Do you believe in God?

[Suiseiseki]

Science is answers, religion is hopes.

 

[Maelstrom]

Science is answers, religion is hopes.

If you love science and, it is the study of the natural laws of the universe, you can apply Darwins general theory of upward evolution to the principle of a infinite solid state universe. With infinite past opportunities for a life form to reach maximum state of evolution, said life form, (God), would have maximum intellect to advise on best method of surviving said natural laws in universe.

Conclusion Darwin has proved that God exists and knows best.

Thank you, thank you (a bow),

 

[Sev]

If you love science and, it is the study of the natural laws of the universe, you can apply Darwins general theory of upward evolution to the principle of a infinite solid state universe. With infinite past opportunities for a life form to reach maximum state of evolution, said life form, (God), would have maximum intellect to advise on best method of surviving said natural laws in universe.

Conclusion Darwin has proved that God exists and knows best.

Thank you, thank you (a bow),

"Proved", might be a bit of a strong word here. I'm not sure if your post was a joke/parody or something, but it demonstrates a very rudimentary and biased understanding.

 

[NlGHTgirl]

Yes,.... Hippie's child......... I innate know/feel God/Love. I feel it in the beauty of every sunrise, every happy tree, every singing, jumping, huggy child! Souls/God/Love in the (too raw) eye contact.


Please, love, forgive, if someone has not mentioned it........ It's genetic, so it's not my fault. : )"God Gene" on internet search or wikipedia, if you are interested?


Agree with Steph, people should help others. This is how I "know" God exists,When people perform altruistic actions for a better community. I Love, Good works, actions like volunteering, donating, Kindess, charity, even Altruism, mmmm community., this is something I learn, to value......

 

[Maelstrom]

"Proved", might be a bit of a strong word here. I'm not sure if your post was a joke/parody or something, but it demonstrates a very rudimentary and biased understanding.

No it is not a joke, empirical law is empirical law, I stand by my chain of logic, it is in my opinion unbreakable and perfect.
empirical law is a valid long used scientific method of reasoning.

 

[IContainMultitudes]

Just wanted to remind everyone to keep things civil and respectful here.

 

[pushpin]

Yes,.... Hippie's child......... I innate know/feel God/Love. I feel it in the beauty of every sunrise, every happy tree, every singing, jumping, huggy child! Souls/God/Love in the (too raw) eye contact.


Please, love, forgive, if someone has not mentioned it........ It's genetic, so it's not my fault. : )"God Gene" on internet search or wikipedia, if you are interested?


Agree with Steph, people should help others. This is how I "know" God exists,When people perform altruistic actions for a better community. I Love, Good works, actions like volunteering, donating, Kindess, charity, even Altruism, mmmm community., this is something I learn, to value......

I don't necessarily believe in a higher power. I remain unsure, confused, and conflicted on the subject. I actually enjoy this inner conflict as a state of unknowing can be quite conducive to an openness to other points of view, ideas, and experiences.

I wanted to simply say that what you have written is quite beautiful. These are the experiences that make me wonder about all that I don't know and will probably never know. Could the human propensity for an appreciation of beauty, be that beauty visual, aural, somatic, etc, and to attribute that beauty to a higher power be some sort of evolutionary advantage? The idea being that the focus on a higher power results in a stronger focus on the well-being of a group (people, plants, animals, etc) over the individual? (I am in no way implying that those who don't believe in a higher power are more self focused!) Is there some sort of biological or psychological reason why we attribute that which is difficult to conceptualize to that which we tend to agree is impossible to fully conceptualize because it is greater than we will ever or could ever experience (for the abrahamic religions, "The Alpha and the Omega", for many Buddhists the egoless state of Nirvana, etc.

For me, though conflicted on the existence or nonexistence of a higher power as conventionally defined, math fills this void. There are so many of the universe's mysteries that are strung together by this invisible fabric of numbers, numbers being something completely abstract at it's core that humanity created to better understand it's physical reality. I believe that religion and religious beliefs share the same origin (created by humans in order to better understand their physical reality). That's not to say that because something was created by humans means that it is false or invalid.

I will stop here because I will just ramble.

 

[pushpin]

Being religious is naive. It makes me angry, its to cause for most of the fighting currently going on in the world, religion has a lot to answer for. If one person was a christian, they'd be put in a padded cell.

Being religious is not the inherent cause for the world's strife. That is a naive conclusion to make. It's the easy conclusion to come to and requires very little critical thought to reach. All that is needed is an interest in finding a scapegoat. It's no different from blaming the devil for all the world's woes.

 

[Suiseiseki]

No it is not a joke, empirical law is empirical law, I stand by my chain of logic, it is in my opinion unbreakable and perfect.
empirical law is a valid long used scientific method of reasoning.

Well regardless I am not going to church, thanking Jesus or buying the idea of sin.

 

[Sev]

No it is not a joke, empirical law is empirical law, I stand by my chain of logic, it is in my opinion unbreakable and perfect. empirical law is a valid long used scientific method of reasoning.

Scientific reasoning allows you to make educated judgments. The process of reasoning itself, cannot "prove" anything (see your original post). That's the only point I'm making.

 

[Maelstrom]

Scientific reasoning allows you to make educated judgments. The process of reasoning itself, cannot "prove" anything (see your original post). That's the only point I'm making.

This is a position I respectfully fundamentally disagree with, science is the discovery of hard laws in nature, said Newtonian laws are cited, and used to establish hard facts all the time. Unless you care to refute the law of infinite time, or the law of infinite conservation of the matterial universe, my argument stands. However you would cease to exist instantly if either law is overthrown, and you would be going against the standard scientific position on these laws.

 

[apsie]

If you love science and, it is the study of the natural laws of the universe, you can apply Darwins general theory of upward evolution to the principle of a infinite solid state universe. With infinite past opportunities for a life form to reach maximum state of evolution, said life form, (God), would have maximum intellect to advise on best method of surviving said natural laws in universe.

Conclusion Darwin has proved that God exists and knows best.

By this you deny Hawking Radiation (among other things).
A solid state universe does not explain anything, it just gives conformation of what already is and what was.
You are also making assumptions about time, and how it (does not?) exist/corrolates with spacial dimensions.
Not saying your wrong, I'm saying there are logical fallacies to be found in your reasoning.

Infinite possibility is not definite possibility, unless ofcourse you cling to the idea of an infinite solid state universe.

I'm still not sure if your yanking somebody's chain, or you are serious.

 

[Maelstrom]

Well regardless I am not going to church, thanking Jesus or buying the idea of sin.

My personal interpretation, of the word sin is, (self destructive, thought, or life style), and the Godly laws merly point out how to avoid said damage, if you add in immortality, time would weigh heavily against a unstable mind and cause death by madness eventually.

 

[pushpin]

My personal interpretation, of the word sin is, (self destructive, thought, or life style), and the Godly laws merly point out how to avoid said damage, if you add in immortality, time would weigh heavily against a unstable mind and cause death by madness eventually.

Do you believe that all the actions deemed sins in your preferred religious text (sorry, I dont know which religion you follow) are genuine sins by your quoted definition?

 

[Maelstrom]

By this you deny Hawking Radiation (among other things).
A solid state universe does not explain anything, it just gives conformation of what already is and what was.

Precisely science is the confirmation of what is known by studying what is. Big bang does not match the even dispersal of galaxies at all. And Red shift, (the proof for Big bang), is a joke, it's center point is earth, the odds of that are ridiculess, and where is the leftover massive black hole that would be floating out side your window. And the color of light traveling a long distance will always be red regardless of speed or movement. It is simply the unraveling of liner light bunches due to collisions with sub-atomic matter in deep space. I am not famillar with Hawings Radiation but was not impressed with his stance on the nature of black holes and he is a hardline Darwinist as was the creator of big bang. On the time, there is no such thing as time, what we call time is just the measurement of movement, and the presence of movement today automatically makes any interruption in the past impossible, (no state can create a dead universe rule). Wish I could go into the sub-atomic stuff... and new laws, but my stuff is so intertwined that showing one thing will show another.... Best wishes

 

[Maelstrom]

Do you believe that all the actions deemed sins in your preferred religious text (sorry, I dont know which religion you follow) are genuine sins by your quoted definition?

This is my personal view
IT comes down to weather you believe God is (arbitrary), or merely trying to prevent (natural cause and effect harm). With the first one, you are just pleasing God, with the latter you are saving your self and fellow man, from natural self enforcing harm. I think the latter makes more sense, what do you think?

 

[pushpin]

This is my personal view
IT comes down to weather you believe God is (arbitrary), or merely trying to prevent (natural cause and effect harm). With the first one, you are just pleasing God, with the latter you are saving your self and fellow man, from natural self enforcing harm. I think the latter makes more sense, what do you think?

I don't know what I think as my knowledge of sin as formally defined is limited to my time at Catholic school which was many years ago and also represents a fraction of the Christian faith. I also did a quick Google search of the sins listed in the book of Leviticus.

So as far as I know, a number of sins seem to speak to problems of the past (no eating shellfish, consuming dietary fat, there are a lot of food ones that sound as though they were necessary to prevent disease at the time, selling land permanently, etc). While there are others that fit in our modern times and suit your definition: mistreating foreigners, not standing in the presence of the elderly(I really think it is important to respect one's elders), seeking revenge, bearing a grudge, lying, and a number of others.

I do very much believe in the importance of context and these rules speak to certain cultures. Signs and actions of respect and goodwill do vary across cultures.

It's difficult to say. The idea of sin doesn't feel necessary for me personally. I feel extreme guilt for having done things that could possibly harm another, even if those things are socially acceptable. But, I also understand that many people require external rules and the possibility of judgment and punishment on a grand scale in order.to avoid doing harm.

Thinking about it more, it is important for me to know whether or not my actions are bringing value or bringing non value (pain, etc) to others, be those others people, animals, nature, etc and whether or not my thoughts are conducive to beneficial actions or not. So yes, I suppose with that definition of sin, I believe in sin.

 

[gonzerd]

Also, aren't we all supreme beings?

 

[Maelstrom]

[QUOTE="pushpin, [/QUOTE]

I should apologize for my original God post, as it may be too esoteric for either side to read. I am not endorsing evolution, and the origin of God, and general, (non earth evolution), both fall outside the bounds of biblical history, and are not confirmable one way or the other. Note: The text on Gods origin when compared to the text on Melkezidicks origin, who Abraham paid tithe to...may be properly read as origin, (lost or unknown).

 

[Suiseiseki]

My personal interpretation, of the word sin is, (self destructive, thought, or life style), and the Godly laws merly point out how to avoid said damage, if you add in immortality, time would weigh heavily against a unstable mind and cause death by madness eventually.

I don't see how me loving another man is bad, but Christians think it is