It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)A Message to Atheists and Agnostics - I get you(2370 posts)(2370 posts)
(2370 posts)
Pages:
1
25
50
75
100
121
122
123
124
125
150
158
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 22, 2014
Incidentally, Ouya reached it's 666th game yesterday. ;)
Posted February 22, 2014
I'm agnostic. I believe we have much to learn about the substructures of the universe- microscopic fungal mycelium (and it's uncanny resemblance to a traced map of the World Wide Web), dark matter (seen from an infrared visible pattern, bears an uncanny resemblance to many microscopic organisms, especially of the fungal variety), the spiral fractal patterns of the universe (everything from DNA to certain microscopic fungi to hurricanes to galaxies), the accompaniment of space within all matter (vindicates the ancient Buddhist and Hindu teachings about Emptiness), and perhaps most immediately important, the understanding of using photons as energy, instead of using atoms and quarks as energy.

Taking all of these patterns together, I find it plausible that there exists some form of Will of Creation. Perhaps not any deity or entity, but rather, some kind of primal force. I do think the patterns of the universe share a common design. I do think there are certain processes which were set into motion, such as evolution, rather than just a snap of the fingers instantly popping matter and energy into existence; and I do not believe that contradicts core theological teachings. (Only fundamentalist teachings.)

However... if there is one (or more) who created the universe, I doubt they have any concentrated form of consciousness; if their consciousness reached infinitely, then that infinite consciousness would be compromised by focusing upon a single point in the universe, such as a planet- much less a single being. Therefore, we were not made in their image. We apply our image unto that creator to endear ourselves to it. In reality, they must be completely adaptable- amorphous, and without form.

If they did prefer any particular form, however, I believe it would be that of a World Tree. If every oxygen-exhaling plant such as trees all died, then without that structure of nitrogen-consuming plant life, most of the other living beings upon living planets such Earth would eventually die with them. If every last human were to die, on the other hand, life would go on as if human history had never happened. (Except for our nuclear plants melting down; that would certainly cause some destruction for a while...)

However, I cannot say what the ultimate truths of the universe are, and therefore I am without knowledge- agnostic.
Post edited February 22, 2014 by StickOfPlywood
Posted February 22, 2014
I do have to say, though, Alpha Centauri showed me a most pertinent musing about this topic:

"There are only two ways in which we can account for a necessary agreement of experience with the concepts of its objects: either experience makes these concepts possible or these concepts make experience possible."
-- Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason

What that means is, from a rational (secular) standpoint, we exist to experience the world and interpret it's events, thus providing "proof" of it's elementary concepts. From a faith-based standpoint, however, the response to the secular standpoint is, "No no, these experiences would not exist in the first place without their elementary concepts being responsible for our very ability to experience." The only absolute difference between these two agreements is what happens at the conclusion of one's life, not what happens throughout the journey of one's life.

Thus, the reason why people are divided between these two forms of agreement is not necessarily because they are incompatible, but because the content of one's interpretations defines a culture's life style, thereby culminating in the events leading up to the conclusion of one's life. Therefore, the significance applied to those particular events correlating with the conclusion of one's life defines the power structure the people are willing to support.

Organized Religions (or the absolute rejection of them) are ultimately all about who has Power, and to what extent that Power reaches. If one is free to practice whatever interpretation they want, without being required to do so, then even if their life's events are EXACTLY the same as someone who was forced to follow them, the Power of the Organized Religion (or absolute rejection of them) is meaningless. Above all else, those in Power do NOT want that to happen.
Post edited February 22, 2014 by StickOfPlywood
Posted February 22, 2014
avatar
toxicTom: Sorry, if i interrupt, but there are square circles, and quite lots of them. You just have to add another dimension and they're called cylinders.
A square is a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles. A circle is a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the center). When a plane figure gains a dimension, it is no longer a plane figure. Furthermore, a cylinder does not have four equal straight sides and four right angles and its boundary does not consist of points equidistant from a fixed point.

avatar
toxicTom: What I want to say is that if we hit dead end trying to explain something, maybe or frame of reference just is not sufficient. We are beings that live in a linear time and a three-dimensional space. Science says, there are probably more than three spatial dimension (last thing I read someone said ten), and the nature of time is still pretty mysterious. Is it really linear or is it just our perception? Is it possible to have more than one temporal dimension?

I can imagine four-dimensional space, and if in trance, sometimes five-dimensional simple objects (like a cube). But in normal life we are limited to our senses as they are and our brain is tuned in to that 3+1 reality. Since there is probably more to it than we can perceive, it's pretty difficult to even image how it may have begun - if it has. Douglas Adams said, reaching higher dimensions is easy, just go perpendicular from reality ;-).
So we simply don't know if there ever was nothing and if there ever was a starting point or if time is running in circles on a whole different plane unreachable for us.
Great quote. "Nothing" is non-being, which does not exist by definition. If it existed in some other dimension, then it would be something. Cosmologists have a very high degree of certainty that the universe has a beginning, but it's always possible for them to have misinterpreted the evidence, so stating that it is possible for them to be wrong doesn't add anything that we don't already know. In order for you to challenge the knowledge or the premise that the universe had a beginning, you would need to show that it is more reasonable to think that it did not.
Posted February 22, 2014
avatar
StickOfPlywood: "There are only two ways in which we can account for a necessary agreement of experience with the concepts of its objects: either experience makes these concepts possible or these concepts make experience possible."
-- Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason
+1 for quoting Kant. Especially Critique of Practical Reason and Critique of Pure Reason are great works. Although I do not agree with everything. There is for instance a third way.

avatar
StickOfPlywood: Organized Religions (or the absolute rejection of them) are ultimately all about who has Power, and to what extent that Power reaches. If one is free to practice whatever interpretation they want, without being required to do so, then even if their life's events are EXACTLY the same as someone who was forced to follow them, the Power of the Organized Religion (or absolute rejection of them) is meaningless. Above all else, those in Power do NOT want that to happen.
Yes and no.

First of all, organized religion is not necessarily about power. A few people that come together in a Buddhist, Christian, Wiccan, Quantum scientest, whatever circle are organized, but there is no power involved. There is like a critical mass needed, when people have to appoint someone who's in charge to keep things organized and running. At this point power is distributed and things may go downhill, if there are no checks and balances.
Power always corrupts in the long term, but that's not limited to religions, but true for any form of human organisation. Things like the catholic church with their history of constantly exerting their influence on "worldly" matters just make it more obvious and easy to blame them.

Also, I think, the rejection of religion is different, as it's not about having power over others but to empower oneself ("No one has power over me"). At least most of the time. If you meant it that way, I'm sorry, I didn't get it.
Posted February 22, 2014
avatar
toxicTom: Sorry, if i interrupt, but there are square circles, and quite lots of them. You just have to add another dimension and they're called cylinders.
avatar
Soyeong: A square is a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles. A circle is a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the center). When a plane figure gains a dimension, it is no longer a plane figure. Furthermore, a cylinder does not have four equal straight sides and four right angles and its boundary does not consist of points equidistant from a fixed point.
You confirm my point ;-). You are right that a cylinder is not necessarily a "square" circle. That would only be true if the height matches the diameter. But it is a rectangular circle at least. What you do is to refuse to leave your "plane". If you project a three-dimensional cylinder into a two-dimensional space, it can be a circle, a rectangle and in-between shapes, but it's the same object.
If you were an two-dimensional being (like Star Trek space battle choreographers obviously are) you couldn't even image "height". You would know squares and circles but the cylinder would be kind of an inexplicable miracle from your point of view.

If there are more than three spacial dimensions, what we see is just a projection of an incredibly more complex world into our three dimension. If time is more than we can perceive, things get even more crazy.
I believe there are people that, through some genetic quirk or a special state of mind, are able to "see" beyond. These people maybe called prophets or lunatics depending on circumstances, but I doubt that they are really able to understand what they see and even if they could, that our languages could describe it.

avatar
toxicTom: What I want to say is that if we hit dead end trying to explain something, maybe or frame of reference just is not sufficient. We are beings that live in a linear time and a three-dimensional space. Science says, there are probably more than three spatial dimension (last thing I read someone said ten), and the nature of time is still pretty mysterious. Is it really linear or is it just our perception? Is it possible to have more than one temporal dimension?

I can imagine four-dimensional space, and if in trance, sometimes five-dimensional simple objects (like a cube). But in normal life we are limited to our senses as they are and our brain is tuned in to that 3+1 reality. Since there is probably more to it than we can perceive, it's pretty difficult to even image how it may have begun - if it has. Douglas Adams said, reaching higher dimensions is easy, just go perpendicular from reality ;-).
So we simply don't know if there ever was nothing and if there ever was a starting point or if time is running in circles on a whole different plane unreachable for us.
avatar
Soyeong: Great quote. "Nothing" is non-being, which does not exist by definition. If it existed in some other dimension, then it would be something. Cosmologists have a very high degree of certainty that the universe has a beginning, but it's always possible for them to have misinterpreted the evidence, so stating that it is possible for them to be wrong doesn't add anything that we don't already know. In order for you to challenge the knowledge or the premise that the universe had a beginning, you would need to show that it is more reasonable to think that it did not.
No. I think that the universe had a beginning in our sense of time and space. I just doubt that's all there is. Limited that we are we are unable to build four-dimensional telescopes or two-dimensional clocks.

Edit: fixed grammar and spelling
Post edited February 22, 2014 by toxicTom
Posted February 22, 2014
avatar
toxicTom: You confirm my point ;-). You are right that a cylinder is not necessarily a "square" circle. That would only be true if the height matches the diameter. But it is a rectangular circle at least. What you do is to refuse to leave your "plane". If you project a three-dimensional cylinder into a two-dimensional space, it can be a circle, a rectangle and in-between shapes, but it's the same object.
If you were an two-dimensional being (like Star Trek space battle choreographers obviously are) you couldn't even image "height". You would know squares and circles but the cylinder would be kind of an inexplicable miracle from your point of view.
Both a rectangles and squares have four straight sides and four right angles, so neither one can have curved sides or be a cylinder. It is possible for a three-dimensional object to be represent by a two-dimensional figure, but the three-dimensional object does not take on any of two-dimensional properties, and vice versa. If you represent a cube with a square, the square does not increase to six sides and the cube is not reduced to four.

avatar
toxicTom: If there are more than three spacial dimensions, what we see is just a projection of an incredibly more complex world into our three dimension. If time is more than we can perceive, things get even more crazy.
The law of non-contradiction states that it is impossible for the same thing to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect, so if you're switching dimensions, then you are not talking about it in the same respect, and it is not a violation of the law of non-contradiction like a square circle is.

avatar
toxicTom: I believe there are people that, through some genetic quirk or a special state of mind, are able to "see" beyond. These people maybe called prophets or lunatics depending on circumstances, but I doubt that they are really able to understand what they see and even if they could, that our languages could describe it.
An interesting idea, it could be.

avatar
toxicTom: No. I think that the universe had a beginning in our sense of time and space. I just doubt that's all there is. Limited that we are we are unable to build four-dimensional telescopes or two-dimensional clocks.
If you're willing to grant that the universe had a beginning is our sense of time and space, and that nothing comes from non-being, then our universe has a cause.
Posted February 22, 2014
avatar
StickOfPlywood: Taking all of these patterns together, I find it plausible that there exists some form of Will of Creation. Perhaps not any deity or entity, but rather, some kind of primal force. I do think the patterns of the universe share a common design. I do think there are certain processes which were set into motion, such as evolution, rather than just a snap of the fingers instantly popping matter and energy into existence; and I do not believe that contradicts core theological teachings. (Only fundamentalist teachings.)
If it has a will, how can it be a primal force? Is this force eternal or does it have a beginning? If it has a beginning, then what caused it? Did is create time and space? If it did create time and space, then what attributes would it have?
However... if there is one (or more) who created the universe, I doubt they have any concentrated form of consciousness; if their consciousness reached infinitely, then that infinite consciousness would be compromised by focusing upon a single point in the universe, such as a planet- much less a single being. Therefore, we were not made in their image. We apply our image unto that creator to endear ourselves to it. In reality, they must be completely adaptable- amorphous, and without form.
Christians generally do not hold that being in the likeness of God is in His physical form, but that we are in his likeness mentally, morally, and socially.
If they did prefer any particular form, however, I believe it would be that of a World Tree. If every oxygen-exhaling plant such as trees all died, then without that structure of nitrogen-consuming plant life, most of the other living beings upon living planets such Earth would eventually die with them. If every last human were to die, on the other hand, life would go on as if human history had never happened. (Except for our nuclear plants melting down; that would certainly cause some destruction for a while...)
I believe that God is constantly causing the universe to exist here and now and that it would cease to exist if God ever stopped. It's like a causal series ordered per se, where a hand moves a stick, which moves a rock, which moves a leaf, and so on down the line. The hand is the primary cause and everything else in the series is a secondary cause because the causal series can't exist with out the hand. If you take away the hand, then the stick doesn't move the rock, which doesn't move leaf, and so on. In the same way, God is the primary cause of the universe.
Posted February 22, 2014
avatar
toxicTom: You confirm my point ;-). You are right that a cylinder is not necessarily a "square" circle. That would only be true if the height matches the diameter. But it is a rectangular circle at least. What you do is to refuse to leave your "plane". If you project a three-dimensional cylinder into a two-dimensional space, it can be a circle, a rectangle and in-between shapes, but it's the same object.
If you were an two-dimensional being (like Star Trek space battle choreographers obviously are) you couldn't even image "height". You would know squares and circles but the cylinder would be kind of an inexplicable miracle from your point of view.
avatar
Soyeong: Both a rectangles and squares have four straight sides and four right angles, so neither one can have curved sides or be a cylinder. It is possible for a three-dimensional object to be represent by a two-dimensional figure, but the three-dimensional object does not take on any of two-dimensional properties, and vice versa. If you represent a cube with a square, the square does not increase to six sides and the cube is not reduced to four.
A cylinder viewed (projected) from the top is a perfect circle. From the side it's an rectangle, a square, if the diameter of the circle equals height. The cylinder (as geometrical object) has the same properties as the circle AND the rectangle (and a few more).
It all depends on your point of view. If you are two-dimensional, the cube has for sides, because the other dimension is off limits.

I know what you are trying to say: a two-dimensional square circle is not possible. But what I want to show is - things that seem illogical/impossible often become possible if you think "outside the box". If we are not aware of our own limitations we may jump to conclusions to explain "unknowable" things.

avatar
toxicTom: If there are more than three spacial dimensions, what we see is just a projection of an incredibly more complex world into our three dimension. If time is more than we can perceive, things get even more crazy.
avatar
Soyeong: The law of non-contradiction states that it is impossible for the same thing to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect, so if you're switching dimensions, then you are not talking about it in the same respect, and it is not a violation of the law of non-contradiction like a square circle is.
I don't believe in the law of non-contradiction (anymore).

avatar
toxicTom: No. I think that the universe had a beginning in our sense of time and space. I just doubt that's all there is. Limited that we are we are unable to build four-dimensional telescopes or two-dimensional clocks.
avatar
Soyeong: If you're willing to grant that the universe had a beginning is our sense of time and space, and that nothing comes from non-being, then our universe has a cause.
You did not understand me. Image a stange creature like a Star Trek space battle choreographer watching a ball jump up and down from a distance. Since he is two-dimensional he can see only a width and depth. At first there is nothing. Then there is (out of nowhere) a dot and a line that rapidly expands. As the ball passes his view, the line reaches the maximum width then shrinks with increasing speed and finally disappears.

I think we are like that guy. We see the something we can observe, put our instruments to it, but can't explain and we try to make some sense.
avatar
Soyeong: Christians generally do not hold that being in the likeness of God is in His physical form, but that we are in his likeness mentally, morally, and socially.
SCNR but:

God is mentally unstable, morally flexible (ok, there's enough evidence for that) and socially caught in an "us vs. them" thinking?

I'm sorry, if some god created man from his image like that, he was either incapable to do it right or it was Odin (all attributes would fit).
Post edited February 22, 2014 by toxicTom
Posted February 22, 2014
I am dissipointed Ragnarok did not happen today, where is Odin and Thor and Fefnir :(

Anyone from Sweden, Norway, and Denmark have those gods appeared in your country?
Post edited February 22, 2014 by Elmofongo
Posted February 22, 2014
avatar
Elmofongo: I am dissipointed Ragnarok did not happen today, where is Odin and Thor and Fefnir :(

Anyone from Sweden, Norway, and Denmark have those gods appeared in your country?
and where is Jeff, the God of Biscuits?
Posted February 22, 2014
avatar
Elmofongo: I am dissipointed Ragnarok did not happen today, where is Odin and Thor and Fefnir :(

Anyone from Sweden, Norway, and Denmark have those gods appeared in your country?
avatar
tinyE: and where is Jeff, the God of Biscuits?
+1 for Eddie Izzard
Posted February 22, 2014
avatar
tinyE: and where is Jeff, the God of Biscuits?
avatar
toxicTom: +1 for Eddie Izzard
I was afraid no one would get that.
This forum proves it's intellect once again. :D
Posted February 22, 2014
avatar
toxicTom: +1 for Eddie Izzard
avatar
tinyE: I was afraid no one would get that.
This forum proves it's intellect once again. :D
To be honest I heard the phrase "Jeff, the God of Biscuits" before from an American friend and now fed google with it. It came up with,this. I read halfway though it and this is really great stuff. Searched for a video but couldn't find that performance (but a lot of other good things).

I wish Germans had comedians like that :-( Without understanding german you can't have no idea how unfunny our comedians are.
Posted February 22, 2014
I just finished watching a great film that interviews a number of experts on these topics:

Part 1: Lord or Legend, the historicity of Jesus Christ is demonstrated by the important non-Christian historical sources that are available to us today.

Part 2: Are the Gospels Reliable? examines the historical reliability of the Gospels as eyewitness testimony to the life of Jesus.

Part 3: Miracles provides strong evidence that miracles happen today and happened in history.

Part 4: The Testimony of Prophecy, many of the Old Testament messianic prophecies are quoted along with their New Testament fulfillments which establish a solid confirmation of Jesus’ credentials as the Messiah.

Part 5: The Resurrection – Fact or Fiction? the case is presented for the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

Part 6: The Good News concludes that the portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels, dependent on eyewitness testimony, is more plausible than the alternative hypotheses of its modern detractors and presents the Jesus’ message of the Gospel.

http://www.jesusoftestimony.com/
Post edited February 22, 2014 by Soyeong
Pages:
1
25
50
75
100
121
122
123
124
125
150
158
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)A Message to Atheists and Agnostics - I get you(2370 posts)(2370 posts)
(2370 posts)