Quote from JJ72 :

But in my view nothing is "magical, nothing is too crazy, everything is just unknown. Why is a super creator not logical actually? It is just logic beyond our knowledge and comprehension, before you can prove it is an impossibility, it remains a logical option. I mean whoever or whatever can trigger the born of a universe has to be pretty crazy isn't it? To our mortal eyes it is close to magic.

I don't think there's anything bad about assumptions, without assumptions there wouldn't be hypothesis and there wouldn't be science, as long as I don't hold my assumptions as truth, I don't think there's anything bad at all.

Having a open and curious mind is exactly my point, I just see all seemingly supernatural icons as untied links in something that ultimately makes logical sense.

But what you are doing is creating your own explanation which you already know is wrong when you create it if you expect to find the real truth later on and replace your false idea with that. If you do not know something you just say "super creator happened" only to figure out later what it really is? How is that logical? Isn't that just the god of the gaps?

I don't even know why would you need an explanation for something we do not know yet. Why is it bad to admit we do not know something?

Assumptions are fine if they are backed and checked by evidence, follow rational thought and logic and are based on known facts. Simply stamping "super paranormal happened here" on all currently unsolvable problems does not really follow that process but works against it. Creating metaphysical explanations hardly solves any physical problems imho.

After all you need to ask yourself which one is more likely answer:
a) there is some physical phenomena happening that we do not yet understand
b) we do not know what it is so it is something paranormal created by super creator for totally unexplainable reasons we can not ever figure out in any way

Why is a super creator not logical actually?

Because it is a made up explanation that is based on the idea of religion (pantheism or creator of some sorts) and not facts. It tries to explain science by using metaphysical argument while at the same time it denies any scientific criticism towards itself by making the claim it is beyond our knowledge or understanding. It is unfalsifiable claim. It's a Russell's teapot.

Quote from Hyperactive :

But what you are doing is creating your own explanation which you already know is wrong when you create it if you expect to find the real truth later on and replace your false idea with that. If you do not know something you just say "super creator happened" only to figure out later what it really is? How is that logical? Isn't that just the god of the gaps?

I don't even know why would you need an explanation for something we do not know yet. Why is it bad to admit we do not know something?

Assumptions are fine if they are backed and checked by evidence, follow rational thought and logic and are based on known facts. Simply stamping "super paranormal happened here" on all currently unsolvable problems does not really follow that process but works against it. Creating metaphysical explanations hardly solves any physical problems imho.

After all you need to ask yourself which one is more likely answer:
a) there is some physical phenomena happening that we do not yet understand
b) we do not know what it is so it is something paranormal created by super creator for totally unexplainable reasons we can not ever figure out in any way

Why is a super creator not logical actually?

Because it is a made up explanation that is based on the idea of religion (pantheism or creator of some sorts) and not facts. It tries to explain science by using metaphysical argument while at the same time it denies any scientific criticism towards itself by making the claim it is beyond our knowledge or understanding. It is unfalsifiable claim. It's a Russell's teapot.

I think you are confusing the "god" in my definition with religious deities. I don't share any of the church's views.

God in my mind is an icon of the ultimate truth , unbounded by established religious views. It doesn't even has to be a singular conscious being. It represents the something that "woke up" the dormant and energy neutral state of stasis, into becoming our universe.

My assumptions are for my personal comfort, it does not interfere with scientific progress (I trust scientists for doing their job) and it doesn't stop me from accepting latest scientific findings, so again....as long as I don't evangelize it I don't see anything problem. Given science has not given me the answer to everything yet, I have the freedom to ponder say if there's a conscious mind engineering the wings of birds for example, it is a beautiful thought, no harm done really. And you are more then welcome if you can enlighten me about how evolution solves its engineering problems.

I have to state yet again I don't think god is unexplainable and cannot be proven, when we know about everything that can be known in the universe, everything can be explained, but before so, just as long as you can't prove otherwise it is an open possibility.

Science that is beyond our comprehension at this stage can easily be confused as myths, and vice-versa.

Quote from aoun :

Explain. ....Cant wait for this one!

Quote from Krane :

Gods You Don’t Believe In

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 1 characters.

Quote from Hyperactive :

So in your own words science is nothing more than an ideology that says "the end justifies the goal"? How could human suffering be just esthetics when science can create tools and form laws to prevent human suffering in the first place?

The bigger problem with your post is that you seem to think that one good goal of science is to have big flourishing civilization at all costs. Big is good but suffering is aesthetics?? Where did you get the idea that big flourishing man eating civilizations like aztecan were "succesful" in any scientific sense?

ALL the scientific-based social systems had some kind of justification for victims of "better new world". It ALWAYS occured there are some enemies of "new better world", and their sacrifice was justified.

Quote :

Religion says all moral comes from religion so without religion you can not have moral. Is that a fact?

Nope.
Moral comes from many sources, but supernatural has stronger anchoring.

btw. micro-level physics - it occured that our world is possible with just one set of initial parameters, lets say, axiology

Quote from aoun :

Explain. ....Cant wait for this one!

It is hardly a difficult concept.

Atheists believe in none of the hundreds of gods.
Christians believe in one of the hundreds of gods.

Ergo, you are nearly as much of an atheist as us atheists in the big scheme of things

Quote from Boris Lozac :

I just gotta go a bit offtopic here, cause either some of you guys put fake flags to your name and infact english is your native language, or you just speak it that good? Something that bugs me for a while now and I thought i'm good with english..

Cmon fluent englishmen, explain yourself..

Quote from amp88 :

it's possible/inevitable for 'something' (i.e. the universe and all its contents) to come into being from 'nothing'. This contention would alleviate the 'need' for a God figure (or some kind of creator) to explain why we're here.

the issue with that logic is that you have to postulate that the laws of quantum mechanics somehow popped into existence before the big bang to then allow th big bang to happen
now you could assume that the laws themself allow for the laws to pop out of nothing but then youd have a circular argument which doesnt help either

on top of that you also have the problem that last time i checked the big bang was supposed to be the beginning of space, time, energy/mattter and the laws of physics
so youd need the laws of physics to kickstart the laws of physics... circular again

Quote :

The entire lecture above is worth watching, btw.

will do when i find time

Quote from Racer X NZ :

If anyone looks at how light behaves on a quantum level, and please do some research on this as I can't post links till tmrw, if light is shone through a number of slits them normal newtonian physics says that it shows these slits, but as a quantum experiment then it doesn't.

again got jack shit to do with quantum physics
or newtonian physics for that matter
that light acts as a wave with a double slit had been discovered and understood way before anyone ever figured out quantum mechanics

Quote from JJ72 :

And you are more then welcome if you can enlighten me about how evolution solves its engineering problems.

1) time
2) by not having any engineering problems in the first place

Quote from Shotglass :

the issue with that logic...

As I said before, I was just posting to clarify what I thought Racer X was attempting to explain, so I'm not going to try and defend it. My personal belief is that neither quantum mechanics nor some deity can adequately explain why we're here.

Quote from Shotglass :

again got jack shit to do with quantum physics
or newtonian physics for that matter
that light acts as a wave with a double slit had been discovered and understood way before anyone ever figured out quantum mechanics

This time, I think Racer X was referring to the delayed choice experiment, which does indeed have something to do with quantum physics.

Quote from AndRand :

ALL the scientific-based social systems had some kind of justification for victims of "better new world". It ALWAYS occured there are some enemies of "new better world", and their sacrifice was justified.

Nope. You are now just talking out of your arse. What has ALWAYS occured is some ideology that is not based on fact or science has taken over.

Just read some history and learn. Literally all the big catastrophies, wars and genocides in the past are product of some economical, cultural or political ideologies taking over. Putting the blame on some enemy while you having all the answers to the problems. That's not scientific anything. To call such society a scientific society is just hilariously odd.

Maybe you should just check some latest scientific studies what we actually know about how human mind works...

Quote from AndRand :

Nope.
Moral comes from many sources, but supernatural has stronger anchoring.

I guess that is just a leap of faith because you give no evidence or proof to support this crazy claim. Maybe we humans do not eat our children because we all believe in god but the animals do not eat their children because...? If evolution happens to animals it happens to humans as well.

So where does moral come from? Why has supernatural stronger anchoring (than what?)? Stronger anchoring to what? Even if assume there is stronger anchoring then it is only stronger anchoring against reason, logic and emotion. I'd guess suicide bombers are very well anchored too.

Just saying it is so does not actually mean it is so.

Quote from AndRand :

btw. micro-level physics - it occured that our world is possible with just one set of initial parameters, lets say, axiology

Repeating much? Watch that video mentioned earlier. If it was any other set of parameters we would not be here. It is not a question of the parameters being just right for us. It is about if the parameters were any different we could not be here. If the parameters were different even galaxies could not be here. Here could not be here
https://www.youtube.com/watch? ... amp;v=7ImvlS8PLIo#t=2653s

Quote from Shotglass :

1) time
2) by not having any engineering problems in the first place

Let me be more specific, like how nature discover honeycomb structure is the most material efficient form, how did it happen? Is it started with a single solid structure gradually trimmed off with unnecessarily mass or else?

This is a genuine question, and it is okay if there is no real answer to it at this stage.

My Creator:


My Community:


The power hungry bigots at my church have used the offering taken each Sunday to fund a school in Kazakhstan so that the children can have a greater chance of going to a university and escaping poverty. Christians donate more money to charity than any other group in the world. Who says you have to believe in a supreme deity in order to meet nice, altruistic people, and use the church as a vehicle to truly help those in need? Isn't that better than the government writing a check with your money, to actually know and care about the people in your neighborhood? There are stories in the Bible that inspire me to be a better person, but I only believe in the power of humans working together.

Your creator is a nebula?

Quote from flymike91 :

Christians donate more money to charity than any other group in the world.

Show me, don't tell me.

--

Oh, also, the problem with donating money is that you don't know exactly where it is going to be spent. There is always the chance of someone who works for the charity blatantly stealing, or even innocently wasting the money and/or getting taken advantage of despite having good intentions. There are plenty of food donations other than from Churches. In the public schools here, they have food drives where kids/parents go around collecting canned food to donate to food pantries. Usually they have some sort of prize to encourage the students to take part. I definitely remember bringing cans of food to school on numerous occasions. Also, synagogues (the two I've been to anyhow) have food drives on the Jewish new year. And I think a synagogue near me bakes tuna casseroles for a local food pantry occasionally.

Also, as for money, many Jews (well, the times i've gone i've seen all of them donate money) donate money if/when they go to the synagogue to pray in the evening (except on the sabbath because you're not supposed to touch money on the sabbath or something) There's something called a tzedakah box that is either passed around or people line up to put some money in it. I believe Christians have something similar as well, but I forget what it's called. I'm sure other religions donate money, food, and other things as well. I just know mainly about Jews.

Lastly, Christians who make up ~75% of the population of the United States could donate a hell of a lot less per capita and still end up donating more as a whole than, say, Jews who only make up ~2% of the population of the United States.

Quote: Originally Posted by Racer X NZ
If anyone looks at how light behaves on a quantum level, and please do some research on this as I can't post links till tmrw, if light is shone through a number of slits them normal newtonian physics says that it shows these slits, but as a quantum experiment then it doesn't.

"again got jack shit to do with quantum physics
or newtonian physics for that matter
that light acts as a wave with a double slit had been discovered and understood way before anyone ever figured out quantum mechanics"

Please explain why this was explained before quantum physics ?

If light acts in newtonian physics as you say then please post evidence that this was not understood before quantum physics was not understood

To quote Fynman, "Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt."

Quote from wheel4hummer :

Your creator is a nebula?

It certainly is.

Show me

Quote :

Oh, also, the problem with donating money is that you don't know exactly where it is going to be spent. There is always the chance of someone who works for the charity blatantly stealing, or even innocently wasting the money and/or getting taken advantage of despite having good intentions.

Is that chance more or less than the government blatantly stealing it? Despite their good intentions of course. I bring this up because some Atheists believe that government welfare can replace religion as a major source of charity, not understanding that the joy of donating time and money to a good cause is because it is voluntary and self-directed, not coerced under threat of incarceration.

Quote :

There are plenty of food donations other than from Churches.

That is true, but I was mainly arguing against the notion that religious people are selfish bigots when in fact they are the largest source of charity around the world, not just in their own rich white communities.

Quote :

I just know mainly about Jews.

They're almost identical. I don't see any major differences between Jewish and Christian values. So lets say that Judeo-Christians are more altruistic than selfish and power-hungry if you would rather combine them.

I enjoy Christianity because I like the people involved, and because it is the best vehicle for meaningfully helping causes that I believe are important.

Quote from flymike91 :

I only believe in the power of humans working together.

and how is that different from government?

Quote from amp88 :

As I said before, I was just posting to clarify what I thought Racer X was attempting to explain, so I'm not going to try and defend it.

well yes but i was repsonding to you rather than him becaue talking to him is bloody pointless

Quote :

This time, I think Racer X was referring to the delayed choice experiment, which does indeed have something to do with quantum physics.

i think youre giving him far too much credit there when in actual fact hes probably simply talking random sciency words that he picked up on tv at some point

Quote from JJ72 :

Is it started with a single solid structure gradually trimmed off with unnecessarily mass or else?

probably

the main issue with your though process is that you look at the result with the a priori assumption that it always had to arrive at the point where right now youre looking at evolutionary history and its current "end" result
if you try to do that kind of time reversal youll end up with a ridiculously small chance of evolution ever turning out the way it did
someone actually tried to calculate that chance as a proof of god ignoring that the result is meaningless as its based on the false assumption that evolution was always going to end up here

the secondary issue is the assumption that the solutions nature comes up with are universally clever
while yes things like a honeycomb are pretty clever and close to mathematical optimality other more complex problems have solutions that when viewed as an engineering problem leave a lot to be desired
muscles for example if i remember correctly operate at an efficiency of 10-20% while the internal combustion engines cars use are somewhere in the range of 25-30% so about double
and we consider those to be terribly inefficient

or take photosynthesis the process that (almost) all life on the planet depends on and yet it has an efficiency of about 5% with a theoretical masimum of 25% if we ignore all the bits of radiation that it cant work at
im pretty certain ive read news of solar panels with higher efficiencies than that
also on a fundamental level if plants had perfected photosynthesis theyd be pitch black or at the very least not green which is the colour that sunlight is the strongest at

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Please explain why this was explained before quantum physics ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y ... s_interference_experiment

you're in danger of being involved in too many discussions, but I don't believe humans need to be told how, when, or why to achieve goals important to them. Choice is the difference.

Now you can proceed with your priori assumptions.

Quote from flymike91 :

Show me

I see nothing on that page that says that Christians donate more money to charity than any other group.

Quote from flymike91 :

Is that chance more or less than the government blatantly stealing it? Despite their good intentions of course.

Not sure how that is relevant.

Quote from flymike91 :

I bring this up because some Atheists believe that government welfare can replace religion as a major source of charity, not understanding that the joy of donating time and money to a good cause is because it is voluntary and self-directed, not coerced under threat of incarceration.

That doesn't really answer why you brought this up. I'm not atheist, by the way.

Quote from flymike91 :

That is true, but I was mainly arguing against the notion that religious people are selfish bigots when in fact they are the largest source of charity around the world, not just in their own rich white communities.

Made-up statistics are not a good way to argue, especially if you are trying to dispel stereotypes.

Quote from flymike91 :

They're almost identical. I don't see any major differences between Jewish and Christian values. So lets say that Judeo-Christians are more altruistic than selfish and power-hungry if you would rather combine them.

I think you've misunderstood me. My point wasn't to combine Jews and Christians. My point was to say that many groups, religious and secular (did you not see the part about how my school had food drives?), donate food and money. I used examples that I have experienced.

Quote from flymike91 :

I enjoy Christianity because I like the people involved, and because it is the best vehicle for meaningfully helping causes that I believe are important.

With all due respect, I don't care what you enjoy.

Quote :

With all due respect, I don't care what you enjoy.

Wow so much for discussion. I should have known you only drew me into a response so you could tell me to **** myself.

I brought up the difference between charity and welfare in the post you responded to. It is relevant to what I was saying, and with all due respect I don't care that you chose an unrelated topic.

The link I posted shows that religious groups in the US, predominantly Christians, donated almost one hundred billion dollars to religious charities in 2011, the largest recipient of charitable donations. (total donations x percentage given to religious charities = not made up statistics)

You're an ****.

Quote from JJ72 :

Let me be more specific, like how nature discover honeycomb structure is the most material efficient form, how did it happen? Is it started with a single solid structure gradually trimmed off with unnecessarily mass or else?

This is a genuine question, and it is okay if there is no real answer to it at this stage.

Seriously, read about evolution.

Edit. and lol classic flymike. He comes into thread presenting his opinion as fact, makes up few more facts out of his arse and when people tell him he is not wrong he tells them they are arseholes.

Quote from JJ72 :

Let me be more specific, like how nature discover honeycomb structure is the most material efficient form, how did it happen?

This video might be of interest to you. I'm sure there are many other, more modern and longer videos on this subject. However, this video is a very quick example of how the principles of evolution can be applied to a design problem in the real world and come up with very good solutions.

Quote from amp88 :

This video might be of interest to you. I'm sure there are many other, more modern and longer videos on this subject. However, this video is a very quick example of how the principles of evolution can be applied to a design problem in the real world and come up with very good solutions.

Thanks for being slightly more helpful then hyperactive.

Quote from flymike91 :

Wow so much for discussion.

I thought we were discussing whether or not Christians donate more money to charity than any other group in the world, not what religion you enjoy.

Quote from flymike91 :

I brought up the difference between charity and welfare in the post you responded to.

Alright, but so what?

Quote from flymike91 :

The link I posted shows that religious groups in the US, predominantly Christians, donated almost one hundred billion dollars to religious charities in 2011, the largest recipient of charitable donations. (total donations x percentage given to religious charities = not made up statistics)

I don't see where it says that. I honestly don't. I'm not sure if you linked to the wrong page, or if I'm just not seeing it. Would you mind perhaps providing a screenshot or better yet a direct quote that I can search for on the page?

Quote from Hyperactive :

Nope. You are now just talking out of your arse. What has ALWAYS occured is some ideology that is not based on fact or science has taken over.

Just read some history and learn.

So if you learnt - give me an example of social system based on science that didnt end up with mass persecutions or even genocide.
French revolution? Nazis? Soviets? China soviets? Cambodian soviets? Cubans?
All scientifically based on scientific progress or historical must of classes or races prevailing. Drove to bankruptcy or disaster half the world.

Quote :

So where does moral come from? Why has supernatural stronger anchoring (than what?)? Stronger anchoring to what? Even if assume there is stronger anchoring then it is only stronger anchoring against reason, logic and emotion. I'd guess suicide bombers are very well anchored too.

There are good anchors and bad anchors.

Quote from AndRand :

So if you learnt - give me an example of social system based on science that didnt end up with mass persecutions or even genocide.
French revolution? Nazis? Soviets? China soviets? Cambodian soviets? Cubans?
All scientifically based on scientific progress or historical must of classes or races prevailing. Drove to bankruptcy or disaster half the world.

Why don't you give the examples because it is you making the argument.

Let me ask you this: do you think south korea is a good example of atheistic nation?

Quote from AndRand :

There are good anchors and bad anchors.

So where does moral come from? Why has supernatural stronger anchoring (than what?)? Stronger anchoring to what? Even if assume there is stronger anchoring then it is only stronger anchoring against reason, logic and emotion. I'd guess suicide bombers are very well anchored too.

Quote from Hyperactive :

Let me ask you this: do you think south korea is a good example of atheistic nation?

I dont know South Korea that deeply. But I reckon Far East countries that explicitly broke with Confucius tradition were North Korea, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Mongolia.