| god or not god 20:42 - Jan 26 with 15968 views | Davillin |
Important prefatory notes: I do not accept the description of “God” in any religious writing in the nature of a “bible.” Nor do I accept the description of “heaven,” “hell,” “angels,” or any other tangentials in any religious writing. I do not disrespect the person or opinions of anyone who believes any formal religious tenets, nor anyone who does not.
In my view, all religions have been created by mankind in order to (1) explain the inexplicable, and (2) to provide a set of principles and rules for the conduct of life. I do not disrespect any religion for doing so.
This essay is not about religion, but rather about the source of everything in existence, and in particular about the source of “life.”
____________________
I have been studying religion and religion as philosophy almost all my life. I remember as a 6- or 7-year old boy in Religious Instruction classes being taught from a Catechism. [A catechism is a form of teaching and learning by rote from a logically-arranged series of questions and answers.]
I still remember the first questions in my catechism:
“Q: Who made thee?
“A: God made me.
“Q: Why did God make thee?
“A: God made me to love him and serve him in this life, and to be with him in the next.”
For something being taught to such a young person, with the expectation that it will be understood on his level, that’s actually not a bad start to explaining the inexplicable.
Later in life, however, as I expanded my study of religions of the world and philosophy, it became clearer and clearer to me that those who wrote and taught about religion were trying to explain what they thought they understood to people who did not have the intellect or education to understand it on a philosophical level, so the teachers brought it down to a level they could understand, and often resorted to stories as images of something theoretically more concrete. Importantly, however, the teachers did not tell the faithful that these were poetic stories [fables?] and not reality.
While accepting the concept of a creator and sustainer of life, they were unable to visualize that creator as anything but “a person-like being” with a human-like body, emotions, and thoughts, but with supernatural power, as a simpler description for something so far beyond our ability to conceive.
To complicate my learning process, my study of the sciences and the empirical evidence science provides, gave me an uncomfortable sense that while I could easily reject the fabulous in religious teaching, science kept increasing my conviction that there had to have been a creator and sustainer of life. The longer I lived and the more I learned, the more inescapable that conviction became, as did the other conviction that bible versions of creation were not viable.
I could write for an hour about the observations of Nature which make their origin from a creator beyond question for me. Let me give just a few.
We live in a universe which is literally beyond our comprehension. An untold number of planets are orbiting an untold number of stars in an untold number of galaxies extending across a universe whose immensity is incalculable and actually beyond our imagination. The last numbers I heard are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars. We can’t even imagine the sense of “a billion” anything, let alone hundreds of billions, let alone hundreds of billions of galaxies.
The notion that all of that matter came from nothing is even more difficult to accept; as is the notion that it all came from a “uniformity” — a completely made-up word to name (but not to define, and without proof) what supposedly existed before the universe exploded into existence — and which came into existence all by itself without a creating force named or even defined.
At the same time, we live in a universe which is also small beyond our comprehension. One-celled creatures too small to be seen with the naked eye, yet have life. Bodies in all forms which come into existence from matter that starts with eggs or seeds or parts thereof, also so small as to be unseen with the naked eye, yet having life. Animal bodies which are formed according to a plan to be found in DNA in chromosomes too small to be seen with the naked eye and having distinct parts even smaller. Imagine a distinct life beginning with just two of these chromosomes which combine to begin a process of self-replication followed by self-modification and self-differentiation to make all of the highly-specialized cells in the body.
And those highly-specialized cells cause the most amazing behaviours! Some cells are specifically created to become parts of an eye with connections to other cells which are specifically created to become parts of a brain and allow the animal to “see” everything around it. Others become internal organs which take organic material and turn it into energy, others which burn energy, and others which turn it into waste material, and others which expel it. Others self-differentiate into organs that provide for self-reproduction into organisms exactly like themselves, or more amazingly, into organisms which are not exactly like either parent.
Every organ of the body has its own amazing life story, and all of the “decisions” for all of these characteristics are handed down from the parents within a set of sub-microscope genes within microscopic chromosomes.
And the resulting organisms can live for anywhere from 24 hours (certain insects are hatched, mate, and die within 24 hours) to others which can live for centuries.
[I have not yet scratched the surface of the amazing special characteristics of innumerable astonishingly different species. It would take a good-size library to contain all of the information about distinctive characteristics of different species of animals, plants, and other life forms, all from one lightning strike on some enzymes in a pool of primordial ooze?]
And so we know of things in existence that range in size from sub-atomic to incomprehensibly huge. And we see the outward manifestations of “life” without the faintest knowledge of what life is, where it is, where it came from, or where it goes.
I do know that my body has lived for more than 77 years and that it replaces its own cells in a complex schedule that we can sometimes calculate but can never explain. And it has co-operated in producing three new life forms directly and several others in the next generation, in a process which I can trace in my family back 300 years and which will — or has the capacity to — go on to an unknown moment in future time, and can be expected to continue forward as long as its history is behind.
Did you know that “Otzi,” the man whose frozen body was found in the Alps, who lived over 5,000 years ago, has living “relatives” today, as evidenced by elements of his DNA which have remained unchanged over that time? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24477038
Now. With even that brief statement of the size, complexity, and wonder of this tiny sliver of all creation that we know, how can I imagine that it came about — in all its magnificent complexity — from no cause, or as the result of an accidental lightning strike?
And so I am left with what is difficult for some to accept — a creator and sustainer of life with powers even more beyond our comprehension. [I must repeat here that I am not referring to any biblical “god.”] Some believe that, because we cannot conceive of such powers, and therefore of the nature of any such entity, they must not exist. Tragically, the people who survived the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki could not conceive of such power — or who could have “created” it — yet nevertheless they had empirical evidence that it did exist, and had to have been created by someone. The survivors, like you and me, still don’t know how it works.
I was alive at that time and remember vividly that no-one in my experience had ever heard of an “atomic bomb,” and had no idea what an atomic bomb was, or how it worked, or how much destruction it caused.
This creator/sustainer clearly must be omnipotent — with powers whose effect we can see [if we look with an open mind] but not comprehend — and omnipresent — meaning being everywhere, even within every living organism and thing — and omniscient — knowing all. As a result of having read a number of philosophers on the subject, I see that this creator/sustainer must also exist without reference to time, or is “omnitemporal” in the word I have coined to name it.
Inasmuch as creation continues, with the known creation of more planets, stars, and galaxies, and life itself, it is at least likely that the creator continues also, unless all of creation was set in motion and is simply continuing as designed.
Part of the bewilderment I see in some who do not accept the notion of a creator/sustainer comes from the fact that they cannot comprehend or even imagine such powers; and if they cannot understand the immensity and complexity of creation, they cannot understand a power commensurate with that immensity and complexity. The atomic bomb outcome.
I listen to any of the great pieces of classical music and in my amazed appreciation of what the composer did with nothing but sound, I cannot comprehend how he did it. Imagine Beethovan composing exquisite music while completely deaf, writing on paper the music that he heard only in his mind.
Inventors who were able to use their knowledge of science and their purely awe-inspiring imagination have invented things that we cannot believe can work. Who knew that there was a way to make “radio” waves carry sound across miles — now far out into space and back, demonstrably beyond the limits of our solar system? Who first imagined that radio waves even exist? Or how to harness them, send sound across them, receive them, and turn them back into sound again for our ears? I could go on identifying things man has “discovered” and turned into something useful.
Then explain to me that all of these discovered things — and more — came to be by accident, and how, and from what? Electricity, for example. It’s not a physical entity, but it exists and shocked same puddle of primordial ooze from which life itself emerged, from a random lightning strike?
I first learned from a philosopher whose name has escaped me that it is not the least bit difficult to know that a powerful creator/sustainer brought all of this into existence and sustains it. Just look around you, he suggested. There is nothing but endless empirical evidence that it had to have been created. I add that you have a couple of options — pure chance without impetus, a puddle of ooze, or an unknowable but obvious creator/sustainer.
Some of you will ask me where this creator/sustainer comes from. I don’t know. Neither does anyone who prefers some kind of “big bang” theory know where matter came [comes] from. That the answer, if known, would be astonishing beyond our puny understanding is not a reason to doubt it. The history of mankind is filled with answers beyond our ability to grasp at first, and which have been proven and accepted when known and understood, and those questions are far easier to answer than the source of the creator/sustainer.
Finally, this. Some of you will ask how I know this. I reply by asking how I know that it snowed overnight, inasmuch as it registered in none of my senses, and no-one reported it to me. Well, last night before I retired, the streets, sidewalks, and buildings were clean and dry. This morning everything was covered with snow. I didn’t see the snow fall, but I know it did. Empirical evidence and inductive reasoning. There is no other explanation.
Except perhaps the ever-available puddle of primordial ooze with enzymes struck by lightning — the puddle, the enzymes, and the lightning having come into existence all by themselves in the first place, apparently.
[Post edited 26 Jan 2014 20:54]
|  |
| |  |
| god or not god on 21:46 - Jan 26 with 1858 views | Darran |
| god or not god on 21:44 - Jan 26 by dgt73 |
I bet you have met many men.  |
Stop being homophobic. |  |
| |
| god or not god on 21:51 - Jan 26 with 1844 views | dgt73 |
| god or not god on 21:46 - Jan 26 by Darran |
Stop being homophobic. |
What's homophobic about what I said. No don't bother answering because im not interested in the crap you have to say. Oh well off to bed now early start in the morning. Enjoy you're week on planet swans.  |  |
| |
| god or not god on 21:52 - Jan 26 with 1841 views | Darran |
| god or not god on 21:51 - Jan 26 by dgt73 |
What's homophobic about what I said. No don't bother answering because im not interested in the crap you have to say. Oh well off to bed now early start in the morning. Enjoy you're week on planet swans. |
Night night. | |
| |
| god or not god on 22:14 - Jan 26 with 1812 views | C_jack |
Sad really when someone is attacked personally for no reason other than having the nerve to make a post on a forum. Cue the star brigade.. |  |
| |
| god or not god on 03:22 - Jan 27 with 1759 views | Davillin |
| god or not god on 21:23 - Jan 26 by dgt73 |
Let's be honest that guy is one boring c**t. And he can block me if he wants. |
I wouldn't think of blocking you.
When I was a boy, at county fairs and circuses they used to have "Freak Shows." I was not allowed in because they had an age limit, and I was gone and in the military before I was old enough for freak shows. The large painted panels ubiquitously out front showed a variety of apparently abnormal human beings. I won't go any further. You can google it if you're curious.
Then either political correctness (even before we had a name for it), or just good taste, brought them to an end. The concept, cleaned up and made less obviously objectionable, became a certain kind of television show.
Then the internet brought us message boards, where the concept has taken yet another twist, but it's still here. Thanks for bringing back long lost memories. | |
| |
| god or not god on 09:30 - Jan 27 with 1729 views | perchrockjack |
I might me wrong but Im sure I was refered to as being sanctamoniarse recently. Its not the worst thing to be culled |  |
| |
| god or not god on 09:37 - Jan 27 with 1724 views | pansypants |
| god or not god on 09:30 - Jan 27 by perchrockjack |
I might me wrong but Im sure I was refered to as being sanctamoniarse recently. Its not the worst thing to be culled |
When were you culled Perchie?
Brian May left you in the lurch |  |
| |
| god or not god on 10:11 - Jan 27 with 1711 views | perchrockjack |
| god or not god on 09:37 - Jan 27 by pansypants |
When were you culled Perchie?
Brian May left you in the lurch |
My humor .
Sorry cant help it.
I m tense at the moment with things as they are at our club. Board divided, LAUDRUP and board divided ,PLAYERS divided, fans ,well divided on here anyway, which is good as we have people,ie fans who care. Not enough cared when we went tits up before because of board/manager squabbling.
Seems the Welsh simply squabble | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| god or not god on 13:33 - Jan 27 with 1668 views | pansypants |
| god or not god on 10:11 - Jan 27 by perchrockjack |
My humor .
Sorry cant help it.
I m tense at the moment with things as they are at our club. Board divided, LAUDRUP and board divided ,PLAYERS divided, fans ,well divided on here anyway, which is good as we have people,ie fans who care. Not enough cared when we went tits up before because of board/manager squabbling.
Seems the Welsh simply squabble |
PErchie, dont you think its the norm when a team goes through a bad spell that everything including the kitchen sink is too blame?
Who are these that say the board is arguing with manager etc etc??
There is an anti-Welsh agenda out there and I dont care who disagrees with me.
As for Laudrup and Prem managers I think 2 seasons is the average shelf life these days.
Change is good.
I dont read the papers as I watch the games myself and listen to those that have been.
Too easy to get carried away when results turn, although Sat's cup comeback should hhave done wonders to morale.
An away win is always special, especially to us who historically are poor away. | |
| |
| god or not god on 14:33 - Jan 27 with 1645 views | Batterseajack |
"Part of the bewilderment I see in some who do not accept the notion of a creator/sustainer comes from the fact that they cannot comprehend or even imagine such powers; and if they cannot understand the immensity and complexity of creation, they cannot understand a power commensurate with that immensity and complexity."
From reading your essay it seems that you cannot or do not want to understand the modern theory of evolution. | | | |
| god or not god on 16:12 - Jan 27 with 1618 views | Lohengrin |
| god or not god on 03:22 - Jan 27 by Davillin |
I wouldn't think of blocking you.
When I was a boy, at county fairs and circuses they used to have "Freak Shows." I was not allowed in because they had an age limit, and I was gone and in the military before I was old enough for freak shows. The large painted panels ubiquitously out front showed a variety of apparently abnormal human beings. I won't go any further. You can google it if you're curious.
Then either political correctness (even before we had a name for it), or just good taste, brought them to an end. The concept, cleaned up and made less obviously objectionable, became a certain kind of television show.
Then the internet brought us message boards, where the concept has taken yet another twist, but it's still here. Thanks for bringing back long lost memories. |
 |  |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |
| god or not god on 16:29 - Jan 27 with 1607 views | Davillin |
| god or not god on 14:33 - Jan 27 by Batterseajack |
"Part of the bewilderment I see in some who do not accept the notion of a creator/sustainer comes from the fact that they cannot comprehend or even imagine such powers; and if they cannot understand the immensity and complexity of creation, they cannot understand a power commensurate with that immensity and complexity."
From reading your essay it seems that you cannot or do not want to understand the modern theory of evolution. |
I sincerely thank you for posting in response to my o.p.
Respectfully, it rather seems that it is you who does not understand the modern theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution has to do with how [and usually why] living things change or develop ["evolve"] over generations, and not how living things were created,
My o.p. is about how things were created, with not a syllable about how they have evolved.
p.s. Have you ever heard or read about a single new life form having been created in recorded history? Not discovered or evolved - created. | |
| |
| god or not god on 16:37 - Jan 27 with 1604 views | Davillin |
| god or not god on 09:30 - Jan 27 by perchrockjack |
I might me wrong but Im sure I was refered to as being sanctamoniarse recently. Its not the worst thing to be culled |
I'm in good [read "sanctimonious"] company, then.
What is most amazing is that, rather than being "sanctimonious," my posts have almost always been intended to speak to everyone respectfully and accepting them as, not beneath me, but my equal or superior. [The exceptions are when I feel that I have to gently put some thick-wit in his place, which is rare.]
"Phaedrus" put paid to the "sanctimonious' tag with this insightful post: "Not everyone who goes to university looks down on people. In order for people to look down on you you have to place yourself below them in the first place." | |
| |
| god or not god on 16:49 - Jan 27 with 1589 views | Davillin |
As a matter of curiosity, I went back and had a look at the first two comments on my o.p. ["comments on my o.p." being poetic license because I most seriously doubt that either of them read it].
Here they are for your edification - and derision if you think they deserve that:
“This is what taking to much acid does to you.”
“Oh do f*ck off, you boring, self-righteous, sanctimonious (omni)c*nt.“
Perhaps my original post had too many big words in it. Perhaps it had too many words, period. [I recall the line "My brain hurts."] | |
| |
| god or not god on 17:04 - Jan 27 with 1581 views | WarwickHunt |
| god or not god on 16:49 - Jan 27 by Davillin |
As a matter of curiosity, I went back and had a look at the first two comments on my o.p. ["comments on my o.p." being poetic license because I most seriously doubt that either of them read it].
Here they are for your edification - and derision if you think they deserve that:
“This is what taking to much acid does to you.”
“Oh do f*ck off, you boring, self-righteous, sanctimonious (omni)c*nt.“
Perhaps my original post had too many big words in it. Perhaps it had too many words, period. [I recall the line "My brain hurts."] |
 |  | | |
| god or not god on 17:31 - Jan 27 with 1509 views | Batterseajack |
| god or not god on 16:29 - Jan 27 by Davillin |
I sincerely thank you for posting in response to my o.p.
Respectfully, it rather seems that it is you who does not understand the modern theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution has to do with how [and usually why] living things change or develop ["evolve"] over generations, and not how living things were created,
My o.p. is about how things were created, with not a syllable about how they have evolved.
p.s. Have you ever heard or read about a single new life form having been created in recorded history? Not discovered or evolved - created. |
"Respectfully, it rather seems that it is you who does not understand the modern theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution has to do with how [and usually why] living things change or develop ["evolve"] over generations, and not how living things were created,
My o.p. is about how things were created, with not a syllable about how they have evolved.
p.s. Have you ever heard or read about a single new life form having been created in recorded history? Not discovered or evolved - created."
Yes you’re right, we haven't witnessed life being created yet and there's the possibility that we humans may never. But it takes a leap of faith, bad logic (in my view) and laziness (again my view) to come to the conclusion that its due to a creator. You struggle to comprehend that life over billions of years can emerge from the primordial soup yet you readily accept that some creator pops along momentarily to creates a simple self-replicating chemical compound and then disappears to allowing evolution to do the rest. You also conveniently skirt past the question of who created the creator, does she just appear from nothing?
I find the primordial soup theory far more plausible than the alternative, especially when you consider the early stages of life would be pretty ambiguous in itself and seemingly not much more than chemical reactions, gradually getting more and more complex and self-perpetuating over a time scale we cannot fathom. Yes it may not be 100% correct just yet may be updated in future, probably in the same way as Isaac Newton’s theory of Gravity has been updated over the years. | | | |
| god or not god on 17:51 - Jan 27 with 1500 views | yescomeon |
Liked the essay, can't say I agree with it myself, but respectfully, that is my opinion. You do seem to have an issue with the "primordial soup" theory referring to it as ooze on a number of occasion. Personally I don't buy that either, I lean towards the theory of life originating in the pores of deep-sea geothermal vents.
I don't think that God comes into the equation whatsoever with regards to the origin of life or the origin of the Earth, the Sun or solar system etc. The only place that I can possibly see even a possibility for a "god" is as the source of the big bang. I don't know if I am right with this assumption but it seems to me from your post that you don't buy into the big bang "theory".
I thought your point in a separate post in this thread asking why we haven't observed the "creation" of life was interesting. I would suggest that it is likely due to the long time scale over which it takes for early cells to form and the very short time we have been able to observe such small objects. |  |
| |
| god or not god on 17:52 - Jan 27 with 1499 views | WarwickHunt |
| god or not god on 16:49 - Jan 27 by Davillin |
As a matter of curiosity, I went back and had a look at the first two comments on my o.p. ["comments on my o.p." being poetic license because I most seriously doubt that either of them read it].
Here they are for your edification - and derision if you think they deserve that:
“This is what taking to much acid does to you.”
“Oh do f*ck off, you boring, self-righteous, sanctimonious (omni)c*nt.“
Perhaps my original post had too many big words in it. Perhaps it had too many words, period. [I recall the line "My brain hurts."] |
Instead of trying to be superior, ( guess what? - I've got an English degree too, you sanctimonious pr!ck) why don't you try applying a modicum of rational thought to your terminally f*cking tedious, folksy hillbilly, science-denying arse dribble? | | | |
| god or not god on 18:32 - Jan 27 with 1472 views | Davillin |
| god or not god on 17:31 - Jan 27 by Batterseajack |
"Respectfully, it rather seems that it is you who does not understand the modern theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution has to do with how [and usually why] living things change or develop ["evolve"] over generations, and not how living things were created,
My o.p. is about how things were created, with not a syllable about how they have evolved.
p.s. Have you ever heard or read about a single new life form having been created in recorded history? Not discovered or evolved - created."
Yes you’re right, we haven't witnessed life being created yet and there's the possibility that we humans may never. But it takes a leap of faith, bad logic (in my view) and laziness (again my view) to come to the conclusion that its due to a creator. You struggle to comprehend that life over billions of years can emerge from the primordial soup yet you readily accept that some creator pops along momentarily to creates a simple self-replicating chemical compound and then disappears to allowing evolution to do the rest. You also conveniently skirt past the question of who created the creator, does she just appear from nothing?
I find the primordial soup theory far more plausible than the alternative, especially when you consider the early stages of life would be pretty ambiguous in itself and seemingly not much more than chemical reactions, gradually getting more and more complex and self-perpetuating over a time scale we cannot fathom. Yes it may not be 100% correct just yet may be updated in future, probably in the same way as Isaac Newton’s theory of Gravity has been updated over the years. |
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I respond equally respectfully.
It's neither a leap of faith [which the lightning strike requires at least in equal measure, although I think moreso] nor bad logic nor laziness, the latter two because I have been studying and working toward these conclusions for a very long time. I have not taken anything on faith in these matters, as many do who read something in Wikipedia and believe it, and I'm certain from this post alone that you have not done that.
As you will have seen, in my original post I discuss briefly the elements of the non-creator theories which make no sense to me. As hard as the big bangers try, they are always stumped at the question of where the "uniformity" came from. Even as they disingenuously propose that the "uniformity" consisted of pure energy, they have no answer to where it came from and how, nor to how it turned somehow into matter. Tossing out an Einstein theoretical formula that does not have to do with energy transforming into matter, does not help.
I do not "struggle to comprehend that life over billions of years can emerge from the primordial soup." I reject it outright as a silly attempt to posit creation of life in a manner that does not include God's creation in the biblical sense - six days, Adam and Eve, and all that. I'm not concerned with "God," as I said in my preface, so I don't need to find a way around that their painful conundrum.
Your language about "some creator popping along momentarily" does not help your arguments, nor does it gainsay mine. I specifically said that I do not know how it came about, and you have inserted all of the gratuitous language in order to disparage mine.
What I did say is that the immensity, enormity, and complexity of creation cannot be explained by anything the big bangers or primordial soup people propose.
Your language that I "conveniently skirt past the question of who created the creator" also ignores that fact that, although I did not address that question in specific, I said that I don't know. If more people in science and the fringes thereof would say "I don't know" once in a while, we'd be better off.
As an aside, I assume that you know that there was a philosophical argument a few centuries ago about whether things existed as matter or only in the mind of the creator. ["Thus I refute (forgot who)." Kicks bench, cries out in pain.] Although I take no position on that question, I can see some sense in the "ideal" interpretation - that creation is held in the mind of the creator. Many reputable philosophers believed that, including certain books of the Bible. In The Book of Enoch, a discredited "gospel," the writer specifically says that "God" created everything in all times [my words from memory, sorry]. I repeat that I don't accept biblical stories as true, and I gave that just as an example of how old the idea is.
I found that your last paragraph most refreshing, particularly in this: you "find the primordial soup theory far more plausible than the alternative." Even though I find it implausible, your position is certainly logically acceptable. You also concede that "it may not be 100% correct," which is also most logically acceptable.
Whether it will be "updated in future" is, as I am positive you will agree, at least as possible as that it will be updated to make it less insistent. It might also be updated to make it a relic of scientific history. It seems to me, without doing the research, that more scientific theories have been scrapped than upgraded.
I think that I can say with confidence that you and I can amiably agree to disagree on these matters. [Post edited 27 Jan 2014 18:45]
| |
| |
| god or not god on 18:41 - Jan 27 with 1468 views | Davillin |
| god or not god on 17:52 - Jan 27 by WarwickHunt |
Instead of trying to be superior, ( guess what? - I've got an English degree too, you sanctimonious pr!ck) why don't you try applying a modicum of rational thought to your terminally f*cking tedious, folksy hillbilly, science-denying arse dribble? |
Shudddddder.
Wanna compare number of degrees with me? Don't dare. I don't want to shame you, even though I believe that might not be possible.
Instead of being such a crude, rude, tasteless, name-calling, profanity-spewing, thin-skinned, thick-witted intellectual barbarian, why don't you act like an adult. If, as I suspect, that's beyond you, just block me and find peace. | |
| |
| god or not god on 18:55 - Jan 27 with 1459 views | david_bender |
Give it a rest Tony. |  | | |
| god or not god on 19:05 - Jan 27 with 1445 views | Davillin |
| god or not god on 18:55 - Jan 27 by david_bender |
Give it a rest Tony. |
Thank you for your suggestion, David, but I refuse to let this neanderthal continue to use vile language in personal attacks on me. Fortunately for you, you don't have to deal with it.
I tried ignoring him and his cohorts, but it didn't work. The only way to deal with a bully - intellectual ones, too - is to bloody his [expletive deleted] nose.
This post has not been edited by an administrator. | |
| |
| god or not god on 19:27 - Jan 27 with 1431 views | WarwickHunt |
| god or not god on 18:41 - Jan 27 by Davillin |
Shudddddder.
Wanna compare number of degrees with me? Don't dare. I don't want to shame you, even though I believe that might not be possible.
Instead of being such a crude, rude, tasteless, name-calling, profanity-spewing, thin-skinned, thick-witted intellectual barbarian, why don't you act like an adult. If, as I suspect, that's beyond you, just block me and find peace. |
Try mastering the question mark before you cross intellectual swords with me, hillbilly boy. I could eat alphabet soup and shit more intelligent sentences than you could manage.
Do us all a favour and take your pious bleatings elsewhere. [Post edited 27 Jan 2014 19:31]
| | | |
| god or not god on 19:36 - Jan 27 with 1414 views | Davillin |
| god or not god on 19:27 - Jan 27 by WarwickHunt |
Try mastering the question mark before you cross intellectual swords with me, hillbilly boy. I could eat alphabet soup and shit more intelligent sentences than you could manage.
Do us all a favour and take your pious bleatings elsewhere. [Post edited 27 Jan 2014 19:31]
|
Do us all a favour and eat sh!t, you Knuckle-dragging Kneanderthal. Apologies to any ethnic Neanderthals around; you don't deserve the comparison.
There is no question mark at the end of an imperative sentence. | |
| |
| god or not god on 19:38 - Jan 27 with 1405 views | yescomeon |
| god or not god on 18:32 - Jan 27 by Davillin |
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I respond equally respectfully.
It's neither a leap of faith [which the lightning strike requires at least in equal measure, although I think moreso] nor bad logic nor laziness, the latter two because I have been studying and working toward these conclusions for a very long time. I have not taken anything on faith in these matters, as many do who read something in Wikipedia and believe it, and I'm certain from this post alone that you have not done that.
As you will have seen, in my original post I discuss briefly the elements of the non-creator theories which make no sense to me. As hard as the big bangers try, they are always stumped at the question of where the "uniformity" came from. Even as they disingenuously propose that the "uniformity" consisted of pure energy, they have no answer to where it came from and how, nor to how it turned somehow into matter. Tossing out an Einstein theoretical formula that does not have to do with energy transforming into matter, does not help.
I do not "struggle to comprehend that life over billions of years can emerge from the primordial soup." I reject it outright as a silly attempt to posit creation of life in a manner that does not include God's creation in the biblical sense - six days, Adam and Eve, and all that. I'm not concerned with "God," as I said in my preface, so I don't need to find a way around that their painful conundrum.
Your language about "some creator popping along momentarily" does not help your arguments, nor does it gainsay mine. I specifically said that I do not know how it came about, and you have inserted all of the gratuitous language in order to disparage mine.
What I did say is that the immensity, enormity, and complexity of creation cannot be explained by anything the big bangers or primordial soup people propose.
Your language that I "conveniently skirt past the question of who created the creator" also ignores that fact that, although I did not address that question in specific, I said that I don't know. If more people in science and the fringes thereof would say "I don't know" once in a while, we'd be better off.
As an aside, I assume that you know that there was a philosophical argument a few centuries ago about whether things existed as matter or only in the mind of the creator. ["Thus I refute (forgot who)." Kicks bench, cries out in pain.] Although I take no position on that question, I can see some sense in the "ideal" interpretation - that creation is held in the mind of the creator. Many reputable philosophers believed that, including certain books of the Bible. In The Book of Enoch, a discredited "gospel," the writer specifically says that "God" created everything in all times [my words from memory, sorry]. I repeat that I don't accept biblical stories as true, and I gave that just as an example of how old the idea is.
I found that your last paragraph most refreshing, particularly in this: you "find the primordial soup theory far more plausible than the alternative." Even though I find it implausible, your position is certainly logically acceptable. You also concede that "it may not be 100% correct," which is also most logically acceptable.
Whether it will be "updated in future" is, as I am positive you will agree, at least as possible as that it will be updated to make it less insistent. It might also be updated to make it a relic of scientific history. It seems to me, without doing the research, that more scientific theories have been scrapped than upgraded.
I think that I can say with confidence that you and I can amiably agree to disagree on these matters. [Post edited 27 Jan 2014 18:45]
|
"Tossing out an Einstein theoretical formula that does not have to do with energy transforming into matter, does not help."
Einstein's formula says that mass is a form of energy and that energy can be converted into mass and vice-versa. You yourself gave a practical application of this statement in your essay when you mentioned the atomic bomb. On the smallest scale you can think of particles (quarks and leptons) as "packets" (I fear I may regret that term) of energy. In Quantum Field Theory these sub atomic particles are considered as excitations of quantum fields but there I am wandering into realms of physics beyond my understanding as this is the point in my study of physics that I felt I reached my limit. I know that the answers are out there but just beyond my level of understanding but not beyond the level of others. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
