Cure For Death?

[shade]

Is that big post by computer serious?

 

 

I NEED TO KNOW

 

 

Edit: oh fuck off some site LOL

Edited June 23, 2007 by shade

[little miss sunshine]

OMG, make it stop!

[Lauren]

You know, I hadn't been considering it, but that just made me want to do it that much more.

 

Your argument is a bunch of things.

 

1. Extremely convenient. When there is no space for god within the operating universe, you simply declare him outside of it and therefore beyond all criticism or argument.

 

2. Fallacious. What created god? Where does god exist?

 

3. A watered down version of every other fallacious theology that couldn't keep up with reality.

i by no means have the answers. i wasn't giving my argument. it's neither an argument or mine. i'm just saying that if there is a god that can do whatever he wants, why can't he do whatever he wants?

 

at any rate, no one knows the answer and it's impossible to find out. i've spent the last 8 months studying whether or not god exists in philosophy class so don't treat me like i just rolled out of the bible.

[heyrabbit]

what lauren? that's a shame man. what are they telling you? tell your teacher to read a book

 

ask your teacher if he/she thinks it's impossible to know that fairies don't exist

 

the only requirement for not knowing something is that you not know it.

 

If you ever see your teacher again, ask how he manages to not drive his car. seriously, I want to hear the answer

[ecnarf]

i by no means have the answers. i wasn't giving my argument. it's neither an argument or mine. i'm just saying that if there is a god that can do whatever he wants, why can't he do whatever he wants?

 

at any rate, no one knows the answer and it's impossible to find out. i've spent the last 8 months studying whether or not god exists in philosophy class so don't treat me like i just rolled out of the bible.

Lauren I've just spent the last 8 months (not to mention the two years before that in high school) studying science. I know I'm biased, but it's fairly obvious that scientists have a better grasp on reality than philosophers. Furthermore, you haven't been studying whether or not god exists, you've been in an armchair lightly pondering the possibilities and creating loopholes for god to hide out in (or, to be charitable about it, in a cramped lecture hall listening to someone in an armchair do the same).

 

To say that there is a theistic god actively participating in the universe is a hypothesis that should have observable outcomes. If what we call "evolution" was really god just dicking around with the genetic code, then there wouldn't be so much evidence for evolution. There would be clear and identifiable points at which genes made an inexplicable leap that separated one species from another not explicable by natural laws. We would further expect that such theistic speciation occurs around us. We would see new species created before our very eyes. Interestingly, evolution does occur around us every day and its effects are visible, measurable and testables. To suggest that there are gaps, missing links or whatever else is to prove your own ignorance of the subject. And, as Richard Dawkins would say, to call someone ignorant is to pay them the compliment of not calling them stupid or wicked.

 

Ultimately, "god" would have observable effects on the world around us. To suggest design from our observable reality, again, shows utter ignorance of it. The human body is largely a relic from a time when we were quadrapeds. Our sinuses are patheticlally vulnerable to infection, our immune systems weak, our joints prone to sprains and dislocations and arthritis, our appendices and spleens perfectly useless, our eyes have blind spots and plenty of people have to wear eyeglasses because of how poorly their eyes function. The birthing process is immensely painful and has historically had a high casualty rate. Men have nipples - WHY? Every organism on the planet uses the same molecule for delivering energy, adenosine triphosphate. Every last one. If there were a divine being manipulating the process, why wouldn't some organisms use a different molecule? Why are all bacteria prokaryotic cells and all life forms eukaryotic cells that have absorbed prokaryotic cells? Why is the Calvin cycle the one primarily responsible for generating energy across all species? If this god is benevolent and loving as so many religions like to think he is, have you considered the massive and unquantifiably enormous amount of suffering occurring on this planet? Not just in humans, but in animals. Predator wolves hunting down and snapping the necks of sick and young deer. Snakes and spiders whose venom digests victims internally. And so on and so on.

 

I'm guessing you understood very little of that. Not that there's anything wrong with not knowing what I've studied, but you'll have to accept why I'm sceptical of your claim to have been studying the possibility of an existence of god when you are so very ignorant of his purported creation.

 

As for the claim of a deistic god that does not actively participate in the universe and exists "outside" of anything else, that has got to be one of the more useless beliefs floating around society. There is a god... who does absolutely nothing, who doesn't hear you, and doesn't care. If such a being did exist he wouldn't be worth a minute of my time, much less my praise or "belief". And in contending his existence, where did he come from? That a being capable of creating an entire universe and immense set of physical laws simply existed on its own is vastly more ludicrous than suggesting that the quarks and subatomic particles around us simply existed on their own and everything else has followed. If god is the cause of everything, what is the cause of god?

Edited June 23, 2007 by ecnarf

[heyrabbit]

obviously I'm going to object to your statement that...

 

it's fairly obvious that scientists have a better grasp on reality than philosophers

 

I don't think you actual mean that because all good scientists are philosophers and all good philosophers are scientists. however, not every philosopher is,say, a biologist or a chemist or whatever. good philosophers are scientists, but epistemological scientists.They study abstract principles, not physical. Einstein the scientist didn't form the theory of relativity, it was Einstein the philosopher.

Edited June 23, 2007 by heyrabbit

[shade]

Science keeps correcting itself anyways as years progress and more advancements take place. So people do need that original (for lack of better words) leap of faith to form a hypothesis...then use their scientific knowledge to prove it.

 

You seem to rely 100% on scientific fact EC, which is good...but not as fun amitire guyz?!

[Lauren]

adam, i understood everything you wrote. don't underestimate me.

 

i was never necessarily refering to the benevolent god from the bible. perhaps he is an asshole who is just playing a giant game with us. if proposing the idea that a god and can anything you want, you can't restrict him to being nice. regarding eveolution and genes... maybe he created his one little living organsism (have they ever figured out where that came from, btw?) and he was like alright, you grow and evole and i'll just sit back and do nothing. i know this sounds like a cop-out and i agree that it may be but if you're going to go into the world that anything can happen, then you can't make up rules. at any rate, we don't have any proof that a god like this doesn't exist (and that would probably be impossible), all we can do is rule it out as improbable (not impossible) and continue our lives. matters of religion are pretty much useless except to tie up loose ends (i.e. miracles) or making people feel better.

 

my philosophy teacher is probably better at physics than philosophy and he used physics as an example all the time. my notes are filled with diagrams and numbers and other stuff that doesn't make any sense to me now. he also made it quite clear that he didn't believe in any god. he'd make his case for how god existed (or explained someone else's) and then tear it to pieces.

[ecnarf]

I don't think you actual mean that because all good scientists are philosophers and all good philosophers are scientists. however, not every philosopher is,say, a biologist or a chemist or whatever. good philosophers are scientists, but epistemological scientists.They study abstract principles, not physical. Einstein the scientist didn't form the theory of relativity, it was Einstein the philosopher.

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but this is where we get into a debate of semantics and exceptions. When I use the word philosopher or the word scientist, its pretty obvious what I'm talking about. It was not Einstein the philospher who formed the theory of relativity, it was einstein the theoretical physicist. There is an enormous difference. In science and math, there is a clear right and a clear wrong; not so with philosophy.

 

regarding eveolution and genes... maybe he created his one little living organsism (have they ever figured out where that came from, btw?)

 

The beginnings of life have their origins in chemistry. There has been no evidence found that there is a need for the supernatural in starting life. Anyways. The current thought is that naked RNA molecules were the starting of life - it's self-replicating and a good carrier of information. DNA is sort of the mirror image of RNA, but with uracil replaced by thymine, and is far more stable and replicates more true to form (which is why it's become genetic material for all life forms). Once a molecule has both the ability to self-replicate and pass down information in a hereditary fashion, life has begun.

 

i know this sounds like a cop-out and i agree that it may be but if you're going to go into the world that anything can happen, then you can't make up rules

 

What's that now?

 

at any rate, we don't have any proof that a god like this doesn't exist

 

Which is utterly meaningless.

 

matters of religion are pretty much useless except to tie up loose ends (i.e. miracles) or making people feel better.

 

In other words, perfectly useless.

 

As for the physics part, if they don't make any sense, odds are it's because they don't really make any sense. Philosophers have a habit of being perfectly useless when it comes to using science in their work.

Edited June 24, 2007 by ecnarf

[Lauren]

1. What's that now?

 

 

 

2. Which is utterly meaningless.

 

 

 

3. In other words, perfectly useless.

 

4. As for the physics part, if they don't make any sense, odds are it's because they don't really make any sense. Philosophers have a habit of being perfectly useless when it comes to using science in their work.

1. i never said i believed what i was purposing, i was just putting it out there. i never changed my stance.

 

2. i think arguing something that can't be answered is meaningless.

 

3. i think this is mostly your opinion. just because religion is useless to you doesn't mean it doesn't give other people a eason to live and wake up every morning (even if they are factless, empty beliefs).

 

4. i'm sure what tried to teach us using physics made sense... to someone who went to school to study physics. they kind of made sense at the time but now i can't remember anything he taught me.

[Monkey]

While I am sure that the transplant would not work, you still just blew my mind

[Ravenous megin-sane]

nooo don't start this thread up again!

[Azalroth]

Afflack!