Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 919 of 3111 FirstFirst ... 914915916917918919920921922923924 ... LastLast
Results 9,181 to 9,190 of 31104

Thread: POFO Anything Goes Thread. ((Warning do not enter if you can't handle fire))

  1. -9181
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14
    Status:
    Offline
    QBWinz:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    17,768
    vCash:
    76759
    Loc:
    Room 101
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    Nothing to add. Except maybe that a Big Bang doesn't have to preclude a "God", and a "God" doesn't have to preclude a big bang. Whether you're religious, or whether you're a scientist, you're basically asking for one free miracle (the birth of the universe), and take it from there.
    It doesn't have to be asked for. The universe exists. What a scientist would tell you is that the proof that the necessary conditions existed in order for the Big Bang to happen can be proven by the fact that the universe exists. No matter how remote or obscure the conditions, here we are. It's known as the Anthropic Principle. Put another way, the proof that we can be here is that we are here.

    The details that science has revealed to explain how this happened may be incomplete, but at least they rely on the scientific method. And even then -- despite the fact that science's explanation is more rigorously obtained than religion's -- science has the good manners to call their explanation a "theory". Religion, on the other hand, is by nature didactic. Here is how it happened. I think you're selling science short by comparing the two so evenly.

    I'd like to hear your opinion on why you feel that way. Personally I can't find one legitimate reason to dismiss it as any less possible than any other plausible explanation. Also what's your image of a "God"? Is it a distinct separate being from the rest of the universe that created it like a sculptor would a sculpture? It's always possible I suppose, but if that's what we're dealing with then I'd agree with you. Westerners tend to associate the word, or idea of God, basically with magic tricks and supernatural occurrences. For a lot of Indians that couldn't be father from the case. I've posted this clip before, but it's Watts giving a short gist of the Indian concept of God. It's a very coherent and logical possibility.
    My image of God is anything beyond the immediate nature of experience. Anything spiritual, whether in the form of a personified consciousness, or a life force, or any of that. Even something as simple as Gandhi's statement that it's not God that is truth, but Truth that is God. It sounds nice, but Truth can just be Truth. Any of it -- all of it -- requires belief, a certainty or kind of certainty about something where there can be no direct knowledge. As I've said, I don't describe to belief. I don't see why I should. I spend too much time trying to be actually informed and apply critical thinking to things to simply accept wholesale any supernatural system as being the true nature of the world.

    Yeah, Brahma makes a certain amount of sense. It's supposed to. Religions evolve just like anything else, to fill a role. Christianity makes a certain amount of sense, too. So does Buddhism and Shinto. Even Greek and Roman and Norse Gods make sense. No religious system has ever done a better job explaining evil in the world than the Greeks and Romans. It's all storytelling to me, trying to fill in the gaps beyond our ability to perceive... a byproduct of humanity's unlucky lot to be intelligent enough to perceive our own limitations in perception.


    Why, I can smile, and murder while I smile,
    And cry 'Content' to that which grieves my heart,
    And wet my cheeks with artificial tears,
    And frame my face to all occasions.
    I can add colours to the chameleon,
    Change shapes with Proteus for advantages,
    And set the murderous Machiavel to school.
    Can I do this, and cannot get a crown?
    Quote Quote  

  2. -9182
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel
    Status:
    Offline
    QBWinz:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    8,812
    vCash:
    31839
    Loc:
    Georgia
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    It doesn't have to be asked for. The universe exists. What a scientist would tell you is that the proof that the necessary conditions existed in order for the Big Bang to happen can be proven by the fact that the universe exists. No matter how remote or obscure the conditions, here we are. It's known as the Anthropic Principle. Put another way, the proof that we can be here is that we are here.
    That also sounds like something Statler would tell you as evidence of God. Our existence does nothing to prove that the Big Bang definitively happened. There isnít a scientist alive that would tell you that the universesí existence is proof of the Big Bang. If you canít even prove that the Big Bang Theory is correct, then you certainly canít assume thatís the only possible explanation for the Universeís existence. Us being here, and the nature of how we arrived here, are two completely different things that need not be confused.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    The details that science has revealed to explain how this happened may be incomplete, but at least they rely on the scientific method. And even then -- despite the fact that science's explanation is more rigorously obtained than religion's -- science has the good manners to call their explanation a "theory". Religion, on the other hand, is by nature didactic.Here is how it happened. I think you're selling science short by comparing the two so evenly.
    My image of God is anything beyond the immediate nature of experience. Anything spiritual, whether in the form of a personified consciousness, or a life force, or any of that. Even something as simple as Gandhi's statement that it's not God that is truth, but Truth that is God. It sounds nice, but Truth can just be Truth. Any of it -- all of it -- requires belief, a certainty or kind of certainty about something where there can be no direct knowledge. As I've said, I don't describe to belief. I don't see why I should. I spend too much time trying to be actually informed and apply critical thinking to things to simply accept wholesale any supernatural system as being the true nature of the world.

    Yeah, Brahma makes a certain amount of sense. It's supposed to. Religions evolve just like anything else, to fill a role. Christianity makes a certain amount of sense, too. So does Buddhism and Shinto. Even Greek and Roman and Norse Gods make sense. No religious system has ever done a better job explaining evil in the world than the Greeks and Romans. It's all storytelling to me, trying to fill in the gaps beyond our ability to perceive... a byproduct of humanity's unlucky lot to be intelligent enough to perceive our own limitations in perception.
    I certainly didnít intend for it to be interpreted that Iím waging a Science vs. Religion debate. Iím not anti-science by any means, or pro-religion for that matter. You can still use the Scientific Method to determine how things happen, but again one doesnít preclude the other. I keep getting the impression from you (and please do correct me if Iím wrong), that you believe that if we could somehow prove the Big Bang definitively happened, it would disprove any theory of some unintelligible higher force of consciousness.

    Iím also not putting them on equal footing. They serve two completely different purposes. Science focuses on ďHowĒ, and Religion on ďWhyĒ. This doesnít even have to concern religion, really. Judging by your reaction earlier, I get the feeling that you have a hard time separating the concept of a higher form of consciousness, from made-man religious ďstory-tellingĒ, as you put it. I only bring up various religious theories because people are more familiar with them. The Big Bang theory isnít even the only widely debated Scientific Theory out there; Simulation Theory, Multiverse Theory, etc. As I said, donít get hung-up on religion.

    The fact remains (for now, at least), that any dismissal of any legitimately plausible theory is on no more solid ground than subjective feelings and experience. Which is fine, donít get me wrong, but itís no more or less than that.

    Quote Quote  

  3. -9183
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14
    Status:
    Offline
    QBWinz:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    17,768
    vCash:
    76759
    Loc:
    Room 101
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    That also sounds like something Statler would tell you as evidence of God. Our existence does nothing to prove that the Big Bang definitively happened. There isn’t a scientist alive that would tell you that the universes’ existence is proof of the Big Bang. If you can’t even prove that the Big Bang Theory is correct, then you certainly can’t assume that’s the only possible explanation for the Universe’s existence. Us being here, and the nature of how we arrived here, are two completely different things that need not be confused.
    I didn't say the Big Bang, though. I don't know whether there was a Big Bang at all. All the Anthropic Principle says is that because life exists, any necessary condition for life must have been met. We don't exactly what the necessary conditions are, though. Science has it's theories. It doesn't impact me one way or the other if they're right.

    I certainly didn’t intend for it to be interpreted that I’m waging a Science vs. Religion debate. I’m not anti-science by any means, or pro-religion for that matter. You can still use the Scientific Method to determine how things happen, but again one doesn’t preclude the other.
    The scientific method is by definition antithetical to faith or belief. I understand the desire to rectify the differences between them but on a fundamental level they're incompatible.

    I keep getting the impression from you (and please do correct me if I’m wrong), that you believe that if we could somehow prove the Big Bang definitively happened, it would disprove any theory of some unintelligible higher force of consciousness.
    That is not my opinion, no. I could give two ****s about the Big Bang. I'm curious about the origins of the universe and life but no more than that. My notions of existence are not dependent on -- or in conflict with -- the most current postulate.

    I’m also not putting them on equal footing. They serve two completely different purposes. Science focuses on “How”, and Religion on “Why”. This doesn’t even have to concern religion, really. Judging by your reaction earlier, I get the feeling that you have a hard time separating the concept of a higher form of consciousness, from made-man religious “story-telling”, as you put it. I only bring up various religious theories because people are more familiar with them. The Big Bang theory isn’t even the only widely debated Scientific Theory out there; Simulation Theory, Multiverse Theory, etc. As I said, don’t get hung-up on religion.
    "Why" is a perfectly natural question but it's also a dangerous one. It motivates you seek an answer when perhaps there is no why.

    The notion of any higher form of consciousness to me is storytelling. It doesn't need to have characters with personified traits to be a story. It's a take on the world for which there is no proof that fills emotional needs. That's what I mean by a story here.

    The fact remains (for now, at least), that any dismissal of any legitimately plausible theory is on no more solid ground than subjective feelings and experience. Which is fine, don’t get me wrong, but it’s no more or less than that.
    Not really. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    If someone claims to have been visited by a UFO, for example, I don't have to consider it plausible simply because it matches their subjective feelings and experience. It's an extraordinary claim, therefore the burden of proof lies with the person claiming it, not with me. Any religion makes a multitude of extraordinary claims for which there is no evidence, much less extraordinary evidence. Just because it's not necessarily implausible -- just as someone being visited by aliens is not necessarily implausible -- does not mean it reaches some sort of quasi-plausible footing.

    At least in Christianity they try to offer some reason why there is no proof. "Blessed are those who have no seen, yet still believe" and so on. Other religions by comparison don't even try. If this world is really the dream of Brahma, for example, where's the proof of it? Where is the spiritual value in not making this proof indisputable?
    Quote Quote  

  4. -9184
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel
    Status:
    Offline
    QBWinz:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    8,812
    vCash:
    31839
    Loc:
    Georgia
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Moved into a new apartment yesterday. It's still a work in progress, but I thought I'd share a few pictures.

    Kitchen's through that window on the right. Didn't include it or the bathroom because they're a pretty standard affair.


    Plan on putting a small flat-screen on that wooden stand atop the fireplace.




    Screened-in porch facing out towards the woods is my favorite feature.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -9185
    PhinsPhan11's Avatar
    Phins & Philly Sports
    Status:
    Offline
    QBWinz:
    Join date:
    Oct 2009
    Posts:
    12,637
    vCash:
    40027
    Loc:
    Philadelphia, PA
    That's a pretty nice place.

    Without sounding like a freak, where do you live rob?

    Quote Quote  

  6. -9186
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel
    Status:
    Offline
    QBWinz:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    8,812
    vCash:
    31839
    Loc:
    Georgia
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by PhinsPhan11 View Post
    That's a pretty nice place.

    Without sounding like a freak, where do you live rob?
    Atlanta. If any of you guys in the League find yourself in the area don't be afraid to hit me up.

    Except maybe for future police officer Hankey, for obvious reasons.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -9187
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel
    Status:
    Offline
    QBWinz:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    8,812
    vCash:
    31839
    Loc:
    Georgia
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Don't have much to add to that part of your post I'm excluding. We seem to pretty much be in agreement.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Not really. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    If someone claims to have been visited by a UFO, for example, I don't have to consider it plausible simply because it matches their subjective feelings and experience. It's an extraordinary claim, therefore the burden of proof lies with the person claiming it, not with me. Any religion makes a multitude of extraordinary claims for which there is no evidence, much less extraordinary evidence. Just because it's not necessarily implausible -- just as someone being visited by aliens is not necessarily implausible -- does not mean it reaches some sort of quasi-plausible footing.
    The problem being that the qualifications for what makes something extraordinary are subjectively selected criteria. One might contend that an entire universe arising from nothing is an extraordinary claim. There's a Latin phrase which you're probably familiar with called "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit", which translates to "Out of nothing comes nothing". In other words, you can't get something from nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    At least in Christianity they try to offer some reason why there is no proof. "Blessed are those who have no seen, yet still believe" and so on. Other religions by comparison don't even try. If this world is really the dream of Brahma, for example, where's the proof of it? Where is the spiritual value in not making this proof indisputable?
    There's no proof. Unless you count various accounts of altered states of consciousness to be proof (not just drugs, but states brought about by meditative practices, fasting, etc), which I do not.

    You'd probably have to ask a Hindu about that last part.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -9188
    Waterlogged
    Status:
    Offline
    QBWinz:
    Join date:
    Aug 2005
    Posts:
    15,871
    vCash:
    68846
    I like your pad Rob. Id love to have a place like that if I were a single man.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -9189
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14
    Status:
    Offline
    QBWinz:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    17,768
    vCash:
    76759
    Loc:
    Room 101
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    The problem being that the qualifications for what makes something extraordinary are subjectively selected criteria. One might contend that an entire universe arising from nothing is an extraordinary claim. There's a Latin phrase which you're probably familiar with called "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit", which translates to "Out of nothing comes nothing". In other words, you can't get something from nothing.
    True enough. Credulity has a way of making the extraordinary seem natural. But all of life being the dream of Brahma, to go back to that, sure seems like an extraordinary claim. Doesn't it to you? It's completely beyond the realm of experience.

    That Latin phrase expresses the same basic idea as the "first cause" argument I brought up earlier. However if we -- meaning the universe -- has a cause, then that cause must also have a cause, and that one a cause, all the way back to infinity. "God" cannot be that cause because God must also have a cause. It's why the Anthropic Principle is so useful. Even if it's impossible to get something from nothing... we're here. Therefore it must have been possible anyway.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -9190
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14
    Status:
    Offline
    QBWinz:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    17,768
    vCash:
    76759
    Loc:
    Room 101


    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6718
    Last Post: 08-08-2013, 04:17 PM
  2. Replies: 1725
    Last Post: 02-08-2008, 10:16 AM
  3. can we keep this thread alive in the PoFo?
    By Maynard the Hammer in forum Questions and Suggestions Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-13-2006, 12:40 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •