Sasun Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Azat, its not that simple. God is not responsible for barbarities. All evidence suggests that God preaches quite the contrary, so why believe that God wanted barbarities to happen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Yes Anoushik. Think about it, every time you breath in that's an evidence that God cares about you. I thought about it and every breath seems more to be an evidence of a physical body needing oxygen to sustain itself due to all the chemical reactions and what not that go on in the lungs and the blood than the care of any God. Plus, why would God care about his creations? Wouldn't we be mere posessions and toys to an all mightly being? What possible interest could an almighty creature have in rediculous beings such as ourselves? ... unless God needs some sort of entertainment in which case he isn't so perfect anymore now is he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 I thought about it and every breath seems more to be an evidence of a physical body needing oxygen to sustain itself due to all the chemical reactions and what not that go on in the lungs and the blood than the care of any God. Well, that is one way the care of God could be reflected. Plus, why would God care about his creations? Wouldn't we be mere posessions and toys to an all mightly being? What possible interest could an almighty creature have in rediculous beings such as ourselves? ... unless God needs some sort of entertainment in which case he isn't so perfect anymore now is he? style_images/master/snapback.png I recommend you to read this thread, the answers are there http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=10...=0entry131526 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Atheist Dogma?!?!?!?! Now thats a laugh - particularly comming from one who is so sure of all his answers and who preaches daily concerning such. And these "answers" are at best speculation - of no greater merit then the speculation of anyone else. Much like Domino's proposition that anything we can imagine must exist (somewhere) - you seem to profess belief in every fairytale ever invented and call that religious science or what have you - a pathetic waste of time IMO. And if I have any belief it is exactly the opposite of yours - and that is (on a fundemental level) that nothing (we believe to be true) is (in fact) true - as we are incapable of knowing/understanding "truth" - it is beyond our ability to percieve - even through Om nana padi ha's or what have you....short of that we have science to explain some things (in a limited fashion - but pretty much the best we can hope for - for the most part) and maybe other cognative devices to help us understand/interpret things inadequatly covered by scientific method - but it only goes so far - and to assume that what you have is "true" (or complete) knowlwedge - or even close to it - well - thats just foolish IMO. And you are not alone - problem is - does not seem that all like you - with contradicotory claims etc - can all be right... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Atheist Dogma?!?!?!?! Now thats a laugh - particularly comming from one who is so sure of all his answers and who preaches daily concerning such. And these "answers" are at best speculation - of no greater merit then the speculation of anyone else. Much like Domino's proposition that anything we can imagine must exist (somewhere) - you seem to profess belief in every fairytale ever invented and call that religious science or what have you - a pathetic waste of time IMO. And if I have any belief it is exactly the opposite of yours - and that is (on a fundemental level) that nothing (we believe to be true) is (in fact) true - as we are incapable of knowing/understanding "truth" - it is beyond our ability to percieve - even through Om nana padi ha's or what have you....short of that we have science to explain some things (in a limited fashion - but pretty much the best we can hope for - for the most part) and maybe other cognative devices to help us understand/interpret things inadequatly covered by scientific method - but it only goes so far - and to assume that what you have is "true" (or complete) knowlwedge - or even close to it - well - thats just foolish IMO. And you are not alone - problem is - does not seem that all like you - with contradicotory claims etc - can all be right... style_images/master/snapback.png As always, Thoth's post lacking insight, a total waste of time to even read... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Is this why he let 1.5 million Armenians die and also 20 million Russians and 150 thousand in the recent Tsunami? My this God really cares style_images/master/snapback.png I agree with all of what you've said except this position. This won't apply in a multiple universes conception of reality. Supposes that "a" exist in universe aa, ba, ca, da, etc. Supposes that a died in the universes aa, da and xa. Thise "a" can only be self aware in universes he survives in. The observers in the universe aa, da and xa will observe him as dead, on the other hand, he will think he has survived and that ä "god" has saved his life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Atheist Dogma?!?!?!?! Now thats a laugh - particularly comming from one who is so sure of all his answers and who preaches daily concerning such. And these "answers" are at best speculation - of no greater merit then the speculation of anyone else. Much like Domino's proposition that anything we can imagine must exist (somewhere) - you seem to profess belief in every fairytale ever invented and call that religious science or what have you - a pathetic waste of time IMO. And if I have any belief it is exactly the opposite of yours - and that is (on a fundemental level) that nothing (we believe to be true) is (in fact) true - as we are incapable of knowing/understanding "truth" - it is beyond our ability to percieve - even through Om nana padi ha's or what have you....short of that we have science to explain some things (in a limited fashion - but pretty much the best we can hope for - for the most part) and maybe other cognative devices to help us understand/interpret things inadequatly covered by scientific method - but it only goes so far - and to assume that what you have is "true" (or complete) knowlwedge - or even close to it - well - thats just foolish IMO. And you are not alone - problem is - does not seem that all like you - with contradicotory claims etc - can all be right... style_images/master/snapback.png You just have shown that you are not different than Sasun. As for my conception, I have explained countless numbers of times why it was different than religious beliefs, it is based on science, physicists like Everett. On the other hand, your position is just a typical belief, don't mistake it as science, since your position is unscientific. A real scientist will profess agnosticism, not atheism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 A real scientist will profess agnosticism, not atheism. style_images/master/snapback.png Domino, how about the countless scientists who believed and believe and profess different religions? You mean their inventions are not real? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 based on science, not good enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Domino, how about the countless scientists who believed and believe and profess different religions? You mean their inventions are not real? style_images/master/snapback.png No! But a scientist should not have any biases before conducting an experiment, his expectations modify his results, because just from the biases he doesn't try to measure what he should. Those beliefs are unscientific, unscientific doesn't mean they aren't true, it just mean that they have nothing to do with the study of natural laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 not good enough style_images/master/snapback.png At least, mine is, your's not. Live with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 No! But a scientist should not have any biases before conducting an experiment, his expectations modify his results, because just from the biases he doesn't try to measure what he should. Those beliefs are unscientific, unscientific doesn't mean they aren't true, it just mean that they have nothing to do with the study of natural laws. style_images/master/snapback.png Domino, I think that a scientist who is a believer treats scientific experiment the same way as a non-believer would treat. I mean, if a scientists invents a new car and says that it is fueled by soul, you can certainly say that he is biased. But if he invents a new car with oxigen fuel or something and says that God helped him to create it, you can'y say he's biased. Who says that those beliefs are not part of nature? They are part of nature and are subject to natural laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 (edited) Also, I have doubts about natural laws. Laws have beginning and end. This natural world doesn't have a beginning and end as far as I can see. Thus the essense of natural laws is already doubtful. I mean sceince is not THAT "scientific" either and I can take an approach of gnosticism about science. Scientists always say that they're close to finding all solutions. They say this for thousands of years. Yet, they are always "on the way", "in the process" of finding answers to the unlimate questions, like where is the end of this world or where does it start. Edited January 12, 2005 by Armen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 At least, mine is, your's not. Live with that. style_images/master/snapback.png Actually this speaks to the limitions of your belief. While I adhere to scientific method as the best for offering realistic explanations for things (and better then speculation based on professed religious type beliefs) - I also understand that science is also limited and can only tell us so much - and perhaps next to nothing about certain things (may be due to limitations in the advancement of science - but also may be that science/scientific method just not the end all answer to everything). Many times in our past - and contuinuing today - we have found that the science and scientific understanding of the day is superseeded by new knowlwedge/new forms of knowledge that were unfathamable just prior to discovery - thus it will be with (much of/most? of) the science of today - eventually. And the people of the future will study and laugh at our ignorance...and future peoples (if we survive) will do the same to them - and so on and so forth. You - like most - make the mistake of being stuck in time.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Domino, I think that a scientist who is a believer treats scientific experiment the same way as a non-believer would treat. I mean, if a scientists invents a new car and says that it is fueled by soul, you can certainly say that he is biased. But if he invents a new car with oxigen fuel or something and says that God helped him to create it, you can'y say he's biased. Who says that those beliefs are not part of nature? They are part of nature and are subject to natural laws. style_images/master/snapback.png True, but a scientist that adhere to scientific methodology to question everything in my book is the real scientist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 True, but a scientist that adhere to scientific methodology to question everything in my book is the real scientist. style_images/master/snapback.png Isen't that a bias? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Also, I have doubts about natural laws. Laws have beginning and end. This natural world doesn't have a beginning and end as far as I can see. Thus the essense of natural laws is already doubtful. I mean sceince is not THAT "scientific" either and I can take an approach of gnosticism about science. Scientists always say that they're close to finding all solutions. They say this for thousands of years. Yet, they are always "on the way", "in the process" of finding answers to the unlimate questions, like where is the end of this world or where does it start. style_images/master/snapback.png Scientists uses the scientific methodology, and they are not supposed to find the why of things, but study things. I don't see in this post of your something that is in disagreement with what I've said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 (edited) Isen't that a bias? style_images/master/snapback.png Maybe, but it is philosophying. First I define what is a scientist, and then I apply this definition. And for me a scientist is someone that has the capacity to dought everything. The problem is that everything is biases, everytime you try to define something you introduce biases into the experiment. EDITED: The rest of my post got cut Here is the rest, a scientist is able to question everyone of his beliefs. Edited January 12, 2005 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Scientists uses the scientific methodology, and they are not supposed to find the why of things, but study things. wrong - sure scientific method is empiricle in nature - experiment - discount that which does not fit etc etc - but ultimatly the goal is to adress the "why" (causation) of things - not just to report observations...I mean that is what theorms are all about - no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Actually this speaks to the limitions of your belief. While I adhere to scientific method as the best for offering realistic explanations for things (and better then speculation based on professed religious type beliefs) - I also understand that science is also limited and can only tell us so much - and perhaps next to nothing about certain things (may be due to limitations in the advancement of science - but also may be that science/scientific method just not the end all answer to everything). Many times in our past - and contuinuing today - we have found that the science and scientific understanding of the day is superseeded by new knowlwedge/new forms of knowledge that were unfathamable just prior to discovery - thus it will be with (much of/most? of) the science of today - eventually. And the people of the future will study and laugh at our ignorance...and future peoples (if we survive) will do the same to them - and so on and so forth. You - like most - make the mistake of being stuck in time.... style_images/master/snapback.png Again, your belief is contradictory, and you never bothered answering this. On one hand you believe in supernatural forces, you believe yourself having some, and on the other hand you claim a god is nonesene, when your beliefs are not less extraordinary than gods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 (edited) wrong - sure scientific method is empiricle in nature - experiment - discount that which does not fit etc etc - but ultimatly the goal is to adress the "why" (causation) of things - not just to report observations...I mean that is what theorms are all about - no? style_images/master/snapback.png Wrong, tell me how Quantum mechanic explains any why's, tell me how the Newtonian gravity tell us why two masses attract themselves. For science to answer the "why" a why should exist in the first place. Science is about measurement and predictations, it is the job of philosophy to question the why to find sense to things, the Qualia is not scientific in origine, but philosophic. Edited January 12, 2005 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 (edited) Again, your belief is contradictory, and you never bothered answering this. On one hand you believe in supernatural forces, you believe yourself having some, and on the other hand you claim a god is nonesene, when your beliefs are not less extraordinary than gods. style_images/master/snapback.png Supernatural - belief in such - is not at all the same as religion or god/belief in god/gods etc - it is merely an aknowledgement of the unexplainable... su·per·nat·u·ral Pronunciation: "sü-p&r-'na-ch&-r&l, -'nach-r&l Function: adjective Etymology: Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature 1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; 2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature I should note that I don't believe in anything that "transcends the laws of nature" - only that there may exist phenomenon that apear to do so - based on our limited understanding of such... Oh & BTW - your response says nothgin to rugute my point about the limitations of science and how scientific knowlwedge evolves through time (thus why I can accept it to a degree - but am ultimatly not convinced)...etc ...and you claim to be one with the open mind...not...etc Edited January 12, 2005 by THOTH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Supernatural - belief in such - is not at all the same as religion or god/belief in god/gods etc - it is merely an aknowledgement of the unexplainable... su·per·nat·u·ral Pronunciation: "sü-p&r-'na-ch&-r&l, -'nach-r&l Function: adjective Etymology: Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature 1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; 2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature I should note that I don't believe in anything that "transcends the laws of nature" - only that there may exist phenomenon that apear to do so - based on our limited understanding of such... style_images/master/snapback.png Still, I don't see how your beliefs on extra-sensorial stuff etc. is more down to Earth than a god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Oh & BTW - your response says nothgin to rugute my point about the limitations of science and how scientific knowlwedge evolves through time (thus why I can accept it to a degree - but am ultimatly not convinced)...etc ...and you claim to be one with the open mind...not...etc style_images/master/snapback.png That's because it was irrelevent, the same could be said about the evolution of philosophy, what you brought was not proper to science, but as well philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 That's because it was irrelevent, the same could be said about the evolution of philosophy, what you brought was not proper to science, but as well philosophy. style_images/master/snapback.png irrelevant? no.....lol I think I made my point quite well - science cannot give us all of the answers because it is limted by our level of understanding and the development of the science itself - even apart form any concern weather science can explain everything even if all the tools were at its disposal - if scientific method - reporting the results of empircle obsevation and testing under controled conditons etc etc - is sufficinet to answer all questions of the universe - etc etc And you are wrong regarding the question of "why" - science exists to explain why - that is its purpose. "Why do things fall to earth?" - well son - its becaus eof this thing called gravity...and gravity is created because of....etc etc.....yes these things are answers to "why"..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.