EPTAre you a deist? - Page 3
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
saltymango
United States120 Posts
| ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
| ||
|
RedTerror
New Zealand742 Posts
| ||
|
Aelfric
Turkey1496 Posts
On July 14 2011 16:42 Flameberger wrote: I think he meant that God could be the cause or even controlling factor of evolution, not that evolution itself was divine. I don't see why this has to be viewed negatively. Chances are there will always be gaps in human understanding of the universe. There is no harm in substituting your own personal ideas to fill those gaps. The only "trouble" comes when people refuse to let go of their ideas if scientific evidence shows up that contradicts it. Even then it's only a problem if such a person hinders science / society over their beliefs. The problem is that when you let people to choose random "belief systems" out of a box because we don't have an answer to it after few generations they tend to forget in what source they come to that solution. They just realise that they believe in this and it is the true thing. It's not like teaching science or stuff, religion and it's concepts are not some things you can point out like you teach mathematics so people start to forget things because some people who hold on to that religious idea transfer it to new generations as a "way of truth" not "i chose that because we didn't know, it was more believeable to me you should do the same" Humans are not that smart and can not always figure out stuff about their own self. What we should always remind humans in our education is that if you can't at some point provide verifyable or measurable evidence, all the arguments in the world not going to establish your point. It's not to say i am against of believing in things though. It's just realizing about the stuff you think on. | ||
|
Mikilatov
United States3897 Posts
On July 14 2011 17:39 saltymango wrote: is there a term for someone who only thinks about religion on the toilet and always pushes it of his mind at other times because he believes there is no point in thinking about it other than for mild entertainment while pooping? cuz thats what i am. No, but I hereby deem it 'Fecesism'. | ||
|
Gummy
United States2180 Posts
| ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
On July 14 2011 16:20 acker wrote: Oh, god, a religion thread. Pardon the pun. Time is intrinsically linked with mass according to standard relativistic theory, and was therefore created 10^–43 seconds after the Big Bang according to standard models. Which means causality breaks down before 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang, unless you happen to have a model of causality that doesn't use the one-way flow of time as an axiom. Food for thought. ...Or you could ignore the astrophysicists. Please source these scientific claims. I've googled 10^-43 and big bang and all I can find is discussion about the symmetry breaking of gravity at this time. | ||
|
Gak2
Canada418 Posts
Mathematics - constants such as pi, e, and Euler's formula relating them together. Calculus where things are calculated based on infinite. Probability theory, where you don't know what's going to happen for sure, but you know how frequently it "should" happen. The grandeur of formulas, and the even more beautiful proofs for them. Biology - DNA - the fact that "code" can produce entire individual organisms that are alive. Also, how a few chemicals that by chance, form together to create the first living thing, and in time it becomes the plethora of living matter we witness today. Physics - Fundamental forces in the universe. Maxwell's equations. Relativity theory: how the speed of light is actually a fundamental constant of the universe, and how time is just our perception of one dimension, in a multidimensional manifold. Uncertainty principle: how there is data that we can theoretically never know. String theory/other emerging theories. Computer science - the fact that moving electrons through wires and chips can produce computing machines. The limitless possibilities of programming, yet the existing theoretical limitations of memory, clock speed, and uncomputable problems. The internet which introduced an entire new world. Humanity, astronomy, art, music, literature, love, politics, society, philosophy, culture... the list goes on. The universe's existence and its marvel, mystery, complication, and sheer beauty convince me it can't all have been chance... and that there must be some... thing higher out there whatever it could be. Maybe it picked and chose how it wanted it to be, maybe it just lets the universe run without interference, or maybe it influences us to this day. Maybe it exists as we know ourselves or maybe it is entirely unlike anything we've ever known. Maybe it too is part of a universe created by something higher than itself. No matter what it's like, I believe it's out there... | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
Richard Phillips puts the words of rational intelligence on deism better than me. | ||
|
S.O.U.L
Latvia149 Posts
| ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
On July 14 2011 18:02 Gak2 wrote: The universe's existence and its marvel, mystery, complication, and sheer beauty convince me it can't all have been chance... and that there must be some... The alternative isn't only "chance". "Chance" is but one of the many alternatives to a creator. No reasonable individual who disbelieves in a creator will assert that the alternative is solely chance. It's still an open question in QM whether there is actual randomness, and it is hence acausal, or whether physics is stochastic - apparently random but is actually deterministic. This is wrt the supposed wavefunction collapse. Nevertheless, macro phenomenon such as the evolution of humans and the formation of planets is, FAPP, determinstic in that it is necessitated by physics. altho I cannot say the same about the spontaneous symmetry breaking which resulted in the forces in the first place. Even if QM is fundamentally random, this randomness is not noticeable in systems with large amounts of particles which are constantly decohering due to thermal interaction. The reduction of the wavefunction being random has no significance for these systems. And about the antecedent conditions that preceded the big bang... only speculation without any way of steering clear of crackpottery. | ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
On July 14 2011 17:49 Aelfric wrote: The problem is that when you let people to choose random "belief systems" out of a box because we don't have an answer to it after few generations they tend to forget in what source they come to that solution. They just realise that they believe in this and it is the true thing. It's not like teaching science or stuff, religion and it's concepts are not some things you can point out like you teach mathematics so people start to forget things because some people who hold on to that religious idea transfer it to new generations as a "way of truth" not "i chose that because we didn't know, it was more believeable to me you should do the same" Humans are not that smart and can not always figure out stuff about their own self. What we should always remind humans in our education is that if you can't at some point provide verifyable or measurable evidence, all the arguments in the world not going to establish your point. It's not to say i am against of believing in things though. It's just realizing about the stuff you think on. The problem here is that you think I'm the kind of person who tries to force his beliefs on others. I am not. In fact, that is the main reason I HATE organized religion of any kind. I've already stated, if/when scientific gives me an explanation for my questions, I will welcome them. I am the kind of person who is always questioning things, wondering about stuff other people wouldn't. I think if it weren't for people who shared this characteristic, we'd not know a majority of the things we do today. Again, I don't see any issue with filling in the gaps with my own ideas. They are my own, and no one forced them upon me, and I'm not forcing it upon anyone else. EDIT: Additionally, I'm not going to pass my beliefs on to my children. It's not my right to tell them what they should believe, so the generational issue you speak of is not a factor. I understand the sentiment that that IS what happens more often than not, but I'm an exception. | ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
Again, I don't see any issue with filling in the gaps with my own ideas. They are my own, and no one forced them upon me, and I'm not forcing it upon anyone else. The problem is that it's fallacious. | ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
What's wrong with a little fallacy if it isn't hurting anyone? I don't really understand where the negativity actually comes from. EDIT: Actually, I disagree. Because we don't know the answer, it's not fallacy. It is presumption, of course, but I don't really think I'm presuming anything. I just think that might be what the deal is. | ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
On July 14 2011 18:19 ryanAnger wrote: What's wrong with a little fallacy if it isn't hurting anyone? I don't really understand where the negativity actually comes from. I don't really care what other's epistemic standards are. I was just responding to "I don't see any issue with..", by saying that the issue for me is that it's fallacious according to my understanding of the Gaps fallacy. | ||
|
EaryKing
Bulgaria158 Posts
| ||
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
On July 14 2011 18:19 ryanAnger wrote: What's wrong with a little fallacy if it isn't hurting anyone? I don't really understand where the negativity actually comes from. It comes down to whether you care if your beliefs are correct. If that's important to you, then "a little fallacy" goes a long way. If it's not important, I'm afraid I don't understand what IS important. Ideally, you should hold as many true beliefs as possible, while eliminating false beliefs. You're never going to get it perfect, but you can be almost certain that any ideas you create to "fill gaps" are incorrect. | ||
|
S.O.U.L
Latvia149 Posts
On July 14 2011 18:22 EaryKing wrote: I find it very strange that it bothers people what they should believe in. I don't care about it and I never will. the best answer ever! i dont really care what others believed in, actually i dont believe in anything, i just have some thoughts of what is and whats not! i posted my wall of text, cause i just like to spend my time writing lots of stuff, that is unarguable (you know what i mean :D) but its really weird how people believe in something thats proven to be wrong  | ||
|
S.O.U.L
Latvia149 Posts
On July 14 2011 17:10 lisward wrote: I don't believe in a God but I believe that life can be created, because I remember reading in some magazine that some science person created a life. Does that make me religious? F no, science is something that exists, religion is something that doesnt exist! you can see science so you believe it, but religion just words and nothing else, and why does religion always asks for money and they have goldende churches and stuff like that! jesus in the bible is described as a porr man who didnt need money and god as the same, but everyone who believes in it, asks or gives bunch of money for that, what the F???????????????????????????????????????? User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Linkirvana
Netherlands365 Posts
The arrogance of attributing truth to these ->theories<- has always baffled me. There is simply no way of knowing whether or not we were created by a God. That is in my opinion the only proper stance you can take on this subject. There are proper arguments for both the existence of a God (In the broadest sense of the word) and the non-existence of a God. Faith only has meaning, when there are grounds for that faith. Without ->solid<- ground to base your faith upon, your faith has no meaning, and is just a random guess. Which should be acknowledged as such. | ||
| ||
