Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jazman

Joe The Plumber?

Recommended Posts

who woulda known it was all so easy.

Okay Anthony. So if "Something" cannot come from "Nothing", then where did God come from?

 

I hate to use such an old argument, but I have yet to hear a religious answer that actually addresses this instead of just side-stepping the question ("God was always here" is no more valid than "The Universe was always here", so please don't respond with that. Both statements require "something" coming from "nothing", the very point religious people have such an issue with. I'm very interested to hear your response.)

 

edit: I'm not saying that "something" comes from "nothing" just like that. I'm saying I don't know what the hell happens, and neither do religious people. I just find it odd that all these people claim to KNOW how this all happened. They don't and neither do you and neither do I. The Big Bang theory WITHOUT a creator has just as much evidence to support it as the Big Bang Theory WITH a creator - none at all. Neither side has any proof or evidence, so why do religious people bring up the Prime Mover argument as if they have some kind of evidence? None of us know, and the sooner people stop pretending they already have the answer, the sooner we'll actually find one.

Edited by beau+++

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay Anthony. So if "Something" cannot come from "Nothing", then where did God come from?

 

I hate to use such an old argument, but I have yet to hear a religious answer that actually addresses this instead of just side-stepping the question ("God was always here" is no more valid than "The Universe was always here", so please don't respond with that. I'm very interested to hear your response.)

 

God isn't matter, He isn't an object. He can be forever.

 

to think everything all came from the same atom/cell whatever that mutates or evolves, that concept is harder to grasp for me. So basically it's "blind faith" or "luck" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God isn't matter, He isn't an object. He can be forever.

(I just want to remind before my post that I appreciate you responding to this thread, any snarkiness that comes across in my posts is unintentional. I enjoy a good religion discussion.)

 

If my understanding of your explanation is correct, then God didn't need to come from "nothing", because he isn't "something". By that logic, if he isn't "something", isn't he nothing? Is it possible he exists only in the imaginations of men?

 

So basically it's "blind faith" or "luck" ?

 

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(I just want to remind before my post that I appreciate you responding to this thread, any snarkiness that comes across in my posts is unintentional. I enjoy a good religion discussion.)

 

If my understanding of your explanation is correct, then God didn't need to come from "nothing", because he isn't "something". By that logic, if he isn't "something", isn't he nothing? Is it possible he exists only in the imaginations of men?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here.

 

The Bible doesn't state God's age or what was before the Earth. It is about the Earth and all things on it.

 

what i meant by "blind faith" is the term you put on people who believe in God....and "Luck" well.....is the opposite to believing in the Bible and the luck of me being a human instead of a dog or fly. Science doesn't explain everything, there has to be some BELIEF in what's being presented to you...to most of us who are religious it's Faith that we are Man.

 

The only TRUTH is that we have a choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All arguments, however, to prove the existence of God must, in order to be theoretically valid, start from specifically and exclusively sensible or phenomenal data, must employ only the conceptions of pure physical science, and must end with demonstrating in sensible experience an object congruous with, or corresponding to, the idea of God. But this requirement cannot be met, for, scientifically speaking, the existence of an absolutely necessary God cannot be either proved or disproved. Hence room is left for faith in any moral proofs that may present themselves to us, apart from science. With this subject ethics, the science of practice or of practical reason, will have to deal.

IMMANUEL KANT - FROM THE CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON

 

My take on this is as follows:

As gravity is a universal truth, faith is a universal truth. The object or focus of our faith is what differentiates us and directs our moral or ethical compass. Some of us believe in 'God', 'a god' or gods exclusively. Some trust exclusively in science. Our faith is what we put or hopes, beliefs and futures in.

 

We educate ourselves (hopefully) to the best of our abilities, and make our choices based on the evidence of our existence coupled with our experience and our observations. Sometimes religion is easier than science and sometimes science is easier than religion.

 

If you trust in science and discount religious faith based on biases, then you are as guilty as a person of faith discounting science because is doesn't fit within the construct of a biased world-view.

 

As i mentioned earlier in this thread, I do not believe that science and faith are mutually exclusive. Systematically denouncing one or the other feeds unhealthy stereotypes and simply generates animosity between the two parties.

 

In the words of that famous peace-maker, Rodney King:

"Can't we all just get along?" :H

Edited by mamurphy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize not all the religious people here are refuting Evolution, but for those that don't understand it (that means anyone who thinks Evolution is the theory of "chance"), take a look at this video:

 

http://www.cassiopeiaproject.com/vid_evolution.php

 

It directly addresses the common misconceptions about Evolution by Creationists. Free, HD, and it's a fast download. It won't take long, you've got nothing to lose by checking it out (though the motion graphics in it are quite terrible). Heck, even if you don't agree with it, it'll at least give you some new points to talk about so you won't be denying theories you don't understand.

Edited by beau+++

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread could be sooooo much shorter if people bothered with philosophy 101. That would knock out all of the "how do I know I exist?", "how do I know you exist?", "how do I know if something really happened?" stuff. That ground has already been covered if you bother to look into it. I love the position of “I have no knowledge of what you're talking about, so you must be wrong”. This is the crux of the thread - taking a position where learning is considered a disadvantage because it weakens your original position. That's the only part I hate. I don't have anything against anyone who believes in god or doesn't, however, I absolutely detest the idea of a culture that celebrates ignorance. The Pope took the time to do the work and understand something about the world we live in, why can't everyone else pull their weight? Once you've got a handle on the scientific method, you can recreate the work that's been done and know for sure what the truth is. Is laziness the excuse? I thought sloth was one of the seven deadly sins.

 

The scientific method can only be used to answer scientific questions. I'm no fan of the Pope or Catholicism but they do study more than just science in their quest for what the Truth is. Use the scientific method to discover why you love the people close to you. The answer is something like: It's a product of the evolutionary process. WRONG. Not the wrong answer. It's the wrong tool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did this guy become the center-piece of an entire campaign? He's not a plumber, his name's not Joe, he was never an undecided voter, the Obama tax plan he decries would save him money versus the McCain plan, and someone mooted that he should run for Congress, but only if he's finished with his country music career... It's like I just woke up and realized with three days out that 44% of my country has lost its freaking mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How did this guy become the center-piece of an entire campaign? He's not a plumber, his name's not Joe, he was never an undecided voter, the Obama tax plan he decries would save him money versus the McCain plan, and someone mooted that he should run for Congress, but only if he's finished with his country music career... It's like I just woke up and realized with three days out that 44% of my country has lost its freaking mind.

 

Here's a piece of advice I was given as a child.

 

"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento
The scientific method can only be used to answer scientific questions. I'm no fan of the Pope or Catholicism but they do study more than just science in their quest for what the Truth is. Use the scientific method to discover why you love the people close to you. The answer is something like: It's a product of the evolutionary process. WRONG. Not the wrong answer. It's the wrong tool.

Please tell us the answer in between your battles with GI Joe. If loving a guy with chrome skin is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please tell us the answer in between your battles with GI Joe. If loving a guy with chrome skin is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

 

I don't have the answer. :lol:

I get to play GI Joe battles with evil producers and the dreaded sales Siths all day and get paid for it. Knowing the answer to that would be nice but I really don't have too much to complain about.

 

It's an interesting thread. Nothing to do with Motion Graphics but Mograph wouldn't be so enjoyable if we always stuck to the script.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento
I don't have the answer. :lol:

 

So then why isn't it plausible that the answer is that it's part of a survival instinct? There is some pretty strong logic behind it, if you think about it. Maybe you were thinking of that part from the movie Contact where Matthew McConaughey says "do you love your father - prove it" in response to Jody Foster's hardline science viewpoint. Seriously though. I don't want to assume your talking out of your ass here, so please, by all means, detail the aspects of evolutionary biology that you find flawed as a result of your in-depth research . . . because . . . I mean, if you haven't really taken the time to learn about it in depth, you're kind of giving another example of exactly what I was talking about - people who say "I don't know anything about what you're talking about, but I know you're wrong", which has to be the single dumbest position on anything that I've ever heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The scientific method can only be used to answer scientific questions. I'm no fan of the Pope or Catholicism but they do study more than just science in their quest for what the Truth is. Use the scientific method to discover why you love the people close to you. The answer is something like: It's a product of the evolutionary process. WRONG. Not the wrong answer. It's the wrong tool.

 

What do you suggest is the best tool?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
where Matthew McConaughey says "do you love your father - prove it"

 

Man, that part of Contact pissed me off. Like it was some sort of bust or something. Also the part where they ask her under questioning something like, "So you think 98% of the Earth's population is wrong?".

 

Every religion thinks people outside of their own religion is wrong so what's the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So then why isn't it plausible that the answer is that it's part of a survival instinct? There is some pretty strong logic behind it, if you think about it. Maybe you were thinking of that part from the movie Contact where Matthew McConaughey says "do you love your father - prove it" in response to Jody Foster's hardline science viewpoint. Seriously though. I don't want to assume your talking out of your ass here, so please, by all means, detail the aspects of evolutionary biology that you find flawed as a result of your in-depth research . . . because . . . I mean, if you haven't really taken the time to learn about it in depth, you're kind of giving another example of exactly what I was talking about - people who say "I don't know anything about what you're talking about, but I know you're wrong", which has to be the single dumbest position on anything that I've ever heard.

 

If I think about it? OK dude, good idea. Why didn't I think of that. I'm so silly!!!!!

 

I said the answer wasn't wrong. The logic is sound. It's just that it's not useful in this case. Perhaps you could take the time to re-read what I have already written. If the quality of your last post is as good as it's going to get, don't bother wasting my time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason we don't understand all the workings of the human brain (and related organs) could just be because it is fantastically complicated:

The human brain has been estimated to contain 50–100 billion neurons, of which about 10 billion are cortical pyramidal cells. These cells pass signals to each other via around 100 trillion synaptic connections
All through history, the limits of current scientific understanding has always been the point at which religion has stepped in and claimed that the stuff we don't understand is a transcendental mystery.

Time and again, scientific knowledge has pushed back these boundaries, whether it be neuroscience, cosmology or atomic physics, showing that it is the best tool for the job.

Humans are not the only animals to display altruism and self sacrifice - look at honey bees - protecting and propagating your genes, is precisely what it is all about.

phenomena such as kin selection and eusociality, where organisms act altruistically, against their individual interests (in the sense of health, safety or personal reproduction) to help related organisms reproduce, can be explained as gene sets "helping" copies of themselves in other bodies to replicate. Interestingly, the "selfish" actions of genes lead to unselfish actions by organisms.
Edited by basilisk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you suggest is the best tool?

 

 

If the question is "why do you love the people close to you?" I think the tools that work best are honesty and introspection.

 

I wish it was so simple as to be answered by logic. I worked for three years as a computer programmer for a management consultancy firm. I've designed, created and implemented massively complicated logical structures. I've designed an Artificial Intelligence reporting program which can dynamically adjust its' own logic flow based on the task presented. I become bored with it because I understood it.

 

I love the things now I can't understand. Art, our own Essence, why Sao thinks I'm an Idiot and why the Universe is in love with the Productions of Time. I don't want the answer. I want to be free of this constant questioning of things that don't really matter.

 

This makes sense to me even if I am clumsy in the expression.

 

And thanks for asking.

Edited by destro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't want the answer. I want to be free of this constant questioning of things that don't really matter.

 

This makes sense to me even if I am clumsy in the expression.

 

And thanks for asking.

 

Do you think that your wishes and your wants are romantically clouding your judgement that all things perceivable ARE science? Like when I mentioned earlier that people say it's depressing that I don't think there is an afterlife. So because it's depressing , some people won't consider it as a viable option.

 

I don't mean this in the political way, but it sounds like you may be using "truthiness". Where you WANT it to be a romantic answer, yet it's very possible there just isn't one.

 

Although if I could "prove" I loved someone by a certain brain print that showed the right activity in my grey matter and hormones, it would be fascinating. And it would be science. But that doesn't keep me from also seeing the world through the eyes of the romantic illusion that it is. I can still enjoy love songs that talk about being together forever, etc. Just like a movie, I'll buy into it's story during the time it lasts. But that doesn't take away that I still know it's just a piece of celluloid showing some actors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...