12-21-2004, 06:02 PM | #881 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
we ultimately do not know if this is all an illusion, or a test, or a game... so in this way, all we express is nothing more than "conjecture" that said, we do notice consistancies, i.e. gravity... and we try our best to formulate theories that predict future events around these consistancies... this does not mean that gravity might just cease to exist next week... but for the moment, we are pretty safe in accepting that it will this does not apply to god or the creation of the universe, since there is nothing in the first case, and very little in the second case, to observe directly in order to formulate consistancies theory based on theory based on theory, as opposed the theory based upon observable and repeatable "reality"
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
12-22-2004, 06:06 AM | #882 |
Warrior of the House of Hador
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,651
|
I posted this question earlier but I don't think Brownie saw it.
Brownie, if there is no creator, then how do you explain anything, even the Big Bang theory? Something has to be at the beginning.
__________________
Then Huor spoke and said: "Yet if it stands but a little while, then out of your house shall come the hope of Elves and Men. This I say to you, lord, with the eyes of death: though we part here for ever, and I shall not look on your white walls again, from you and me a new star shall arise. Farewell!" The Silmarillion, Nirnaeth Arnoediad, Page 230 |
12-22-2004, 09:42 AM | #883 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
after all, even those who believe in a creator cannot explain how this creator was created... the standard response is "he was always there"... and if one can accept that, it isn't a huge leap to say "the universe was always there, not created"
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
12-22-2004, 09:57 AM | #884 |
The Supreme Lord of The Northern Eagles
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: trondheim, norway
Posts: 1,388
|
Good answer Bj. I have never thought of the simplisity of turning it that way. thanks
__________________
Don't Panic! |
12-22-2004, 11:13 AM | #885 |
Marshal of the Eastmark
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,412
|
brownie, I promise I won't beat this dead horse, but I'm going to hold the line on the illusion issue for a bit, ok?
observable and repeatable reality When someone does transcendental meditation, they are repeating something that is like an experience. I can describe it to you, even. The "world" of the senses becomes irrelevant, your being expands to fill a space that seems three dimensional, there is a "sea" of energy that seems to be more "real" than the world of the senses. It seems to be all loving and peaceful. Beyond that, I don't know, but it is "observable and repeatable". My only problem with that "experience" is that I used to abuse drugs so my personal experience can't be trusted. But there are yogis who say you can do this and that it proves that the material world is just an illusion. And it follows, doesn't it, that calling this energy sea "God" and living in a state of grace is as reasonable a conjecture as trusting the senses to the extent of rejecting this conjecture a priori? Food for thought. I'll be interested in hearing your take on it. |
12-22-2004, 12:37 PM | #886 | ||
Warrior of the House of Hador
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,651
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Then Huor spoke and said: "Yet if it stands but a little while, then out of your house shall come the hope of Elves and Men. This I say to you, lord, with the eyes of death: though we part here for ever, and I shall not look on your white walls again, from you and me a new star shall arise. Farewell!" The Silmarillion, Nirnaeth Arnoediad, Page 230 |
||
12-22-2004, 12:52 PM | #887 | ||
Death of Mooters and [Entmoot] Internal Affairs
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 2,870
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Fëanor - Innocence incarnated Still, Aikanáro 'till the Last battle. Last edited by Falagar : 12-22-2004 at 12:55 PM. |
||
12-22-2004, 01:10 PM | #888 |
Marshal of the Eastmark
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,412
|
In my last post I said "beyond that, I don't know", but to be completely honest, I must say this: Beyond that point one must shed one's identity in order to continue, and that makes any sentence discussing it nearly impossible to write because our syntax requires a subject. And almost every word I wrote attempting to describe it was merely metaphorical. Even writing "peaceful and loving" is a grab at existing concepts in our language to convey things that are not exactly the same as what is described by those words.
I had to amend this facet because my wife and I had a hour long discussion about the post. hehehe She's rigorously intellectual and I'm a little lazy at times. |
12-23-2004, 02:48 PM | #889 | |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç Ã¥ â„¢ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! Last edited by RÃan : 12-23-2004 at 02:54 PM. |
|
12-23-2004, 02:54 PM | #890 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
so in reality maybe everything is non-created and life is just the same "stuff" being rearranged over and over again
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
12-23-2004, 09:26 PM | #891 |
Sapling
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Virginia Beach VA
Posts: 4
|
Okay, there are a couple of things you need to get straight when talking about this:
1. There is no physical eviedence of evolution. It is and always will be a theory. 2. This planet and all we see was created by God in 6 literal days of 24 hrs each. The Bible is very specific about this and the use of the term "day". 3. The physical eviedence we do see around us supports creation in six days and the fact that there is a God. |
12-23-2004, 09:30 PM | #892 |
Sapling
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Virginia Beach VA
Posts: 4
|
Oh, and by the way, Genesis 1:1 answers the question where God came from. He was there in the begining. The laws of Physics also support this.
|
12-23-2004, 09:37 PM | #893 |
The Intermittent One
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: here and there
Posts: 4,671
|
hi there and welcome to the moot.
do yu have physical evidence for these inferences i am a non-christian, a buddhist in fact and so do not persoally believe in this theory. nice to have another opinion/view/stance on board, though |
12-27-2004, 11:15 PM | #894 | ||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Alright - the last of the relatives left this morning, and it's time to return to this thread!
Quote:
There's another thing that bugs me about your cyclical model, tho, as I muse about it. The statement "every effect has a cause" is true BY DEFINITION. What is the cause behind the effect(s) that cause the universe to cycle? See, the God model proposes an unchanging "always something there" that is behind the creation of the universe. Your cyclical model proposes something that is always changing as the "always something there". But change necessarily implies that the thing is inside time ... Also, there's a problem, it seems to me, with the changing - if something has changed, there MUST be a cause behind it - how can something that supposedly is the cause behind everything be its own cause? Now THAT is logically impossible, it seems to me. What do you think? The only thing that I see that logic says is necessarily true is that there is SOMETHING that is uncreated - i.e., is NOT the result of an effect. Which also seems to imply that it is unchanging. Quote:
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç Ã¥ â„¢ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
||
12-28-2004, 12:31 AM | #895 | |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
(BTW, I believe it's true )
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç Ã¥ â„¢ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
|
12-28-2004, 10:17 AM | #896 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
so whether you believe my theory of the universe always existing or yours of god always existing, it must be accepted that complicated things do not always have to be "intelligently designed"... as you say, something is uncreated, something complicated then, taking logic a step further, god is an unecessary element in the equation... if we accept that complicated things can just develop (i.e. the universe), what sense is there in inserting a second unknown and unprovable element into the equation that adds nothing in the way of explanation (i.e. god)?
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
12-28-2004, 11:15 AM | #897 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
Brownjenkins,
Your statement:"if we accept that complicated things can just develop (i.e. the universe), what sense is there in inserting a second unknown and unprovable element into the equation that adds nothing in the way of explanation (i.e. god)?" is basically a statement of two alternative faiths. 1) "complicated things can just develop" 2) "a second unknown and unprovable element...that adds nothing in the way of explanation (i.e. god)". The first is an undoubted statement of faith based on your acceptance of the evidentiary materials and theoretical constructs of man's current grasp of the way the universe works. It is the first "unknown and unprovable element" in your primary sentence. I have no difficulty with this stance if you acknowledge that it is indeed a faith stance since by your definition it is "unknowable and unprovable". It seems to me however, that though the arguments are evidentiary in their mode and unobservable or unrepeatable in observation, they are clearly faith statements. In fact, lots of faith is required in the development of the data points (the evidentiary material), the hypothetical and theoretical constructs (and evolutionary theory is split into many denominations, is it not?), and the belief that certain missing evidences are taken to exist. The second statement seems to me to be more of an a priori assertion that being unknowable and unprovable exists only in relation to god. A simple assertion that this is the case - God is philosophically excluded - does not render that line of faith untenable, merely not applicable to the persons asserting the same. Rather like Freud's assertion that God is the universal human neurosis. An a priori assumption, but baldly stated. The discussion then becomes a battle of a priori assertions - one on-going at least since Plato recorded Socrates discussions of these possibilities. The data prior to that time indicate the predominance of the "god hypothesis" - which is still dominant in the world today.
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 |
12-28-2004, 11:42 AM | #898 |
Lady Tipple & Queen of Blessed Thistle
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I've been told it's all in my head
Posts: 916
|
As long as Time is long and we can only flit about on that band for a wee-bit of it, we're going to be doing a great deal postulating, theorizing, and guessimating, eh.
Faith, it takes everyone in a different direction and sometimes clearly separates us in thought and morals. Faith in a concept not expressed in the Bible is still just that. Evidence is grim to obtain towards our building blocks (strings?) in that we can't (as yet) devise a test of such theories to obtain "prove-ability". It's amazing where the heart & mind takes people in such different avenues of faith . . . often summing into opposing energies. While I'm uncomfortable with the question "where did God come from?", I'm very comfortable with God existing. It's an ongoing exercise to find God in life, science, and thought. Why not explore thoughts like "holographic universe" theories, and such. Sometimes the models work only 'all to well'. But the unified theory that shows where the designer behind the design came from is particularly unanswerable (to me at least) until a paradigm shift of some sorts rocks my own personal universe (death?). Note: I'm bummed to find I still am uncomfortable discussing my faith in God to others. So certain, I am apparently, that the majority of people immediately cast me as "small, simple, and weak minded". Wow, I'm evidence that there has been some success to suppress spiritual thought (the second one professes Christianity). Then again, I work in and around academia and government types. (hmmmm...cofession or venting ) For me, the separation of God and Science is a bit short-sighted when it is taken as a conclusion before we are even able to test any of our unification theories. While we have unification theories such as string, particle, and wave (holographic) that work to strike a complete model, the scientific community itself realizes that physics has become akin to philosophy in all too many regards (opinions of many leading physicists). Technology sciences withstanding, of course (nano, etc.)
__________________
Beer + Pizza = N'uff said Happy to be here The HACBR has been alerted to my postings…..Hobbits Against Constant Beer References Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. --Ben Franklin I want my Mooter T-Shirt! Last edited by EarthBound : 12-28-2004 at 11:45 AM. |
12-28-2004, 11:59 AM | #899 |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
i agree with you in principle inked, any theories on the ultimate source of everything are just that "theories"
however, i accept mine as just a "theory" (i.e. it may or may not be true)... there is no "faith" involved... i'm calling it a guess those of the religious persuasion tend to rely on faith (i.e. their stance is unprovable, but true in their minds) that's a big difference on my "complicated things can just develop (or always exist)"... one could almost go so far to say this is a fact... it does not take "faith" to accept this statement... we are complicated, we are here, so we either developed or always existed... or, if not us, the thing (or process) that created us... or the thing that created that ... so the statement is "true", we just don't know where along the course of our universe to place it on the specifics, in science we typically try to simplify problems by removing unnecessary variables (i.e. god)... if one accepts the "near-fact" that "complicated things can just develop (or always exist)", then a good theory should start at the point of the unknown, without adding any extra unknowns (even though they may very well exist... god may have created the universe, and another group of gods may have created the "god" who created our universe, etc.) we know we live in a universe we can observe, so we theorize about how it came about, and when we hit a conceptual wall, pre-big-bang for example, we label it the "unknown for the moment"... and since we know "complicated things can just develop (or always exist)", we need not assign any intelligence to this unknown we can muse about it, but the musing is just that... it is no longer even a real theory because it is 100% conjecture, as opposed to conjecture with some observable "supporting proofs" all this does not mean that one can not believe in god... it just means that god's existance is irrelavent to any theories about the origins of our existance
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
12-28-2004, 12:34 PM | #900 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
brownjenkins:
"however, i accept mine as just a "theory" (i.e. it may or may not be true)... there is no "faith" involved... i'm calling it a guess those of the religious persuasion tend to rely on faith (i.e. their stance is unprovable, but true in their minds) that's a big difference" you are going to have to clarify the difference between reliance on the "unprovable" and reliance on a "guess", Dude! I think it a distinction without a difference! Earthbound: Testimony to one's faith is not merely verbal, you know! Actions speak louder than words. And, I doubt you are so insignificant in your witness as you think! Academia was a tough environment because many assume that "expert" in one field means expert in all, but professors are merely humans with certain expertises! not the Demigods they make pretence to! Everyone associated with academian KNOWS that secretaries have all the real knowledge and power!
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 |