General Discussion

Originally posted by xpowderx

 

Originally posted by Khuzarrz

I'm a theist, so yes. That said, I go out of my way to counter arguments for the existance of God, because I don't want to believe. I would much rather that everything made mathematical/logical sense than introduce a 'trump card', and equally, I don't like the idea of having something undeniably 'higher' than me judging me, and finally, I don't like the idea of being determined. I'd rather be determined by an entirely random event than actually have my life 'planned out' for me.

 

In terms of your bullet points, I think all of the necessary counter arguments have already been made. I will say one thing about your point of molecular biology. You're wrong. To say 'information requires intelligence' is sadly incorrect. In the context for that to be correct, you're treating it as an IT term. This would mean there is no information in cells. There is DATA in cells. It only requires intelligence to 'compute' that data into information in order to create something useful with it. Time for a terrible analogy to try and explain this... Imagine you've drawn a grid on the floor. It has two columns, and 250 rows. Whilst you're away from your lovely grid, someone comes back and places a stone in one out of every two cells (i.e. either there is one in the left column, or one in the right). That's data. When you return, and decide to interpret the left column as '0' and the right column as '1', and you read the data that you've found in as:

010000100110010100100000011100110111010101110010011001010010000001110100011011110010000001100100011100100110
100101101110011010110010000001111001011011110111010101110010001000000100111101110110011000010110110001110100
01101001011011100110010100101110

And in turn, you apply ASCII to that, and turn the data into:

"Be sure to drink your Ovaltine."

 

THAT'S the information. It only requires 'intelligence' (in the loosest sense) to work that part out. In fact, true intelligence as we know it is only required when turning that intelligence into knowledge... But that's another story. The fact is, DATA in cells does not require any intelligent lifeform to have created it. It can be entirely random. And probably is.

I am amused you are  attempting to explain binary to me. For me that is funny. Those that know me here probably are laughing as well.

 

Random? Only if its part of the program.

You misunderstand my post. I'm entirely aware that you're most likely far more up-to-date on binary than myself. My explanation was for those people reading the post that aren't (it's nice to keep the little people up to speed, don't you think? ;) ). The part directed at you was the fact that you're misclassifying 'information' and thus your premise is false. Information (in the IT sense) may require intelligence (of some description) but there is no information in genetic code, only data.

:)

Originally posted by Khuzarrz

I don't like the idea of being determined. I'd rather be determined by an entirely random event than actually have my life 'planned out' for me.

 

Take from that what you will, free will exists only as a choice at an instant, but simply because it is possible no matter how improbable the choice you make is definable and predictable.

Originally posted by mrw0lf

 

Originally posted by Khuzarrz

I don't like the idea of being determined. I'd rather be determined by an entirely random event than actually have my life 'planned out' for me.

 

But random is entirely relative. If your life were planned out but you were unaware of the plan then there is no distinction to you. It should be noted that despite the phenomenal odds that were encountered that led to your life, the fact is those odds are finite no matter how massive.

 

Take from that what you will, free will exists only as a choice at an instant, but simply because it is possible no matter how improbable the choice you make is definable and predictable.

'Random' is one of those terms I DESPISE using for that very reason. It is based on what you've said that my statement is actually made, just I didn't give it enough wordage to make my case properly I think.

I am a determinist thinker, and I believe that because all things in the universe follow certain natural laws, given a powerful enough mind, and the exact mechanics of the start of the universe, it HAS to be possible to prove exactly what has happened from that start point to the 'end point' as it were, and everything in between. It's based on that that I don't like the idea of a being that can break those natural laws. I would prefer a universe where everything is essentially equal; everything resides under one specific set of rules. Having something outside of that... Well, my mind just doesn't gel with it.

It's based on the above that I don't want someone to have given me a purpose to exist from millenia before my existance began. I believe my life would have been exactly as it is regardless of how many times the universe began (so long as it began under the same conditions every single time), and as such I'd like it to be a journey worth travelling; not one that someone already knows the end of. As a determinist you also have to accept the pointlessness of certain things/people. My ONLY purpose in life may be that at one point I will trip over, causing some girl to take pity on me, increasing her empathy towards guys with curly hair the tiniest amount, such that years later when she meets the man of her dreams, she gives him the time of day because she was feeling sorry for him because he looked upset and he had curly hair. Their union in turn may do something which affects something into doing something else blah blah blah the purpose of existance if fulfilled. Frankly, I don't only want to exist to trip over in the street one day, and that's why I don't like the idea of someone having planned things for me. I'd prefer they were determined 'randomly' than with the intention of a specific outcome. Make any sense? Haha!

Of course he exists, The world couldn't become this screwed up by chance alone.

Yes God does exist, he appeared on South Park so it must be true.

Originally posted by Aelfinn

Originally posted by xpowderx

• Discoveries in astronomy have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation.
• Correction, they have shown that there was a single point of origin for the observable mass in our area. We have no way of determining whether or not this is unique in frequency, location or form. For instance, there could be billions of "big bangs" happening somewhere in the universe by the time I finish writing this, only they are so unimaginably distant it makes no difference whatsoever.
• Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer.
• Or trillions upon trillions of failed models eventually leading to successful ones, either works, both in biology and elsewhere. One method is simply less focused
• Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise?
• A.) There are, as always, multiple opposing theories and calculations on that topic, don't mistake a small section of scientists for a significant portion. B.) One thing that all sides generally agree on is simply that we do not have sufficient information on the topic to make any sure prediction.
• The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve?
• Must there always be an origin or purpose? In any case, there is only one true natural law, the rest of it is simply side affects
• Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist?
• Primarily social conditioning, but also genetic tendancies. We, like most mammals, have an interest in social bonding particularly with our young, it is a survival technique that serves us mutch better than the classic breed as much as possible then leave shtick used by most of nature. That said, I do believe in right and wrong, not because I hold any transcendant value in it, but because I place value upon the bonds between members of humanity, and our ability to use our social skills to achieve hights of reasoning far beyond our normal limits.
• People of every race, creed, color, and culture, both men and women, young and old, wise and foolish, from the educated to the ignorant, claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena? Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more?
• Perhaps, and perhaps not. This is the inherant flaw with the sciences, there is no way in hell everything can be explained, there will always be something else mysterious and unchallengable.  That said, throughout history men and women have shown themselves quite willing to fool themselves and others in this respect for various reasons, from power and glory to a wee bit too much peyote. If there are any genuine cases of such contact, sorting through the fakes makes them almost impossible to identify from the beginning. This is a particularly interesting subject for me, since I'm struggling with exactly such a question myself. A simple case of Deja Vu, but if my memory sequences are correct and in order, I dreamed the exact happenings of a particular conversation months before I even met the girl, something similar occured with a recently purchased used car. Logic tells me its a product of faulty programming in the memory department, one runs into such cases all the time with both computers and psychology, but its a hard feeling to shake.

 With all of that said, I would most certainly say no. There are far too many inconsistancies with the classic and current view of god for me to consider such a being even close to a likely possibility.

That said, I will concede there is ample room for another force, even an intelligence or purpose in what we know of the universe, and that the existence of such would indeed fill a number of theoretical holes in need of closure.

I, sir, must applaud you on an intelligent and overall excellent response to xpowderx's posting.

GOD doesn't exist, it was a failed video game developer that got bought out by Take Two I believe :P  God doesn't exist either.

I don't know he exist or not. There is no pic of him, no one saw him. But I think "Bible" is the most popular and long selling FICTION novel in the world. Too bad, if he (or she) wrote this book, could make more than Bill Gates.

By the way, he or she? If it is GOD, why it needs gender??

Does it looks like HUMAN? Why it needs looks like human??