Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » If the presence of flowing water on Mars eventually leads to the discovery of life on another planet, will that have any religious signficance?

If the presence of flowing water on Mars eventually leads to the discovery of life on another planet, will that have any religious signficance?

+5
Floridatexan
TEOTWAWKI
boards of FL
Markle
Hospital Bob
9 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:
From what we can tell based on what we observe, the universe appears to have began around 14 billion years ago as a burst of energy that continues to expand to this day. 

What was there in existence before the "Big Bang"? What is outside of what we observe to be the universe? What is in existence OTHER than what we are able to observe? Why does the universe exist?
Why is there existence to begin with? Why did existence, at least the part we can comprehend, take the form it's in? Is there another existence we cannot know or comprehend?

And for Teo:

Why is there a "God"? What created "God"?

If you can answer those questions, I'll give you a million more.




boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
From what we can tell based on what we observe, the universe appears to have began around 14 billion years ago as a burst of energy that continues to expand to this day. 

What was there in existence before the "Big Bang"?  What is outside of what we observe to be the universe?   What is in existence OTHER than what we are able to observe?   Why does the universe exist?
Why is there existence to begin with?  Why did existence,  at least the part we can comprehend,   take the form it's in?  Is there another existence we cannot know or comprehend?


We don't know that there was a "before" the Big Bang.  If there was, we don't know what it was.  I don't know that there is a "why" the universe exists.  Is that even a rational question?  Perhaps "how" does the universe exist is better, and the answer there is "We don't know".   I can't speak to what is outside of that which we can observe or detect.  If we can't observe or detect something in any way is it even relevant to us at all?  If there is a parallel universe that is undetectable and that exhibits absolutely no influence on our universe, would it matter?  I guess the answer there is "I don't know".  And the answer to everything else there is "I don't know".

Which is all the more reason to investigate the natural world and attempt to answer these questions.


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

SheWrites wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
SheWrites wrote:I think Teo's example of a group of ingredients to bake a cake is an excellent example of  how it will remain a group of ingredients until someone measures, mixes, pours into a cake container, places it in the oven at the correct temp and bakes the cake.

And where did those ingredients come from?  

The cow, the chicken, a field of grains, a crop of cane; how did all these come into existence?



From what we can tell based on what we observe, the universe appears to have began around 14 billion years ago as a burst of energy that continues to expand to this day.  Energy eventually condensed into matter, gravity eventually took hold, and stars were born.  Stars began to produce heavier and heavier elements and many would ultimately end in a supernova, thus blasting those heavy elements out into space.  Gravity again takes hold and condenses those elements into planets.  Those planets orbit stars.   On at least one planet, the right combination of elements and ultraviolet light were present so as to produce the fundamental building blocks of life.  Fast forward through several billion years of evolution, and then Person A drives to Winn Dixie, purchases the ingredients to bake a cake, and then they bake a cake.

No ancient mythology is needed there unless you find yourself uncomfortable with not knowing how the universe began in the first place.  If that make you feel uncomfortable, then just repeatedly tell yourself that "god" did it until you actually believe that.  

I do believe it was a burst of energy. Very Happy  Omnipotent power.


Yes.  The God of the Gaps argument.  Find something we don't understand and then say "Ah ha!  See?  You can't explain that!  So that means my particular god must have done that!"   Using your definition of "god", god is reduced to being an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.

Let's have a look at how that strategy for arguing the existence of god is working out for the believers.

List of things that god does:

Cause the wind to blow

Cause the seasons to change

Cause rain

Cause earthquakes

Cause hurricanes

Cause the sun to rise

Cause the sun to set

Cause the starts to move around in the sky

Cause death

Cause floods

Cause the big bang



Well, at least you have one thing left in good standing...for the time being.


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

If we can't observe or detect something in any way is it even relevant to us at all?  If there is a parallel universe that is undetectable that exhibits absolutely no influence on our universe, would it matter?  I guess the answer there is "I don't know".  And the answer to everything else there is "I don't know".


Again,  the most fundamental question humanity can ever ask is:

"what is the origin and the nature of everything which exists?"  

That's how I word the question.  Another wording of the question would simply be "what is it all about?"

And obviously there is no answer to that question.
And my belief,  and yes it is just a belief,  is that humanity will never have the answer because the human mind has no capacity to possess the answer to that question.   Not with it's religion,  philosophy,  science,  or anything else which will ever derive from human intellect.

Something in existence may have the capacity to have the answer to that question.  I obviously have no way of knowing.  
But it's also my belief that whatever that would be is so far removed from the totality of the human mind and the human intellect,  that it cannot and will not ever be communicated to us.  Just as the scuba diver will never be able to communicate what he knows to a minnow.  

Does that mean we should not keep seeking the answers to every question we have the capacity to ask including that question?  Of course not.
Seeking answers to questions best defines who and what we are.  It's our nature.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:If we can't observe or detect something in any way is it even relevant to us at all?  If there is a parallel universe that is undetectable that exhibits absolutely no influence on our universe, would it matter?  I guess the answer there is "I don't know".  And the answer to everything else there is "I don't know".


Again,  the most fundamental question humanity can ever ask is:

"what is the origin and the nature of everything which exists?"  

That's how I word the question.  Another wording of the question would simply be "what is it all about?"

And obviously there is no answer to that question.
And my belief,  and yes it is just a belief,  is that humanity will never have the answer because humanity has no capacity to possess the answer to that question.   Not with it's religion,  philosophy,  science,  or anything else which will ever derive from human intellect.

Something in existence may have the capacity to have the answer to that question.  I obviously have no way of knowing.  
But it's also my belief that whatever that would be is so far removed from the totality of the human mind and the human intellect,  that it cannot and will not ever be communicated to us.  Just as the scuba diver will never be able to communicate what he knows to a minnow.  

Does that mean we should not keep seeking the answers to every question we have the capacity to ask including that question?  Of course not.
Seeking answers to questions best defines who and what we are.  It's our nature.  



That belief completely ignores evolution. Given our current brains and level of evolution, it may very well be possible that any explanations about the things that we do not understand in the universe today would be incomprehensible to us today. That doesn't rule out the possibility that future forms of life that are more evolved would eventually be able to understand everything or at least more than we can now. That is certainly how things have played out thus far. And even if we don't fully understand certain things about our reality, we're still able to discover them and test them. I doubt anyone truly understands relativity or the quantum world, and yet we're able to study and test these things in the laboratory.

We are biological lifeforms that are barely out of the forest. We live our life observing reality through a lens of classical, Newtonian physics because that is a view of the world that was favored by nature throughout our evolutionary history. That said, we know that this Newtonian world isn't necessary representative of an ultimate, fundamental reality. In fact, we're nearly certain that it is not.


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
SheWrites wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
SheWrites wrote:I think Teo's example of a group of ingredients to bake a cake is an excellent example of  how it will remain a group of ingredients until someone measures, mixes, pours into a cake container, places it in the oven at the correct temp and bakes the cake.

And where did those ingredients come from?  

The cow, the chicken, a field of grains, a crop of cane; how did all these come into existence?



From what we can tell based on what we observe, the universe appears to have began around 14 billion years ago as a burst of energy that continues to expand to this day.  Energy eventually condensed into matter, gravity eventually took hold, and stars were born.  Stars began to produce heavier and heavier elements and many would ultimately end in a supernova, thus blasting those heavy elements out into space.  Gravity again takes hold and condenses those elements into planets.  Those planets orbit stars.   On at least one planet, the right combination of elements and ultraviolet light were present so as to produce the fundamental building blocks of life.  Fast forward through several billion years of evolution, and then Person A drives to Winn Dixie, purchases the ingredients to bake a cake, and then they bake a cake.

No ancient mythology is needed there unless you find yourself uncomfortable with not knowing how the universe began in the first place.  If that make you feel uncomfortable, then just repeatedly tell yourself that "god" did it until you actually believe that.  

I do believe it was a burst of energy. Very Happy  Omnipotent power.


Yes.  The God of the Gaps argument.  Find something we don't understand and then say "Ah ha!  See?  You can't explain that!  So that means my particular god must have done that!"   Using your definition of "god", god is reduced to being an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.

Let's have a look at how that strategy for arguing the existence of god is working out for the believers.

List of things that god does:

Cause the wind to blow

Cause the seasons to change

Cause rain

Cause earthquakes

Cause hurricanes

Cause the sun to rise

Cause the sun to set

Cause the starts to move around in the sky

Cause death

Cause floods

Cause the big bang



Well, at least you have one thing left in good standing...for the time being.

Sorry Boards, your "aha...see" is not me at all. All I simply said was, "I do believe it was a burst of energy," (agreeing with you) and I do believe that burst of energy to be "omnipotent power."

I said nothing of the things on your list.


Burst of energy...omnipotent power.

boards of FL

boards of FL

SheWrites wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
SheWrites wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
SheWrites wrote:I think Teo's example of a group of ingredients to bake a cake is an excellent example of  how it will remain a group of ingredients until someone measures, mixes, pours into a cake container, places it in the oven at the correct temp and bakes the cake.

And where did those ingredients come from?  

The cow, the chicken, a field of grains, a crop of cane; how did all these come into existence?



From what we can tell based on what we observe, the universe appears to have began around 14 billion years ago as a burst of energy that continues to expand to this day.  Energy eventually condensed into matter, gravity eventually took hold, and stars were born.  Stars began to produce heavier and heavier elements and many would ultimately end in a supernova, thus blasting those heavy elements out into space.  Gravity again takes hold and condenses those elements into planets.  Those planets orbit stars.   On at least one planet, the right combination of elements and ultraviolet light were present so as to produce the fundamental building blocks of life.  Fast forward through several billion years of evolution, and then Person A drives to Winn Dixie, purchases the ingredients to bake a cake, and then they bake a cake.

No ancient mythology is needed there unless you find yourself uncomfortable with not knowing how the universe began in the first place.  If that make you feel uncomfortable, then just repeatedly tell yourself that "god" did it until you actually believe that.  

I do believe it was a burst of energy. Very Happy  Omnipotent power.


Yes.  The God of the Gaps argument.  Find something we don't understand and then say "Ah ha!  See?  You can't explain that!  So that means my particular god must have done that!"   Using your definition of "god", god is reduced to being an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.

Let's have a look at how that strategy for arguing the existence of god is working out for the believers.

List of things that god does:

Cause the wind to blow

Cause the seasons to change

Cause rain

Cause earthquakes

Cause hurricanes

Cause the sun to rise

Cause the sun to set

Cause the starts to move around in the sky

Cause death

Cause floods

Cause the big bang



Well, at least you have one thing left in good standing...for the time being.

Sorry Boards, your "aha...see"  is not me at all.  All I simply said was, "I do believe it was a burst of energy," (agreeing with you) and I do believe that burst of energy to be "omnipotent power."  

I said nothing of the things on your list.  


Burst of energy...omnipotent power.


Yes.  You limit your explanation for god at the big bang because scientific discovery has left you with no choice but to limit your explanation of god at the big bang.  You really can't argue that god causes the rain today because, well, we know what causes the rain and it isn't god.   If you and I were having this conversation 400 years ago, however, you could have said "What about the rain!?  What about the rising and setting sun!?  What about the (insert unexplained phenomena from that time)?!!?" and many who share your beliefs did in fact make those arguments back then; and as you made those very arguments, someone like me would be carted off to my execution for not subscribing to your mythology.  Those arguments about the rain, the sun, and weather in general were just as good 400 years ago as your big bang argument is today.  

But then scientific progress happened.  Now you are left with the big bang; hence my point about the God of the Gaps argument.  You're finding a small pocket of scientific ignorance to hide in and you're basically saying "We don't know how that works;  Therefore, god".  That pocket used to be large.  But today, you're confined to the corner of "How did the big bang happen?"  That's really it.

I guess my question to you would be, should science determine how the big bang occurred, then what?  Would you cease to be religious at that point?

I have a friend who is an avid church goer.  I once asked him "Is there any scientific discovery that would cause you to abandon these supernatural beliefs?", and his answer was "If we're ever able to create life in a laboratory, I'll be done with religion".  With every new discovery in that field, I send him a link.  Science is getting closer and closer to solving this one and it does seem inevitable that they will.  My friend has since moved the goal posts on that one and acknowledged that, even if we show that life can emerge through purely natural processes with no need for the supernatural, that still would not be enough.  In short, there is nothing that you can show this guy to change his mind.  He has determined that an ancient civilization figured all of this stuff out a long long time ago, and that their narrative is better than ours today.  And this isn't the result of him having considered the claims of every religion and then arriving at one in particular.  His beliefs are dictated by random chance.  He was born in a certain time period, in a certain region of the world, in a certain community, to a certain set of parents who indoctrinated him into his unshakable beliefs today.  Had he been born anywhere else at any other time to any other parents, he would be equally as confident in his religion and it would be incompatible with what he believes today.


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:

That belief completely ignores evolution.  


Given our current brains and level of evolution, it may very well be possible that any explanations about the things that we do not understand in the universe today would be incomprehensible to us today.  That doesn't rule out the possibility that future forms of life that are more evolved would eventually be able to understand...  more than we can now.  That is certainly how things have played out thus far.  

The part I've put in red,  first.

Yes,  the scuba diver (human being) definitely has knowledge that the minnow does not.  
And yes,  what the human knows is incomprehensible to the minnow.
And  yes,  assuming our world or other worlds we inhabit can last long enough,  evolution will likely lead to life forms more advanced than human beings and yes those life forms will likely be able to comprehend more than humans can.

And now let's tackle the part I've put in blue fonts:
"That belief completely ignores evolution."

No it doesn't.  It in no way "ignores evolution".  I just told you it didn't.

You've got part of my scuba diver/minnow scenario right.  You actually restated that part using different words.  lol

But you're ignoring the other part of that scenario which is itself "a fact of evolution":  the scuba diver CANNOT communicate his knowledge to the minnow.
No human being has ever been able to communicate the concept of Newtonian physics to a dog,  a dolphin,  another primate or any other living creature.  Why?  Because all the living creatures less advanced than the human being have no capacity to comprehend Newtonian physics.

SO,  if we use your reasoning,  which is that since evolution does occur and will continue to occur,  what do we ACTUALLY learn from that?
Well what we've learned is, that even as life advances,  the highest form of life (currently) has no capacity to impart it's knowledge to the less evolved forms of life.
So if the evolution we understand up to this point is any indication,  a more advanced form of life will not be able to impart what it knows to humans.
Because humans will have no capacity to comprehend it.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:
boards of FL wrote:

That belief completely ignores evolution.  


Given our current brains and level of evolution, it may very well be possible that any explanations about the things that we do not understand in the universe today would be incomprehensible to us today.  That doesn't rule out the possibility that future forms of life that are more evolved would eventually be able to understand...  more than we can now.  That is certainly how things have played out thus far.  

The part I've put in red,  first.

Yes,  the scuba diver (human being) definitely has knowledge that the minnow does not.  
And yes,  what the human knows is incomprehensible to the minnow.
And  yes,  assuming our world or other worlds we inhabit can last long enough,  evolution will likely lead to life forms more advanced than human beings and yes those life forms will likely be able to comprehend more than humans can.

And now let's tackle the part I've put in blue fonts:
"That belief completely ignores evolution."

No it doesn't.  It in no way "ignores evolution".  I just told you it didn't.

You've got part of my scuba diver/minnow scenario right.  You actually restated that part using different words.  lol

But you're ignoring the other part of that scenario which is itself "a fact of evolution":  the scuba diver CANNOT communicate his knowledge to the minnow.
No human being has ever been able to communicate the concept of Newtonian physics to a dog,  a dolphin,  another primate or any other living creature.  Why?  Because all the living creatures less advanced than the human being have no capacity to comprehend Newtonian physics.

SO,  if we use your reasoning,  which is that since evolution does occur and will continue to occur,  what do we ACTUALLY learn from that?
Well what we've learned is, that even as life advances,  the highest form of life (currently) has no capacity to impart it's knowledge to the less evolved forms of life.
So if the evolution we understand up to this point is any indication,  a more advanced form of life will not be able to impart what it knows to humans.
Because humans will have no capacity to comprehend it.



All life forms are in a constant state of evolution. What I was saying is that we cannot broadly say that "Man will never understand all" because man is constantly evolving. It may be that in future, man will in fact understand all. And none of this really has anything to do with communicating ideas from one species of animal to another.


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Actually, neither humans evolving into something more advanced,  nor other creatures evolving into something more advanced,  is what I believe we should be focused on.  

Artificial intelligence is advancing at a rate exponentially faster than natural biological evolution.
I think at some point that is what we will rely on to answer our questions.  
Whether or not that will develop to a point that it can lead the human mind to any actual understanding or comprehension of  "the origin and nature of all existence",   we of course have no way of knowing.

But completely aside from that,  I am really becoming curious about what the development of artificial intelligence will eventually lead us to.
And my curiousity quickly turns to anxiety as I ponder on it.  Why?
Because this development has very little if any governor on it.
Up until this point,  the folks engaged in making these advances seem to have only one thing on their minds.  And that is a motivation to advance it further.  That seems to be the only consideration.  And if that mindset continues indefinitely,  there is the possibility that whatever it leads to may become completely out of our control.

boards of FL

boards of FL

You should check out Singularity One on One with Nikola Danaylov on Youtube. He interviews all sorts of big names in various fields about things like AI and the singularity. Some interviews are much much better than others.

https://www.youtube.com/user/ndanaylov


_________________
I approve this message.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Man has not evolved, what a laughable thought, he is becoming more and more like a copy of a copy of a copy....he is not this bastion of light and knowledge . He is still a petty thief and murderer. Sure he can atomize a city with his bombs or rip off a world with a ponzi scheme but he is no better than a rat. Fact is rats may be more caring and noble....I would have called them trousered apes but that would offend apes. The truly great men died with the renaissance.

Between 35-100 species go extinct every day....If the creator doesn't intervene soon it may just be a few cockroaches being cockroaches.

Gen 6:6...The LORD was sorry that he had made humans on the earth, and he was heartbroken.

2seaoat



we know what causes the rain and it isn't god.

I will probably see Tom Skilling this weekend. I think he would get a good laugh about us knowing what causes the rain. We are using supercomputers and we still cannot know the cause of rain in any one place with any predictive model which has reliability as to cause and effect. It is not a matter of a gap to be closed. Infinity does not allow the gap to be closed, only the illusions of those religious people who worship the concept that God does not exist, who think it is only a temporal matter to close the gap. A fools errand and just as confident as a clerk in KY that they are right.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

I know for an absolute fact that we invented God since there were so many in the cave who really needed to believe bullshit in order to feel okay with themselves.

If life is found -- and it will be found -- on some distant planet in some ultra distant galaxy, the Judeo-Christian theology will have been destroyed. Especially when they come down and eat and enslave us all. Reality.

2seaoat



I know for an absolute fact that we invented God since there were so many in the cave who really needed to believe bullshit in order to feel okay with themselves.

If life is found -- and it will be found -- on some distant planet in some ultra distant galaxy, the Judeo-Christian theology will have been destroyed. Especially when they come down and eat and enslave us all. Reality.


God is the apex of truth and perfection in the universe, nature, math, and science, the logic of the same is confirmed each and every day, but because of man's limited perception we have fools declaring with certainty a back story of God where none is logically needed, or a denial that God exists, both are fools errands. life being discovered somewhere does nothing to change the concept of God, may make people who need a back story cringe......but it changes nothing in regard to the truth.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

2seaoat wrote:I know for an absolute fact that we invented God since there were so many in the cave who really needed to believe bullshit in order to feel okay with themselves.

If life is found -- and it will be found -- on some distant planet in some ultra distant galaxy, the Judeo-Christian theology will have been destroyed. Especially when they come down and eat and enslave us all. Reality.


God is the apex of truth and perfection in the universe, nature, math, and science, the logic of the same is confirmed each and every day, but because of man's limited perception we have fools declaring with certainty a back story of God where none is logically needed, or a denial that God exists, both are fools errands.  life being discovered somewhere does nothing to change the concept of God, may make people who need a back story cringe......but it changes nothing in regard to the truth.

Fact: Some galaxies are trillions of light years older than others. I guess God had nothing else worthwhile to do when he got into making them ...

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Oh geeze like time existed before creation....maybe God just uses atoms instead of pixels.....Yeah and atoms are so cool...mostly just space. Consciousness now that's a trip...point a gun at a dog and he licks the barrel... point it at a dude and he pees his pants and cries like a baby....sucks to be aware you are gonna die huh ? On the other hand dogs are never going to create much or learn too much are they ?

Ecclesiastes 9:4
There is hope only for the living. As they say, "It's better to be a live dog than a dead lion!"

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

A summary of the preceding posts.

Existence was created by God (whatever that is).  
Human beings are at the center of all "He" created (God is a male).
God is not happy with the human beings he created.
Human beings have not evolved in any way and are still
no better than pond scum.  Rats are more caring and noble than humans.
God is heartbroken over his creation.
Human beings don't have any clue what causes rain and Tom Skilling
is laughing about it.
Infinity does not allow a gap to be closed.
Atheists are the real religious people worshipping the idea that God does not exist.  They are no different than a clerk in Kentucky who worships the idea that God does exist.  
Life on other planets will eat us and enslave us.
But life on other planets changes nothing.  
And finally,  point a gun at a dog and he licks the barrel. Point it at a dude and he pees his pants and cries like a baby.

I think that about wraps it up.  We now have an explanation for the origin and nature of all existence.  







.



Last edited by Bob on 9/29/2015, 7:02 pm; edited 1 time in total

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Bob wrote:A summary of the preceding posts.

Existence was created by God (whatever that is).  
Human beings are at the center of all "He" created.
God is not happy with the human beings he created.
Human beings have not evolved in any way and are still
no better than pond scum.  Rats are more caring and noble than humans.
God is heartbroken over his creation.
Human beings don't have any clue what causes rain and Tom Skilling
is laughing about it.
Infinity does not allow a gap to be closed.
Atheists are the real religious people worshipping the idea that God does not exist.  They are no different than a clerk in Kentucky who worships the idea that God does exist.  
Life on other planets will eat us and enslave us.
But life on other planets changes nothing.  
And finally,  point a gun at a dog and he licks the barrel. Point it at a dude and he pees his pants and cries like a baby.

I think that about wraps it up.  We now have an explanation for the origin and nature of all existence.  
.

You do that so well Bob.....you might just be renaissance material.

If the presence of flowing water on Mars eventually leads to the discovery of life on another planet, will that have any religious signficance? - Page 2 ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia0.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FENVm6HT6Y7laU%2F200

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

One last thing...

Wordslinger wrote:

Fact:  Some galaxies are trillions of light years older than others.  

According to the latest human knowledge,  at least the knowledge obtained
from using science,   the age of "the universe" itself is roughly 14 billion years.  And since all galaxies were formed after the universe itself began,  I'm not sure how some galaxies can be "trillions of light years older than others".

But then I never understood it when that reknowned scientist Al Gore said the temperature at the center of the Earth was hotter than the Sun either.  So what do I know.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Bds introduced the term "singularity" into this discussion.  This is what is meant by that...

The technological singularity is a hypothetical event related to the advent of artificial general intelligence (also known as "strong AI"). Such a computer, computer network, or robot would theoretically be capable of recursive self-improvement (redesigning itself), or of designing and building computers or robots better than itself. Repetitions of this cycle would likely result in a runaway effect – an intelligence explosion  – where smart machines design successive generations of increasingly powerful machines, creating intelligence far exceeding human intellectual capacity and control. Because the capabilities of such a superintelligence may be impossible for a human to comprehend, the technological singularity is the point beyond which events may become unpredictable or even unfathomable to human intelligence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

2seaoat



Fact: Some galaxies are trillions of light years older than others. I guess God had nothing else worthwhile to do when he got into making them ...

This is an irrational and illogical statement. The truth and perfection of the universe, nature, math, and science where God sits at the Apex has always been and is infinite in time and space. Nothing could come before, and nothing could come after because it simply is......concepts some may not wrap their head around. What is this sophomoric idea that God had to make anything, it is no less illogical than Genesis if taken literally, or the religious atheist who denies the existence of God. These concepts have been debated among the best minds for hundreds of years, and clearly man and the limits of man's perception make this a very difficult paradigm to comprehend, but one's faith in the existence of God is more than believing in the Sky Fairy.....much.....much .....much more.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

2seaoat wrote: What is this sophomoric idea that God had to make anything, it is no less illogical than Genesis if taken literally

"In the beginning,  God created the heavens and the earth".  

So "if taken literally",  the first verse of the first chapter of the Bible,  which sets the stage for the whole blasted thing,  is "sophomoric and illogical"?

So if I'm able to interpret that,  what you're saying is this stuff in the Bible was written for people who,  at that time,  could not conceive of what humanity was to learn later on?  Is that it?  
If so, I get that.

But what kind of a God is it that would not want to provide a better explanation for those of us createes who came along much later?  Those of us now who would read that and conclude,  as you have,  that it's sophomoric and illogical.

It would be like living in the 21st Century and attending a medical school,  and the curricula was confined to a medical book written in the Na-Dené Southern Athabaskan language by Navajo medicine men.

Since humans want to update their body of knowledge over time,  then why would the thing that created humans not want to do the same?  
After all,  supposedly we were created "in his image".

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

2seaoat wrote:one's faith in the existence of God is more than believing in the Sky Fairy.....much.....much .....much more.

Humans communicate with language. You're using language when you communicate that idea to us (the one in the quote above).

So using language, define "God".

And while you're at it, explain to us why you "have faith" in God when you don't have faith in anything and everything.
Why exactly did you choose to "have faith" in this thing?

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

2seaoat wrote: Nothing could come before, and nothing could come after (God) because it simply is.

And how is it that you know this? Is that known to you only because you "have faith" in that idea?

If so, then it surely isn't in keeping with the other ideas you express when writing posts here. Just like most of us, you're always questioning what others tell you. But you were told about God, and for some reason you decided to "have faith" in that idea. Why so?



Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » If the presence of flowing water on Mars eventually leads to the discovery of life on another planet, will that have any religious signficance?

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum