NationStates

Gearria wrote:This just seems to be the problem with humanity. We want to figure everything out and refuse to accept that there is a higher power because that would mean accepting that we actually have to answer to someone. I just cant see how people can look at this world and the stars in the sky and not believe in something. But if people want to reason that they are related to apes be my guest. But we can go around with this all day long and not agree. But if humans evolved from apes why are there still apes? But the theory of evolution is just that. A theory and it will never be proven as a fact. But the good book provides all the facts we need. People just dont want to see it. But to state it simply I do believe in God.

Who says not believing in god equates to not believing in anything?

Also, evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution(via Natural Selection) explains this fact.

Oh, religion. People arguing about who has the better imaginary friend -.-

Gearria wrote:This just seems to be the problem with humanity. We want to figure everything out and refuse to accept that there is a higher power because that would mean accepting that we actually have to answer to someone. I just cant see how people can look at this world and the stars in the sky and not believe in something. But if people want to reason that they are related to apes be my guest. But we can go around with this all day long and not agree. But if humans evolved from apes why are there still apes? But the theory of evolution is just that. A theory and it will never be proven as a fact. But the good book provides all the facts we need. People just dont want to see it. But to state it simply I do believe in God.

There are still apes because they are still suited to their environment, we are not apes because we left that environment.
And on the theory bit: A lot of people get confused with the whole "theory" concept. It often gets mistaken for a hypothesis, which is an educated guess. A theory is that guess after its been tested, retested adnauseum, and stood the test of time. The theory of Evolution in particular has a ridiculous amount of data backing it (more so than all other theories)

Norstal wrote:

Crusadiala wrote:
who made the dust then?

We don't know.

If we told you that god did it, that would be lying.

If you don't know, how would it be lying?

Gearria wrote:This just seems to be the problem with humanity. We want to figure everything out and refuse to accept that there is a higher power because that would mean accepting that we actually have to answer to someone. I just cant see how people can look at this world and the stars in the sky and not believe in something. But if people want to reason that they are related to apes be my guest. But we can go around with this all day long and not agree. But if humans evolved from apes why are there still apes? But the theory of evolution is just that. A theory and it will never be proven as a fact. But the good book provides all the facts we need. People just dont want to see it. But to state it simply I do believe in God.

1. Evolution is a proven fact. Brush up on what a scientific theory means before you go around bashing it.
2. Some apes also evolve from other apes. Theoretically according to your idea of what evolution is there should only be one species of any kind. Which is ludicrous.
3. Beliveing in something and know evolution exists is not mutually contradictory.

Ameiliaic wrote:

Norstal wrote:We don't know.

If we told you that god did it, that would be lying.

If you don't know, how would it be lying?

Because its like a scientist saying "This is completely and utterly true, but I haven't tested it yet."

Ameiliaic wrote:

Norstal wrote:We don't know.

If we told you that god did it, that would be lying.

If you don't know, how would it be lying?

Out of what we crossed of the list of what created it, God was among it.
There is a reason that over 90% of the National Academy of Sciences identifies as a non-believer.

Unhealthy2 wrote:

Jasonovia wrote:But if he denies they have intrinsic value, can you prove to him that they do?

Only to the same extent that I could prove the truth of a mathematical theorem to someone that childishly refuses to be educated on mathematics.

What makes it wrong to destroy things of inherent value, exactly?

That's like asking "What makes it wrong to commit immoral actions?" It's ultimately a meaningless question resulting from what I and Wittgenstein would describe as a misuse of language.

The thing about a mathematical proof is it needs to start with some axioms. A person must be convinced of the axioms by something other than mathematical means to not be circular. So these moral axioms have to have some sort of real existence to them to be accepted and not be just a personal or societal arbitration, which can drastically change from one person or group of persons to another.

Ceannairceach wrote:

Ameiliaic wrote:If you don't know, how would it be lying?

Because its like a scientist saying "This is completely and utterly true, but I haven't tested it yet."

"Cold fusion! Really, trust me."

Yeah.

Barringtonia wrote:As an all-knowing God I foresee that this thread, despite no OP content, will go on for some 50 pages.

The number of pages this thread contains is just 9 pages away from the prophecised number! Prepare for a divine apocalypse!

Also I invite all theists and atheists to prove to me that Barringtonia is not a god. If you think it is possible using only the internet then your logic is flawed.

Jasonovia wrote:The thing about a mathematical proof is it needs to start with some axioms. A person must be convinced of the axioms by something other than mathematical means to not be circular. So these moral axioms have to have some sort of real existence to them to be accepted and not be just a personal or societal arbitration, which can drastically change from one person or group of persons to another.

You're looking at math in a rather old-fashioned Euclid sort of way. We learned that you don't have to accept a certain set of axioms, and that you can construct several systems out of other axioms. In addition, we learned that you can found the same system on different axiom sets. This makes a mathematical system slightly independent of its particular axioms in question.

Nonetheless, if we're dealing with groups, and I prove to you something which is true about all groups, you could respond "Yeah, but why does the operator have to be associative." I would simply state "It doesn't. However, since we are dealing with groups, the operator is associative by definition. If it wasn't, then we wouldn't be talking about groups anymore. Nonetheless, this theorem is true about ALL groups, whether you like groups or not."

The only "axioms" that you'd need to accept in order to follow my notion are:

1. Other humans exist.
2. These other humans have minds just as much as you do.

Unless you're a solipsist, which no one REALLY is, you have to accept the inherent value of other people, if you wish to remain correct.

Unhealthy2 wrote:The only "axioms" that you'd need to accept in order to follow my notion are:

1. Other humans exist.
2. These other humans have minds just as much as you do.

Unless you're a solipsist, which no one REALLY is, you have to accept the inherent value of other people, if you wish to remain correct.

Oooooohh..beware when you say things like that. A solipsist might show up.

The Murtunian Tribes wrote:Oooooohh..beware when you say things like that. A solipsist might show up.

There are no real solipsists, just people that pretend well.

Unhealthy2 wrote:

The Murtunian Tribes wrote:Oooooohh..beware when you say things like that. A solipsist might show up.

There are no real solipsists, just people that pretend well.

Close enough. Still annoying.

The Murtunian Tribes wrote:Close enough. Still annoying.

Sure, but they're like postmodernists that way. They don't really believe what they're saying. It's just an exercise in mental masturbation.

Unhealthy2 wrote:

Jasonovia wrote:I was wondering that earlier in the thread and actually was leaning towards God not "doing " anything. As far as i'm concerned, much of religion discusses God in terms of personification to help grasp something that is incomprehensible. So maybe it is technically incorrect that God "does" anything, and yet everything that does act depends on it for existence.

I see this position as indistinguishable from atheism, which is, obviously, fine by me.

That is the best response one could hope for. At the ends of his proofs, Aquinas says, "and this everyone understands to be God." He's just proved something that everyone in the world must agree to be true, even atheists. However, these are so general that it doesn't really change anything other than perhaps people's definition of God. And yet this is as far as our own minds can take us. If we wanted to learn more about this God, God would have to reach out to us and thus the revelatory religions. Otherwise we have functional atheism. This we can never know for certain, but continual study and dialog can do no harm yet bring us ever closer to the truth.

Well I will be the first to admit that science is not my strong suit. But all the same people have been arguing this point for centuries. I respect your opinion but I wont agree with it. But the way I see it science is a flawed field. And it will never answer everything. And I will quote Men in Black. Thousands of years ago we knew the world was the center of the universe.
Hundreds of years ago we knew the world was flat.
Imagine what we will know tommorow.
The thing is science changes as time passes but the Bible remains the same. Plus if this world is the best it gets well then that just sucks. And the ironic thing is I used to be an Athiest. But there was a big void that science just could not fill and it seemed that if we are all just accidents then there is no purpose to life.(I even attempted suicide) But after I put my faith in God and accepted his truth I was given purpose and now I am a person with new life. But I'm not a preacher and I dont want to add to a never ending debate. So this will be my last post on this thread. But I continue to respect your opinion.

Tds Anarchism wrote:Oh, religion. People arguing about who has the better imaginary friend -.-

Really, now? Please enlighten me, O great being.

Unhealthy2 wrote:The only "axioms" that you'd need to accept in order to follow my notion are:

1. Other humans exist.
2. These other humans have minds just as much as you do.

Unless you're a solipsist, which no one REALLY is, you have to accept the inherent value of other people, if you wish to remain correct.

There is one more implicit axiom: that other humans having minds like yours is important to how to treat them.

Gearria wrote:Well I will be the first to admit that science is not my strong suit. But all the same people have been arguing this point for centuries. I respect your opinion but I wont agree with it. But the way I see it science is a flawed field. And it will never answer everything. And I will quote Men in Black. Thousands of years ago we knew the world was the center of the universe.
Hundreds of years ago we knew the world was flat.
Imagine what we will know tommorow.
The thing is science changes as time passes but the Bible remains the same. Plus if this world is the best it gets well then that just sucks. And the ironic thing is I used to be an Athiest. But there was a big void that science just could not fill and it seemed that if we are all just accidents then there is no purpose to life.(I even attempted suicide) But after I put my faith in God and accepted his truth I was given purpose and now I am a person with new life. But I'm not a preacher and I dont want to add to a never ending debate. So this will be my last post on this thread. But I continue to respect your opinion.

True. The bible remains the same (discounting the latest revisions of course ), and for the most part, it's followers refuse to evolve as well.

The Murtunian Tribes wrote:

Gearria wrote:This just seems to be the problem with humanity. We want to figure everything out and refuse to accept that there is a higher power because that would mean accepting that we actually have to answer to someone. I just cant see how people can look at this world and the stars in the sky and not believe in something. But if people want to reason that they are related to apes be my guest. But we can go around with this all day long and not agree. But if humans evolved from apes why are there still apes? But the theory of evolution is just that. A theory and it will never be proven as a fact. But the good book provides all the facts we need. People just dont want to see it. But to state it simply I do believe in God.

1. Evolution is a proven fact. Brush up on what a scientific theory means before you go around bashing it.
2. Some apes also evolve from other apes. Theoretically according to your idea of what evolution is there should only be one species of any kind. Which is ludicrous.
3. Beliveing in something and know evolution exists is not mutually contradictory.

A theory is what is accepted by the scientific community as the reason for an observation, if I'm not mistaken. The Theory of Evolution is really a superb thing. I doubt it will ever be debunked.

Because, evolution does happen. We can see it. The only thing that we might be wrong about is in our explanation of why it happens. And, really, the Theory of Evolution is one of the best Theories science has ever come up with, so I doubt it will ever be proven wrong.

Jasonovia wrote:There is one more implicit axiom: that other humans having minds like yours is important to how to treat them.

Not really. Them having minds is sufficient to show that they have intrinsic value which, by the very definitions as uses of language, means that you SHOULD treat them with a certain sort of consideration.

Gearria wrote:Well I will be the first to admit that science is not my strong suit. But all the same people have been arguing this point for centuries. I respect your opinion but I wont agree with it. But the way I see it science is a flawed field. And it will never answer everything. And I will quote Men in Black. Thousands of years ago we knew the world was the center of the universe.
Hundreds of years ago we knew the world was flat.
Imagine what we will know tommorow.
The thing is science changes as time passes but the Bible remains the same. Plus if this world is the best it gets well then that just sucks. And the ironic thing is I used to be an Athiest. But there was a big void that science just could not fill and it seemed that if we are all just accidents then there is no purpose to life.(I even attempted suicide) But after I put my faith in God and accepted his truth I was given purpose and now I am a person with new life. But I'm not a preacher and I dont want to add to a never ending debate. So this will be my last post on this thread. But I continue to respect your opinion.

No, we didn't know all that; we thought that to be true, despite all of it being false. Although, I wish to point out that the flat earth thing, from what I have learned, wasn't as widely accepted as it is believed to have been.

The thing about science is that, yes, it can't answer everything... yet. However, unlike the bible, it can change to fit facts. The bible doesn't.

Ceannairceach wrote:

Gearria wrote:Well I will be the first to admit that science is not my strong suit. But all the same people have been arguing this point for centuries. I respect your opinion but I wont agree with it. But the way I see it science is a flawed field. And it will never answer everything. And I will quote Men in Black. Thousands of years ago we knew the world was the center of the universe.
Hundreds of years ago we knew the world was flat.
Imagine what we will know tommorow.
The thing is science changes as time passes but the Bible remains the same. Plus if this world is the best it gets well then that just sucks. And the ironic thing is I used to be an Athiest. But there was a big void that science just could not fill and it seemed that if we are all just accidents then there is no purpose to life.(I even attempted suicide) But after I put my faith in God and accepted his truth I was given purpose and now I am a person with new life. But I'm not a preacher and I dont want to add to a never ending debate. So this will be my last post on this thread. But I continue to respect your opinion.

No, we didn't know all that; we thought that to be true, despite all of it being false. Although, I wish to point out that the flat earth thing, from what I have learned, wasn't as widely accepted as it is believed to have been.

The thing about science is that, yes, it can't answer everything... yet. However, unlike the bible, it can change to fit facts. The bible doesn't.

Science will never be able to answer everything. It has many things it can answer, but it cannot answer everything because not everything is observable and testable.