Marijuana.com

Lothar121

And the implication here is that something can come from nothing? Yet there is no proof of tha based on your statement, for the interaction between space/time is something in this universe. Therefore, this does not disprove the premise whatsoever.

__________________

Donate. Write. Make a difference..
Libertyindex | Posting Guidelines | Marijuana Policy Project | NORML | DPA | Drug WarRant | Media Awareness Project

 

Lothar121

I'm not religious.

Being a mono-theist does not make you religious. As I've said, I would argue occom's razor would make it completely rational to make the leap of faith that a God exists, perhaps not the Christian God, but a very powerful one.

Do I know this for sure? No. This thread proves how relative and arguable these points are. If you prefer being agnostic, more power to you. I think it becomes very subjective when it comes to theism, agnosticism, and atheism. I think some of the points made here are well thought out. I love them. I am always subject to change my position on this issue, as I do not subscribe to blind faith. I have to have reasons to believe. My God is rational to believe in based on the cosmological proof with an application of occoms razor, a logical God that rarely interfers if at all, that has set up this system for reasons we can't possibly know. Christians don't know, no one knows why. Could I be wrong. Yes. I have said it previously in this thread, it is plausible that multiple Independent Beings could exist, or perhaps two universes depending on each other. I have not yet thought of the two universe idea, somehow depending on each other. There are alot of possibilities, and that is what is so great about philosophy.

I hope to get some more input here.

Cassius

First, Occam's Razor is hardly proof, but it's a starting point. It tells you where to look first.

But what makes you think Occam's Razor argues for the existence of a single god? The maxim states that "whatever solution is simplest, is likely correct". Zero gods sounds simpler than one god. Sounds to me like Occam's Razor argues for atheism.

Putting aside what is the "simplest" solution for a moment, I would argue that it's extremely unlikely for there to be only one God. To the ant that gets stepped on, the human that did it stands out as very powerful and may appear to be the only superior being in existence, but that doesn't make it so. If there are any "gods", they would by definition have to be superior to us, and it's hard to imagine superiority without qualities like being a life-form, being intelligent, being sentient. There are 6 billion humans, it stands to reason that where there's one lifeform there are others -- so why only one God?

You've offered nothing but supposition, speculation, and a poor application of Occam's Razor. Do you have any real evidence that argues for the existence of one and ONLY one God? Or are you going to say that Darwin's theory of natural evolution tells us that all the other Gods died out because they were evolutionarily inferior and the fittest God, the Christian God, survived?

That's a little more extreme than applying Occam's Razor to a subject like theology, but not by much.

__________________

{ Cassius, Your Humble Narrator }
{ Posting Guidelines | Erowid Drug Information Resource | instantfilehosting.com }

kissthesky

There are things that the human mind just cannot comprehend. Think of it this way, imagine what it would be like if you were blind? What would you see? You would see nothing, but i personallly cannot comprehend what it would be like without sight. I am not talking what life would be like and how you would interact socially and such, but what would happen in the part of your brain that is responsible for sight? How would you perceive things? As you can tell by my ranting, i cannot even find the language to explain what i am thinking.

Our minds are narrow enough though to think that "something cannot come from nothing". It's hard to explain, but i just think that the human mind is set up to narrowly to be able to comprehend things such as this.

Higher Logic

There you go again, generalization every single religion out there, and compacting it into a perspective of a single religion. And obviously religion leaves no room for doubt, most of them are based on faith. That's like me asking you to doubt that 1+1=2, and of course it is if you were raised the believe that, but what if I told you 1+1=3? It's the same thing.

Again, you are generalizing every religion into an obviously Christian one. Not every religion has moral doctrines, or even doctrines for that matter.

And no one is denying that. Yes, science has attributed much to the materialistic sense of the world, however, it fails to address the side of man that really needs focus: our thoughts. Read my quote, it's by a very smart man that I'm sure you've heard of.

They do both have flaws, they need eachother to work. It's like asking for "good," but forgetting that "good" requires "bad" to even function.

I would like to recommend a movie to you, they only play it in independent and/or artsy theaters, it's called, "What The Bleep Do We Know?" It turns modern science upside down, and finely relates the "spiritual" aspect (note, that is not the religious aspect) to the world around us. It scoffs at the materialistic nature of modern science, and opens up a world of possibilities.

What I'm basically saying is religion is not perfect, and science is not perfect. They both need eachother, and they both are in dire need of an evolution, or rather, a merger into one. One day it will happen, there will be no sciences or religion. What started as magic, and evolved into religion, which evolved into science (and we see the remnants of the evolution in that religion is still around), will one day evolve into a realistic, positive, and beneficial discipline. It just takes time.

__________________
Crucial Web Hosting · Garden's Cure · Marijuana Recipes · Drug Testing Facts

Dilution · Substitution · Urine Testing · Hair Testing · Drug Testing FAQ

 

Cassius

The "spiritual" aspect you refer to is addressed by the scientific disciplines of psychology and sociology.

Science does quite well on its own and has no need for religion.

Hiz Highness

Yet we can take one object, add another object, and clearly see two objects is the result. Therefore it isn't a matter of growing up believing 1+1=2, it's the ability to demonstrate it worldwide. Therefore it definitely is NOT "the same thing".

I used Christianity as an example contrasting religion and science. Are you deliberately not reading what I've said, not understanding what I've said, or trying to misrepresent what I've said so you can counter points I've never made?

Simply false. Science does not need religion to work. Science functions independent of religion. The opposite is also generally true.

It's nothing like that at all.

-HH

Buzzby

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Neither, apparently do you. The concept of virtual particles appearing out of and disappearing into nothing is well established and can be tested in any physics laboratory.

Two steel plates, carefully machined to be absolutely flat, are placed very close together in a test stand. A radiation detector is placed close to the edge of the opening between the plates. Measurable radiation, caused by the annihilation of virtual particles, emerges and is registered. This is called "zero point radiation".

Not only can something appear out of nothing but that something usually disappears back into nothing within a tiny fraction of a second Usually but not always. One current theory is that our universe started as one of these random events.

__________________

Buzzby

I agree that science has no need for religion, but the real question is "Does Man have a need for religion?"

I recently read a report that 95% of the human race believes in a deity or deities. Archeological evidence shows that Man has had gods for at least 10,000 years. Neolithic man buried his loved ones with food, jewelry, stone axes, and arrow points. This implies some kind of belief in an afterlife 40,000 years ago.

Many philosophers seem to think that that fear of death is a byproduct of self-consciousness. People are afraid of non-existence or what happens after death. Because we take so long to reach maturity we never lose the desire to have a parent-figure to take care of us. People are confused or frightened by phenomena for which they can't find a cause. A lot of people feel a need for someone to tell them what to do to be in tune with some kind of higher power.

The reasons for religion are numerous and some of them will not be removed by the discovery by science of the causes for currently mysterious phenomena. Much to the disappoint of some, one of the 20th century discoveries of physics is that causation is not absolute. At some level phenomena are truly random and no amount of knowledge will give you the ability to predict them.

We know the world through our mind and senses. I have personally experienced things that have convinced me that there is a spiritual level of reality and a connection between all things. For this reason I consider myself a spiritual man. I have never experienced anything that implied the existence of God or gods. OTOH, my perception is that the phenomenal universe is a projection of a spiritual universe in which all consciousness is connected. None of this, so far, can be tested by science and may well never be, but in a way each of us lives in a private universe and we can only go by what our experience and reason tells us is true.

Lothar121

My point above is things are disappearing and reappearing in our universe. This does not prove anything. These particles are appearing and reappearing within space/time, which is something. The concept from nothing nothing comes is not disproved by that experiment, for something appearing within space time it is implied indirectly that these particles could very well come somehow from space/time interaction that we don't know anything about.

Nothingness is a concept that doesn't exist in space/time since space/time exists.

There is no reason to start indirect insults either. One of the larger problems with language is how simplicistic it is to funnel an idea to one another. I think our problems stem more from miscommunication than from disagreement.