Page 4 of 5 [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

drlaugh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2015
Posts: 3,360

06 Jul 2016, 4:18 pm

Yes that is the scene I remembered ...exactly like that.


_________________
Still too old to know it all


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

06 Jul 2016, 11:11 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Cash__ wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Cash__ wrote:
Design doesn't necessarily dictate the need for a god. Just a need for a designer. For all we know we can be a science experiment in a petri dish of some advanced high school alien.


But if that's the case then who designed the "high school alien"?

And if that alien is part of an experiment in the petre dish of a bigger high school alien, then who designed THAT high school alien, and so on, and so on...


I think as we recurse, the preceeding thing would be simplier.

Go back far enough, it's a thing that is in an indivisible form, so no further recursions are possible.

"GOD" is that indivisible form.

So, who created the "indivisible form"?

No one, if it could be created, then it would be divisible.

So, there is some initial thing.


The aliens were the original indivisible form.


Actually you both are wrong.

The original agents were not aliens, but were time travelers from Earth itself.

In our future humans will have perfected time travel. And a team of time travelers will explore the early earth of four billion BC. And they will be shocked to find earth barren back then. So they will seed the early earth with bacteria from the present day. That bacteria will infect the whole barren planet and start to evolve. After four billion years that bacteria becomes us. And we invent time travel so we can go back in time and insure our existence by seeding the earth with bacteria, and so on.

Its all a closed loop in which we "design" ourselves! :D


Nice tie in to "seeding".

It all makes perfect sense now ..... ;)



drlaugh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2015
Posts: 3,360

07 Jul 2016, 8:42 am

I'm a Christian

My movie references were to humor my own brain.

Love and prayers

Shalom.


_________________
Still too old to know it all


BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,050
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

11 Jul 2016, 10:29 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
I believe in a higher intelligence "God", because of the physical order of matter. Not a personal GOD, more like matter is "God goo" that comes from some higher intelligence.

Theoretical physicists Einstein and Kuku make the same argument ...

Albert Einstein: " He said the Universe could have been chaotic, random and ugly—and yet we have this gorgeous synthesis at the origin of the Universe itself, giving birth to the galaxies, the planets, DNA, life. Einstein said that the harmony he sees could not have been an accident".
http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/w ... -not-blush

Michio Kaku (co-founder of 'String Theory'): "God is the GOD of order". "God is a mathematician". "God is a musician". The strings vibrate throughout galaxies/universes/dimensions.
source: Youtube Big Think videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmkrI-K7yBo

NOTE: I omitted a lot of science and just left it as a superficial argument.

Questions:
1. Do you find this argument appealing or not?

2. Won't the atheist argument that matter randomly formed become much less believable in view of modern physics? Especially, if string theory gives us math that shows us how matter works and functions across many galaxies/universes/dimensions?


The Argument from Design was bogus when Reverend Paley introduced it and it is bogus now.

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

David Hume demolished the Argument from Design back in the 18 th century.

Even so it is plausible to some people and the Creationists and anti-Darwinists love that argument.


_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

11 Jul 2016, 11:27 am

BaalChatzaf wrote:

The Argument from Design was bogus when Reverend Paley introduced it and it is bogus now.

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

David Hume demolished the Argument from Design back in the 18 th century.

Even so it is plausible to some people and the Creationists and anti-Darwinists love that argument.


It's not bogus.

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... imulation/

Famous physicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson: "I think the likelihood may be very high".

It's premature to dismiss it.

We are just learning about matter.

We may find that base structure of matter is like the 'Matrix'.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

11 Jul 2016, 12:10 pm

For one thing, atheists don't generally say that the universe is random. You may be thinking of the randomness of mutations that drive natural selection. Many aspects of the universe can be described by math. So your argument is that God exists because math. Not convincing to me.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

11 Jul 2016, 12:11 pm

Cash__ wrote:
Design doesn't necessarily dictate the need for a god. Just a need for a designer. For all we know we can be a science experiment in a petri dish of some advanced high school alien.

Not even that. Design happens without designers, that's what evolution is.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

11 Jul 2016, 8:53 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
BaalChatzaf wrote:

The Argument from Design was bogus when Reverend Paley introduced it and it is bogus now.

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

David Hume demolished the Argument from Design back in the 18 th century.

Even so it is plausible to some people and the Creationists and anti-Darwinists love that argument.


It's not bogus.

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... imulation/

Famous physicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson: "I think the likelihood may be very high".

It's premature to dismiss it.

We are just learning about matter.

We may find that base structure of matter is like the 'Matrix'.

Then God is even less plausible, since god-like powers would be available to any schmuck running the simulation.



drlaugh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2015
Posts: 3,360

11 Jul 2016, 9:08 pm

Popeye was not the first to say

I am.


That's enough for this

"Reader and Righter".

May you find peace in what is important to you.

Love and prayers

Shalom

Me also known as

Zvi. 8)


_________________
Still too old to know it all


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,695
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

11 Jul 2016, 9:37 pm

That concept, ie. I Am, though art that, Know thyself and you will know the universe and the gods - its eastern, its western, it seems to be said at least somewhere in every tradition. To the greater extent its true; the angels and demons are within and the microcosm is a miniature of the macrocosm. It seems to hold just as much value whether that's so in the blunt literal sense or whether the life we experience is nothing more than impulses being fired on neurons and its used to describe the process of personal integration (ie. the mind being its own climate with its own weather patterns that you can rather excitingly experience in great depth).

I still think the term designed has too much ID and creation ex-nihilo baggage. If there were a deity this is it juggling its own thought substance (what else would it have?) to render various things. 'Matter is emanated' sounds like a better description of such a process.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


Aniihya
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Jan 2015
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 771

12 Jul 2016, 3:08 am

Ahhh, fundies and gnostic atheists trying to prove they are right with absolutes.



b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

12 Jul 2016, 3:31 am

matter is a coalescence of energy in an inevitable vortex of expression that contains gravity. gravity is what pulls energy into matter. does energy have mass? no, but it has entity, and i believe that gravity acts on all entities including energy in it's purest form.
gravity must exist outside the manifestual universe because it controls the interactions between energy and matter.

the higgs boson is identified as being the initial particle that manifests from a coalasecence of energy packets, but the coalescence factor is beyond it. i do not believe there is such a particle as a graviton.

i believe there is a set of 4 (3 really) dimensions which are "possibility" dimensions ranging from d7 which is a singularity of possibility with no cause or effect, to d8 which is a linear cause and effect chain, to d9 which is a planar cause effect set of interwoven chains where effects can cross pollinate form non linear causes to d10 which is the possibility indices of things that can happen in all alternative expressions of the universe.

whatever.

gravity can be thought of by me as this:

a locality of space has contained within it a certain amount of mass, and so it inevitably raises the odds of other mass also being contained within that locality.

if space A has nothing in it, and space B has lots in it, then the possibility of matter being in space B is greater than it being in space A, and so that reality alone constitutes gravity.

the initial perturbation of equilibrium of possibility that gives rise to compressions of coalescent possibilities is the origin of gravity.

it is the initial perturbation of universal equilibrium that resulted in manifestation that i consider to be the miracle of God's influence. one can not think deeper than that there was an initial and slight perturbation of an otherwise static and never changing equilibrium of possibility.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

12 Jul 2016, 9:28 am

drlaugh wrote:
Popeye was not the first to say

I am.


That's enough for this

"Reader and Righter".

May you find peace in what is important to you.

Love and prayers

Shalom

Me also known as

Zvi. 8)


Popeye said "I think. Therefore I am".

And he influenced Rene' Descartes who said "I am whatyam, and that's all that Iyam. Iyam Rene' Descartes the sailor man.".



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,554
Location: Aux Arcs

12 Jul 2016, 9:53 am

And Eminem said "And I am,whatever you say I am,If I wasn't,them why would I say I am." :D


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

12 Jul 2016, 10:14 am

AspE wrote:
For one thing, atheists don't generally say that the universe is random. You may be thinking of the randomness of mutations that drive natural selection. Many aspects of the universe can be described by math. So your argument is that God exists because math. Not convincing to me.

Atheists argue that the universe was created by pure randomness, not the handiwork of GOD ?

AspE wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
BaalChatzaf wrote:

The Argument from Design was bogus when Reverend Paley introduced it and it is bogus now.

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

David Hume demolished the Argument from Design back in the 18 th century.

Even so it is plausible to some people and the Creationists and anti-Darwinists love that argument.


It's not bogus.

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... imulation/

Famous physicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson: "I think the likelihood may be very high".

It's premature to dismiss it.

We are just learning about matter.

We may find that base structure of matter is like the 'Matrix'.

Then God is even less plausible, since god-like powers would be available to any schmuck running the simulation.


As Neil deGrasse Tyson says in the article: "We would be drooling, blithering idiots in their presence".

[Me]: That entity would be a GOD to us.



drlaugh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2015
Posts: 3,360

12 Jul 2016, 10:27 am

Humor is great.

The hardest thing I learned was not to take myself to seriously.

My laugh programs have been shared at
Churches
Synagogues
Buddhist Retreats
Maximum Security Prisons
Homeless shelters &
Other places that matter
Like impromptu music at Walmart


_________________
Still too old to know it all