Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 4 votes

The Only Way to Escape Hell


  • Please log in to reply
453 replies to this topic

#391    Arbitran

Arbitran

    Post-Singularitan Hyperturing Synthetic Intelligence

  • Member
  • 2,767 posts
  • Joined:13 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:10 PM

View Postlozaleibou, on 27 September 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

So just as I asked Arbitran: If there isn't a God, who created this world?   The majority of the scientific world says that there has to be a grand designer.   Wouldn't it take more faith to believe that we all came from a bubble in the goo, than to believe that we have a Creator? Just look at the intricacies of the human eye, for instance.   Do you think that all came about just by chance?

No, the scientific world has wholesale rejected creationism/intelligent design, as I've said. You've been lied to, I'm afraid.

Nobody created this world. And the origin of the eye is a very well-understood process.

Try to realize it's all within yourself / No-one else can make you change / And to see you're really only very small / And life flows on within you and without you. / We were talking about the love that's gone so cold and the people / Who gain the world and lose their soul / They don't know they can't see are you one of them? / When you've seen beyond yourself then you may find peace of mind / Is waiting there / And the time will come / when you see we're all one and life flows on within you and without you. ~ George Harrison

#392    lozaleibou

lozaleibou

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 182 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2012

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:15 PM

View PostArbitran, on 27 September 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

No, the scientific world has wholesale rejected creationism/intelligent design, as I've said. You've been lied to, I'm afraid.

Nobody created this world. And the origin of the eye is a very well-understood process.

Ah yes, there it is again.   Your generalities in your vast human understanding, which you will probably deny you said, at a later time.   :unsure2:


#393    Arbitran

Arbitran

    Post-Singularitan Hyperturing Synthetic Intelligence

  • Member
  • 2,767 posts
  • Joined:13 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:16 PM

View Postlozaleibou, on 27 September 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

Ah yes, there it is again.   Your generalities in your vast human understanding, which you will probably deny you said, at a later time.   :unsure2:

Not really sure what you're trying to say... could you speak a bit more descriptively?

Try to realize it's all within yourself / No-one else can make you change / And to see you're really only very small / And life flows on within you and without you. / We were talking about the love that's gone so cold and the people / Who gain the world and lose their soul / They don't know they can't see are you one of them? / When you've seen beyond yourself then you may find peace of mind / Is waiting there / And the time will come / when you see we're all one and life flows on within you and without you. ~ George Harrison

#394    Hasina

Hasina

    Maximillion Hotpocket Puckershuttle

  • Member
  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female

  • JINKIES

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:23 PM

View Postlozaleibou, on 27 September 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

So just as I asked Arbitran: If there isn't a God, who created this world?   The majority of the scientific world says that there has to be a grand designer.   Wouldn't it take more faith to believe that we all came from a bubble in the goo, than to believe that we have a Creator? Just look at the intricacies of the human eye, for instance.   Do you think that all came about just by chance?
No one created it. The majority of the scientific world doesn't believe that, it's been hashed over so many times in other topics I don't really need to say it again. It takes no faith to believe we 'came from a bubble of goo' as you so unsatisfactorily generalize. The origin of life is still a murky one in the scientific world, there are hypothesis, but no scientist has the hubris to say 'this is it, this is where life came from'. As for the origins of the Universe, I have no say, I've read about it and I agree, there's no way of knowing, but will this make me throw myself into an ancient text for comfort? No.

And yes, I believe we're all here by chance. I know for a fact that I am here by chance, just in my immediate family.

As for the eye? Here ya go, but I'm sure you'll dismiss it as hokeypokey 'science' (hisshiss):
http://upload.wikime...e_evolution.svg

Edited by Hasina, 27 September 2012 - 10:26 PM.

Posted Image

~MEH~


#395    _Only

_Only

  • Member
  • 6,653 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern California

  • Did you ever grow anything in the garden of your mind? You can grow ideas, in the garden of your mind. - Mr. Rogers

Posted 28 September 2012 - 05:06 AM

View PostArbitran, on 27 September 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

No, the scientific world has wholesale rejected creationism/intelligent design, as I've said. You've been lied to, I'm afraid.

Nobody created this world. And the origin of the eye is a very well-understood process.

To be fair, someone who rejects a possible explanation of something they have no clue about themselves,, besides educated guesses, doesn't give their stance any credence, despite the non-related advances the "scientific world" has made.

Something did create this world, because it exists. What is the question. You, Arbitran, seem to have placed a body to the creator, which doesn't necessarily have to exist, theoretically (theory being all that exists in this subject altogether).

And it seems you both have completely missed lozal's point about the eye. He, you both, I, and everyone else know that the entire process has been studied, documented, and taught for a long, long time. The masterful intricacy of the setup of these seemingly random grouping of parts and processes is what lozaleibou was referring to, not that it is not understood how it works. You could say the same thing about many, many things that exist in the world. From the microscopic world all the way up to deep space in the universe, and everything in-between. It's all so sublimely methodical, fine-tuned, and balanced in its makeup. So many supposedly random, "by chance" things all co-existing in this world, it boggles the mind if you were to really think about it all in one sitting.

Did some"body" create that? Who knows? Certainly not Arbitran or Hasina, unless they are holding out on some information all of the rest of us are in the dark about. A God who was written about in a big book by a bunch of men, and sent his son to die for our sins, to come again one day to take us to Heaven? I really doubt it. But what else could have created all of this? We do not know. So I don't understand how some can so securely teach others how a creator simply does not exist. Help me out.

Edited by _Only, 28 September 2012 - 05:08 AM.

I love to make mashups! Click here to hear!
I also love taking pictures! Click here to see!
I love to play drums, too! Whatever you do, don't click here!

#396    Arbitran

Arbitran

    Post-Singularitan Hyperturing Synthetic Intelligence

  • Member
  • 2,767 posts
  • Joined:13 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 28 September 2012 - 05:44 AM

My core point was that it needn't have all been created. Of course it came about; came into existence. But ultimately, that's just simple physics and chemistry, up until biology kicks into gear of course, when my specialty of evolution took root as the fundamental principle which diversified and brought the organisms we see into existence. I wouldn't say it's terribly methodical either. Sure, it all functions rather well, but deep down the notion of some unseen intelligence behind it just doesn't stack up to observations. An intelligent designer wouldn't have inserted the appendix, a useless vestige of an organ, which is incidentally prone to rupturing and causing severe harm to its owner. An intelligent designer, though he might have made an eye that works, wouldn't have inserted the massive blind spot which exists in the human eye, wouldn't have inserted all of our cones and rods backwards, and certainly wouldn't have gone about designing another creature, the human botfly, which has a nasty tendency of burrowing into human (and other primate) eyes to lay its eggs. An intelligent designer whose purpose was to create life might have done better if they hadn't chosen to put it all on small, infinitesimal rocks in the middle of otherwise uninhabitable space; and on top of that, given that they seem to like humans so much (given I'm talking of course about religious creationistic ideas), it would have been a bit more intelligent if they hadn't made the majority of the surface of that small rocky ball in space inhospitable desert and treacherous ocean.

In any case, true, I don't know where the universe came from; any more than anyone else. And yes, cynically speaking, science could be said to be an "educated guess". But, ultimately, that's really all we have, isn't it? There is no way to know anything 100%. The purpose of the scientific method is to determine what is real, how reality works, where it came from, etc. And it has so far done a staggeringly-good job at getting those answers. Will it ever be 100% sure about it all? No. It simply can't.

In any case, the "masterful intricacy" is a matter of opinion. Sure, the eye looks rather complex, and in many ways it is, but ultimately it is simply a collection of proteins and chemical compounds which have been organized into a complex state through very simply biological, chemical, and physical principles. And, again, I certainly wouldn't deem it "masterful"; mastery would tend to imply the lack of any fault, and that certainly cannot be said of our backward, myopia-prone, botfly-attracting eyes.

If you are suggesting though, as I hope you are, frankly, that the "creator" could be the laws of nature, then so be it, I believe in a creator, along with all of science. But it's when semantics like that are brought into play that makes me reject creationism all the more. "Creator" implies some intelligent or creative entity; which certainly doesn't sound like simple laws of nature, given that the laws are autonomous and unconscious. No, I'm afraid that there wasn't a creator. And if that means that the universe came about by "chance" or by "accident", then so be it, but it's a plain fact, and in any case, I don't see it that way at all. I don't necessarily see the universe as having come about by "accident", per se, but simply as the result of the simple laws which the universe enforces upon the objects within it. Is this "accidental" in nature? I don't think so; not necessarily. An accident implies sheer chance; the laws of nature are the antithesis of chance. But was there a creative, conscious entity behind it all? Well, the possibility is always there, but the odds are so monumentally against the idea that really absolutely every scrap of knowledge we have about the universe would have to be shown categorically false for it to even have much of a fighting chance. And given that the odds of that happening are almost equally infinitesimal, I must quintessentially place my bet on science. All in...

Edited by Arbitran, 28 September 2012 - 05:45 AM.

Try to realize it's all within yourself / No-one else can make you change / And to see you're really only very small / And life flows on within you and without you. / We were talking about the love that's gone so cold and the people / Who gain the world and lose their soul / They don't know they can't see are you one of them? / When you've seen beyond yourself then you may find peace of mind / Is waiting there / And the time will come / when you see we're all one and life flows on within you and without you. ~ George Harrison

#397    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 28 September 2012 - 04:50 PM

View Postlozaleibou, on 27 September 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

So just as I asked Arbitran: If there isn't a God, who created this world?   The majority of the scientific world says that there has to be a grand designer.

As Arbitran says this is simply not true. Scientists whose careers have been in geology, biology, astronomy, archaeology and several other fields have entirely rejected Creationism as an explanation for the evidence they uncover.

This is because everything they've discovered has mundane explanations. They have not discovered anything that would require a miracle to explain which would be evidence of a higher power. The more we learned about Earth and the universe, the more we realized that everything could be explained without the need of someone or something creating or causing it.

Quote

Wouldn't it take more faith to believe that we all came from a bubble in the goo, than to believe that we have a Creator?

I have seen goo. I have not seen anything that remotely resembles God or any other supernatural creature.

Also, we don't know everything about what "goo" created life. There are some good theories but we don't know for sure and can't know for sure. And yes, science can proceed without answering this question.

Quote

Just look at the intricacies of the human eye, for instance.   Do you think that all came about just by chance?

You misunderstand evolution. It's not by chance. Creatures with better eyes tend to survive and pass this quality onto their offspring. Repeat a thousand times and you'll have creatures with eyes that appear to have been designed but are actually the result of countless generations of natural section. We humans don't live very long so we have difficulty understanding changes that take millions of years to happen.


#398    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 28 September 2012 - 05:06 PM

View Post_Only, on 28 September 2012 - 05:06 AM, said:

To be fair, someone who rejects a possible explanation of something they have no clue about themselves,, besides educated guesses, doesn't give their stance any credence, despite the non-related advances the "scientific world" has made.

The problem you fall into is that you must reject some explanations because the number of explanations are only limited by the human imagination.

So someone thinks "God" created the universe. Someone else thinks their "Jupiter" created it, this phony "God". Another person thinks powerful aliens from another dimension created it. Someone thinks the universe has always existed so the concept of creation doesn't apply to it. Another person thinks the universe doesn't exist at all and is a collective hallucination by mankind. Someone else believes that the universe we see is false and we are nothing but brains in a giant experiment...

...see, it goes on and on. To pick the most likely one, you have to evaluate the evidence and the evidence strongly refutes that the universe was created by a series of miracles. In fact some could argue that the multidimensional aliens and brains-in-a-vat make more sense from what we've seen.


#399    Hasina

Hasina

    Maximillion Hotpocket Puckershuttle

  • Member
  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female

  • JINKIES

Posted 28 September 2012 - 05:10 PM

I just find the whole 'well it's too perfect to not have been created' a silly argument. Why the heck do I have to expel an egg from my body every month? Why do we have a blind spot in our vision? Why can't I pat my head and rub my stomach at the same time? There's too much subtly wrong with the universe then there is 'perfect' things. It's well suited for life, but it's no bloody picnic.

Edited by Hasina, 28 September 2012 - 05:10 PM.

Posted Image

~MEH~


#400    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 28 September 2012 - 05:16 PM

View PostHasina, on 28 September 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

I just find the whole 'well it's too perfect to not have been created' a silly argument. Why the heck do I have to expel an egg from my body every month? Why do we have a blind spot in our vision? Why can't I pat my head and rub my stomach at the same time? There's too much subtly wrong with the universe then there is 'perfect' things. It's well suited for life, but it's no bloody picnic.

Why have most of the people in my department had to have their infected appendixes removed some time in their lives? Maybe it's an anomaly but eight out of fourteen have and three have in the past two years!

If it's God's form of layoffs, that would explain why unemployment is so high. Modern medicine is keeping too many people in the job market.


#401    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,040 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 29 September 2012 - 08:29 PM

View Postlozaleibou, on 25 September 2012 - 10:39 PM, said:

So Ben, were the apostles Christians?   The word Christian means follower of Christ.   Were they not followers?   How about when He said, "Come follow me."

No, Lozaleibou, Jesus never had a Christian for an apostle. Christians did not exist at Jesus' time. They came about with Paul 35 years after Jesus had been gone. (Acts 11:26) Christian, by definition, is the person who believes that Jesus was Christ, which in Greek means Messiah, and it was fabricated by Paul, as he confessed to his disciple Timothy himself. (2 Tim. 2:8) The Nazarenes yes, they were followers of Jesus. But they were called Nazarenes on behalf of Jesus of Nazareth. (Acts 24:5)

Ben


#402    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,040 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 29 September 2012 - 08:38 PM

View Postlozaleibou, on 25 September 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

Was Peter not a Jew and a Christian?   Andrew?  Matthew?   James?   John?   And you already said that Paul was a Christian, but we already know he was a Jew by birth.   Is that not them being both?

Yes, Paul was a Christian but not Peter, Andrew, Matthew, James or John. Paul was born Jewish, a Hellenistic Jew, but he lost his Jewishness when he   founded a religion against Jewish Theology. There is more than one way for a Jew to lose his Jewish identity. And to adopt a religion not in tune with Judaism is one of the reasons. There is no such a thing as a Christian-Jew or a Jewish-Christian. One is either a Jew or a Christian.

Ben


#403    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,040 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 29 September 2012 - 08:42 PM

View PostCRIPTIC CHAMELEON, on 26 September 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

Well according to the main religions I'm going to hell but I don't mind as there are a few people down there I would like to kick the sh1t out of.  :devil:

Not according to Judaism. I mean, if the idea of hell here is the Christian one.

Ben


#404    Dr. D

Dr. D

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:15 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • I love being me even though sometimes I'm still a stranger.

Posted 29 September 2012 - 08:46 PM

This discourse is interesting because it’s a microcosm of human history.  In the days when superstition and legends were regarded as truth, the universe and everything in it was created by a supreme being.

In Greek tradition, the Earth created the sky.  The Rig Veda tales expanded on that and had the Earth and sky creating the gods.  Babylonian accounts are those that probably align best with modern science since it has a planet (where the astroid belt is) being destroyed and part of it becoming the Earth.  Egyptians had a goose and gander creating an egg that became the sun. . . .

And then came the Bible story, told twice in Genesis for emphasis, with its elements well known to all.

Man has progressed to the point that his theories are now tested and verified or rejected.  He is moving forward toward understanding his universe and all that’s in it.  Unfortunately, some people have been left behind, still clinging to mythology, legends and imagination.


#405    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,261 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 September 2012 - 08:55 PM

Physical laws (of nature) don't explain the creation of the universe.   The physics of the very large does not agree with the physics of the very small.   Until we prove a unifying theory from the competing theories out there or another one we haven't even dreamed of yet, physics will be as far away from "simple" as we can get.   We don't know the nature of the creator, whether it's a higher sentient being or whether it's a mindless event brought about by some unknown cause.  In my opinion, all theories should be entertained without all the self-assured squabbles over one another's beliefs.  

The craziest ideas can sometimes reveal a wrinkle of truth when that truth is stubbornly hard to find.  Brainstorming doesn't discourage wild and loose thinking for that reason.

Is the earth perfect?   On a relative basis compared to anything else out there we know of, hell yeah.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users