NationStates Jolt Archive

At the end of junior year of high school, I considered the argument here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=462579) that GUT, TOE, and Higgs Particles might be able to prove the existence of God due to the application of free will. A decent amount of discussion was generated, but the idea didn't really capture the footing I desired. Now, a few years later I'd like to consider the idea of how Omega Point Theory, Big Bang Theory, and humanity's (or at least livelihood's) persistent desire to exist might be able to justify God (and possibly shine some truth in the father complex many people have about God; that which is good and created the universe must be personified).

I have class in a little bit, so I'm going to keep this simple for now. Omega point theory is the idea that as the universe contracts, the calculatory capacity (hitherto referred "c.c.") of the universe grows along with it. Assuming that the life of a universe begins at the point of the big bang that precedes it and it ends at the big crunch that concludes it, this would mean that the end of time of a given universe is the point at which that universe carries the greatest c.c. Now, assuming that life is the highest form of existence in a universe (meaning that it's the most efficient [not effective] form of resolution regardless of if that means towards randomness, righteousness, or rationality) and assuming that life is not dominated or directed by negative utilitarian thought (meaning that life is not destined to want to end itself), that would mean that life would want to go on after the end of the universe. Such a desire can be deduced by how optimal efficiency would develop c.c. and if c.c. is at its highest point when it disappears, then all exerted effort would be going towards the enhancement of c.c (again, remember how I conceded that humanity doesn't have to be the highest form of resolution and I haven't discussed what the definition of livelihood is i.e. humane or inhumane, organic or inorganic, material or energy based, etc).

In order to live on after death though, livelihood would have to come up with a technique equivalent to existence itself. Assuming that livelihood can communicate at the end of the universe (which is reasonable again due to optimal c.c. existing at the end of time) and that livelihood realized that existence can only be proven through records or messages which show or influence future entities, livelihood would engage in activity that would communicate to future entities certain characteristics and objectives (this is also equivalent to humanity's connection between greed and power and how we currently wish those we love the best of luck with their endeavors following our own deaths). Such communication could pass on in conscious forms such as the manipulation of forces to encourage people to write religious or intellectual texts or talk about faith or facts, or it could pass on in unconscious forms such as natural laws and human nature.

Isn't this just Frank Tipler's The Physics of Immortality?

I don't think so. Yes, it's used to prove Omega Point Theory, but I don't recall him trying to prove God's existence.

Assuming that the life of a universe begins at the point of the big bang that precedes it and it ends at the big crunch that concludes it, this would mean that the end of time of a given universe is the point at which that universe carries the greatest c.c....

Now, assuming that life is the highest form of existence in a universe...

Assuming that livelihood can communicate at the end of the universe...

In order to live on after death though, livelihood would have to come up with a technique equivalent to existence itself. Assuming that livelihood can communicate at the end of the universe (which is reasonable again due to optimal c.c. existing at the end of time) and that livelihood realized that existence can only be proven through records or messages which show or influence future entities, livelihood would engage in activity that would communicate to future entities certain characteristics and objectives (this is also equivalent to humanity's connection between greed and power and how we currently wish those we love the best of luck with their endeavors following our own deaths). Such communication could pass on in conscious forms such as the manipulation of forces to encourage people to write religious or intellectual texts or talk about faith or facts, or it could pass on in unconscious forms such as natural laws and human nature.

Firstly, is there even a "technique equivalent to existence itself"? You have to assume once again that that is possible. You also haven't shown how livelihood can communicate at the end of the universe. You just say that it is reasonable.

You make too many assumptions without any backing. You could just have well have said "assuming that there is a god, then god must exist." That would have been easier to read and made more sense.

Aggicificicerous, yea ur right. Too many assumptions. I just didn't have much time to go into detail before I wrote this to justify why certain assumptions were made in order to make holding affirmative or negative positions on God worthwhile anyway.

The first assumption about life being the highest form of existence is a challenge to the natural selection versus intelligent design argument. If life as we know it is not the highest form of existence (or isn't a step before the highest form), then it doesn't matter if it evolves on its own or is predetermined into certain forms. Life could only be recognized as being susceptible to unguided natural laws of the universe. This means that free will, emotions and feelings, and the opinions carried towards natural selection or intelligent design don't exist, and there's no point in trying to figure out one or the other for the sake of humanity or livelihood.

The second assumption about negative utilitarian thought not dominating our behavior is a challenge to the self-preservation requirement for sanity. If livelihood is allowed to be dominantly self-destructive while being sane, then livelihood would have no net desire to go on and would have no desire to procreate itself in a future universe. The validity of this assumption assumes that livelihood cannot be created from some other force, but if that force is directed by unguided natural laws, then again there can be no recognizable real purpose for carrying an opinion on God's place towards livelihood's existence since livelihood is directed by natural laws beyond the realm of free will.

Finally, the assumption about communication being an equivalent technique takes advantage of our utilization of communication to influence and cooperate with entities besides and beyond ourselves. Simply put, communication is how we allow our thoughts, beliefs, ideas, and feelings to be expressed and engaged throughout what is perceived to be the real world. It is these mental products which provide humanity with meanings for what we do, and without these meanings, humanity would have no motivation to behave, do, act, or perform. Again, if these mental products are not independent of unguided natural laws, then there's no reason to hold a position towards or against God's existence in the first place.



BTW, I'm not agreeing with the point being made that computational capacity exponentially grows to the end of time. I'm only saying that it does grow (meaning that optimal c.c. exists at the same time that the universe reaches optimal resolution). Tipler's argument says that the universe never ends since simulations are run which are equivalent to real existence before the universe comes to an end (while refusing to provide a realistic argument about the paradox over the overload from how simulations never end since they create their own simulations never ending their own quasi-universes). What I'm saying is that God is livelihood from previous universes trying to exist beyond those universes' ends (nevermind their attempts to generate increasing efficiency in future universes in the pursuit of perfection to eliminate pain once and for all).

At the end of junior year of high school, I considered the argument here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=462579) that GUT, TOE, and Higgs Particles might be able to prove the existence of God due to the application of free will. A decent amount of discussion was generated, but the idea didn't really capture the footing I desired. Now, a few years later I'd like to consider the idea of how Omega Point Theory, Big Bang Theory, and humanity's (or at least livelihood's) persistent desire to exist might be able to justify God (and possibly shine some truth in the father complex many people have about God; that which is good and created the universe must be personified).

I have class in a little bit, so I'm going to keep this simple for now. Omega point theory is the idea that as the universe contracts, the calculatory capacity (hitherto referred "c.c.") of the universe grows along with it. Assuming that the life of a universe begins at the point of the big bang that precedes it and it ends at the big crunch that concludes it, this would mean that the end of time of a given universe is the point at which that universe carries the greatest c.c. Now, assuming that life is the highest form of existence in a universe (meaning that it's the most efficient [not effective] form of resolution regardless of if that means towards randomness, righteousness, or rationality) and assuming that life is not dominated or directed by negative utilitarian thought (meaning that life is not destined to want to end itself), that would mean that life would want to go on after the end of the universe. Such a desire can be deduced by how optimal efficiency would develop c.c. and if c.c. is at its highest point when it disappears, then all exerted effort would be going towards the enhancement of c.c (again, remember how I conceded that humanity doesn't have to be the highest form of resolution and I haven't discussed what the definition of livelihood is i.e. humane or inhumane, organic or inorganic, material or energy based, etc).

In order to live on after death though, livelihood would have to come up with a technique equivalent to existence itself. Assuming that livelihood can communicate at the end of the universe (which is reasonable again due to optimal c.c. existing at the end of time) and that livelihood realized that existence can only be proven through records or messages which show or influence future entities, livelihood would engage in activity that would communicate to future entities certain characteristics and objectives (this is also equivalent to humanity's connection between greed and power and how we currently wish those we love the best of luck with their endeavors following our own deaths). Such communication could pass on in conscious forms such as the manipulation of forces to encourage people to write religious or intellectual texts or talk about faith or facts, or it could pass on in unconscious forms such as natural laws and human nature.

All of this is possible. It's also possible that at the moment of death that invisible, incorporeal Butt Gnomes crawl into our orifices and yank our souls out through our butts. Then they take our souls to their underground lair where they use our souls as an industrial lubricant, an ingredient in pet food and as a holiday giftwrap. These Butt Gnomes also enter the orifices of certain living beings and implant fantastic stories of the afterlife to deceive us and keep us from looking for where our souls actually go and who takes them.

It would certainly explain the common near-death experience of a tunnel followed by a white light; a Butt Gnome has dragged the soul out of the butt then lost it's grip, allowing the soul to scamper around a bit before escaping back up the butt. *nod*

Gyad! Maybe it is just as comical as Hitchhiker's Guide. XD

:headbang:

So we live here on earth for anywhere from 10 seconds to 100 years, and then when we die, we have to wait 25 billion years for a new universe so we can have our turn again? i think you're close here, but underestimating intelligent life.

No, I do not believe in Creation Ex nihilo, so I believe that anything that currently exists has existed in some phase form or something else, and will always exist similarly. Our progression through these different stages of existance, with the help and oversight and plans of a God, has brought us all to our current state of being. I mean, look where we are. I can call myself a self! Independant, free-thinking, free-choosing, free to do anything, free to learn anything, free to ask anything. Free to do anything towards further progression of myself, and responsible to help others as well, if I choose to be.

i think it's pretty cool :)

Sorry I am a simple high school biology student and I don't understand this very well. I am still going to put forth my opinon because I am teenager and I like to give opinons. I think that it is possible that there was a big bang. I am christian. I beleive that if there was a big bang then God made it happen as a method to start the universe. God by definition is omnipotent. Therefore if he exists, he can do anything however he wants. So if he used the big bang it is possible that the earth was created in the time described in the bible because god could have accelerated all of the stuff to fit into the days described. I don't think that there is a scientific explanation for God. It just takes faith to belive one way or the other. I think the earth is older than 6,000 years old. I however disagree that it is 4.7 BYA. I personally think and belive it is probably 15-30 thousand years old. Just my two cents.

All of this is possible. It's also possible that at the moment of death that invisible, incorporeal Butt Gnomes crawl into our orifices and yank our souls out through our butts. Then they take our souls to their underground lair where they use our souls as an industrial lubricant, an ingredient in pet food and as a holiday giftwrap. These Butt Gnomes also enter the orifices of certain living beings and implant fantastic stories of the afterlife to deceive us and keep us from looking for where our souls actually go and who takes them.

It would certainly explain the common near-death experience of a tunnel followed by a white light; a Butt Gnome has dragged the soul out of the butt then lost it's grip, allowing the soul to scamper around a bit before escaping back up the butt. *nod*


That is the most idiotic thing I have ever read. Anyone who reads this is now dumber for having read it. May God have mercy on your soul(thought that ending would be rather fitting for this thread and yes that is based off of what was said in Billy Madison)

Sorry I am a simple high school biology student and I don't understand this very well. I am still going to put forth my opinon because I am teenager and I like to give opinons. I think that it is possible that there was a big bang. I am christian. I beleive that if there was a big bang then God made it happen as a method to start the universe. God by definition is omnipotent. Therefore if he exists, he can do anything however he wants. So if he used the big bang it is possible that the earth was created in the time described in the bible because god could have accelerated all of the stuff to fit into the days described. I don't think that there is a scientific explanation for God. It just takes faith to belive one way or the other. I think the earth is older than 6,000 years old. I however disagree that it is 4.7 BYA. I personally think and belive it is probably 15-30 thousand years old. Just my two cents.
I congratulate you on being one of the great open-minded christians... plenty like to ignore science completely.

I, like many, am still confused by the idea at subject. The concept in question in this thread is not the big bang theory of the early 20th century, where the universe suddenly poofed into existance. The idea herein discussed is the current big bang theory, which states that this universe began as another collapsed. An eternal ring of universal expansion and destruction. i don't know if I agree with the theory all the way, but it disproves god waaay less than the original theory did.

Arguments for the existence of God:
The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God.
The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator god.
The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which can not be conceived". Alvin Plantinga formulates this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.
The mind-body problem argument suggests that the relation of consciousness to materiality is best understood in terms of the existence of God.
Arguments that some non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as justice, beauty, love or religious experience are arguments for theism as against materialism.
The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as our existence, are best explained by the existence of God.
The moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.
The transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take seriously do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.
The will to believe doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James' attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method).
Arguments based on claims of miracles wrought by God associated with specific historical events or personages.

Arguments from historical events or personages:
Islam asserts that the life of Mohammad and especially the revealing of the miraculous Quran by an angel vindicates Islam.
Judaism asserts that God intervened in key specific moments in history, especially at the Exodus and the giving of the Ten Commandments, thus demonstrating his special care for the Jewish people, and a fortiori his existence.
The argument from the life of Jesus. This asserts that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, that in this he was either deluded, deceitful or truthful, and that it is possible to assess Jesus's character sufficiently from the accounts of his life and teaching to rule out the first two possibilities. C S Lewis put forward this argument (the Trilemma) and it is followed in the widely adopted Alpha Course.
The argument from the Resurrection of Jesus. This asserts that there is sufficient historical evidence for Jesus's resurrection to support his claim to be the son of God and indicates, a fortiori, God's existence.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as Mormonism, similarly asserts that the miraculous finding and translation of the Book of Mormon establishes the truth of Mormonism.

Inductive arguments:
Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning.
Another class of philosophers asserts that the proofs for the existence of God present a fairly large probability though not absolute certainty. A number of obscure points, they say, always remain; an act of faith is required to dismiss these difficulties. This view is maintained, among others, by the Scottish statesman Arthur Balfour in his book The Foundations of Belief (1895). The opinions set forth in this work were adopted in France by Ferdinand Brunetière, the editor of the Revue des deux Mondes. Many orthodox Protestants express themselves in the same manner, as, for instance, Dr. E. Dennert, President of the Kepler Society, in his work Ist Gott tot?.

Arguments from testimony:
Arguments from testimony rely on the testimony or experience of certain witnesses, possibly embodying the propositions of a specific revealed religion. Swinburne argues that it is a principle of rationality that one should accept testimony unless there are strong reasons for not doing so.
The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout the ages. A variation of this is the argument from miracles which relies on testimony of supernatural events to establish the existence of God.
The majority argument argues that the theism of people throughout most of recorded history and in many different places provides prima facie demonstration of God's existence.

Arguments grounded in personal experience:
The Scotch School led by Thomas Reid taught that the fact of the existence of God is accepted by us without knowledge of reasons but simply by a natural impulse. That God exists, this school said, is one of the chief metaphysical principles that we accept not because they are evident in themselves or because they can be proved, but because common sense obliges us to accept them.
The Argument from a Proper Basis argues that belief in God is "properly basic"; that it is similar to statements like "I see a chair" or "I feel pain". Such beliefs are non-falsifiable and, thus, neither provable nor disprovable; they concern perceptual beliefs or indisputable mental states.
In Germany, the School of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi taught that our reason is able to perceive the suprasensible. Jacobi distinguished three faculties: sense, reason, and understanding. Just as sense has immediate perception of the material so has reason immediate perception of the immaterial, while the understanding brings these perceptions to our consciousness and unites them to one another. God's existence, then, cannot be proven (Jacobi, like Immanuel Kant, rejected the absolute value of the principle of causality), it must be felt by the mind.
In Emile, Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that when our understanding ponders over the existence of God it encounters nothing but contradictions; the impulses of our hearts, however, are of more value than the understanding, and these proclaim clearly to us the truths of natural religion, namely, the existence of God and the immortality of the soul.
The same theory was advocated in Germany by Friedrich Schleiermacher (died 1834), who assumed an inner religious sense by means of which we feel religious truths. According to Schleiermacher, religion consists solely in this inner perception, and dogmatic doctrines are inessential.
Many modern Protestant theologians follow in Schleiermacher's footsteps, and teach that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated; certainty as to this truth is only furnished us by inner experience, feeling, and perception.
Modernist Christianity also denies the demonstrability of the existence of God. According to them we can only know something of God by means of the vital immanence, that is, under favorable circumstances the need of the divine dormant in our subconsciousness becomes conscious and arouses that religious feeling or experience in which God reveals himself to us. In condemnation of this view the oath against modernism formulated by Pius X says: "Deum ... naturali rationis lumine per ea quae facta sunt, hoc est per visibilia creationis opera, tanquam causam per effectus certo cognosci adeoque demostrari etiam posse, profiteor." ("I declare that by the natural light of reason, God can be certainly known and therefore his existence demonstrated through the things that are made, i.e., through the visible works of creation, as the cause is known through its effects.")

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge) may explain, from a different angle, your curiosity about the Real Proof on the Existence of God.

That is the most idiotic thing I have ever read. Anyone who reads this is now dumber for having read it. May God have mercy on your soul(thought that ending would be rather fitting for this thread and yes that is based off of what was said in Billy Madison)

Unfortunate as it is, it seems your faith leaves you incapable of processing a joke. LG isn't exactly the most serious poster here.

Furthermore, this brings up a fun point. I haven't noticed any monotheistic person be able to, like I can, look at their belief structure and laugh at how utterly pathetic it is that the entire world requires purpose or justification. Not one. Granted, I may have a biased sample, but still. Why is it I, as an atheist, can laugh at myself, but a christian can't laugh at him/herself?

After reading Lunatic, Bedouin, and Ray's responses, all I can be reminded of is how rationality is in the eye of the beholder. We respond to proposals according to how we feel we can best connect with the proposer without compromising and corrupting our own identities.

Raysia, I'm not disagreeing with free will. If anything, I'm supporting it as seen by my respect for existing cultures and morals through the given assumptions. Also, the discussion isn't about whether the big bang created the universe, but whether God can be proven to exist as the livelihood from universes' past. I do like your connection to Teilhard de Chardi's original Omega Point though (which Tipler transformed in order to gain contemporary appeal) since Chardi considered that the universe constantly becomes more and more COMPLEX (as opposed to becoming more and more chaotic). Chardi also gives meaning to humanity since he believed that mankind is the most complex creature in the world and that mankind's innovation is what resolves the world more and more everyday.

Bedouin, I like your answer too since it bridges with relativism so far as perspective is concerned, but not so far as principle is concerned. Meaning (like rationality) is in the eye of the beholder, and the bible can be interpreted in many ways. Many argue that the usage of holy text is similar to the usage of political rhetoric in that it appeals to the audience in order to convene discipline which allows for facilitated government. This doesn't necessarily mean that text or rhetoric is always used for coercing conformity or brainwashing submission, but it does say that text and rhetoric allows for a simpler more applicable explanation of the world when attention isn't available for deeper study. Accelerating time is not something that can be objectively judged since the observation of time changes according to many physical facets (such as the velocity or health of an observer). Also, just because something is deemed as a humane activity that should be done by an omnipotent doesn't mean it's humane according to that omnipotent being.

And Lunatic, reading your response just made me laugh and remember how there's always a bit of sarcasm in every shpeel of humor and that there's always a scrap of truth in every bit of sarcasm. Goodwill is always appreciated even when its found where unintended.

True that the bible can be interperted in many ways. Just look at how many denominations of Christianity there are. I am jsut going off of my won beliefs and I admit that.

True that the bible can be interperted in many ways. Just look at how many denominations of Christianity there are. I am jsut going off of my won beliefs and I admit that.Haha, if people would just realize that the Bible is just one record... a collection of records really, then they would open up to the other records out there. God didn't just send prophets to the jews... he had plenty of other people.

Haha, if people would just realize that the Bible is just one record... a collection of records really, then they would open up to the other records out there. God didn't just send prophets to the jews... he had plenty of other people.

I agree. The Bible is the recorded history of just one people.

What people should realize is that the bible, like every other pseudo-sacred text, is just a collection stories meant to sedate the social desire for knowledge and is hardly a credible source for anything.

I mean, really. You've got the jews writing up their own (and often plagiarized) versions of events like the Gilgamesh flood, portraying themselves as innocent victims, and then the christian cults come along and steal that and write their own stuffz down.

Eventually, the entire story got so ridiculously confusing people split off into different sects or whatever, and thusly caused the schisms.


Meanwhile, atheism is chillin' with agnosticism while they laugh at the crazy monotheistic religions that take themselves far too seriously.

What people should realize is that the bible, like every other pseudo-sacred text, is just a collection stories meant to sedate the social desire for knowledge and is hardly a credible source for anything.

I mean, really. You've got the jews writing up their own (and often plagiarized) versions of events like the Gilgamesh flood, portraying themselves as innocent victims, and then the christian cults come along and steal that and write their own stuffz down.

Eventually, the entire story got so ridiculously confusing people split off into different sects or whatever, and thusly caused the schisms.


Meanwhile, atheism is chillin' with agnosticism while they laugh at the crazy monotheistic religions that take themselves far too seriously.Yes, the biggest promoter of atheism is christianity... not the belief in christ, but the silly belief systems in the world that make things so confusing that any rational thinker tends to want to throw their hands in the air and give up trying to believe anything than form any sort of relationship with God or find a purpose in eternity.

Haha, if people would just realize that the Bible is just one record... a collection of records really, then they would open up to the other records out there. God didn't just send prophets to the jews... he had plenty of other people.

Isn't history subjective though? The bible wasn't exactly written in a time when cross-referencing was in common practice. Also, the Jews aren't the only ones spoken about throughout the bible (I'll give a list later if you ask for one) and the future is considered as well (Revelations should ring a bell here).

What people should realize is that the bible, like every other pseudo-sacred text, is just a collection stories meant to sedate the social desire for knowledge and is hardly a credible source for anything.

Faith isn't built upon a holy text, but rather what one believes to be proper and auspicious with the righteousness in the real world. Experts' purpose for interpreting holy text isn't to determine what is right, but to determine what is the best way to describe scripture to followers in order to preserve social cohesion (this is why churches have been used for community building for so long).

Isn't history subjective though? The bible wasn't exactly written in a time when cross-referencing was in common practice. Also, the Jews aren't the only ones spoken about throughout the bible (I'll give a list later if you ask for one) and the future is considered as well (Revelations should ring a bell here).

Ah, the famous Book of Revelations or Apocalypse. It´s curious to note this on your argument of a historical record because Apocalypse is a Greek word that means the end of something. In this case, the final chapter of the Bible. And this Apocalypse isn´t exclusive to the Bible, actually, it was very common to end texts of the time when the Bible was being written, with an apocalyspe as a final chapter. It was the proper way of ending a book or codex.

Yes, the biggest promoter of atheism is christianity... not the belief in christ, but the silly belief systems in the world that make things so confusing that any rational thinker tends to want to throw their hands in the air and give up trying to believe anything than form any sort of relationship with God or find a purpose in eternity.

Well, that and how permeated the religion is, especially in America. People get indoctrinated into this bundle of lies at around the age they learn to tie their shoes. Then it just gets battered into their heads so often it's a wonder they can even think at all.

The problem is also how anything to the contrary is demonized and hated simply for being, but that's like any irrational hatred.


Edit: Oh, geez. Revelations is just silly. As if the bible needed another reason for its credibility to be thrown into question.

Isn't history subjective though? The bible wasn't exactly written in a time when cross-referencing was in common practice. Also, the Jews aren't the only ones spoken about throughout the bible (I'll give a list later if you ask for one) and the future is considered as well (Revelations should ring a bell here).


Up until the scattering of israel, it was a record of God's dealings with israel... but after Isaiah, jermiah, and that era, after all of israel got ran off and became lost or scattered, up until the new testament, and even in the new testament, it was just the jews, and trace elements of other israelites, but not much... mostly benjamin if anything. The other 10 or so tribes have been lost to the world for the last 2600 years... their records are most likely the records of the other religions of the world... just skewed or passed down... not too dissimilar to the bible... you know, torched, voted upon, changed for popular or politicial opinion... until it's unrecognizable.

The bible's a miracle, but it's not all.

Ah, the famous Book of Revelations or Apocalypse. It´s curious to note this on your argument of a historical record because Apocalypse is a Greek word that means the end of something. In this case, the final chapter of the Bible. And this Apocalypse isn´t exclusive to the Bible, actually, it was very common to end texts of the time when the Bible was being written, with an apocalyspe as a final chapter. It was the proper way of ending a book or codex.

Remember that I'm taking the position againstthe bible being an accurate depiction of history and can only thank you for your confirmation. Also, Revelation isn't the only book that refers to the future with common references occurring from Hebrews onward.

Well, that and how permeated the religion is, especially in America. People get indoctrinated into this bundle of lies at around the age they learn to tie their shoes. Then it just gets battered into their heads so often it's a wonder they can even think at all.

FYI, America wasn't the first, the only, or the last place on Earth where "indoctrination" takes place not to mention its quite hypocritical to take the stereotypical stance that a dominant portion of American children are brainwashed into religion. Remember, the founding fathers took their religious influence from enlightenment thinkers across the pond. You can also look at the religious conservatism in Latin America and the Middle East. Likewise in considering institutions, churches and parents aren't the only ones spending time or effort instilling values and those value sets aren't limited to strictly religion either. Academia and the media instill multiculturalism, 3rd wave feminism, and environmentalism, big business instills cosmopolitanism and consumerism, and plenty of non-for-profits advocate for humanitarianism and libertarianism (mind that I'm not saying these ideas are good or bad, just that they carry comparable cultural and moral relevance as religion).

Remember that I'm taking the position againstthe bible being an accurate depiction of history and can only thank you for your confirmation. Also, Revelation isn't the only book that refers to the future with common references occurring from Hebrews onward.

And it is an inaccurate depiction of history. The difference with Revelations/Apocalypse is that it´s the only book whose imagery shocks. And, sadly, many people read it literally. That, if you know what´s good for you, won´t do. (and I´m sure you wouldn´t) *nod*

As I read your opening post I started thinking you might have come accross the same theory I have in relation to a god, that I came up with early in high school.

But then I noticed you overcomplicated everything and went off in another direction. So let me share with you my theory of physics, the universe, and the concept of a god or gods.

As far as I'm concerned, the universe is ruled by the "laws of physics", basicly a broad category of all things from newtonian to relativistic, to 2+2. I'm not a physicist, so I simply leave it at that, and try not to define what those laws are. The concept of a god, or gods, however, is the interesting thing. We, as humans, have a psychological need to provide and recieve respect. It's built into us. So here's my anthropology-esque theory built on the previous laws concept. The idea of a god, or gods is simply our representation in anthropomorphic or other form, of those laws in such a way so that we can provide them respect through actions which likewise benifit us (through community, person, so on). In this framework the concept of a single god is quite easily explained, the Grand Unifying Theory in physics, that which unites all other laws together, the one god. And as such, there is no real bearded man in the sky, but there is that "presence" insofar as 2+2 has a presence in relation to 4. How we go about revering this is up to us.

Now personally speaking, I don't believe in the GUT, and as such I am a polytheist. Which has led to some fun chats with religious people. Including the Sheikh of the local mosque who seriously discussed religion with me (And in a respectful way, good man he is) for the better part of a day before I finally pointed that founding feature of my beliefs to him (He was trying to debate the concept of a single or multiple gods, our two greatest differences). Funny thing is, we both agreed that no religious man could ever convert me to a religion because they don't typicly have the background in physics to convince me there is a GUT.

Dostanuot, the idea I had with GUT, TOE, and Higgs Particles was also created in high school (the post I linked to was from 2005). This time around, I'm working with Omega Point Theory, Big Bang Theory, and a little bit of hedonic calculus (the ultimate derivation of utility coming from self-preservation rather than simple direct pleasure). Still, I appreciate your conversation about GUT.

Sounds like to me that your polytheist belief is really just loyalty to natural laws of the universe. I'm taking it you believe in a gravitational god, electromagnetic god, thermodynamic, fluid-dynamic, auditory, and relativist gods as well. Faith comes from beliefs, not knowledge, and even if you know everything in the universe, you don't know the roots or the intentions for that which is does exist, so there's always something to have faith in.

As far as the role of faith is concerned given this thread, my belief is that there is more to the world than just economic incentive guided by rationality. Humanity is also imbued with moral fundamentals, cultural mores, and societal laws which encourage us to adhere to righteousness, resolution, and randomness to be optimally successful and prosperous. These 4 motivations (including economic incentive) and 4 conditions (including rationality) lead us to govern ourselves with respect to 4 mindsets: communitarianism, cosmopolitanism, libertarianism, and humanitarianism. These mindsets must be balanced to achieve maximal auspiciousness with the world around us in order to pursue perfection in all forms.

Some people say what I just described is really just expanded common sense that's proven in day to day life, but the reason it qualifies as faith worthy is because most of it is induced (rather than deduced) in spite of theorizing the proof of God. Even if God's existence is consciously proven, accepted, and understood, that doesn't mean we know why he does what he does nor do we know his ultimate scheme for the world's design. Ironically, that lack of information is what encourages us to pursue perfection by discovering truth and realizing potential all the time.

What people should realize is that the bible, like every other pseudo-sacred text, is just a collection stories meant to sedate the social desire for knowledge and is hardly a credible source for anything.

I mean, really. You've got the jews writing up their own (and often plagiarized) versions of events like the Gilgamesh flood, portraying themselves as innocent victims, and then the christian cults come along and steal that and write their own stuffz down.

Eventually, the entire story got so ridiculously confusing people split off into different sects or whatever, and thusly caused the schisms.


Meanwhile, atheism is chillin' with agnosticism while they laugh at the crazy monotheistic religions that take themselves far too seriously.


Well then just about every civilization of the period is a bad example then because they all plagerized the flood. There are about 20 cultures from Greece to Hawaii that describe a flood and a hero who kept mankind going. You think they all plagerized from gilgamesh?

As to revelation...Well I belive that the bible is the divine word of God. I think the event described in revelation will take place but things are symbolic in those events. No 10-headed dragons coming out of the sea and stuff. They all symbolize things of the future. That is my view. More then once symbolism is used in the bible.

I take offense to soem of your descritions of the bible seeing as how I am of jewish descent and a christian. Are you saying that they brought being conquered and enslaved on themselves everytime. In the bible it says that soemtimes they were conquered because of their sin. Other tiems they were innocent victims. If you read the new testament it is not complaints and stories. Stories are only in the first 5 books, Hebrews, and revelation. The rest are letters telling the early chucrches and christians how to serve the lord and improve their spiritual life. Read the epsitles of the paul and the other disciples. They aren't stories.

Well, that and how permeated the religion is, especially in America. People get indoctrinated into this bundle of lies at around the age they learn to tie their shoes. Then it just gets battered into their heads so often it's a wonder they can even think at all.

The problem is also how anything to the contrary is demonized and hated simply for being, but that's like any irrational hatred.


Edit: Oh, geez. Revelations is just silly. As if the bible needed another reason for its credibility to be thrown into question.

How "permeated?" Do you mean "how diffused religion is" or "how much religion has penetrated American society" or...I don't know. I'm not sure that's exactly the right word.

Dostanuot, the idea I had with GUT, TOE, and Higgs Particles was also created in high school (the post I linked to was from 2005). This time around, I'm working with Omega Point Theory, Big Bang Theory, and a little bit of hedonic calculus (the ultimate derivation of utility coming from self-preservation rather than simple direct pleasure). Still, I appreciate your conversation about GUT.
Mine came about in 2001 durring a class in ancient history. But still, whatever floats your boat, as they say here.

Sounds like to me that your polytheist belief is really just loyalty to natural laws of the universe. I'm taking it you believe in a gravitational god, electromagnetic god, thermodynamic, fluid-dynamic, auditory, and relativist gods as well. Faith comes from beliefs, not knowledge, and even if you know everything in the universe, you don't know the roots or the intentions for that which is does exist, so there's always something to have faith in.
Not quite. While I associate the representation of said laws as the concept of gods, I don't consider them direct transfers, or completely independent. For that matter I don't assume to know which is which. I have simply chosen the polytheistic belief system which appealed to, and worked for, me the most and went with it, under the understanding that the sun god, or water god, or god of grain, represents something which I can not fully comprehend, and don't care to. It's the act of respect for those laws through the representation, not the representation themselves, which matters. In that case my faith does come from knowledge, the knowledge that I do not know everything, can not, and care not to know everything. The knowledge that the only thing that I can do that will truely apply to me is what I do for myself, and as such I choose how to approach the concept of faith in the way that I feel will be best for me.

As far as the role of faith is concerned given this thread, my belief is that there is more to the world than just economic incentive guided by rationality. Humanity is also imbued with moral fundamentals, cultural mores, and societal laws which encourage us to adhere to righteousness, resolution, and randomness to be optimally successful and prosperous. These 4 motivations (including economic incentive) and 4 conditions (including rationality) lead us to govern ourselves with respect to 4 mindsets: communitarianism, cosmopolitanism, libertarianism, and humanitarianism. These mindsets must be balanced to achieve maximal auspiciousness with the world around us in order to pursue perfection in all forms.
I agree on the end point, but not how you get there. I do not, even remotely, believe morals in any sense are natural to humanity. Likewise many other things. they are learned, learned early, but learned. There is however, as we can agree, more to life then economic incentives. And life is indeed a balance.

Some people say what I just described is really just expanded common sense that's proven in day to day life, but the reason it qualifies as faith worthy is because most of it is induced (rather than deduced) in spite of theorizing the proof of God. Even if God's existence is consciously proven, accepted, and understood, that doesn't mean we know why he does what he does nor do we know his ultimate scheme for the world's design. Ironically, that lack of information is what encourages us to pursue perfection by discovering truth and realizing potential all the time.

Common sense os never proven, only exercised. For it to be proven it must actually be in existance, and if it were in existance, everyone would have it (being common). But it isn't. This harkens back to my argument above, no morals. The rest of what you say here, however, simply doesn't fit with my concept of the universe, so I can't argue with it beyond saying I simply don't agree with one of your fundamental principals (the concept of a controlling, omnipotent singular he-god).

Well then just about every civilization of the period is a bad example then because they all plagerized the flood. There are about 20 cultures from Greece to Hawaii that describe a flood and a hero who kept mankind going. You think they all plagerized from gilgamesh?

I know this is just nitpicking, but this drives me crazy.

The flood is not in Gilgamesh, he has nothing to do with it. I have three seperate translations (And one non-translation) of the standard Babylonian epic of Gilgamesh next to me, as well as the complete (transl;ated and not) collection of the Sumerian poems of Bilgames (Who the Babylonians plagerized for Gilgamesh), and I can tell you, honestly, that none of them involve the main character and the flood. The Sumerian flood myth, upon which most western ones are based, is a different story. The only connection is when Bilgames, scared of his own death, travels to find the only other man before him to be granted immortality (Ziusudra, who ruled Shurrupak before the flood, saved many people and stuff durring it, and was thus granted immortality). That's it. The flood otherwise happend long before Bilgames, and the same basic concept is what happens in Gilgamesh.

As for it being all over the place. You need to remember something important. When humanity first settled into agriculture, there were really only a few good places to start untill we actually knew what we were doing, all of them fertile flood plains. Flood plains flood, that's why they are fertile. Any civilization that has progressed past the hunter-gatherer stage is thus bound to involve floods in their mythology, if only for the fact that those floods bring them life.

It's the act of respect for those laws through the representation, not the representation themselves, which matters. In that case my faith does come from knowledge, the knowledge that I do not know everything, can not, and care not to know everything. The knowledge that the only thing that I can do that will truely apply to me is what I do for myself, and as such I choose how to approach the concept of faith in the way that I feel will be best for me.

Out of curiosity, do you carry a father complex for the personification of goodness in the world? If you do, do you choose to hold onto it because it methodically organizes the world in a way that's easily perceivable, because your mind is focused upon other priorities, or a bit of both?

I agree on the end point, but not how you get there. I do not, even remotely, believe morals in any sense are natural to humanity. Likewise many other things. they are learned, learned early, but learned. There is however, as we can agree, more to life then economic incentives. And life is indeed a balance.

If morals are learned rather than born with us, how do you justify innovation and creativity? Do dreams come from reality, or does reality come from dreams? If the first is true, how can a person dream in the first place if he never witnesses the independent process of what it is to dream assuming that such a process is observable at all?

Common sense os never proven, only exercised. For it to be proven it must actually be in existance, and if it were in existance, everyone would have it (being common). But it isn't. This harkens back to my argument above, no morals. The rest of what you say here, however, simply doesn't fit with my concept of the universe, so I can't argue with it beyond saying I simply don't agree with one of your fundamental principals (the concept of a controlling, omnipotent singular he-god).

If common sense doesn't exist, are political institutions a compromise of identity to a higher collective power, or an admission of truth that collective consciousness is only something that can be proven through conscious communication? Is it possible that mankind's political nature is what restricts it from becoming intuitive since politicking leads to dishonest behavior and conceptions that in turn corrupt our own minds?

I'm asking these questions to check your consistency, not to see if you're right on track.

Out of curiosity, do you carry a father complex for the personification of goodness in the world? If you do, do you choose to hold onto it because it methodically organizes the world in a way that's easily perceivable, because your mind is focused upon other priorities, or a bit of both?
No, I don't follow any gender-role related personification. The personifications I choose to follow are there because I like them as such. Likewise, I do not carry an inherent concept of goodness, as goodness is relative, and so can not be personafied.


If morals are learned rather than born with us, how do you justify innovation and creativity? Do dreams come from reality, or does reality come from dreams? If the first is true, how can a person dream in the first place if he never witnesses the independent process of what it is to dream assuming that such a process is observable at all?
If morals = creativity and dreams, then the universe does not exist. It's a stretch either way, because dreams and creativity are independent on what we believe to be "right" and "wrong". Unless you are using a vastly different concept of morals.


If common sense doesn't exist, are political institutions a compromise of identity to a higher collective power, or an admission of truth that collective consciousness is only something that can be proven through conscious communication? Is it possible that mankind's political nature is what restricts it from becoming intuitive since politicking leads to dishonest behavior and conceptions that in turn corrupt our own minds?
Political institutions are an application of control, neither admittance nor illusion unless they so wish to portray themselves. Likewise, politics does not lead to lies, people lead to lies, thus we are already corrupt.

I'm asking these questions to check your consistency, not to see if you're right on track.
I don't expect you to ask to see if I'm on the "right track", as that is something for which you have no authority to judge. As for consistancy, let me say this, if you wish to find consistancy, you will find it. If you wish there to be none, there will be none. This is a philosophical and spiritual debate, not maths, consistancy here is relative to the frame which it is viewed through.

God does not exist. It's as simple as that.

God does not exist. It's as simple as that.
I disagree with you completely. But after reading many long posts that make me scratch my head, I'm actually glad to come across one as short and understandable as yours. :)

God does not exist. It's as simple as that.
Where is your source?

Because here is mine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible)

God does not exist. It's as simple as that.

Oh yeah? Because as far as I see them, the facts state that Atheism does not exist... only Theological Ignorance or Theological Apathy.

Oh yeah? Because as far as I see them, the facts state that Atheism does not exist... only Theological Ignorance or Theological Apathy.

All I can say is that you don't see very well at all.

All I can say is that you don't see very well at all.

Wait, let me see something. *borrows your blinders* oh, that works so much better! Now I don't have to worry about seeing anything but what's right in front of me! :)

All of this is possible. It's also possible that at the moment of death that invisible, incorporeal Butt Gnomes crawl into our orifices and yank our souls out through our butts. Then they take our souls to their underground lair where they use our souls as an industrial lubricant, an ingredient in pet food and as a holiday giftwrap. These Butt Gnomes also enter the orifices of certain living beings and implant fantastic stories of the afterlife to deceive us and keep us from looking for where our souls actually go and who takes them.

It would certainly explain the common near-death experience of a tunnel followed by a white light; a Butt Gnome has dragged the soul out of the butt then lost it's grip, allowing the soul to scamper around a bit before escaping back up the butt. *nod*
SIGS ARE LIMITED TO EIGHT LINES!!!!

I know this is just nitpicking, but this drives me crazy.

The flood is not in Gilgamesh, he has nothing to do with it. I have three seperate translations (And one non-translation) of the standard Babylonian epic of Gilgamesh next to me, as well as the complete (transl;ated and not) collection of the Sumerian poems of Bilgames (Who the Babylonians plagerized for Gilgamesh), and I can tell you, honestly, that none of them involve the main character and the flood. The Sumerian flood myth, upon which most western ones are based, is a different story. The only connection is when Bilgames, scared of his own death, travels to find the only other man before him to be granted immortality (Ziusudra, who ruled Shurrupak before the flood, saved many people and stuff durring it, and was thus granted immortality). That's it. The flood otherwise happend long before Bilgames, and the same basic concept is what happens in Gilgamesh.

As for it being all over the place. You need to remember something important. When humanity first settled into agriculture, there were really only a few good places to start untill we actually knew what we were doing, all of them fertile flood plains. Flood plains flood, that's why they are fertile. Any civilization that has progressed past the hunter-gatherer stage is thus bound to involve floods in their mythology, if only for the fact that those floods bring them life.
If you don't mind, i may wish to reprint this particular response at a later date. *bows*
Also ...:
Any civilization that has progressed past the hunter-gatherer stage is thus bound to involve floods in their mythology, if only for the fact that those floods bring them life.Therein lies the problem. Too many people's current philosophies about life and nature are stuck in a mindset of sensibility that only a hunter-gatherer stage of civil and psychological progression can possibly provide.

That is the most idiotic thing I have ever read. Anyone who reads this is now dumber for having read it. May God have mercy on your soul(thought that ending would be rather fitting for this thread and yes that is based off of what was said in Billy Madison)

"You eat pieces of sh*t for breakfast?"
Oh, sorry, that's Happy Gilmore.
You don't know LG too well. Try not to let the fool you make of yourself be your guide in future endeavours, and just enjoy it for now.

Where is your source?

Because here is mine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible)

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ ?
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/index.html ?
http://www.talkorigins.org/ ?

Funny thing is how so many pussy puppet sites crop up around any mistake you might make in typing the site address.

Ah, the famous Book of Revelations or Apocalypse. It´s curious to note this on your argument of a historical record because Apocalypse is a Greek word that means the end of something. In this case, the final chapter of the Bible. And this Apocalypse isn´t exclusive to the Bible, actually, it was very common to end texts of the time when the Bible was being written, with an apocalyspe as a final chapter. It was the proper way of ending a book or codex.
Funny thing was how many times the committed, assured masses conjured an end to fit, and were humiliatingly wrong. Many, many times.
Funnier still is how the beginning of Revelation has the statement itself that it was just a vision.
:)

If you don't mind, i may wish to reprint this particular response at a later date. *bows*


If you like.
Although Andrew George has a Penguin Classics version of the epic out that's pretty good. The standard form Babylonian is actually easy to read (Trust me, I have one that I can barely get through it's so hard, and I know the story by heart). Plus the Sumerian poems added in arn't half bad.

http://www.amazon.ca/Penguin-Classics-Gilgamesh-Andrew-George/dp/0140449191/ref=pd_bbs_sr_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206425948&sr=8-8

If you like.
Although Andrew George has a Penguin Classics version of the epic out that's pretty good. The standard form Babylonian is actually easy to read (Trust me, I have one that I can barely get through it's so hard, and I know the story by heart). Plus the Sumerian poems added in arn't half bad.

http://www.amazon.ca/Penguin-Classics-Gilgamesh-Andrew-George/dp/0140449191/ref=pd_bbs_sr_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206425948&sr=8-8

Thank you! *bows*

And Lunatic, reading your response just made me laugh and remember how there's always a bit of sarcasm in every shpeel of humor and that there's always a scrap of truth in every bit of sarcasm. Goodwill is always appreciated even when its found where unintended.

Well, I considered discussing Omega Point Theory a bit more indepth and suggesting that perhaps the human mind(soul?) behaves in a similar manner to an ending universe in that at the moment of Death, as all external perception ceases, perception turns internal and our own consciousnesses approach a state of maximum computational capacity as well. Without external means of defining time, to the dying mind, it stretches on indefinitely leaving that conciousness in a 'universe' within that is completely self-contained and infinite. In other words, our last fractions of a second of existence in this universe could provide each of us an eternity within our own personal afterlives.

But I decided to go with Butt Gnomes. :)

You know, the whole OP is made of logical fails, totally ungrounded assumptions, internal contradicions, abuse of strong life-istic point of view etc.
The whole Omega point theory looks like an idiocy to me. There is a theorem about the loss of information through black holes that makes this theory totally useless.

You know, the whole OP is made of logical fails, totally ungrounded assumptions, internal contradicions, abuse of strong life-istic point of view etc.
The whole Omega point theory looks like an idiocy to me. There is a theorem about the loss of information through black holes that makes this theory totally useless.

I explained further down on the first page that certain assumptions are made in order to justify the purpose of current social precedents and mores. If those assumptions aren't made, then there isn't any reason to believe or not believe in God.

And as far as black holes go, check out how Hawking radiation leads to the decay of black holes.

Hawking radiation link (http://www.superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh3.html)

Funny thing was how many times the committed, assured masses conjured an end to fit, and were humiliatingly wrong. Many, many times.
Funnier still is how the beginning of Revelation has the statement itself that it was just a vision.
:)

Yes, and that's why I feel it's wrong to think Apocalypse is a bad thing. Ethimologically, the word in itself isn't a prediction of doom, like Christians always like to believe. And what irks me even more is when preachers take the supposed vision and interpret it in complete literal terms in order to drive the masses, mostly ignorant, into a total frenzy, "The world is about to end!! It is as such, John the Evangelist says so here!!!!". And they Bible thump on it, for added effect.

I don't have a problem if a person wants to worship purple people eaters. I don't have a problem if a person reads the Bible and wants to live by precepts that have lost any validity in our society and age. But don't try to interpret the Bible. And first and foremost, don't whip the masses into a frenzy for a mistaken interpretation.

If one wants to take the Bible as a record of human history, or at least the histroy of a people, fine. But one must remember that it isn't an accurate or
fair description of the life the Isrealites lived. Plus, the Bible, the canon we call the Bible has suffered so many alterations throughout the centuries, what we have now probably doesn't even begin to compare with what the Paleochristians had or what the Middle Ages used as a Bible.

For a more accurate definition of the word 'apocalypse', check the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse.

If morals = creativity and dreams, then the universe does not exist. It's a stretch either way, because dreams and creativity are independent on what we believe to be "right" and "wrong". Unless you are using a vastly different concept of morals.

I've always been taught that morals are normative opinions about the world around us. These opinions are derived from our experiences and decisions and as a result are what we believe to be proper or improper (I'd say right or wrong but for relativism). The relation here is that dreams are dreamed with these morals as a foundation since our subconscious recognizes what inspires us and scares us. If we consider dreams to be idea generation and wondering (in addition to what happens when we sleep), morals can be connected in that they are our tools and guides to optimizing our goals, demands, and preferences.

I asked the question about whether reality comes from dreams of if dreams come from reality to see what your opinion on free will is. If dreams come from reality, then free will could only chose among a closed set of principles and would have a limit to what in could garnish; open sets can't come from closed. On the other hand, if reality comes from dreams, then livelihood dictates what exists and what does not which means that the infinite potential of possibilities, space, time, and other open sets is inherently feasible; even if people are limited by physical capacity, the variation of their capacities is legit since closed and open sets can come from open sets of greater degrees (I don't mean to go on a logic tangent here, but I'll be glad to elaborate if you want me too).

Political institutions are an application of control, neither admittance nor illusion unless they so wish to portray themselves. Likewise, politics does not lead to lies, people lead to lies, thus we are already corrupt.

How can institutions apply control they don't have when those institutions are the governing mechanisms of people? Regardless of if you're aligned with Machiavelli or Locke in the roots of governing rights (autocracy versus plutocracy), how can no compromise be made over identity when the only way an institution can have power to wield is through its acquisition from other entities?

Also, how can entities behave politically without engaging in dishonest behavior (dishonesty here refers to anything less than 100% admission and utilization of truth and only truth)? Furthermore, how can an entity be encouraged to be dishonest without being political? Even a jaguar that hunts an antelope can be viewed as political in this sense since it is using its skills to manipulate the natural environment as well as the behavior of its pray.

You agreed with the point I made about there being more to life than only economic rationale, but if livelihood is naturally political, politics lead to dishonest behavior, and politics are inherent to the natural course of survival (which is the foundation for utilitarian economic incentive) why should people believe it is worth any feasible amount of resources to pursue positive rights? What is to distinguish us from robots or non-sentient beasts? What is the point of prohibiting slavery? How can imprisonment be considered punishment if the imprisoned neither made amoral decisions nor are they being restricted from doing something they would otherwise enjoy?

In other words, if people (not politics) are the root of dishonesty, then why would anyone ever feel that there are either higher or surface goals to be enjoyed when they cannot be actualized? The only reasonable answer I can come up to this is that people are programmed to enjoy certain conditions due to the hormonal emotions they generate, but that would mean that free will doesn't exist at all which (as I justified on the first page) means there's no reason to believe or disbelieve in God at all.

I don't have a problem if a person wants to worship purple people eaters. I don't have a problem if a person reads the Bible and wants to live by precepts that have lost any validity in our society and age. But don't try to interpret the Bible. And first and foremost, don't whip the masses into a frenzy for a mistaken interpretation.

Does your opinion carry over into cultural and legal schools of thought as well? What's the difference between religious fanatics who insist the bible must be interpreted to the "t" of what they believe and multiculturalists who demand the officiation of different cultures through the practice of intolerating intolerance for the sake of tolerance? I don't know if you're a multiculturalist or not, but your opinion falls in line with opposition to "cultural imperialism" in that it's wrong to coerce opinions upon others. What's coercion to one person can be viewed as competition to another, and multiculturalism (which believes in cultures having respectable relativist purpose to different people) can't exactly legitimately advocate a single fixed code for the propagation of ideas. Otherwise, it would be equivalent to the white man's burden so far as the definition of civility, civil behavior, and civilization.

Where is your source?

Because here is mine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible)

The Official God FAQ (http://www.400monkeys.com/God/)

:)

I've always been taught that morals are normative opinions about the world around us. These opinions are derived from our experiences and decisions and as a result are what we believe to be proper or improper (I'd say right or wrong but for relativism). The relation here is that dreams are dreamed with these morals as a foundation since our subconscious recognizes what inspires us and scares us. If we consider dreams to be idea generation and wondering (in addition to what happens when we sleep), morals can be connected in that they are our tools and guides to optimizing our goals, demands, and preferences.

I asked the question about whether reality comes from dreams of if dreams come from reality to see what your opinion on free will is. If dreams come from reality, then free will could only chose among a closed set of principles and would have a limit to what in could garnish; open sets can't come from closed. On the other hand, if reality comes from dreams, then livelihood dictates what exists and what does not which means that the infinite potential of possibilities, space, time, and other open sets is inherently feasible; even if people are limited by physical capacity, the variation of their capacities is legit since closed and open sets can come from open sets of greater degrees (I don't mean to go on a logic tangent here, but I'll be glad to elaborate if you want me too).

I think you're just trying to overcomplicate the concept of free will. This ties into below, but I'll cover it here and not below for the sake of simplicity.
There is no total free will or total lack of free will. It's not black and white, basicly. Your hormones and your experiances dictate what you do, how you think, how you act, but they don't make you do those. They influence it. Existance of influence is not lack of free will, nor is lack of influence existance of absolute free will. To assume it to be black and white seems otherwise dumb.



How can institutions apply control they don't have when those institutions are the governing mechanisms of people? Regardless of if you're aligned with Machiavelli or Locke in the roots of governing rights (autocracy versus plutocracy), how can no compromise be made over identity when the only way an institution can have power to wield is through its acquisition from other entities?

Also, how can entities behave politically without engaging in dishonest behavior (dishonesty here refers to anything less than 100% admission and utilization of truth and only truth)? Furthermore, how can an entity be encouraged to be dishonest without being political? Even a jaguar that hunts an antelope can be viewed as political in this sense since it is using its skills to manipulate the natural environment as well as the behavior of its pray.

You agreed with the point I made about there being more to life than only economic rationale, but if livelihood is naturally political, politics lead to dishonest behavior, and politics are inherent to the natural course of survival (which is the foundation for utilitarian economic incentive) why should people believe it is worth any feasible amount of resources to pursue positive rights? What is to distinguish us from robots or non-sentient beasts? What is the point of prohibiting slavery? How can imprisonment be considered punishment if the imprisoned neither made amoral decisions nor are they being restricted from doing something they would otherwise enjoy?

In other words, if people (not politics) are the root of dishonesty, then why would anyone ever feel that there are either higher or surface goals to be enjoyed when they cannot be actualized? The only reasonable answer I can come up to this is that people are programmed to enjoy certain conditions due to the hormonal emotions they generate, but that would mean that free will doesn't exist at all which (as I justified on the first page) means there's no reason to believe or disbelieve in God at all.

If an institution is the governing mechanisim of the people, it has the control it is given by the people. Thus it can exercise the control it has purely by the nature of being the governing mechanisim. There is no identity need, the identity of the government is that of the people, it is inseperable. If the identity of the people is that of a religious belief, then that is the identity of the government.

I'm starting to think you are applying political as another term for manipulation. While it involves manipulation, it is not solely that. To be political one is exercising the rule which it is given by that which it rules over. You are overcomplicating it to get another, irrelevant, point out, and then building on that irrelevant point.

As to your last sentiment, people are programmed. Not by some higher power, but by the environment. By what nutrients are taken in by the person, by the fetus under development. The ammount of what types of protiens you have in your brain are dictated by the building blocks for them your mother ate when she was pregnant with you, and before and after while nusring, and by what you have eaten since. What you breathe, see, eat, feel (physicly not emotionaly) are all influencing your mind. The universe may appear finite, and you may think there are only closed options, but there is an infinite possibility of combinations of things, building blocks to already made things, they can all be combined in an infinite ammount of ways, and to this the brain can come up with infinite options for its own development.

Agenda, LOLZ!

I'm thinking about expanding this discussion into and economically pertinent one using Menger's Theory of Price, Value, and Distribution. The only problem is that by proving God's existence using a theory created by someone who successfully defeated German Historicists, I might get accused of being a neo-con by the overwhelmingly leftist audience here.

Then and again, considering my humanitarian minarchist political stance and the above description of multiculturalism and its reminiscence of the white man's burden, I shouldn't have any problem conducting such a "crusade". :p

Does your opinion carry over into cultural and legal schools of thought as well? What's the difference between religious fanatics who insist the bible must be interpreted to the "t" of what they believe and multiculturalists who demand the officiation of different cultures through the practice of intolerating intolerance for the sake of tolerance? I don't know if you're a multiculturalist or not, but your opinion falls in line with opposition to "cultural imperialism" in that it's wrong to coerce opinions upon others. What's coercion to one person can be viewed as competition to another, and multiculturalism (which believes in cultures having respectable relativist purpose to different people) can't exactly legitimately advocate a single fixed code for the propagation of ideas. Otherwise, it would be equivalent to the white man's burden so far as the definition of civility, civil behavior, and civilization.

Does my opinion carry over cultural and legal schools of thought? Of course it doesn't. You've just said it, it's MY opinion. It doesn't have value to others, the value is to me.;)
My concern isn't that some people decide to take the Bible and interpret it to a "t", to use your phrase. My concern is when people who do not have the proper schooling take a book as sensitive as the Bible is to both Western and Eastern Christianity and interpret it to their whims or in a literal way and then try to coherce their ideas into the minds of the masses, masses that trust them to bring the message of their God to them. To impose your way of thinking is immoral, at least to me, either if you're a Christian or a multiculturalist. There's no excuse.
Nope, I don't consider a multiculturalist, and do remember that there are fanatics both ways. Of course, there are many ways of conveying a message to others, but it shouldn't be by force. Forcing ideas upon others clashes with the very Christian precepts Jesus preached in the New Testament.

You talk of cohercing ideas into the minds of the masses.
I think it is the fault of the people if they just accept it with out any questions. I am a chrisitan. I have faith. Do I still have questions? Yes. IF you don't ask questiosn and jsut accpet stuff it is nobody elses fault but your own

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ ?
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/index.html ?
http://www.talkorigins.org/ ?

Funny thing is how so many pussy puppet sites crop up around any mistake you might make in typing the site address.

I don't know if you are trying to argue against Wikipedia as a source, but if you are... may the Great Wiki have mercy on your virtual soul.

You talk of cohercing ideas into the minds of the masses.
I think it is the fault of the people if they just accept it with out any questions. I am a chrisitan. I have faith. Do I still have questions? Yes. IF you don't ask questiosn and jsut accpet stuff it is nobody elses fault but your own

But that's just you. What about those who don't know they can ask questions? What about those who are being so coherced into a belief system that they do not dare ask questions? And what about the responsability these prechers have with their congregation? Aren't they supposed to, as the ones who convey the message of God to others, tell them the truth and not fill their heads with fanatism and fear? The blame is 50-50.

I disagree. If the people are to the point where they are to scared to ask questions then they should leave. The preachers should be telling the truth. I believe that my preachers tell the truth based on my reading of the bible and experience with them and what they have said. I ask questions. I get answers too. They told me that it was okay and normal to ahve doubts. I shoudl work them out myself.

I disagree. If the people are to the point where they are to scared to ask questions then they should leave. The preachers should be telling the truth. I believe that my preachers tell the truth based on my reading of the bible and experience with them and what they have said. I ask questions. I get answers too. They told me that it was okay and normal to ahve doubts. I shoudl work them out myself.

They're telling you the truth according to? Perhaps you're lucky there and you have honest preachers. But many preachers/priests/''men of God'' rely on fear to control their congregation. Don't be fooled by that, many people fear the concept of hell and eternal damnation enough to put up with the 'lies' as long as this behavior grants them salvation. I've seen it.
Again, these men are supposed to have the schooling to preach the message and the common denominator that attends church doesn't has it. Because believe it or not, these men need to study before heading a church. It is in this very thing that I base that the blame in perpetuing the cycle lies 50-50, in the preachers for cohercing and in the congregation for not asking questions.
Let me note one more thing, under no circumstance am I attacking your beliefs. You're a Christian and I respect that.

They're telling you the truth according to?

According to him, i.e. they're saying what he wants to hear.

According to him, i.e. they're saying what he wants to hear.

Perhaps. I just wonder, you know...

Perhaps. I just wonder, you know...

That's my assumption anyways, but then I'm an atheist, so my opinion is slightly biased.

You talk of cohercing ideas into the minds of the masses.
I think it is the fault of the people if they just accept it with out any questions. I am a chrisitan. I have faith. Do I still have questions? Yes. IF you don't ask questiosn and jsut accpet stuff it is nobody elses fault but your own

Although it makes sense to me that it is partially the fault of the masses for not being skeptical of certain ideas, it doesn't seem viable to say that nobody else is to blame. Collective consciousness is something that everyone has to take part of in order to be part of a greater community because without it, individuals lose their connection to the rest of mankind regardless of whether that connection is a cooperative or competitive one. In order for an individual to establish and develop a defense that automatically fails to accept certain ideas though, that person would have to either become biased against certain opinions or ignorant of certain fields of studies. In other words, the only way collective consciousness could be ignored in a world where the passive masses are at fault is by conceding that individuals have no negative right of refusing to accept an idea by staying silent.

I'd like to apply game theory here, but I don't have the time to really discuss it, so suffice to say that we're bordering between economics and law and that the determination of what sorts of rules should be applied is subject to interests beyond the usage of the system itself. This is one of the reasons for why I want to introduce Menger's Theory of Price, Value, and Distribution (the other being that Menger's Theory can fill in some of the holes of Omega Point theory so far as the search for information is concerned as to the meaning of life and the applications of markets). I wish I was more knowledgeable in legal theory as well, but maybe someone else can help me out here.

My concern isn't that some people decide to take the Bible and interpret it to a "t", to use your phrase. My concern is when people who do not have the proper schooling take a book as sensitive as the Bible is to both Western and Eastern Christianity and interpret it to their whims or in a literal way and then try to coherce their ideas into the minds of the masses, masses that trust them to bring the message of their God to them. To impose your way of thinking is immoral, at least to me, either if you're a Christian or a multiculturalist.

Before I ask my questions, I'd like to clarify that when I say "to a 't'", I'm referring to interpreters demanding that others follow their interpretations specifically, not that the interpreters themselves were being strictly literalistic.

If you're concerned about those who are uneducated interpreting the bible, how do you define expertise (and do you define expertise beyond the recognition of reputation or popular consent)? Also, how do you distinguish between coercion, unhealthy competition, and healthy competition? If you use extremity as a benchmark, do you use positive or normative guidance for determining where that benchmark is? Like Bedouin's opinion, I don't have enough time to address this with too much depth, but the goal here is to see if you're engaging in act-based or rule-based utilitarianism with regards to how you set your standards.

I agree with what is said about fear. I think that seeking God only for fear of hell is not the right reason to seek God. I think that people should seek God or whatever they are looking for because they want to. I serve God because i love him and I am thankful to him not because I am afraid of hell.

As to the comment of them saying what I want to hear, well they have said the same thing in their sermons. I think that if they didn't believe that then they wouldn't say it in front of the congregation.

Truth according to who you ask? The truth as I see it. If they didn't teach the truth then I wouldn't go there. There is no point going to a church where you disagree with what they teach...unless of course your name is Barak Obama.

I agree with what is said about fear. I think that seeking God only for fear of hell is not the right reason to seek God. I think that people should seek God or whatever they are looking for because they want to. I serve God because i love him and I am thankful to him not because I am afraid of hell.

As to the comment of them saying what I want to hear, well they have said the same thing in their sermons. I think that if they didn't believe that then they wouldn't say it in front of the congregation.

Truth according to who you ask? The truth as I see it. If they didn't teach the truth then I wouldn't go there. There is no point going to a church where you disagree with what they teach...unless of course your name is Barak Obama.

Proof that we can safely ignore anything you say as the ramblings of the mentally handicapped.

Truth according to who you ask? The truth as I see it. If they didn't teach the truth then I wouldn't go there. There is no point going to a church where you disagree with what they teach...unless of course your name is Barak Obama.


The truth as you see it... you´re giving me an opinion of what, according to you, is truth.
What is the truth? No one knows, not even your preacher. But I´m not here to attack you or what you believe in.

ROFL @ Obama comment.:D

Most people, I think, go to churches for the fellowship rather than the "teachings".

There is no total free will or total lack of free will. It's not black and white, basicly. Your hormones and your experiances dictate what you do, how you think, how you act, but they don't make you do those. They influence it. Existance of influence is not lack of free will, nor is lack of influence existance of absolute free will. To assume it to be black and white seems otherwise dumb.

What is influence then? Is it encouragement (indirect), or actual input into what an entity does (direct)? If this seems too divisive, does influence deserve to be measured along a spectrum rather than upon a scale?

If an institution is the governing mechanisim of the people, it has the control it is given by the people. Thus it can exercise the control it has purely by the nature of being the governing mechanisim. There is no identity need, the identity of the government is that of the people, it is inseperable. If the identity of the people is that of a religious belief, then that is the identity of the government.

First, is control the same as influence? Second, if control is inseparable from identity, then the governed would have to provide identity for the government to acquire, so isn't identity a resource pool gathered from previous actions and experiences? If it is a resource, wouldn't it have to be acquired to be had at all?

BTW, it can't be a characteristic instead according to what you've already said:
Political institutions are an application of control, neither admittance nor illusion unless they so wish to portray themselves.
----------

As to your last sentiment, people are programmed. Not by some higher power, but by the environment. By what nutrients are taken in by the person, by the fetus under development. The ammount of what types of protiens you have in your brain are dictated by the building blocks for them your mother ate when she was pregnant with you, and before and after while nusring, and by what you have eaten since. What you breathe, see, eat, feel (physicly not emotionaly) are all influencing your mind.

Is the environment who your Gods are? If they are, aren't they a higher power?

The universe may appear finite, and you may think there are only closed options, but there is an infinite possibility of combinations of things, building blocks to already made things, they can all be combined in an infinite ammount of ways, and to this the brain can come up with infinite options for its own development.

I hope you've heard about computability theory which is an entire field of computer science that determines if certain possibilities can be computed at all. Some of the key conclusions made are that a) only a finite amount of information can be stored in a finite amount of space, b) only a finite amount of information can be processed within a finite amount of time, and c) given a certain amount of space and time and the limit that exists on the amount of information that can be stored and processed, the computational capacity at hand can halt only up to a certain degree of complexity. Besides the fact that there is only a finite amount of matter in the universe available for computing, our brains don't consist of everything in the universe. Therefore, the only two possibilities are that either our brains allow us to only dream from that which is real, or that our brains have the capacity to generate completely new ideas and its those ideas which are brought into reality.

What is influence then? Is it encouragement (indirect), or actual input into what an entity does (direct)? If this seems too divisive, does influence deserve to be measured along a spectrum rather than upon a scale?
Influence is relative. What influences you does noting to me, and so on.


First, is control the same as influence? Second, if control is inseparable from identity, then the governed would have to provide identity for the government to acquire, so isn't identity a resource pool gathered from previous actions and experiences? If it is a resource, wouldn't it have to be acquired to be had at all?
Control requires influence. In some ways it is, in some ways it isn't. Welecome to social issues, they're not black and white. Same applies to control and identity, you assume identity and control work along the same plane, always. Control can influence identity, likewise identity can influence control, does that make them the same?

And yes, identity is a resource pool, and it is aquired, and built. You build your identity from the experiances and inputs you gain as you grow.

BTW, it can't be a characteristic instead according to what you've already said:
And what defines the limits on what can or can not be a characteristic?


Is the environment who your Gods are? If they are, aren't they a higher power?
I'm not sure but I feel you may be applying a more popular model of polytheisim to this. Let me clarify, my gods and goddesses are arbitrary in their existance. They need not be directly linked to anything to represent them. I specificly and carefully chose a pre-existing religion and its gods and goddesses because I liked it (For several reasons, including some non-religious), and in that effect it acts as a shell of my beliefs. I could just as easily have chosen any other one, from the Norse to the Hellenic groups. Now if you want to know the underlying principals of the people who built the religious beliefs I have adopted, you have to ask them, but they're all dead.


I hope you've heard about computability theory which is an entire field of computer science that determines if certain possibilities can be computed at all. Some of the key conclusions made are that a) only a finite amount of information can be stored in a finite amount of space, b) only a finite amount of information can be processed within a finite amount of time, and c) given a certain amount of space and time and the limit that exists on the amount of information that can be stored and processed, the computational capacity at hand can halt only up to a certain degree of complexity. Besides the fact that there is only a finite amount of matter in the universe available for computing, our brains don't consist of everything in the universe. Therefore, the only two possibilities are that either our brains allow us to only dream from that which is real, or that our brains have the capacity to generate completely new ideas and its those ideas which are brought into reality.
You base your conclusion on many theories, which either have not, or can't be proven. Matter in the universe, for instance, can only be measured out as far as we can physicly see it, which is limited by the speed of light.

Likewise, we can't think infinitly. There are infinite possibilities, but none of us can consider them all. If we could your conclusion would be valid, as the finite human brain can't come to an infinite number of conclusions or ideas, as you put, but we can't.

Unfortunate as it is, it seems your faith leaves you incapable of processing a joke. LG isn't exactly the most serious poster here.

Furthermore, this brings up a fun point. I haven't noticed any monotheistic person be able to, like I can, look at their belief structure and laugh at how utterly pathetic it is that the entire world requires purpose or justification. Not one. Granted, I may have a biased sample, but still. Why is it I, as an atheist, can laugh at myself, but a christian can't laugh at him/herself?

That would be because humor/laughter is based on absurdity, contradiction, ambiguity, paradox, and misdirection. Therefore Atheism is absurb, contradictory, ambiguous, paradoxical, and misdirected.

As to the comment of them saying what I want to hear, well they have said the same thing in their sermons. I think that if they didn't believe that then they wouldn't say it in front of the congregation.
You cannot know this for certain. To do so, you must possess the ability to peer into the minds of others. I was a youth leader in a church for a couple of years, and on more than one occasion I was asked to relate my words 'back to jesus' in an affirmative way, having gone into a public reflection of my beliefs. To say that people don't do/say things they don't believe in is simply untrue.

Truth according to who you ask? The truth as I see it. If they didn't teach the truth then I wouldn't go there. There is no point going to a church where you disagree with what they teach...unless of course your name is Barak Obama.
Just thought I'd point out that truth exists independently of whether anybody believes it or not - belief is irrelevant to establishing truth. Simply because you agree with what is taught, that fact does not make it truth. I'm not going to launch into a critique of the bible here, let me just say that many religious folk disagree with science when it contradicts their religious convictions and yet are perfectly happy to reap the benefits of the free-thinking societies science has created. So, it is perfectly normal (though reprehensible) for people to agree/disagree with something yet hold inconsistent beliefs about it.

Proof that we can safely ignore anything you say as the ramblings of the mentally handicapped.

That is exactly what he is doing. The guy behind the pulpit blamed whites for Huricane Katrina and the levy breaking. The dude ahtes whites. Obama said that he doesn't believe what is said but he still goes there cuz he doens't want to disown him. I think that is a load of bull crap persoanlly. I think Obama probably doesn't believe it but I think it shows a lack of character and personal independence and a bit of selfishness. This is just my opinon so don't jump on me.

I understand that you aren't attacking my views Nanatsu no Tsuki. You seem to be the devil's advocate in every thread I see you in.

Eseroic: You are right. There is a truth. i jsut believe that what I believe is that truth. I don't disagree with all science. In another post on this thread I talked about that. However benefits such as new technologies and medecines are totally unconnected to things liek Darwinsim and evolution. The guy who discovered penecillen(at least to my knowledge) did not do so because of darwinism or a free thinking society. Medecine and technology are encouraged in virtually all societies, scientific or religous.

That is exactly what he is doing. The guy behind the pulpit blamed whites for Huricane Katrina and the levy breaking. The dude ahtes whites. Obama said that he doesn't believe what is said but he still goes there cuz he doens't want to disown him. I think that is a load of bull crap persoanlly. I think Obama probably doesn't believe it but I think it shows a lack of character and personal independence and a bit of selfishness. This is just my opinon so don't jump on me.

I understand that you aren't attacking my views Nanatsu no Tsuki. You seem to be the devil's advocate in every thread I see you in.

Eseroic: You are right. There is a truth. i jsut believe that what I believe is that truth. I don't disagree with all science. In another post on this thread I talked about that. However benefits such as new technologies and medecines are totally unconnected to things liek Darwinsim and evolution. The guy who discovered penecillen(at least to my knowledge) did not do so because of darwinism or a free thinking society. Medecine and technology are encouraged in virtually all societies, scientific or religous.

Dyakovo was doing the same as I was doing, giving an opinion. Just like you claim you were doing. An opinion is not truth.

I wasn´t attacking you as you so blatantly believe. But wth, is not like I care.;)

No need to call me the Devil´s advocate. Although honored by the title, I hardly am. What does calling me that make you? Ignorant, perhaps, maybe? Hm?:rolleyes:

Proof that we can safely ignore anything you say as the ramblings of the mentally handicapped.

Dyakovo, cut it out.

However benefits such as new technologies and medecines are totally unconnected to things liek Darwinsim and evolution. The guy who discovered penecillen(at least to my knowledge) did not do so because of darwinism or a free thinking society. Medecine and technology are encouraged in virtually all societies, scientific or religous.
I must point to several falsehoods in these statements. I will start with the most broad - that medicine and technology are encouraged in virtually all societies, scientific or religious.Actually, scientific advancement in the west was driven almost entirely into the ground during roughly 500AD to 1300AD. It is only because free-thinkers in the west acquired the knowledge stored by the ancient Greeks, preserved and often used by the Muslims, that scientific advancement out of the dark ages and into the renaissance was possible. It should also be noted that the Muslim empire was the centre of scientific, philosophical and otherwise intellectual advancement for much of the dark ages until fundamentalists came to power (largely in response to Christians demonising Islam and launching the crusades, as Islam was seen as a major threat to Christianity), thereby ensuring the repression of scientific advancement in their empire as in the Christian.

However I need not point to history to illustrate why this statement is false. xtians / catholics, for instance, look particularly unfavourably upon genetic engineering, arguably the greatest frontier in modern medical science. These are the same groups that said the same things about the earth not being the centre of the universe, 400 years ago.

The guy who discovered penecillen(at least to my knowledge) did not do so because of darwinism or a free thinking society.
Your analogy between the discovery of penicillin and evolution does not follow to your conclusion that a largely free-thinking society is not required for scientific discoveries to be made. In actuality, it is a strawman argument. My begrudgement at the use of the term 'darwinism' aside, it is simply a requirement that society be free-thinking to experiment with things such as penicillin. Let us imagine that Flemming and Florey (the guys who discovered penicillin) were 'experimenting' in the dark ages with mould and chemicals, they would almost certainly have been burnt at the stake by our religiously fundamentalist ancestry.

However benefits such as new technologies and medecines are totally unconnected to things liek Darwinsim and evolution.
Finally, this is demonstrably wrong. All that is required to demonstrate it false is a single example of a practical discovery that had followed from our understanding of evolution. Well, here is a single example (if I may be permitted to hijack your own): we understand how pathogenic microbes become resistant to antibiotics because the theory of evolution explains it. We have therefore developed rational quarantine methods and new drug strategies to combat these resistant microbes because of this understanding. I am willing to provide more if a single case is not enough.

Arguments for the existence of God:
The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God.
The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator god.
The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which can not be conceived". Alvin Plantinga formulates this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.

As proven more than 200 years ago by I.Kant: such arguments are made of fail.

taken directly from wiki:critique of pure reason

The Ideal of Pure Reason
Pure reason mistakenly goes beyond its relation to possible experience when it concludes that there is a Being who is the most real thing conceivable. This personified object is postulated by Reason as the subject of all predicates, the sum total of all reality. Kant called this Supreme Being, or God, the Ideal of Pure Reason because it exists as the highest and most complete condition of the possibility of all objects, their original cause and their continual support.


Ontological Proof of God's Existence
The Ontological Proof considers the concept of the most real Being and concludes that it is absolutely necessary. The Ontological Argument states that God exists because he is perfect. If he didn't exist, he would be less than perfect. Existence is assumed to be a predicate or attribute of the subject, God. But, Kant asserted that existence is not a predicate. Existence or Being is merely the infinitive of the copula or linking, connecting verb "is" in a declarative sentence. It connects the subject to a predicate. "Existence is evidently not a real predicate … The small word is, is not an additional predicate, but only serves to put the predicate in relation to the subject." (A599) Also, we cannot accept a mere concept or mental idea as being a real, external thing or object. The Ontological Argument starts with a mere mental concept of a perfect God and tries to end with a real, existing God.


Cosmological ("Prime Mover") Proof of God's Existence
The Cosmological Proof considers the concept of an absolutely necessary Being and concludes that it has the most reality. In this way, the Cosmological Proof is merely the converse of the Ontological Proof. But the Cosmological Proof purports to start from sense experience. It says, "If anything exists in the cosmos, then there must be an absolutely necessary Being." It then claims that there is only one concept of an absolutely necessary object. That is the concept of a Supreme Being who has maximum reality. Only such a supremely real being would be necessary and independently sufficient without compare. But this is the Ontological Proof again, which was asserted a priori without sense experience.


Physico-theological ("Watch Maker") Proof of God's Existence
The Physico-theological Proof of God's existence is supposed to be based on a posteriori sensed experience of nature and not on mere a priori abstract concepts. It observes that the objects in the world have been intentionally arranged with great wisdom. The fitness of this arrangement could never have occurred randomly, without purpose. The world must have been caused by an intelligent power. The unity of the relation between all of the parts of the world leads us to infer that there is only one cause of everything. That one cause is a perfect, mighty, wise, and self-sufficient Being. This physico-theology does not, however, prove with certainty the existence of God. For this, we need something absolutely necessary that consequently has all-embracing reality. But this is the Cosmological Proof. That, in turn, is based on its converse, the Ontological Proof, which concludes that an all-encompassing real Being has absolutely necessary existence. All three proofs can be reduced to the Ontological Proof, which tried to make an objective reality out of a subjective concept.



...

To sum it up, there is no objective proof of the existence of a "God" entity, and it can never be one.
Even Kurt Gödel tried (using an analogy with positive integers), and failed.

It should also be noted that the Muslim empire was the centre of scientific, philosophical and otherwise intellectual advancement for much of the dark ages until fundamentalists came to power (largely in response to Christians demonising Islam and launching the crusades, as Islam was seen as a major threat to Christianity)

I think that the real turning point is the sack of Baghdad (and the subsequent genocide) by the Mongols.

As proven more than 200 years ago by I.Kant: such arguments are made of fail.

taken directly from wiki:critique of pure reason

The Ideal of Pure Reason
Pure reason mistakenly goes beyond its relation to possible experience when it concludes that there is a Being who is the most real thing conceivable. This personified object is postulated by Reason as the subject of all predicates, the sum total of all reality. Kant called this Supreme Being, or God, the Ideal of Pure Reason because it exists as the highest and most complete condition of the possibility of all objects, their original cause and their continual support.


Ontological Proof of God's Existence
The Ontological Proof considers the concept of the most real Being and concludes that it is absolutely necessary. The Ontological Argument states that God exists because he is perfect. If he didn't exist, he would be less than perfect. Existence is assumed to be a predicate or attribute of the subject, God. But, Kant asserted that existence is not a predicate. Existence or Being is merely the infinitive of the copula or linking, connecting verb "is" in a declarative sentence. It connects the subject to a predicate. "Existence is evidently not a real predicate … The small word is, is not an additional predicate, but only serves to put the predicate in relation to the subject." (A599) Also, we cannot accept a mere concept or mental idea as being a real, external thing or object. The Ontological Argument starts with a mere mental concept of a perfect God and tries to end with a real, existing God.


Cosmological ("Prime Mover") Proof of God's Existence
The Cosmological Proof considers the concept of an absolutely necessary Being and concludes that it has the most reality. In this way, the Cosmological Proof is merely the converse of the Ontological Proof. But the Cosmological Proof purports to start from sense experience. It says, "If anything exists in the cosmos, then there must be an absolutely necessary Being." It then claims that there is only one concept of an absolutely necessary object. That is the concept of a Supreme Being who has maximum reality. Only such a supremely real being would be necessary and independently sufficient without compare. But this is the Ontological Proof again, which was asserted a priori without sense experience.


Physico-theological ("Watch Maker") Proof of God's Existence
The Physico-theological Proof of God's existence is supposed to be based on a posteriori sensed experience of nature and not on mere a priori abstract concepts. It observes that the objects in the world have been intentionally arranged with great wisdom. The fitness of this arrangement could never have occurred randomly, without purpose. The world must have been caused by an intelligent power. The unity of the relation between all of the parts of the world leads us to infer that there is only one cause of everything. That one cause is a perfect, mighty, wise, and self-sufficient Being. This physico-theology does not, however, prove with certainty the existence of God. For this, we need something absolutely necessary that consequently has all-embracing reality. But this is the Cosmological Proof. That, in turn, is based on its converse, the Ontological Proof, which concludes that an all-encompassing real Being has absolutely necessary existence. All three proofs can be reduced to the Ontological Proof, which tried to make an objective reality out of a subjective concept.



To sum it up, there is no objective proof of the existence of a "God" entity, and it can never be one.
Even Kurt Gödel tried (using an analogy with positive integers), and failed.

You're right, there's no objective proof for the Existence of God. People believe in a God because they have faith, and faith is something that can't be objectively explained either. Those arguments that you quote from me are a definition from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God. Now, all I do have to remember is, to whom did I linked them to in argument?:confused:

Influence is relative. What influences you does noting to me, and so on.

I'm assuming this is an affirmative response to my question about influence being measured along a spectrum, so correct me if I'm wrong. If influence can be measured along a spectrum, what are the attributes that spectrum measures? Utility? Morality? Concentration? Intensity? Popularity? Must different degrees of influence be measured upon different spectra? Must different attributes fall upon different realms within their own spectra?

Control requires influence. In some ways it is, in some ways it isn't. Welecome to social issues, they're not black and white. Same applies to control and identity, you assume identity and control work along the same plane, always. Control can influence identity, likewise identity can influence control, does that make them the same?

If control is a complement to influence, then it would have a direct relationship with the acquisition and implementation of influence. How strongly is this relationship correlated? In line with the previous question, are different correlative values associated with different attributes? Also, does identity deserve to be measured along its own spectrum, the same as influence's, or is it so complex and abstract that it doesn't deserve to be measured at all?

I'm asking you if you believe identity and control are the same. To me they are since control provides us with potential to act and it is those actions that define out identity. In order to prove potential (and control) though, potential has to be exercised in reality. This doesn't mean that I reject the definition of identity through the absence of action since silence and passivity can define identity through their maintenance of flexibility. The question an entity has to ask when deciding to how far he wishes to define his identity when at a crossroads is whether activity or passivity will prove and provide for greater potential.

And yes, identity is a resource pool, and it is aquired, and built. You build your identity from the experiances and inputs you gain as you grow.

So I ask again, how can no compromise be made over identity when the only way an institution can have power to wield is through its acquisition from other entities? Unless institutions have their own will independent of the humans that consist of it, I don't see how an institution can alternatively build identity by experiencing and growing on its own.

And what defines the limits on what can or can not be a characteristic?

By characteristic, I mean attribute or personality trait. Resources can't be personality traits since they are exogenously under our control rather than endogenously under our control.

I'm not sure but I feel you may be applying a more popular model of polytheisim to this. Let me clarify, my gods and goddesses are arbitrary in their existance. They need not be directly linked to anything to represent them.

I found this interesting since I just read a paper on Chardin's original Omega Point Theory titled Teilhard de Chardin - Prophet of the Information Age (http://people.cornell.edu/pages/jag8/chardin.html). In it, the author considers that perception rather than consciousness is the ultimate goal of the universe which can be theorized in accordance with the response by electron clouds to light which acts as a form of stimuli. Anyway, what are your deities linked to if not the forces that they represent?

You base your conclusion on many theories, which either have not, or can't be proven. Matter in the universe, for instance, can only be measured out as far as we can physicly see it, which is limited by the speed of light.

Likewise, we can't think infinitly. There are infinite possibilities, but none of us can consider them all. If we could your conclusion would be valid, as the finite human brain can't come to an infinite number of conclusions or ideas, as you put, but we can't.

When you refer to conclusion, I'm taking it that you mistook that the computer science conclusions I made are my own (which they are not), not that you are referring to the conclusions made in the OP about Omega Point Theory (hitherto OPT). Computability theory's proof comes from the capacity of atoms to store information at the quantum level in that atoms only have a finite amount ofdistinguishably observable states to carry information. Yes atoms may have an infinite amount of positions in how they bond with other atoms, organize their sub-atomic particles, and carry different flavors among sub-sub-atomic particles i.e. quarks, leptons, muons, etc., but atoms can only be reacted with and read in so many different ways.

I thank you for confirming what I've said in the second part of your response here with respect to how the brain can come up with only a finite amount of ideas. When I earlier said that reality comes from dreams rather than the other way around, I was referring to how the brain can come up with ideas independent of what it has observed and recognized. Even if only a finite amount of possibilities are possible, the brain can come up with unique ideas by generating ideas beyond what it has recognized. This is why there is controversy about whether Leibniz and Newton should be given credit as to who really invented calculus since they both did so upon their own independent efforts.

If you're concerned about those who are uneducated interpreting the bible, how do you define expertise (and do you define expertise beyond the recognition of reputation or popular consent)? Also, how do you distinguish between coercion, unhealthy competition, and healthy competition? If you use extremity as a benchmark, do you use positive or normative guidance for determining where that benchmark is? Like Bedouin's opinion, I don't have enough time to address this with too much depth, but the goal here is to see if you're engaging in act-based or rule-based utilitarianism with regards to how you set your standards.

When I talk about expertise, when I define I do so in terms of academic preparation. Recognition or popular conset have nothing to do with it. There are well-renowned authors and scholars that, when you come down to study their work, are completely mediocre.
How do I distinguish coercion? Easy, let me give you an example of coercion. Women in the Islamic world. They live according to the horrid interpretation of the Qu'ran by men. They live in an opressive world. Of course, let me clarify this before the shower of rocks, these women are raised in this environment, they're used to this coercion by religion, they see this coercive behavior (to me) as normal.
Healthy and unhealthy competition? Healthy competition will announce it's precepts without trying to impose them, in my opinion. Unhealthy competition is too close to being coercion to describe it accurately, and I don't have the time to do it right now.
For determining the benchmark I have to say, I use a mixture of both normative and positive guidance. Then again, I'm no expert. How do I set my standards? I use more of a critical-based level of reasoning. I try to see the pros and cons of the situation and, to the best of my capabilities, discuss it without taking sides. I try, let me reiterate on that too.

-snip-

Kant did actually believe that you can show the existence of God is rationally nessecerry, and attempted to.

When I talk about expertise, when I define I do so in terms of academic preparation. Recognition or popular conset have nothing to do with it. There are well-renowned authors and scholars that, when you come down to study their work, are completely mediocre.

In the case of religion, there are many instances where accepting a rationalized view of the world is deemed as unfaithful, but if you accept convents, jesuit universities, and other forms of religious study as seen in Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, what is to say that the institutions who educate interpreters aren't brainwashing leaders themselves? I believe there are real final answers to this, so I want to see if you subscribe to one rather than an open ended answer that lets me keep asking, "How come?"

How do I distinguish coercion? Easy, let me give you an example of coercion. Women in the Islamic world. They live according to the horrid interpretation of the Qu'ran by men. They live in an opressive world. Of course, let me clarify this before the shower of rocks, these women are raised in this environment, they're used to this coercion by religion, they see this coercive behavior (to me) as normal.

Many radical Muslims would argue that women have natural unfair advantages which make it perfectly legitimate to be what westerners would call "abused" (some would retreat to referencing holy scripture while others would accuse westerners of comparable behavior). Is coercion subject to relative observations of behavioral content, or can it be absolutely determined by viewing behavioral structure?

Healthy and unhealthy competition? Healthy competition will announce it's precepts without trying to impose them, in my opinion. Unhealthy competition is too close to being coercion to describe it accurately, and I don't have the time to do it right now.

I'll let you elaborate here before I criticize. It wouldn't be fair for me to pick at something that's voluntarily incomplete.

For determining the benchmark I have to say, I use a mixture of both normative and positive guidance. Then again, I'm no expert. How do I set my standards? I use more of a critical-based level of reasoning. I try to see the pros and cons of the situation and, to the best of my capabilities, discuss it without taking sides. I try, let me reiterate on that too.

Critical thought is noted to be partially subjective (http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/unit3/fundamentals/problemsofdefinition/). When determining what is proper or improper, do you search for surface level solutions (that which is rational), ultimate level solutions (that which is righteous), or do you feel properness is subject to subjectivity just as solutions are?