The arrogance generally comes about through dogma... a point best demonstrated by the movie "Dogma."Kmarion wrote:
If we are a product of nature and we have been trying to answer these question from the start it is not entirely unreasonable to believe that understanding the universe might just be our role. In fact it makes the most sense to me. We must follow the path that come naturally to us as humans, part of that is exploring creation. My dog is on the floor licking it's ass but I'm not about to join in. I guess thats just me being arrogant.lowing wrote:
Well the rest of nature seems to get along just fine without faith or pre-determained destiny, in fact the rest of nature will still be here when we turn to dust.Kmarion wrote:
The ultimate goal of science is a theory for everything. Of course anything stated here would be based on my knowledge . Again both sides of the argument will leave you with unanswered questions and demanding faith in the unknown. Or in your case betting .. gambling on the outcome.
Are we that arrogant to think that faith and Gods are the only things we have to answer to? That we are something special with our own God to look after us, while the rest of the universe spins into the unknown future? We must because every other aspect of nature is oblivious to God or religion.
Yea but watching a movie with Ben Affleck in it is proof positive all in itself that there is no god.Turquoise wrote:
The arrogance generally comes about through dogma... a point best demonstrated by the movie "Dogma."Kmarion wrote:
If we are a product of nature and we have been trying to answer these question from the start it is not entirely unreasonable to believe that understanding the universe might just be our role. In fact it makes the most sense to me. We must follow the path that come naturally to us as humans, part of that is exploring creation. My dog is on the floor licking it's ass but I'm not about to join in. I guess thats just me being arrogant.lowing wrote:
Well the rest of nature seems to get along just fine without faith or pre-determained destiny, in fact the rest of nature will still be here when we turn to dust.
Are we that arrogant to think that faith and Gods are the only things we have to answer to? That we are something special with our own God to look after us, while the rest of the universe spins into the unknown future? We must because every other aspect of nature is oblivious to God or religion.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Well, I thought it has to do with God allows you to choose your own actions...slightly different from what you're saying.Turquoise wrote:
This is basically inconsistent with the idea that God is omniscient, because it implies that God does not know what actions we will choose.Pug wrote:
First I'm not catholic, but I married one. I've talked about this before with some much more pious people than I.
According to them, Man was given the ultimate gift which is the lack of predetermination in the form of Free Will. You have the right to live any life you choose without God's influence. The form of Free Will is your Soul. So you can choose to be damned.
Then they started talking about the fact Man was flawed and unable to become "undamned", so Jesus came along and solved this problem somehow.
I know that's not clear, but at the time there was a hockey game on, and someone scored and I forgot my follow up question. Sorry, if I weren't damned with ADD, I'd be able to give you a better answer.
Perhaps someone else can fill in the blanks I had from the 2nd period (Red Wings won...woot).
that was my original argument, that it is entirely possible that god is all knowing, all seeing, and uncaring.Pug wrote:
Well, I thought it has to do with God allows you to choose your own actions...slightly different from what you're saying.Turquoise wrote:
This is basically inconsistent with the idea that God is omniscient, because it implies that God does not know what actions we will choose.Pug wrote:
First I'm not catholic, but I married one. I've talked about this before with some much more pious people than I.
According to them, Man was given the ultimate gift which is the lack of predetermination in the form of Free Will. You have the right to live any life you choose without God's influence. The form of Free Will is your Soul. So you can choose to be damned.
Then they started talking about the fact Man was flawed and unable to become "undamned", so Jesus came along and solved this problem somehow.
I know that's not clear, but at the time there was a hockey game on, and someone scored and I forgot my follow up question. Sorry, if I weren't damned with ADD, I'd be able to give you a better answer.
Perhaps someone else can fill in the blanks I had from the 2nd period (Red Wings won...woot).
Sorta, kinda, has to be if he is omniscient.S.Lythberg wrote:
that was my original argument, that it is entirely possible that god is all knowing, all seeing, and uncaring.Pug wrote:
Well, I thought it has to do with God allows you to choose your own actions...slightly different from what you're saying.Turquoise wrote:
This is basically inconsistent with the idea that God is omniscient, because it implies that God does not know what actions we will choose.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
My opinion is that we will always try to reason on the true purpose, but we lack the insight to be able to accomplish it. We live in a tangible world which will always preclude us from the intangible. In other words, it's like a three year old trying to put together a jet engine with directions written in Chinese.Kmarion wrote:
If we are a product of nature and we have been trying to answer these question from the start it is not entirely unreasonable to believe that understanding the universe might just be our role. In fact it makes the most sense to me. We must follow the path that come naturally to us as humans, part of that is exploring creation. My dog is on the floor licking it's ass but I'm not about to join in. I guess thats just me being arrogant.
Some Catholic priests in town have dinner with us occasionally, based on listening to them it seems they explain "uncaring" as part of a grand design of Man's role - which it does seem similar to what Kmarion's saying.S.Lythberg wrote:
that was my original argument, that it is entirely possible that god is all knowing, all seeing, and uncaring.
well, that would be a lot of prayers to tend to...Kmarion wrote:
Sorta, kinda, has to be if he is omniscient.S.Lythberg wrote:
that was my original argument, that it is entirely possible that god is all knowing, all seeing, and uncaring.Pug wrote:
Well, I thought it has to do with God allows you to choose your own actions...slightly different from what you're saying.
and a lot of lives to manage
I think it's more plausible that he set the laws of physics in motion, and then went back to wherever he had been previously (and where that may be, we will likely never know).
Why do we try to reason though? As pointed out we are for the most part unique in this regard. I'd say we have come a long way in the last 650k years. A relative minuscule amount of time. By comparison that three year old would be nearly finished within a couple minutes.Pug wrote:
My opinion is that we will always try to reason on the true purpose, but we lack the insight to be able to accomplish it. We live in a tangible world which will always preclude us from the intangible. In other words, it's like a three year old trying to put together a jet engine with directions written in Chinese.Kmarion wrote:
If we are a product of nature and we have been trying to answer these question from the start it is not entirely unreasonable to believe that understanding the universe might just be our role. In fact it makes the most sense to me. We must follow the path that come naturally to us as humans, part of that is exploring creation. My dog is on the floor licking it's ass but I'm not about to join in. I guess thats just me being arrogant.
Also consider our ability to reason has greatly increased since we began our existence.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
we reason because the more our knowledge of the natural world increases, the more we can bend it to our will. Our search for knowledge and ability to reason has doubled our life expectancy, immesurably increased our quality of life, and made us by far the most dominant species on our planet.Kmarion wrote:
Why do we try to reason though? As pointed out we are for the most part unique in this regard. I'd say we have come a long way in the last 650k years. A relative minuscule amount of time. By comparison that three year old would be nearly finished within a couple minutes.Pug wrote:
My opinion is that we will always try to reason on the true purpose, but we lack the insight to be able to accomplish it. We live in a tangible world which will always preclude us from the intangible. In other words, it's like a three year old trying to put together a jet engine with directions written in Chinese.Kmarion wrote:
If we are a product of nature and we have been trying to answer these question from the start it is not entirely unreasonable to believe that understanding the universe might just be our role. In fact it makes the most sense to me. We must follow the path that come naturally to us as humans, part of that is exploring creation. My dog is on the floor licking it's ass but I'm not about to join in. I guess thats just me being arrogant.
Also consider our ability to reason has greatly increased since we began our existence.
Not everyone believes this. In fact: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id … _article=1S.Lythberg wrote:
well, that would be a lot of prayers to tend to...Kmarion wrote:
Sorta, kinda, has to be if he is omniscient.S.Lythberg wrote:
that was my original argument, that it is entirely possible that god is all knowing, all seeing, and uncaring.
and a lot of lives to manage
I think it's more plausible that he set the laws of physics in motion, and then went back to wherever he had been previously (and where that may be, we will likely never know).
Xbone Stormsurgezz
No our arrogance is the notion that nature exists for us, that there is a reason why the universe was created for US. I simply acknowledge that we are as insignificant to the universe as a single atom is to us.... We do not matter, we do not make a difference, we are merely along for the ride just like everything else, and there simply does not need to be a reason for it. We will come and go just like all thingsKmarion wrote:
If we are a product of nature and we have been trying to answer these question from the start it is not entirely unreasonable to believe that understanding the universe might just be our role. In fact it makes the most sense to me. We must follow the path that come naturally to us as humans, part of that is exploring creation. My dog is on the floor licking it's ass but I'm not about to join in. I guess thats just me being arrogant.lowing wrote:
Well the rest of nature seems to get along just fine without faith or pre-determained destiny, in fact the rest of nature will still be here when we turn to dust.Kmarion wrote:
The ultimate goal of science is a theory for everything. Of course anything stated here would be based on my knowledge . Again both sides of the argument will leave you with unanswered questions and demanding faith in the unknown. Or in your case betting .. gambling on the outcome.
Are we that arrogant to think that faith and Gods are the only things we have to answer to? That we are something special with our own God to look after us, while the rest of the universe spins into the unknown future? We must because every other aspect of nature is oblivious to God or religion.
You are citing happenstance as a cause for our primary desire to explore our origins. The true scientist ponders creation and existence with a desire for knowledge, not "will bending".S.Lythberg wrote:
we reason because the more our knowledge of the natural world increases, the more we can bend it to our will. Our search for knowledge and ability to reason has doubled our life expectancy, immesurably increased our quality of life, and made us by far the most dominant species on our planet.Kmarion wrote:
Why do we try to reason though? As pointed out we are for the most part unique in this regard. I'd say we have come a long way in the last 650k years. A relative minuscule amount of time. By comparison that three year old would be nearly finished within a couple minutes.Pug wrote:
My opinion is that we will always try to reason on the true purpose, but we lack the insight to be able to accomplish it. We live in a tangible world which will always preclude us from the intangible. In other words, it's like a three year old trying to put together a jet engine with directions written in Chinese.
Also consider our ability to reason has greatly increased since we began our existence.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
.....at least no, good merciful God.Kmarion wrote:
Yea but watching a movie with Ben Affleck in it is proof positive all in itself that there is no god.Turquoise wrote:
The arrogance generally comes about through dogma... a point best demonstrated by the movie "Dogma."Kmarion wrote:
If we are a product of nature and we have been trying to answer these question from the start it is not entirely unreasonable to believe that understanding the universe might just be our role. In fact it makes the most sense to me. We must follow the path that come naturally to us as humans, part of that is exploring creation. My dog is on the floor licking it's ass but I'm not about to join in. I guess thats just me being arrogant.
but we can only trace the universe back to the exact moment of the big bang. Will it ever be possible to determine the preceding events, if, as many have theorized, the big bang was actually the final stage in the destruction of the previous universe under it's own weight.Kmarion wrote:
Not everyone believes this. In fact: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id … _article=1S.Lythberg wrote:
well, that would be a lot of prayers to tend to...Kmarion wrote:
Sorta, kinda, has to be if he is omniscient.
and a lot of lives to manage
I think it's more plausible that he set the laws of physics in motion, and then went back to wherever he had been previously (and where that may be, we will likely never know).
Yes we will come and go. Yes we are "tiny". But you have not explained why we search for the basic fundamentals of creation. You have made your peace with simply being. Humanity on the whole for 650k years has not. Who is being arrogant now?lowing wrote:
No our arrogance is the notion that nature exists for us, that there is a reason why the universe was created for US. I simply acknowledge that we are as insignificant to the universe as a single atom is to us.... We do not matter, we do not make a difference, we are merely along for the ride just like everything else, and there simply does not need to be a reason for it. We will come and go just like all thingsKmarion wrote:
If we are a product of nature and we have been trying to answer these question from the start it is not entirely unreasonable to believe that understanding the universe might just be our role. In fact it makes the most sense to me. We must follow the path that come naturally to us as humans, part of that is exploring creation. My dog is on the floor licking it's ass but I'm not about to join in. I guess thats just me being arrogant.lowing wrote:
Well the rest of nature seems to get along just fine without faith or pre-determained destiny, in fact the rest of nature will still be here when we turn to dust.
Are we that arrogant to think that faith and Gods are the only things we have to answer to? That we are something special with our own God to look after us, while the rest of the universe spins into the unknown future? We must because every other aspect of nature is oblivious to God or religion.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I think reasoning is instinctual. I hate to cite this book, but Guns, Germs & Steel by J. Diamond concluded that many technologies are the result of being well fed (highly simplified of course), which means people aren't spending all their time collecting food...and have a lot of time on our hands. What we do here is a perfect example - if you have spare time, what are you going to do? Sit, sleep, or tinker with something?Kmarion wrote:
Why do we try to reason though? As pointed out we are for the most part unique in this regard. I'd say we have come a long way in the last 650k years. A relative minuscule amount of time. By comparison that three year old would be nearly finished within a couple minutes.
Also consider our ability to reason has greatly increased since we began our existence.
As far as beginning to rationalize God...we will always have a fatal bias because our logic will always be tied to tangible conceptuality. As per a prior example - we believe time is linear and cyclical, for example. If time is irrellant to God, what other areas are we not even close on?
Last edited by Pug (2008-05-27 22:28:13)
Knowledge for the sake of knowledge. That's how it is, and I don't think S.Lythberg was saying that we only study nature for the benefits he listed. Those are just the products.Kmarion wrote:
You are citing happenstance as a cause for our primary desire to explore our origins. The true scientist ponders creation and existence with a desire for knowledge, not "will bending".
We search for it because we have evolved the capacity to do so. It does not mean there is an answer to be found. In my opinion however, if there is an answer to be found it will not be in the realm of man made religion or deities.Kmarion wrote:
Yes we will come and go. Yes we are "tiny". But you have not explained why we search for the basic fundamentals of creation. You have made your peace with simply being. Humanity on the whole for 650k years has not. Who is being arrogant now?lowing wrote:
No our arrogance is the notion that nature exists for us, that there is a reason why the universe was created for US. I simply acknowledge that we are as insignificant to the universe as a single atom is to us.... We do not matter, we do not make a difference, we are merely along for the ride just like everything else, and there simply does not need to be a reason for it. We will come and go just like all thingsKmarion wrote:
If we are a product of nature and we have been trying to answer these question from the start it is not entirely unreasonable to believe that understanding the universe might just be our role. In fact it makes the most sense to me. We must follow the path that come naturally to us as humans, part of that is exploring creation. My dog is on the floor licking it's ass but I'm not about to join in. I guess thats just me being arrogant.
Yes it is instinct (Kinda my point). And yes the scientific theory revolves around tangibles. However we have made plenty of great leaps in understanding based around intangibles. Your argument is based around things we can not know right now. There may be in the distant future ways to verify theories. (Exploring black holes might be one way)Pug wrote:
I think reasoning is instinctual. I hate to cite this book, but Guns, Germs & Steel by J. Diamond concluded that many technologies are the result of being well fed (highly simplified of course). What we do here is a perfect example - if you have spare time, what are you going to do? Sit, sleep, or tinker with something?Kmarion wrote:
Why do we try to reason though? As pointed out we are for the most part unique in this regard. I'd say we have come a long way in the last 650k years. A relative minuscule amount of time. By comparison that three year old would be nearly finished within a couple minutes.
Also consider our ability to reason has greatly increased since we began our existence.
As far as beginning to rationalize God...we will always have a fatal bias because our logic will always be tied to tangible conceptuality. As per a prior example - we believe time is linear and cyclical, for example. If time is irrellant to God, what other areas are we not even close on?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Pretty much, but... by the same reasoning, it also defeats the purpose of believing in any god, because all religion is man made. Even if we assume that religion is divinely inspired, it is also put together by humans.Pug wrote:
As far as beginning to rationalize God...we will always have a fatal bias because our logic will always be tied to tangible conceptuality. As per a prior example - we believe time is linear and cyclical, for example. If time is irrellant to God, what other areas are we not even close on?
In effect, this renders agnosticism as being the most logical mindset because of its lack of an assumption about divinity.
Black holes, wow, who wants to be the first test pilot to make that flight??Kmarion wrote:
Yes it is instinct (Kinda my point). And yes the scientific theory revolves around tangibles. However we have made plenty of great leaps in understanding based around intangibles. Your argument is based around things we can not know right now. There may be in the distant future ways to verify theories. (Exploring black holes might be one way)Pug wrote:
I think reasoning is instinctual. I hate to cite this book, but Guns, Germs & Steel by J. Diamond concluded that many technologies are the result of being well fed (highly simplified of course). What we do here is a perfect example - if you have spare time, what are you going to do? Sit, sleep, or tinker with something?Kmarion wrote:
Why do we try to reason though? As pointed out we are for the most part unique in this regard. I'd say we have come a long way in the last 650k years. A relative minuscule amount of time. By comparison that three year old would be nearly finished within a couple minutes.
Also consider our ability to reason has greatly increased since we began our existence.
As far as beginning to rationalize God...we will always have a fatal bias because our logic will always be tied to tangible conceptuality. As per a prior example - we believe time is linear and cyclical, for example. If time is irrellant to God, what other areas are we not even close on?
You still have not reasonably explained the desire. Men have died exploring the heavens, billions of dollars have been spent reaching other celestial bodies. This idea of we do it because we can falls flat when you look at the consequence we are willing to bear on our quest to understand.lowing wrote:
We search for it because we have evolved the capacity to do so. It does not mean there is an answer to be found. In my opinion however, if there is an answer to be found it will not be in the realm of man made religion or deities.Kmarion wrote:
Yes we will come and go. Yes we are "tiny". But you have not explained why we search for the basic fundamentals of creation. You have made your peace with simply being. Humanity on the whole for 650k years has not. Who is being arrogant now?lowing wrote:
No our arrogance is the notion that nature exists for us, that there is a reason why the universe was created for US. I simply acknowledge that we are as insignificant to the universe as a single atom is to us.... We do not matter, we do not make a difference, we are merely along for the ride just like everything else, and there simply does not need to be a reason for it. We will come and go just like all things
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I hear Chuck Norris is volunteering.lowing wrote:
Black holes, wow, who wants to be the first test pilot to make that flight??Kmarion wrote:
Yes it is instinct (Kinda my point). And yes the scientific theory revolves around tangibles. However we have made plenty of great leaps in understanding based around intangibles. Your argument is based around things we can not know right now. There may be in the distant future ways to verify theories. (Exploring black holes might be one way)Pug wrote:
I think reasoning is instinctual. I hate to cite this book, but Guns, Germs & Steel by J. Diamond concluded that many technologies are the result of being well fed (highly simplified of course). What we do here is a perfect example - if you have spare time, what are you going to do? Sit, sleep, or tinker with something?
As far as beginning to rationalize God...we will always have a fatal bias because our logic will always be tied to tangible conceptuality. As per a prior example - we believe time is linear and cyclical, for example. If time is irrellant to God, what other areas are we not even close on?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I can't speak for lowing, but I personally feel that the arrogance has to do with when people assume without any doubt that their interpretation of god is correct. It's not the zeal for discovery that is arrogant, it's the thought that you know something that can't be known that is.Kmarion wrote:
You still have not reasonably explained the desire. Men have died exploring the heavens, billions of dollars have been spent reaching other celestial bodies. This idea of we do it because we can falls flat when you look at the consequence we are willing to bear on our quest to understand.lowing wrote:
We search for it because we have evolved the capacity to do so. It does not mean there is an answer to be found. In my opinion however, if there is an answer to be found it will not be in the realm of man made religion or deities.Kmarion wrote:
Yes we will come and go. Yes we are "tiny". But you have not explained why we search for the basic fundamentals of creation. You have made your peace with simply being. Humanity on the whole for 650k years has not. Who is being arrogant now?