I truly don't know, but I believe...
Thereby, NOT begging the question because I'm not assuming anything true. I'm telling you what I believe.
I said the concept of god was invented by humans. I'm assuming nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
There is no circular reasoning.
I have no stance on how the universe started. I just say I don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
It might even be something we can't know.
I said saying "the Universe is the evidence of God" is begging the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
There's an interesting question under the surface here, and that is whether all beliefs should be viewed/treated equally. It may promote harmony on SRP to do so, and if that is the goal, I completely understand (I really do), but I also suspect that privately most of us would answer in the negative.
For example, if one person says he believes there are no deities, while the second person says he believes in a strict understanding of the God of Abraham, while the third person says he believes in multiple pagan gods, it's expected that (as gentlemen) they are to show mutual respect to each other.
However, if a fourth person steps up and says he believes his potbellied pig literally created the heavens and earth, I think most people would consider him a bit of a fool - assuming he is sincere about that belief. Should they (we) still show him respect by refraining from ridiculing his belief? What if I'm standing on a rooftop and saying I think I can fly? I hope some of you would disabuse me of *that* belief. :)
What's the difference, really? That some beliefs are more established, i.e. shared by more people?
I'd like to hear thoughts on this, because these kinds of threads often seem to border on thinly veiled hostility, imo. It would be nice to have a clear set of guidelines, or, barring that, to consider such topics off-limits entirely. I'd be fine with either route, personally.
*Edit*
It occurs to me that I might have a fuzzy recollection about reading that a member here has a beloved potbellied pig as a pet. Or maybe that was just George Clooney? Either way, please understand that I didn't intend to single anyone out with my silly example. Unless it was George Clooney, in which case I reckon he's used to it.
This forum, though very interesting, is probably not equipped, shall we say, to adequately dispose of a topic such as this has become. There are some interesting points being brought up. I would invite the members here who wish to debate their favorite position on theism or atheism to my favorite forum for such matters, Rational Skepticism. That place exists for disagreement. Typically, a thread such as this on a shaving forum causes significant disagreement, and shaving forums don't tend to tolerate such disagreement well.
Look for me, The_Metatron, and start up a post. In no case will you be subject to a personal attack, but your positions will. Ruthlessly. You have to be able to separate the two.
See you there, I hope.
This isn't your typical shaving forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMetatron
I completely disag...Quote:
Originally Posted by HNSB
Wait. Maybe you're right about that.
I am arguing about using the bible as a book of facts.
When it comes to things like the age of the earth, I have the laws of physics and the evidence on my side. All those things confirm each other and can also be tested by predicting things and then checking those predictions.
The '10000 years' myth can even be a belief. But calling it science and teaching it as such... yes, I call that stupid. You seem to say that under no circumstance should I use that word.
To call it science is to completely fail to understand what 'science' is.
Look, I don't know what caused the world to come into being. Neither do you. There are several creation myths, and based on which belief you have, you believe one or the other. And I don't belittle that.
However, denying the entire corpus of verifiable science in favor of something that has NO basis in observable reality, and to call that thing science...
Thanks for most interesting post and thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by northpaw
Personally i *believe* that religions and science serve for whole different purposes. They both try to explain the world but on a different levels. While science is based on the facts and theories proven to be exact this far then religion is rather individual peoples gain to reach for the greater, 'spiritual' truth or harmony that science will never be able or even willing to explain.
As an agnostic i rather look for the facts and evidences what it comes to real life. I can easily say that i have never seen or witnessed anything that would prove there is some higher spirit, god(s), boogeyman or whatever. Of course i have ever seen or witnessed that such thing wouldn't exist either. Give me a scientific proof about any supernatural creature and it is not supernatural any more, but natural within a limits of science. A creature that is a prisoner of Newton laws. Not much worth serving.
That is another reason i *believe* that science and religious faiths are wrestling on a different arenas. Science will never be able to explain or overcome on peoples will to believe in any greater spirits, and religions will never be able to beat any hard scientific facts.
There were times when earth was flat because the big book said so. Came a day when it wasn't any more and suddenly Gods were in trouble. Well not Gods but people who had been swearing this belief as a fact. Nowadays those Gods have been driven very far - beneath the big bang. Not much of a place for any almighty God i think. Maybe they finally are there? Who knows, not even scientific theories of today.
- This is true of course if we thing that such thing as religious faith is ok enough to explain rationalist events. Why should it do so as it is doomed to lose? At least this far this has always been the case. No matter what anyone believes.
Sometimes people get extreme and start taking old books too seriously or literally or they think that they really know what Gods are about:
Look at those who stone women to death for cheating. Or those who claim that earth is 10000 years old. Or Jim Jones? Or etc etc around the world, regardless of their religion. We shouldn't ridicule their faith but at the moment they start to spread whatever they think is a literal truth from God we should be very very curious.
I rather see religion as a happy personal thing. I have no religion, but maybe i am short of some genes:)
There is a person that is surely closest to me. Even thought i'm agnostic and she's religious and strong in her faith. She's nominally Lutherian but truly she believes in the old Nordic Gods, elves and those dudes. Maybe even potbellied pig. I never asked what or why, because here we don't really ask about anyones religious beliefs. Not my business, unless tries to make me believe these same fairies too. One day i realized that in her faith there's nothing religious really. It is rather believing in certain values that some of those old almost forgotten goddesses represent: love, faith, grace and whatever. She seems to be happy in her life. I cannot say she's wrong or right and i do not even care such attributes. They are almost the same values that most major religions today share.
It's not about ridiculing beliefs. My own personal beliefs are part Catholic, part pagan, part shinto and part just me. To me it makes sense, even though it might seem weird or even bizarre to you or anyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by northpaw
So I don't think people should be judged by their religious opinion, so to speak. However, nothing in my beliefs contradicts what science tells me. I put value in the bible as a spiritual document and as a document with analogies, parables etc.
Belief is fine as long as it does not contradict our observations. If it does, then that must mean belief is wrong, or at least misunderstood. The belief that the earth is 10K years old is in direct contradiction with everything we know, with all the science that correlates with everything we can observe, and insisting that it is still correct despite knowing all those things...
Faith = The whole hearted belief that something that can not be seen, touched, smelled, heard, nor tasted or in any other way be proven... Absolutely positively without a doubt still exsists...
If you use that same definition on anything else other than some form of Deity you would be considered insane....
You cannot ever argue Faith, you either have it or you don't, there never can be proof, or it wouldn't be called Faith :)
Ummmm BTW which "God" created all this??? I mean there are quite a few still out there :D
@richmondesi:
You seem to have a problem with calling opinions stupid.
I read recently that there are still a small group of people who believe the flat eath myths. Does that belief count as stupid, or do we also need to value it and respect it because God might have given us the illusion of a round earth, even though it is really flat, and it is not unreasonable to believe something that virtually everyone can verify for themselves by e.g watching a boat sail past the horizon?
"Myth" & "stupid" are two words I don't use when discussing things with people I respect that we disagree about. At least not when discussing very personally held values/beliefs...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Maybe I am stupid, though. ... :shrug:
Creation myth is a common term to desribe the various stories of how the world came into being. How would you describe them, which word would you suggest?
And you didn't answer my question in my previous post: what about the idea that the earth is still flat, in this day and age?
Can we definitively prove the earth isn't flat? YesQuote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Can we observe retrospectively? No
Or do we try to interpret what we've seen? The universe and every other system is moving toward disorder, right? But progressively complex organization of systems came from nothing.
I'm interested in observations that illustrate increased order and complexity.
PS, I didn't answer the question because I'm on my cell phone, and was having lunch with a friend (not all my friends are on the computer - btw, that's a reference to "Funny People" don't get worked up)
I was once told: if you work through lunch, you're pretending to work while pretending to eat. The same could perhaps be said about internetting through a friendly lunch.
SRP will still be here later today barring an unexpected apocalypse. Eat first, discuss later :)
Bon appetit.
In the unlikely event that the apocalypse should happen, you'll probably have more pressing things on your mind that this discussion anyway...
Why do you say they came from nothing? Are you referring to the Big Bang?Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
As human beings who's entire lineage is a product of this planet we are constrained by conditions on this plant. Afterall we can't live on the moon or mars. There are concepts most humans can't grasp. Our lives are ruled by cycles. The sun's rising and setting, the moons rising and setting. The calendar, the march of time. We are born and then die. Most can't accept the concept of say the Universe being infinite or anything else for that matter being infinite. It has no beginning and no end, it is there and has always been there. Most folks would say well, the Universe might be big, very big but eventually you come to the end and then what? Is there a wall and if there is whats behind it.
Our brains and everything we create is based on how we interpret our world. Many animals have senses far different than us and live in a very different world than we do. All our tools and mathematics are based on how we see things. maybe some dude from another world is quite different and our round earth he might see as some polygon we can't fathom. Maybe little things might make big differences. Maybe if we could visualize the entire light spectrum from infrared through x rays and radio signals our world would be very different.
Just a thought.
When you answer how you can say that "the concept of god was invented" isn't tantamount to saying there is no god, I'll be happy to discuss this.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCshaver
And no, I'm not necessarily implying anything about the Big Bang
This is undeniably horrifying. I thought you guys had a small piece of constitutional legislation entitled 'The First Ammendment' preventing this kind of thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Some of my very best friends are men of faith. Personally, it appears blindingly obvious that religion is an unnecessary vestige that we have carried over from the infancy of our species. A clumsy attempt at explaining what could not be explained at that time with science. One day we will look back on it as we now view the theory that the earth is flat... with mild amusement and much appreciation of the scientific advances we have made in the last two to three hundred years. Heretic indeed:rolleyes:
The Bible is a fine book as long one picks and chooses from it well. I think everybody with decent historical knowledge can provide plenty of examples throughout the last 2000 years of picking and choosing badly. I would say chances are that say 50, or 100 years from now people will find some of the currently accepted 'Biblical mores' rather primitive and inconsistent with the 'spirit of the Bible'.
4 in 10 Americans are damn idiots.
First of all, everyone that discusses religion should read this.
10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On | Cracked.com
Second of all:
[youtube]dx0Shn5Hvpc[/youtube]
Paul, what you've got here is an example quite common, when theists have a go at using the second law of thermodynamics to support their position.Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
You also seem to have done what is most commonly done when using this argument, that is, misinterpret the results, possibly misunderstanding the second law itself.
The key concept is that entropy, in an isolated or closed system, over time, is always greater than zero. Always. What is often missed is the concept of the closed system.
This is usually the result of an anthropocentric or geocentric cosmology, which all too often fails to allow that the earth is not a closed or isolated system. Indeed, we see many examples of complexity on earth that should not otherwise exist. We are the most obvious example.
Very little of what we know now exists, including ourselves, would exist were it not for an external source of energy, the sun. That is what drives all life processes on earth.
Taken as a more closed system (which it isn't, in fact), the solar system is indeed running down. The sun is roughly halfway through its life. Angular momentum is being slowly more evenly distributed. In four or five billion years, this little solar system will not be recognizable.
But, back to our local situation. The amount of hydrogen that has fused into helium in the sun since the dawn of life on earth, far surpasses the energy even received by the earth from the sun during the same time. The amount of entropy in the earth-sun system alone has increased dramatically.
Does this shed a little light on how the second law of thermodynamics holds true, while we still see a local decrease in entropy (for now, at least)?
Who else would come up with the idea of a god?Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
I'm an atheist so I don't have any belief in the gods of religion. This doesn't mean I know there is no god. Or that I am claiming there is no god. I just don't believe the claims of the various religions.
There is no evidence for god so it's safe to say that humans came up with the concept of god to explain the world around them. Until there is some evidence for god it's still just a human concept.
Maybe in the future there will be undeniable evidence for god and it will stop being just a concept and become a fact.
Well what are you referring to when you say "came from nothing"?Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
There's no evidence for lot's of things. There's no evidence that what you see daily is actually happening and that it all just takes place in your head. Reality is just a human concept, as is evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCshaver
There is evidence of what I'm actually seeing is happening...it's other people.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
They can corroborate my claims of what I'm seeing.
Sure there are lots of things with no evidence but people usually don't believe those things actually exist. Like dragons or goblins.
Ah... scale is a funny thing. Where exactly is the boundary of closed and open systems? You want the Earth to be an open system upon which things move toward order, but that's only because you don't like what the science is doing to the arguments.
Unfortunately, I do understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I'll let Dr. John Ross answer that point:
In the last 20 years was there a new understanding of this scientific law? Wait, what is a "law" in science again? Maybe I don't understand...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. John Ross
C.S.Lewis was a noted atheist who, in studying the religious beliefs of others, found himself a convert. In his book "The Problem of Pain" he wrote of the " Numinous". Describing the intuitive sense that all peoples of all cultures feel that there is "something" beyond mere mortal existence. I was raised by atheists and was one of them up until my late thirties. I had a similar antagonism to religious cultures as displayed by some in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCshaver
I decided that contempt before investigation was unfair and that fore mentioned Numinous was another issue. So through study to prove to myself that there was nothing to it I found myself a convert. I won't put words in richmondesi's mouth and quote him but I think the point is that the universe, the earth we live in, is the proof, the evidence of a creator. That is my take on it anyhow.
Nice use of canard, though.
See, this is the problem with discussing things with atheists that I've seen. Deliberately misleading, huh? ... Sweet :rolleyes:
I assume you're referring to me. What are you claiming I was misleading about?Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
You know what happens when you assume, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCshaver