Can we handle not being alone?

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by chimaera: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: So why would an Infinite being try to cram into their heads the physics of sub-atomic particals(sp?)?

That is learning? [/QUOTE]That was a question to be answered. I was speaking of primitive goat herders being expected to understand and grasp the physics involved in the creation/big bang of the universe. It seems that non-creationists beleive that because the creation story is not filled with the introcasies(sp?) of physics it is false. So I asked them "So why would an Infinite being try to cram into their heads the physics of sub-atomic particals(sp?)?" When these people had barely mastered melting cooper. I have nearly 20 year expereince(sp?) in screenprinting, and 2 grand daughters, 17 months, and 6 days old, I can't explain to them all that is involved in screeprinting or why grandpa has to leave and go to work. They are too young, the 16 month old all she knows is grandpa must leave, so I say goodbye and kiss her on the forehead, the 6 day old doesn't even know that so I kiss her on the forehead and go to work. They are not ready for the knowledge of why yet. When they grow then there will come a time they will be ready for that. Everybody understands that logic yet because, an infinite being with infinite wisdom & knowledge didn't impart the secrets of quatum physics to sherpards must mean a infinite being doesn't exsist. I'm asking how that logic works? I am seeking to understand that logic. I understand I can not make anyone believe anything nor can they make me, but what we can do is exchange our logic, ideas and explore the weakness and truths in those logics. I put forth my beliefs and the logic used in forming those beliefs. I can stand to have my logic/reasoning questioned, in fact I demand it, if my logic/reasoning can not standup to questioning how firm a position is it? There is a differance in asking questions in an attempt to learn/seek knowledge and stating one's position as a fact. If anyone, me included, states a position then they should be willing to cheerfully answer questions ask of them.

[ 09-05-2004, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Oblivion437]

John, in the time of Jesus, we'd already gotten into the casting of Iron.

Steel was on the way, yes, but indeed, yes indeed bronze was no longer so often made as was iron for the desires of its tensile strength far surpassed bronze in every way.

The thing is, that no such intricate knowledge exists in the creation theory suggest several things, merely talking about which will get me anatomically incorrect and suffering from multiple bolt-cutter wounds, but I care not...

Anyways:

1) There is no basis for such a model, and the Divinity models so proposed are nothing more than folklore. That no special knowledge of the workings of the Universe beyond other such folklore exists is particularly damning by default. God imparted no particular wisdom of his universe's workings in this myth either

A) As you said, they wouldn't understand it, or

B) There was no God to impart such wisdom...

2) That none who could understand it could relate that understanding (pure crap, if God's all powerful, he can MAKE people understand) to anyone other than others who did understand it

3) That the anti-rational nature of religious prophecy, preach and prose, all come out as such, and where science is limited, such limitations are acknowledged. Religion, or rather, more appropriately, Creation "Science" is not a science. It proposes untestable notions. It argues them absolutely. It can't answer for any notion which questions it. Science says, Oops, we were wrong, changes to fit the new information, and moves on. Inflexible religious thinking can't, and won't do this. This isn't a critique of one or the other, just the key difference in what seperates science from religion.

Whoever started this monotheism racket was pretty damn smart. I don't know who this guy is, but I'd like to give him a job, a high-paying job, which produces profitable ideas.

I suppose you could say the elder-statesman of Monotheism, Zoroastrianism, could be counted among them, but I'm not certain. Too bad Zarathustra isn't looking for a job.

See, this racket is totally brilliant:

You can't possibly prove that a cleric who is totally insincere is lying through his teeth. Supposing of course all preachers of the Christian, Hebrew and Islamic faiths (the Abramic religions, as they were called once in a prior discussion I had) believe absolutely what they say, they're standing on stuff that can't be tested. While they can't prove that God does exist, I can't prove he doesn't, to show that the guy standing there is either delusional or a con man. God's power, as depicted in The Bible, is wholly seperate, and unbound to, the fundamental workings and processes of the Universe. Nothing about his work, if it occured (I don't believe it did, but that's just me) can be shown to actually be his work. Nothing within our universe can give credit to outside influence.

It's at this point that the Atheists get to edge in a good point: If God did this work, why would he be so deliberately, so actively deceptive, to avoid any direct credit, that none could know, logically, that he did it? Why do such a thing, knowing that human logic, if absolutely prevalent would in the end of such a scenario, create a world full of nonbelievers?? That's a good question, and no logical answer fits with the Bible, whatsoever, except for the one answer that's completely immune to all criticisms of religion, the Bible, and its variations: Faith. God wanted to make it completely, and absolutely as much as possible, a test of faith. That fundamentally simple answer not only fits with the Bible's teachings absolutely, it's completely, 100% bullet-proof! We just dropped the ICBM of Atheist thinking, and you just got the best bomb shelter ever!

Well, we did remember to put only our second best bomb in that missile. We still have old Atomic Annie, and she's packin' a good Neutron-powered wallop: Burden of Proof...

It's real simple, if you can't prove, beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt, that God exists, it's perfectly rational, perfectly reasonable, and utterly fair and totally correct, to assume he doesn't exist. Why should I believe in invisible dragons that leave no trace of their existence? Isn't that a waste of my precious and obviously limited time? I, as an Atheist, give similar time to Christian thinking, Jewish thinking, Islamic thinking...All religious or superstitious thinking absolutely bound to that standard. That's what I do. I'm not telling anyone else to. Binding it to that standard, I don't truly believe in much.

[John D Harris]

Obliv, the first books of the Bible where the creation story is found was according to the tradition writen by Moses around 1200-1400 B.C.(oral traditions of the Hebrews handed down generation to generation.) There is firm evidence that it was writen at least 500-600 B.C.

How does Knowing How (as in the actual occurance and order of when particles came into exsistance) the universe came about in any shape form or fashion tell us WHY it came about? If I was to hold and egg out in my hand then let it drop. you can tell me HOW the egg fell by the effects of gravity on the egg, but you can't tell me why the egg fell. I can tell you why the egg fell because I was the one that decided to let the egg drop, it fell because I wanted it to. Gravity was still effecting the egg while I held it in my hand right? or did gravity suddenly come into being for the egg only after I quit holding it?

[John D Harris]

It's at this point that the Atheists get to edge in a good point: If God did this work, why would he be so deliberately, so actively deceptive, to avoid any direct credit, that none could know, logically, that he did it?

Already answered it was give at a time when people were not able to comprehend, we still are not able to comprehend, our best and brightest can't get closer to 10^-43 of a sec after. Knowing How is not the same as knowing Why.

Why do such a thing, knowing that human logic, if absolutely prevalent would in the end of such a scenario, create a world full of nonbelievers??

It is called free will, we are free to accept or reject.

Why should I believe in invisible dragons that leave no trace of their existence? Isn't that a waste of my precious and obviously limited time? I, as an Atheist, give similar time to Christian thinking, Jewish thinking, Islamic thinking...All religious or superstitious thinking absolutely bound to that standard. That's what I do. I'm not telling anyone else to. Binding it to that standard, I don't truly believe in much.

I'm glad to see you are exercising your free will. My questions are aimed at those that say we know HOW it was created and assume that How is the same as Why.

Now I bring or answer all that about the Infinte vs the finite, because there are those that maintain and hope that if there is life on other planets it destories there being an Infinite being. Why because some Monk 1,000 years ago said the Bible says we are the center of the universe? As far as I can tell the Bible doesn't say anything of the sort. So if there is life out there the God I worship also created them, in the same way as he created us. He knows each of them as he does us. He can count the hairs/scales/feathers/antenia/what evers on all the heads of everthing in the Universe, divide tha number by 5, multiply that number by pi all in less time then I can type it out. If he can't He is not worthy of my worship.

[Oblivion437]

Well, who said there had to be a why?

If there's one thing I've learned in life: Shit happens, and it doesn't always have a reason.

So, the universe happened, is happening.

Does it have to have a reason? The concept is mind-boggling. I don't need a reason. It doesn't boggle me because I never viewed everything as part of some grand design.

If we can trace the universe back to the beginning of its currently examinable state, (if the big crunch is true, well, that throws us for a new loop, doesn't it? The universe can do that forever, could have been doing it forever) we don't need to know a why is to it getting there, merely how. That's all we can rationally, logically examine. That's us. That's humanity.

I'd rather not waste my time on notions of God, the spiritual world, or any such thing. I don't see it as being worth the rather minimal efforts I can cobble together in my lifetime.

[Memnoch]

Oblivion and John, we've already had one person suspended for discussing religion here - granted he had a number of warnings, and the two of you are doing it in a very civil manner, but for the sake of consistency and fairness but I would ask you to move away from the religious overtones, guys.

In fact, I'll lock this thread, as I'd hate for someone to get themselves into the sin bin unintentionally.

EDIT: I'm getting concerned that people are finding it difficult to know when to discuss and when not to discuss religion. I'll have a talk to the other guys about seeing if we should just ban any mention of it completely. We wanted to give you guys a bit more scope, but this might not be workable.

[ 09-06-2004, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]