The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
tnc wrote:
> 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.
Heh, at first I read that as "in the same way that we are beyond the laws of physics that apply to a creature such as Ant." As in Ant. The guy on this forum... Heh... I found some entertainment from it anyway...
> 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.
See, I agree with this, but I think most religious types would be immediately offended by it. Like if we said, hey, maybe there is a really powerful being out there who created us, but he is still bound by some rules, the Pope / church / GW Bush would get red-faced and insist that God was all powerful. Then if we said maybe there exists beings more powerful than God that could perhaps 'explain' (or at least comprehend themselves...) the power of God, they'd get even more red-faced, again insisting God is all powerful and nothing could be more powerful...
> 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.
Again, it's a question of "If God exists, and created everything, who/what created God?". I reckon it's far more plausible that there could be a powerful being out there, but that this being isn't all powerful... I still don't believe that to be true, but I believe it's more plausible than an unexplainable all-powerful God. However, I think that's exactly the kind of God most religions believe in and promote... And I think religious people would get very angry at the suggestion that maybe there is a really powerful 'God' being, but then maybe there's even more powerful being ruling over God...
> 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.
Heh, at first I read that as "in the same way that we are beyond the laws of physics that apply to a creature such as Ant." As in Ant. The guy on this forum... Heh... I found some entertainment from it anyway...
> 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.
See, I agree with this, but I think most religious types would be immediately offended by it. Like if we said, hey, maybe there is a really powerful being out there who created us, but he is still bound by some rules, the Pope / church / GW Bush would get red-faced and insist that God was all powerful. Then if we said maybe there exists beings more powerful than God that could perhaps 'explain' (or at least comprehend themselves...) the power of God, they'd get even more red-faced, again insisting God is all powerful and nothing could be more powerful...
> 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.
Again, it's a question of "If God exists, and created everything, who/what created God?". I reckon it's far more plausible that there could be a powerful being out there, but that this being isn't all powerful... I still don't believe that to be true, but I believe it's more plausible than an unexplainable all-powerful God. However, I think that's exactly the kind of God most religions believe in and promote... And I think religious people would get very angry at the suggestion that maybe there is a really powerful 'God' being, but then maybe there's even more powerful being ruling over God...
A lot of people have the problem of Natural Evil tnc.The way that can be explained is sort of that they help humans to 'grow'.It sounds strange but due to natural disasters humans have to learn how to overcome them and work together.I'm sure that there is a lot of technology solely down to the fact that natural disasters happen.It helps us to grow it terms of morality and spiritually for some.This is one of the hardest points to comprehend but as George Micheal said,'You've got to have faith.'
They also try to teach us to respect mother nature but some don't listen.
*Looks at a certain american president*
They also try to teach us to respect mother nature but some don't listen.
*Looks at a certain american president*
Ant wrote:
> EDIT - And I'm really not entirely sure whether you read my reply
> thorougly or simply angrily skimmed through it, bubbling at the
> mouth, already foretelling what my point of view what be.
I really need to work on my writing; I'd hoped that, by the nature of the second post, you could have seen the first one was just baiting you. Guess it wasn't that obvious; my apologies.
> EDIT - And I'm really not entirely sure whether you read my reply
> thorougly or simply angrily skimmed through it, bubbling at the
> mouth, already foretelling what my point of view what be.
I really need to work on my writing; I'd hoped that, by the nature of the second post, you could have seen the first one was just baiting you. Guess it wasn't that obvious; my apologies.
Sorry Lightster, but I'm hugely confused, heh. Whether I'm being completely misled or not I don't know, but the first post from yourself that was aimed at me sounded pretty serious. Which is why I was a little pertubed, as technically I agreed with the point the article was making. If it was just a bit of a bait, then don't worry about it.
Page: