Evolution

[noodle]

Also, science has some contradictions as well. For example, this one has been really annoying me for the last couple weeks. Scientists have been looking recently for what happened before the big bang. But the question is, what happened before THAT? And before that? How did the universe even start? Science seems pretty weird if we have no idea whatsoever as to why anything exists at all, mush less the multitude of particles, forces, and laws we have today.

contradictions?
nah. 100 years ago, people walking on the moon was an impossibility. 500 years ago, electricity was inconcievable by people. perhaps in the future we'll be able to figure out where the universe came from or anything else. just because we don't know right now doesn't mean we won't or can't.

[mrbiggs]

Well, we can't because it's a paradox.

If we find out what created the big bang, then what created that, and so on.

If we finally solve that paradox and find out that it was created by random quantum fluctuations,for example, who created the rules for the random fluctuations?

Even if we find out where all the matter in the universe came from, and how it be created with nothing before it, we have to explain the creation of the rules, or lack thereof that governed the creation of matter.

[noodle]

indeed, existance itself is a paradox.
thats all there is to say about it, really.
now excuse me while my head explodes

[epeemike81]

Also, science has some contradictions as well. For example, this one has been really annoying me for the last couple weeks. Scientists have been looking recently for what happened before the big bang. But the question is, what happened before THAT? And before that? How did the universe even start? Science seems pretty weird if we have no idea whatsoever as to why anything exists at all, mush less the multitude of particles, forces, and laws we have today.

these aren't contradictions, just unanswered questions. no, science hasn't answered every question. this doesn't mean we should ignore the evidence it has turned up.

-m

[epeemike81]

Well, we can't because it's a paradox.

If we find out what created the big bang, then what created that, and so on.

If we finally solve that paradox and find out that it was created by random quantum fluctuations,for example, who created the rules for the random fluctuations?

Even if we find out where all the matter in the universe came from, and how it be created with nothing before it, we have to explain the creation of the rules, or lack thereof that governed the creation of matter.

While you are right in pointing out that we can never know the TRUE origins of existence (this goes beyond origin of the universe), it is STILL not a contradiction, just an unanswered (and unanswerable) question.

welcome to incompleteness.

-m

[The0ne]

that's why you should adopt my philosophy up on the fornt page. . .

[Soldier]

indeed, existance itself is a paradox.
thats all there is to say about it, really.
now excuse me while my head explodes

Thank you for making a great case for belief in God.

[Soldier]

Noodle and Epeemike:

We can run in circles all day with the argument, but I'd rather not, even though I probably need to get back in shape.

You say that he can't be omnipotent, because he can't exist within the rules of logic. My response, is that you arrive at that conclusion via logic. Therefore it doesn't necessarily apply.

As I said before, it's a concept you just can't wrap your mind around.

[mrbiggs]

God is not any superior to science in this paradox.
You can think of it as science equally well as religion:
God was never created and will never be destroyed. He always Was and He always Will Be. He is beyond our human comprehension.
The universe was never created and will never be destroyed. It always was and always will be. It is beyond our human comprehension.

All you're doing is accepting the universe as inexplicibile, which noodle and I are both doing, except you're just adding God into the mix, which is unnecessary.

As I said before, God cannot be proven or disproven. Personally, I DO beleive on God, partly because of the theory that goes "If you beleive in God and you are wrong, nothing happens. If you beleive in God and you are right, you are granted an eternity of pleasure. If you don't beleive in God and you are right, nothing happens. If you don't beleive in God and you are wrong, you will go to hell."

You can choose to beleive or not beleive in God, but you can't proove or disprove your opinion.

[mrbiggs]

Sorry if you were trying to end the thread, Soldier, you posted that last one while I was typing.

[epeemike81]

Noodle and Epeemike:

We can run in circles all day with the argument, but I'd rather not, even though I probably need to get back in shape.

You say that he can't be omnipotent, because he can't exist within the rules of logic. My response, is that you arrive at that conclusion via logic. Therefore it doesn't necessarily apply.

As I said before, it's a concept you just can't wrap your mind around.

Well, that is a very convenient defense, as it can be used to claim that literally ANYTHING is true.

However, that's why it's called faith. As I stated before, I don't object to your view of an omnipotent God, or LaBouche's belief in literalist creationism. I only object to the belief that an omnipotent God isn't contrary to logic (it is), and statements like there is "little to no evidence" of evolution.

Everybody should feel free to believe what they want, but they shouldn't try to deputize science or logic into their argument when it in fact contradicts their argument.

-m

[noodle]

Noodle and Epeemike:

We can run in circles all day with the argument, but I'd rather not, even though I probably need to get back in shape.

You say that he can't be omnipotent, because he can't exist within the rules of logic. My response, is that you arrive at that conclusion via logic. Therefore it doesn't necessarily apply.

As I said before, it's a concept you just can't wrap your mind around.

i understand what you're trying to say, but the argument that we're trying to present is irrelavent of logical constraints on a deity. perhaps i can state it like this:

can god make another person god with identical and equal omnipotent powers? can there be two gods if god wills it? if there can, can god destroy this newly created god if the newly created god doesn't wish to be destroyed? do you see what i'm getting at?

logical or not, there has to be something we can define in words to describe the existance of god that is definitive. if there isn't, then how can we describe this existance? if there is, then there is the possibility of contradiction since its the nature of omnipotence.

[Soldier]

You want to define God in words? That's the whole idea of God - you can't! Even when describing Himself to humans, what does He say about Himself? "I am." That's it. "I am." He just Is, always Has Been, always Will Be. That's where we get back to the idea of infinity that humans can't comprehend, either.

EpeeMike: You mean we've been agreeing all along?
*bangs head on desk*

[epeemike81]

EpeeMike: You mean we've been agreeing all along?
*bangs head on desk*

not ALL along, as you originally claimed it wasn't a logical contradiction, but for quite a while, yes.

-m

[Soldier]

If so, it was just poor wording on my part. Glad we're clear on it!

[C.J.]

... If you don't beleive in God and you are right, nothing happens. If you don't beleive in God and you are wrong, you will go to hell
...

I object to that notion. Maybe god didn't want you to believe in him. Maybe god didn't want you to read the bible. If god didn't want us to touch our nose, he would have made our hands shorter. Likewise, if god wanted us to read the bible, every one of us would have been born with a copy. So there is just as good a chance that someone believes in god might end up in hell.

Also, if you believe in any religion just to be safe, then have I got bad news for you: what if the god you believe in is not really the true god? What if Ala is the true god? What if it's Buddha? Then you are in big trouble. No?

[telkanuru]

That reminds me of my philosophy teacher who intends to die immidiately after confession while uttering 'God is Great' while simultaniously obtaining enlightenment and performing a grand act of aid to another to increase his karma.

The question of the nature of omnipotence is not interesting from any philosophical point of view, etc. I will therefore ignore it.

*My* main problem with the omnipotent deific figure is that of evil. Taking the facts a priori
1) A God exists
2) Evil exists
We must arrive at one of the following conclusions:
1) the God is indifferent- does not care that evil exists, and does nothing to interviene
2) the God is impotent- cares that evil exists, but cannot put an end to it
3) the God is malevolent- cares that evil exists, keeps it around
4) the God has a Divine Plan that neccessitates the existance of evil.

Obviously, the first 3 are undesireable and not held by any major religion. The 4th is the general position of christianity, but poses a very large probem- Fate. In a universe with a Divine Plan, everything has been planned and forseen. The actions of any unit within the universe has been preordained. Ergo, either with the cum fatale or without it, no one has free will. We are all actors in a divine puppet show, and I for one don't think many people would like to believe that. This is *my* major roadblock to accepting any divinity.

[Schiavona]

4) the God has a Divine Plan that neccessitates the existance of evil.

In a universe with a Divine Plan, everything has been planned and forseen. The actions of any unit within the universe has been preordained. Ergo, either with the cum fatale or without it, no one has free will. We are all actors in a divine puppet show, and I for one don't think many people would like to believe that. This is *my* major roadblock to accepting any divinity.

How do you come to the conclusion that a Divine Plan neccessitates that everything is preordained? What if the the Divine Plan is the exercise of free will by us ? That could be the sum total of a Divine Plan. The exercise of free will means that there HAS to be choice so there is a possibilty of evil. I was also taught that only creatures of Spirit, beings that have free will, can do evil-that nothing in Creation is, of itself, evil. So, evil does exist, but it is a CHOICE, a choice made by beings with free will. Yes, rather circular, but it is what I was taught and what I've come to believe. Roman Catholic, by the way.

[telkanuru]

I think I didn't say the above very well. I think I'll use an example instead.

Everyone knows who Judas Escariot is, right? In the 'Inferno", he's being chewed in one of the mouths of Satan, along with Cassus and Brutus. Betrayed the son of God to death, not very nice, right?

Let us, for a moment, look at a specific element of the Christ mythos (I do not intend to use the word 'mythos' as demeaning, merely to symbolize a collection of tales). Christ is the son of God. He was the son of God from his very conception. Angels hailed his birth, etc. The question-answer of chrisitanity is "Why did God send his only son to us?", "To save the world from sin."

Next, we look at how christ saved the world from sin. He was, to quote the Creed "Crucified, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose from death and delivered us from evil...". Thus, I establish that his death is necessary for the salvation of humanity.

Do you see where I'm going? I thought you might.

Judas is the betrayer of Jesus. Jesus predicted a betrayal that would result in his untimely demise. Yet his actions are absolutely necessary for Jesus to save the world. Did Judas actually help Jesus instead of betray him? How can Judas, forfiling his obviously fated role to betray to his death the son of God be held in any way accountable for his actions? Did he have free will? If so, when could he have gotten off the metaphorical boat? It seems to me that Judas is a deific puppet.

This is an example of the divine plan negating evil through the removal of free will.

[Schiavona]

If you look at the death of Christ in terms not of mythos, but that of actual, living, breathing people you can see free will in action all through the story. Christ spends 40 days in the desert deciding weather to go to His death or not. Free will. If you look at Jesus' preaching and His following politically, then going to Jersulem IS certain death. Judas' betrayal or not, Christ went to Jersulem to die. Judas could have chosen not to betray Jesus, it wouldn't have mattered. Jesus decided to die for all mankind. That was the sacrifice, in my belief, the decision-not the act. Free will all over the place. Jesus' forsight nonwithstanding. i.e. Judas, Peter, etc