Origin of the species, where do you stand?

[jcd11235 0]

I voted number three, because none of the choices captured my beliefs.

I believe that God is the universe, so anything within the universe is a part of God. I don't believe that God is some separate entity.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

But still, if you can't disprove it then it must be left on the plate.

Bullshit. Disprove that stuffed animals don't really work like in Toy Story.

The scientific model worl like that. NOTHING is provable, only displovable. If something is repeatable they call it a law, but hardcores disagree with laws.

As for your example, the scientists would examine these things fro signs of life and establish they didn't, publish a peer-reviewed journal for all to scrutinize and it would be considered disproven. As for proof, they just come to conclusions but don;t actually proove anything.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Let's take Buddah, he is worshipped by people whp look like him.

Buddhists do not worship Buddha. They seek what he sought.

I'm not theologian, but isn't it clear that people follow the gods who coincidentally looked like them?

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

As for your example, the scientists would examine these things fro signs of life and establish they didn't, publish a peer-reviewed journal for all to scrutinize and it would be considered disproven. As for proof, they just come to conclusions but don;t actually proove anything.

So you still consider it possible that toys can talk to each other when nobody is looking - it is still on the table, so to speak?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Let's take Buddah, he is worshipped by people whp look like him.

Buddhists do not worship Buddha. They seek what he sought.

I'm not theologian, but isn't it clear that people follow the gods who coincidentally looked like them?

not really. God, according the Christians/Jews/Muslims doesn't look like anything at all, so we'd have to be invisible if that were true.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Let's take Buddah, he is worshipped by people whp look like him.

Buddhists do not worship Buddha. They seek what he sought.

I'm not theologian, but isn't it clear that people follow the gods who coincidentally looked like them?

Buddhists do not consider Buddha to be a God. Buddhists do not worship any deity.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[wmw999 2,148]

I was going to say what Billvon did. Only less elegantly. Somewhere between 2 & 3 for me, too.

A friend of mine used to say that our existence was God's 3rd-grade science project, that he'd forgotten about.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

A friend of mine used to say that our existence was God's 3rd-grade science project, that he'd forgotten about.

Who/what was God's third grade teacher?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Life is VERY complex for just random chance to have created.

Why? It's only complex to human knowledge at the current stage of our development. In other words, maybe we're still just too stupid to have figured it all out yet. It's arrogant of people to presume that just because something is so complex that WE haven't figured it out yet, that that must mean it's the product of divine intervention.

Children believe that thumps in the night are caused by little green monsters under their beds because, developmentally, they don't yet know any better. Intelligent, educated adults should know better. If that principle applies on a micro level, it applies on a macro level, too.

[shropshire 0]

<> Well actually, it's because someone told them that..... pretty much the same goes for gods.... someone told us and some beileved it than and continue to do so now.... Takes all sorts.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

As for your example, the scientists would examine these things fro signs of life and establish they didn't, publish a peer-reviewed journal for all to scrutinize and it would be considered disproven. As for proof, they just come to conclusions but don;t actually proove anything.

So you still consider it possible that toys can talk to each other when nobody is looking - it is still on the table, so to speak?

No, I'm saying that scientists would conclude that it is disproven that toys can have life of any kind and the scientific world would agree; care to debate how science would conclude this?

Science doesn't prove, only disprove, hence if it can't disprove something repeatedly, it allows it to be open as a theory.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Let's take Buddah, he is worshipped by people whp look like him.

Buddhists do not worship Buddha. They seek what he sought.

I'm not theologian, but isn't it clear that people follow the gods who coincidentally looked like them?

not really. God, according the Christians/Jews/Muslims doesn't look like anything at all, so we'd have to be invisible if that were true.

Yes but Jebus is the spokesmodel fro Christianity. As a rule, most all religious representatives look those who follow; agree?

[Lindsey 0]

The origins of the universe and life are so far beyond my comprehension that for me to guess about its origins is only to try to justify something that I want or need to believe. My gut tells me that there is only natural, not supernatural, phenomena.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

No, I'm saying that scientists would conclude that it is disproven that toys can have life of any kind and the scientific world would agree; care to debate how science would conclude this?

I didn't say they had life - everyone knows they work by magic. Science can no more disprove magic than it can god, but for some reason people who believe in that would be considered less than all there. The non-dismissal of the existence of god is a complete double standard.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

No, I'm saying that scientists would conclude that it is disproven that toys can have life of any kind and the scientific world would agree; care to debate how science would conclude this?

I didn't say they had life - everyone knows they work by magic. Science can no more disprove magic than it can god, but for some reason people who believe in that would be considered less than all there. The non-dismissal of the existence of god is a complete double standard.

It's based upon evidence to support and there is some evidence to support the possibility of a diety. As for stuffed animals working thru some kind of majic, moving on their own as if they have life and will, science would disporove it thru the scientific model.

I don't know the particulars of that movie, I don;t have kids and have never seen it, but I assumed it was the typical kid movie where toys had life. Scientists, if presented with the possibility of toys with will and movement based on will would laugh it off unless you presentes some kind of evidence that it was real. The beauty is that at least they would listen you out. OTOH, religion, Christianity would deem you to hell for even mentioning the possibility that God/Jebus might not exist.

SCIENCE BEGS YOU TO DISPROVE THEM, RELIGION/CHRISTIANITY DARES YOU TO.

That's why I am so turned of by religion; it is based upon the followings of a heirarchy, not evidence.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

there is some evidence to support the possibility of a diety.

There is? Please elaborate.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

As for stuffed animals working thru some kind of majic, moving on their own as if they have life and will, science would disporove it thru the scientific model.

How? Magic (like deities) exists outside the scientific realm. Just because scientists haven't figured out how to see it yet doesn't mean its not there. Its exactly the same scenario as religion - yet one is given a pass and the other not.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[tbrown 26]

Option two is kind of a combination of 1 and 3.... not really committing to either.

[shropshire 0]

I agree, it's all very elegant, but in and of iot's self that does not imply an intelligent hand at work.
And you're right, there was lots that came before us and there will also be after we've gone.

Sorry about the lack of choice, but that was dictated by the initial source.

.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

If you believe in God, he really did an elegant job of it.

There's no denying that nature as a whole is majestic, but in some specific areas it was a pretty poor job. Take the joints of the human body from the hips down - quite terrible design, especially if we were always the intended outcome. I think one of Billvons favourite examples is the eye, like a camera with the wiring in front of the sensor.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

As for stuffed animals working thru some kind of majic, moving on their own as if they have life and will, science would disporove it thru the scientific model.

How? Magic (like deities) exists outside the scientific realm. Just because scientists haven't figured out how to see it yet doesn't mean its not there. Its exactly the same scenario as religion - yet one is given a pass and the other not.

What has been given to substantiate your hokus-Pokus? There are ay least writings to substantiate religion, noah's ark, sea scrolls, etc.... You and David Copperfield are all that substantiate majic and I think the egg-heads have ruled you out.

I'm not saying science is right, which is why they are careful to use absolute words. Science uses theories and with things like gravity, they use Laws.

Hardcore scientists don't even subscribe to laws. Whereas theologians throw out absolutes and if ever wrong have the threat of not questioning elders. Science is afraid that if they make guarantees and they are wrong, then all of it goes down the shitter.

I'm not saying science is right, I;m just giving you a brief overview of my understanding of the scientific model. As with anything human, it is fallable, unlike with Christianity, where they're always right.

Don;t believe me, contact a science web site and ask them about the scientific model. Hell, ask Kallend.

BTW, majic and dieties are not where the same.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

If you believe in God, he really did an elegant job of it.

There's no denying that nature as a whole is majestic, but in some specific areas it was a pretty poor job. Take the joints of the human body from the hips down - quite terrible design, especially if we were always the intended outcome. I think one of Billvons favourite examples is the eye, like a camera with the wiring in front of the sensor.

The human shoulder is no treat either. There are all kinds of flaws with the human body, like we don;t have wings

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

What has been given to substantiate your hokus-Pokus? There are ay least writings to substantiate religion, noah's ark, sea scrolls, etc.... You and David Copperfield are all that substantiate majic and I think the egg-heads have ruled you out.

No evidence to substantiate magic? try looking up the rulings from the Salem witch trials! BTW, Noah's Ark? Show me.

The bible has as much evidence for God as The Iliad does for Zeus and the Odyssey for Athena. Are they on the table too?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Royd 0]

The possibility of life creating itself has about the same chance as iron ore, under its own power, becoming a locomotive.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

What has been given to substantiate your hokus-Pokus? There are ay least writings to substantiate religion, noah's ark, sea scrolls, etc.... You and David Copperfield are all that substantiate majic and I think the egg-heads have ruled you out.

No evidence to substantiate magic? try looking up the rulings from the Salem witch trials! BTW, Noah's Ark? Show me.

The bible has as much evidence for God as The Iliad does for Zeus and the Odyssey for Athena. Are they on the table too?

Salem? Exactly. There is the Wiccan religion, but the way people in America view religion there's only 1 god, not a Wiccan god.

Hey, science leaves the door open for anything, including the composition of water. But like religion, science works off of what is known and believed. Put it this way, if you had contemporary hard evidence that witches, majic, etc are for real, science would be 1,000,000 times more interested than religion. But you would have to spark their interest with some imperical evidence. Other than that, science would dismiss you as a nut.

Quote

The bible has as much evidence for God as The Iliad does for Zeus and the Odyssey for Athena. Are they on the table too?[/

Not so much to me, altho I don't dismiss them completely. Hey, we use Greek mythological words in our English, so what the hell? Again, thsi country was founded on Christian principles, slavery, classism, etc.,.... so they had their foot inthe door first, hence get a bigger nod from the norm.

You're wasting your time arguing with me that Christianity is overblown, I think it is, bit as a person of science I can't omit it from the realm of possibility, just as I can't do the same for Wiccans, big bangers, and the rest.

Point is, there are nroms and Christianity is one of them. I do think there are more doctrine, artifacts, etc from that era..... hell, last week someone had a piece of toast with Jesus on it on EBAY; it must be real.