Questions and Statements about God...

[John Prewett]

No one has proven it either John, nor will they. See how that works. That's why agnostics exist.

I go one step further and throw the whole thing out because man created the whole thing without offering any proof.

Also, the concept God doesn't fit for me because the very nature of to universe.

Wow, so some people don't believe in God ! Live and learn.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

to correctly and fully insert my opinion on this topic

i would first like to understand what YOU think GOD is

because if you think GOD is simply "the creator"

then i would have to ask you who created science

you would probably say

"man created science"

then i would say who created man

then you would answer that question

But then you would have to ask, who created God?

 

[Jabu_Rule]

Wow, so some people don't believe in God ! Live and learn.

The concepts of God has been created by humans and given human identity since there were GODS (plural). Knowing how man came to be gives me the idea that we are as divine as we claim god to be with our many creations and wonders, but then we are humbled by the Universe and I'm just glad to be here. Whatever here is. I find this Universe to be complex enough to hold my attention. i don't require Gods or God.

 

[andthencameSHA]

not to sound like a shallow ass hivemind

but i am not to sure i care

in my head there are too MASTER spirits

creation

and

destruction

and to ME i read YOUR question as "who created create"

and i am so baffled by that question

 

[Jabu_Rule]

not to sound like a shallow ass hivemind
but i am not to sure i care

in my head there are too MASTER spirits

creation
and
destruction

and to ME i read YOUR question as "who created create"

and i am so baffled by that question

I'm on the same page as you. I understand the force of things to be Chaos and order in flux.

 

[John Prewett]

to correctly and fully insert my opinion on this topic

i would first like to understand what YOU think GOD is

because if you think GOD is simply "the creator"

then i would have to ask you who created science

you would probably say

"man created science"

then i would say who created man

then you would answer that question

Furious one: But then you would have to ask, who created God?

And then you would have to ask who created the whoever who created God ? and so on and so on and so on.

So SOME being at SOME point in time had to be UNcreated.

EITHER an original God ... OR ... the original "life"

that evolved into the life we see around us had to be UNcreated.

One or the other had to be UNcreated. Agree so far ?

 

[andthencameSHA]

i wonder which would be more accurate

your CHAOS AND ORDER

and my

CREATION and DESTRUCTION... it is almost the same thing

but i find chaos and order to be too open ended to really be complete opposites

i like this forum

 

[andthencameSHA]

Mr. Prewett i disagree

i do not think things have to have a creator who created the creator

i think there is one master creator

and one master destroyer

BECAUSE IT JUST IS

mans logic is flawed.. it will never make SENSE to our brains

 

[Jabu_Rule]

Furious one: But then you would have to ask, who created God?

And then you would have to ask who created the whoever who created God ? and so on and so on and so on.

So SOME being at SOME point in time had to be UNcreated.

EITHER an original God ... OR ... the original "life"

that evolved into the life we see around us had to be UNcreated.

One or the other had to be UNcreated. Agree so far ?

Well the universe seems to cover that doesn't it? The universe is said to have come from nothing. But that's just a theory and others say it was always here. Are you looking for something that looks more humanoid?

 

[Jabu_Rule]

i wonder which would be more accurate

your CHAOS AND ORDER

and my

CREATION and DESTRUCTION... it is almost the same thing
but i find chaos and order to be too open ended to really be complete opposites

i like this forum

The thing is, everything was created from chaos. A great explosion that occurred because of the collapse of a dust cloud which formed a constant rotation from the pull of the vortex become denser with cloud material and super heat to become the sun. The sun will explode some how (there are theories of why this all happens) and create new dust clouds, and new suns and planets. We are existing within the between process. Somehow within the temporary order (at least by our perception within our short lifespan) of the tug of war of planets and the sun which created gravity, cells were born. Shits deep. And i barely explained it. Nor at this time can i explain it all. And then there are galaxies. All I know is that we came to be in this Solar system as spontaneous as this solar system came to be. Most scientist agree that the factors that created us were just right within a margin of error but they occurred so they weren't imposable, only rare.

Why will the sun Die?

 

[ThaChozenWun]

Furious one: But then you would have to ask, who created God?

And then you would have to ask who created the whoever who created God ? and so on and so on and so on.

So SOME being at SOME point in time had to be UNcreated.

EITHER an original God ... OR ... the original "life"

that evolved into the life we see around us had to be UNcreated.

One or the other had to be UNcreated. Agree so far ?

Or perhaps things just always were and we are wrong that nothing is the only thing that can create nothing.

We never have witnessed or known absolute nothingness, it's possible that something is the normal and nothing is the abnormal

 

[andthencameSHA]

The thing is, everything was created from chaos. a

EXACTLY

which makes me think that CHAOS is not the creator

it is just a descriptive word

so do you feel what im saying? about the word chaos being applicable to too many things to embody its OWN spirit?

 

[ThaChozenWun]

Do you think that people would admit to lying if they can get away with it? It's not my place to say who does what. I'm not questioning the occupation. I'm questioning people in the occupation. If you are not that person, then that's alright...not that I need to know that.

No I meant which scientist has ever came out and said "believe what I tell you". No one, scientists are always open and willing to allow people to observe their work and scrutinize it.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

EXACTLY
which makes me think that CHAOS is not the creator
it is just a descriptive word
so do you feel what im saying? about the word chaos being applicable to too many things to embody its OWN spirit?

Well chaos only means to imply that there is a tug of war and constant changes. Water is constantly tearing through mountains. Mountains are constantly rising from oceans. The earths crust moves about and crashes into one another to create earthquakes yet all of this destruction breeds life. And that's just on our planet. Gravity causes this and gravitational fields are come from the spinning sun and spinning planets. The gravity of each object creates a pull and push effect on their neighbor bodies. The sun is the king with the largest gravitational pull.

 

[andthencameSHA]

so chaos is just a result

i think things are either destructive or constructive

ya feel me?

 

[Jabu_Rule]

so chaos is just a result

i think things are either destructive or constructive
ya feel me?

Definitely.. But Chaos creates results is what I'm getting at also. It's a cycle. A sun exploding would be chaos. A new star born would be the result. What kind of star is formed is random and nothing in the universe is alike, only similar. What started it all off and if it was all here to begin with following this tradition is still an answer that's being sought. With evidence.

It really is just a naming of these events as you said. But it helps us to conceptualize these events at least the best we can.

 

[alissowack]

Science didn't create anything, the discoveries in science were used to create things. I'm saying that it is not the fault of science, but people that negative outcomes and attitudes occur. Science is a process that does not hold bias towards any position. The data will always be there. What one does with it is what creates the ethical trouble. I gave an example once before dealing with the creation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear energy would exist without us but by observing how it works, we learned how to harness it. Some used it for evil (Hiroshima) and some used it for good (energy, space probes).

It's all relative really because some would say that it's good we ended the war in Japan while others would say that the fallout made the decision unethical. No one complained about the deaths because firebombing killed as much people and destroyed as many homes. This lead to an Arms race yet it also led to a more stable world with the big boys afraid to fight one another. You can't blame science for the fallibility of man. science is just a process with no morals attached to the data. How you acquire that data can be an ethical concern. Volunteers vs Victims.

I also pointed out that Scientology has attempted to make science into a religion and they fail miserably because it's purely a religion and has nothing to do with science other then in name. It terms of people feeling that science answers all, well it attempts to but if you have better method, the please let me know. You seem to be thinking that scientist are elitist and you would be right, but that doesn't make them religious, that just makes them smart. That also doesn't make them infallible.

Oh, I'm not saying that it is science's fault for man's wrongdoings. It is man's fault for using science wrongly. Science doesn't make a person an elitist. Man makes themselves that and though it is not really the point of this thread, it is to say that if man can take science and use it wrongly, what does that say about everything else? What's going to stop someone who understands that natural selection is true to defy moral integrity in order to prove a point...or what's going to stop the religious that believe that God exist from thinking immoral behavior is "God's Calling"?

 

[Jabu_Rule]

Oh, I'm not saying that it is science's fault for man's wrongdoings. It is man's fault for using science wrongly. Science doesn't make a person an elitist. Man makes themselves that and though it is not really the point of this thread, it is to say that if man can take science and use it wrongly, what does that say about everything else? What's going to stop someone who understands that natural selection is true to defy moral integrity in order to prove a point...or what's going to stop the religious that believe that God exist from thinking immoral behavior is "God's Calling"?

Other scientist. This is a good example of chaos theory also. Enough tug of war with ideas will lead to the truth of things. Sometimes it takes decades and other time centuries. Look how long the Vatican ruled. it's usually and external force that keeps science from working as it should. People don't like you digging for facts. Scientist can attempt to use their position to become zealots but their cause would be fairly futile because science moves to fast (as fast as humans are able to ponder a new theory which is daily) to allow for worship of an single ideal. This isn't to say that people haven't followed false doctrine passed off as science. The religious are guilty of doing that often. But you will never not here a challenge to those claims unless we live in a dictatorship.

 

[alissowack]

Humans can find innumerable reasons to kill others, this doesn't meant that any potential thing/concept that humans can use as a basis for killing others is at fault.

If someone decided to show me that they are stronger than me, then--as redundant as it sounds--they would've simply decided to me show that they are stronger than me.

I'm not saying that it is the fault of science, but if man can abuse science then it means that this misunderstanding isn't just about whether the method is wrong. It is whatever this person believes science to be we should question. Natural selection can be made out to be an excuse to kill somebody. Who knows though what goes on in the minds of people.

 

[fiat_money]

I'm not saying that it is the fault of science, but if man can abuse science then it means that this misunderstanding isn't just about whether the method is wrong. It is whatever this person believes science to be we should question. Natural selection can be made out to be an excuse to kill somebody. Who knows though what goes on in the minds of people.

Anything can be abused or made out to be an excuse to kill somebody. That's not a trait exclusive to science.