The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I'm aware it's a week or so sooner than the monthly "Science vs Religion" yawnfest postfrenzy we have, but this article is worth a read.
Especially if you're a stupid fundementalist
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html[/URL]
Especially if you're a stupid fundementalist
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html[/URL]
Page:
The whole thing about God is that to religious believers he is a necessary being who has to exist in order for us to continue existing.If God stopped existing we would stop existing.
Yes God is outside the laws of everyday science but he has to be otherwise all the characteristics that make him special would be gone.I believe you can't prove the existence of God as you can't really prove the exist of the human 'mind'.I mean that we couldn't prove that the experience we give credit to our mind because we are never outside our own mind.I couldn't prove that you had a consciousnous(bad spelling)because I would never be 'in your head'.You might not now what I mean but that is sort of how I view God.We can't prove that there is a God but that doesn't mean He doesn't exist.To me the evidence points to the existence of God.
Yes God is outside the laws of everyday science but he has to be otherwise all the characteristics that make him special would be gone.I believe you can't prove the existence of God as you can't really prove the exist of the human 'mind'.I mean that we couldn't prove that the experience we give credit to our mind because we are never outside our own mind.I couldn't prove that you had a consciousnous(bad spelling)because I would never be 'in your head'.You might not now what I mean but that is sort of how I view God.We can't prove that there is a God but that doesn't mean He doesn't exist.To me the evidence points to the existence of God.
I've come to the conclusion that the Universe is simply an over-sized snow-globe, as per Earthworm Jim...
Oh, and also, all our leaders are cowes in human costumes.
[/so-called humour]
Oh, and also, all our leaders are cowes in human costumes.
[/so-called humour]
Sibs wrote:
> For someone to create a Universe where they dictate the laws of
> science, that someone must be beyond those laws of science in the
> first place...
Yes, a being like that must be beyond out laws out of physics, in the same way that we are beyond the laws of physics that apply to a creature such as an Ant.
A being such as that is not exempt of all Science, after all, if it cannot be explained in anyway it cannot exist. I'm not saying that we have the resources or knowledge to explain it, only that somewhere, perhaps beings' more powerful than who we call God have the resources and have made the laws to control that being.
To us the being that is God is all powerful, creating a world and physics, but think about it. It can't all have happened by pure accidence. This being wasn't "created" in the way we believe, as they had a complex enough Scientific knowledge to put restraints like Gravity on Earth. The being then imparted the means to this knowledge (whether deliberately or accidentally) on humans, so we can now explain many things we couldn't before.
> For someone to create a Universe where they dictate the laws of
> science, that someone must be beyond those laws of science in the
> first place...
Yes, a being like that must be beyond out laws out of physics, in the same way that we are beyond the laws of physics that apply to a creature such as an Ant.
A being such as that is not exempt of all Science, after all, if it cannot be explained in anyway it cannot exist. I'm not saying that we have the resources or knowledge to explain it, only that somewhere, perhaps beings' more powerful than who we call God have the resources and have made the laws to control that being.
To us the being that is God is all powerful, creating a world and physics, but think about it. It can't all have happened by pure accidence. This being wasn't "created" in the way we believe, as they had a complex enough Scientific knowledge to put restraints like Gravity on Earth. The being then imparted the means to this knowledge (whether deliberately or accidentally) on humans, so we can now explain many things we couldn't before.
Walrus wrote:
> To Sibs
>
> Some scientists are guilty of the same thing they acuse religious
> believers of.Some believe in the whole parallel universe thingy but
> they have no concrete proof yet feel that the notion of God is
> absurd.I fail to understand why you all find it hard to comprehend
> the possibilty that God created a world in which he dictated the laws
> of science.Science and God can both be right in the same universe.
For someone to create a Universe where they dictate the laws of science, that someone must be beyond those laws of science in the first place...
I'm not saying that a being couldn't have created our universe. I'm saying that if a being did, that being must be beyond the laws of science. And therefore science cannot explain said being. And therefore said being goes against science because science aims to have absolute laws about things that cannot be broken.
Oh, and many scientists do believe in parallel universes with no proof, but I'm sure very few treat the possibility as fact, whereas religious believers treat God as fact and simply play the "I have faith" card. To prove any 'belief' you have to think it exists before you have the proof. Obviously if you distort the 'proof' to give the answer you want that's not good science, but simply believing something exists without proof is not necessarily bad science... Basically, can't prove a theory if you haven't already developed said theory can you?
> To Sibs
>
> Some scientists are guilty of the same thing they acuse religious
> believers of.Some believe in the whole parallel universe thingy but
> they have no concrete proof yet feel that the notion of God is
> absurd.I fail to understand why you all find it hard to comprehend
> the possibilty that God created a world in which he dictated the laws
> of science.Science and God can both be right in the same universe.
For someone to create a Universe where they dictate the laws of science, that someone must be beyond those laws of science in the first place...
I'm not saying that a being couldn't have created our universe. I'm saying that if a being did, that being must be beyond the laws of science. And therefore science cannot explain said being. And therefore said being goes against science because science aims to have absolute laws about things that cannot be broken.
Oh, and many scientists do believe in parallel universes with no proof, but I'm sure very few treat the possibility as fact, whereas religious believers treat God as fact and simply play the "I have faith" card. To prove any 'belief' you have to think it exists before you have the proof. Obviously if you distort the 'proof' to give the answer you want that's not good science, but simply believing something exists without proof is not necessarily bad science... Basically, can't prove a theory if you haven't already developed said theory can you?
I respect what you are saying tnc and agree that we are all anxious of death and find different ways to cope.
Sibs,I believe that God can do absolutely anything except for logical impossibilities ie.a square circle.This is because they are not possibilities for God because you cannot have something that is a square and a circle at the same circle.This is however different to lets say a unicorn.There is no reason for unicorns to exist they just don't so God could create unicorns.
Sibs,I believe that God can do absolutely anything except for logical impossibilities ie.a square circle.This is because they are not possibilities for God because you cannot have something that is a square and a circle at the same circle.This is however different to lets say a unicorn.There is no reason for unicorns to exist they just don't so God could create unicorns.
To Sibs
Omnipotent isn't a restriction or a categorisation, only that we know God must be far more powerful than ourselves and inhabit a world which is beyond out comprehension. It rules out the possibility of him living among us.
However, God cannot technically do everything. For example, if you told God to build a sandwich so big he couldn't eat it. If he created a sandwich so big that he couldn't eat it, he can't eat everything and if he couldn't then he can't make a sandwich too big.
Although it's ridiculous it does show that even being omnipotent has its limits. I'm not saying that he is necessarily. I simply mean that he must be far more powerful than ourselves and in many more places at once.
EDIT - It doesn't mean that he has no rules, only that he cannot be applied to our laws of physics and beliefs about what is possible. Perhaps the secrets lie in the large part of the Brain which we cannot use.
He may be all-powerful but even that brings its rules, surely he must confirm to watching our world and he is the only one who can cause certain situations that Christianity claims have happened (eg Noah an the flood)
In other words he is bound by responsibility and even an omnipotent being has restrictions, not physically, but morally.
Omnipotent isn't a restriction or a categorisation, only that we know God must be far more powerful than ourselves and inhabit a world which is beyond out comprehension. It rules out the possibility of him living among us.
However, God cannot technically do everything. For example, if you told God to build a sandwich so big he couldn't eat it. If he created a sandwich so big that he couldn't eat it, he can't eat everything and if he couldn't then he can't make a sandwich too big.
Although it's ridiculous it does show that even being omnipotent has its limits. I'm not saying that he is necessarily. I simply mean that he must be far more powerful than ourselves and in many more places at once.
EDIT - It doesn't mean that he has no rules, only that he cannot be applied to our laws of physics and beliefs about what is possible. Perhaps the secrets lie in the large part of the Brain which we cannot use.
He may be all-powerful but even that brings its rules, surely he must confirm to watching our world and he is the only one who can cause certain situations that Christianity claims have happened (eg Noah an the flood)
In other words he is bound by responsibility and even an omnipotent being has restrictions, not physically, but morally.
tnc wrote:
> Sorry but that's tosh. He gave Moses the Ten Commandments on Mt
> Tsiani (as were into Religion) they are strict rules on how we should
> live our lives, and ones that must be obeyed if we want to go to
> Heaven.
Erm, no, I meant he has no rules he has to abide by. And I'm not meaning moral rules or whatever, scientific rules, like the fact that as a human I cannot, say, fly just using my own body or whatever...
> We must basically lick his boots, we must be good Christians who
> follow his rules from birth to death in order to go to his Pearly
> home in the sky.
Exactly why I believe that if there is a God, he's on one massive ego trip...
> He himself obviously has some restrictions, if he made man in the
> image of himself then he must have some human form and
> characteristics. We know he must also be omnipotent and have the
> ability to speak. Although we can't define him we do have rules which
> we can apply to him.
But surely being omnipotent means he has no rules? Being omnipotent is not a 'rule' one can apply to something surely? It means all powerful... As in the omnipotent being has no rules whatsoever and can do as they please, regardless of what scientific rules state are impossibilites for anyone or anything.
> Sorry but that's tosh. He gave Moses the Ten Commandments on Mt
> Tsiani (as were into Religion) they are strict rules on how we should
> live our lives, and ones that must be obeyed if we want to go to
> Heaven.
Erm, no, I meant he has no rules he has to abide by. And I'm not meaning moral rules or whatever, scientific rules, like the fact that as a human I cannot, say, fly just using my own body or whatever...
> We must basically lick his boots, we must be good Christians who
> follow his rules from birth to death in order to go to his Pearly
> home in the sky.
Exactly why I believe that if there is a God, he's on one massive ego trip...
> He himself obviously has some restrictions, if he made man in the
> image of himself then he must have some human form and
> characteristics. We know he must also be omnipotent and have the
> ability to speak. Although we can't define him we do have rules which
> we can apply to him.
But surely being omnipotent means he has no rules? Being omnipotent is not a 'rule' one can apply to something surely? It means all powerful... As in the omnipotent being has no rules whatsoever and can do as they please, regardless of what scientific rules state are impossibilites for anyone or anything.
To Walrus,
Death is the same to me. I feel very anxious of death, as in, I don't simply want to die and be gone. After all, what would I be? Would I feel anything? I wouldn't want to be nothing for eternity. On the other hand I don't want to be forever living life if I can remember ones I've experienced.
It is perfectly reasonable that you are anxious of death and don't just want to become maggot-food, I do feel the same. It isn't naive to believe in life after death, but for me I just can't picture a Pearly-gated home in the sky. Living my life in the rules someone has set down for me so that I may or may not go somewhere just seems a waste.
To me the most feasible thing is rebirth. Somehow being reborn would appeal to me, the idea of continuing and not just being a dot in an endless ticker-tape of time. I would never be nothing or tired of the situation.
No-one knows about Death, perhaps the greatest unexplained medical phenomenon
Death is the same to me. I feel very anxious of death, as in, I don't simply want to die and be gone. After all, what would I be? Would I feel anything? I wouldn't want to be nothing for eternity. On the other hand I don't want to be forever living life if I can remember ones I've experienced.
It is perfectly reasonable that you are anxious of death and don't just want to become maggot-food, I do feel the same. It isn't naive to believe in life after death, but for me I just can't picture a Pearly-gated home in the sky. Living my life in the rules someone has set down for me so that I may or may not go somewhere just seems a waste.
To me the most feasible thing is rebirth. Somehow being reborn would appeal to me, the idea of continuing and not just being a dot in an endless ticker-tape of time. I would never be nothing or tired of the situation.
No-one knows about Death, perhaps the greatest unexplained medical phenomenon
To Sibs
Some scientists are guilty of the same thing they acuse religious believers of.Some believe in the whole parallel universe thingy but they have no concrete proof yet feel that the notion of God is absurd.I fail to understand why you all find it hard to comprehend the possibilty that God created a world in which he dictated the laws of science.Science and God can both be right in the same universe.
Some scientists are guilty of the same thing they acuse religious believers of.Some believe in the whole parallel universe thingy but they have no concrete proof yet feel that the notion of God is absurd.I fail to understand why you all find it hard to comprehend the possibilty that God created a world in which he dictated the laws of science.Science and God can both be right in the same universe.
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> I kinda get what you're on about with the Dead Sea ... but, nah,
> firstly, it only makes you slightly more boyant than usual, and it's
> hardly a miricle if everyone can do exactly the same thing. But then
> we're into the whole topic on a simple party-trick / accident /
> complete lie being built up and up, filtered down and down by the
> Bible's text-collectors and the early founders of Christianityto
> manipulate ... which I love so much.
I reckon he got a couple of his followers to hop in a boat and row really fast, while he tied two planks of wood to his feet and held onto a rope tied to said boat. Jesus wasn't the son of God, he was the inventor of water-skiing!
> I kinda get what you're on about with the Dead Sea ... but, nah,
> firstly, it only makes you slightly more boyant than usual, and it's
> hardly a miricle if everyone can do exactly the same thing. But then
> we're into the whole topic on a simple party-trick / accident /
> complete lie being built up and up, filtered down and down by the
> Bible's text-collectors and the early founders of Christianityto
> manipulate ... which I love so much.
I reckon he got a couple of his followers to hop in a boat and row really fast, while he tied two planks of wood to his feet and held onto a rope tied to said boat. Jesus wasn't the son of God, he was the inventor of water-skiing!
Page: