|
Elite Member
Joined: 5/26/04
Posts: 735
|
Originally posted by Gameloading
Originally posted by Zerocool032
Originally posted by Gameloading
Originally posted by Zerocool032
Originally posted by Gameloading
Originally posted by Zerocool032
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.
The concept these days of God is mostly dogmatic, a barbaric picture of what God is like suitable for people of the time it was written. Every religious text and belief uses a medium of truth, such as philisophical ideas worked into Gods "words"
There is a deep connection between knowledge and religion, that few see and the rest dont bother. A truth known to every great philosopher and physicist that ever lived. I cant explain what its like, you have to read philosophical quotes and ideas, and be open minded to a degree. A major portion of the belief is knowledge, i have a compulsive habit to gather random knowledge at times, and after time you see a connection. Explained by philosophy.
Once you grasp the basic concept of philosophy, you see a new value in life, undeniably set there by a designer.
It seems you have a very flawed idea of what philosophy is like.
Let me first direct you to this to simply disprove your argument that you have to believe in a designer once you grasp the basic concept of philosophy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russel
What you have done is listen to philosophy of one side of the fence while you have ignored the other, made by philosophy who ignore perhaps the most important question:
If the designer made mankind...Who made the designer?
Bertrand Russel isnt the king of philosophers, he has a bitter attitude in his works; which do contain truth, but that doesnt constitute his belief to be true. Like i said people use a medium on which they base truth. Ill share some quotes that might help.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." -Albert Einstein
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” -St. Thomas Aquinas
"I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of established religion” -Baruch Spinoza
And one of my favorite
"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth man's minds about to religion." -Sir Francis Bacon
First of all Albert Einstein was not religious, I suggest you do a bit more research on his views.
You also seem to have missed this part of the Bertrand Russel page.
Russell had a major influence on modern philosophy, especially in the English-speaking world. While others were also influential, notably Frege, Moore, and Wittgenstein, Russell made analysis the dominant methodology of professional philosophy. The various analytic movements throughout the last century all owe something to Russell's earlier works.
Russell's influence on individual philosophers is singular, perhaps most notably in the case of Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was his student between 1911 and 1914.[47] It should also be observed that Wittgenstein exerted considerable influence on Russell, especially in leading him to conclude, much to his regret, that mathematical truths were purely tautological truths. Evidence of Russell's influence on Wittgenstein can be seen throughout the Tractatus, which Russell was instrumental in having published. Russell also helped to secure Wittgenstein's doctorate[48] and a faculty position at Cambridge, along with several fellowships along the way.[49] However, as previously stated, he came to disagree with Wittgenstein's later linguistic and analytic approach to philosophy dismissing it as "trivial," while Wittgenstein came to think of Russell as "superficial and glib," particularly in his popular writings. Russell's influence is also evident in the work of A. J. Ayer, Rudolf Carnap, Alonzo Church, Kurt Gödel, David Kaplan, Saul Kripke, Karl Popper, W. V. Quine, John R. Searle, and a number of other philosophers and logicians.
Some see Russell's influence as mostly negative, primarily those who have been critical of Russell's emphasis on science and logic, the consequent diminishing of metaphysics, and of his insistence that ethics lies outside of philosophy. Russell's admirers and detractors are often more acquainted with his pronouncements on social and political matters, or what some (e.g., biographer Ray Monk) have called his "journalism," than they are with his technical, philosophical work. There is a marked tendency to conflate these matters, and to judge Russell the philosopher on what he himself would certainly consider to be his non-philosophical opinions. Russell often cautioned people to make this distinction.
Russell left a large assortment of writing. From his adolescent years, Russell wrote about 3,000 words a day, with relatively few corrections; his first draft nearly always was his last draft, even on the most complex, technical matters. His previously unpublished work is an immense treasure trove, and scholars are continuing to gain new insights into Russell's thought.
There are many, many atheist philosophers. To say that philosophy equals a religious view is downright ignorant and incorrect.
Albert Einstein was an extremely religious person. Just not in the sense your use to. We all have different definitions of words, it might be easier to say he was spiritual.
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.
God always takes the simplest way.
I want to know all Gods thoughts; all the rest are just details.
Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God.
God does not play dice.
God may be subtle, but he isn't plain mean.
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.
I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - this is a somewhat new kind of religion.
Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
- Albert Einstein
Many of Ludwig's work have the same basic template throughout all philosophy. God is the big picture behind it all thats extremely hard to describe when you don't weigh and consider the philosophy that out there. And my knowledge is half my faith. God has shown himself undeniably throughout my life and people close to me.
Albert Einstein did not believe in a juedeo christian god or any personal god for that matter.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html
There is more here.
You're excused for finding it confusing, many people do, as people like Albert Einstein use the term "God" very different from what most people are used to.
There are books who touch on the subject. Richard Dawkins The God Delusion touches on Albert Einstein's views, it's worth a read.
Thanks for linking that site. Some great quotes on there i haven't read.
Btw, Einstein refers to a "personal God" in which he doesn't believe in. Like i said in my first post, the view of God these days is mainly dogmatic, which einstein speaks out against. He clearly states that he believes in a higher being. And again, its kind of hard to understand the God we're talking about when you dont have the whole of philosophy grasped.
“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”
“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with f |
