R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Fascinating explanation of the human need for god  (Read 12042 times)

Bill_Urick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1626
Re: Fascinating explanation of the human need for god
« Reply #60 on: April 19, 2008, 07:28:03 am »

danickstr wrote on Sat, 19 April 2008 00:54

Re: KKK dipshit on gurney; I think it would be OK if they didn't try their hardest to save him.

I remember seeing it written that if there was no god, we would be our own god, and while that would be nice, it is unrealistic from my point of view.

I think the implication is that it takes a big ego to be one's onw god, but I would think that the difference is simple:

Deists believe that we were created in an image of a perfect being.

Atheists believe that we were spawned in a pool of sludge, and crawled out of it, as we evolved from stupid, violent biological blobs.

I think that the bigger ego is obvious.




Obvious and been said before, but if the Deists are right better to believe in God, if the Atheists are right, who cares? Believe whatever makes you feel good.

Re Larry's post, Galileo said, "Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe."

I've read quite a bit on the subject of evolution which usually figures into these debates sooner or later. There really is no conflict between evolutionary theory and any religion that I'm aware of. Most religious people who take offense to the idea lack understanding of the subject and really, if you believe in an omnipotent God, couldn't he do pretty much anything he wanted? Including allowing species to evolve over time. It is very difficult for a being who only lives 100 years or so to grasp the geological time span in which evolutionary change takes place.

But you know what really kills me, spider webs. Watch a spider build a web and think about how it got to that point.
Logged
Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for everyone thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that those even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already possess.

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: Fascinating explanation of the human need for god
« Reply #61 on: April 19, 2008, 08:48:57 am »

Logged

Barry Hufker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8228
Re: Fascinating explanation of the human need for god
« Reply #62 on: April 19, 2008, 11:08:18 am »

maxim wrote on Sat, 19 April 2008 07:48

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHzdsFiBbFc

old one but a good one


I really laughed a lot during that.  I'd never seen it.  It's hysterical.

Spiders: Man I hate those things.  Doing good or not.  Bam! They are so f+*king dead.

I have an agreement with bugs.  You stay outside.  I'll stay inside.  If one of us comes into the other's territory, everyone's fair game.
Logged

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: Fascinating explanation of the human need for god
« Reply #63 on: April 19, 2008, 11:29:32 am »

Oh man, have I got en email for you! You seen the one about the brown recluse? You are SO toast!

DS
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

Barry Hufker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8228
Re: Fascinating explanation of the human need for god
« Reply #64 on: April 19, 2008, 12:05:26 pm »

I can only imagine.  I had a neighbor bitten by one.  His arm, where the bit was, was yellow, brown, black, purple.  His face was oddly red and swollen.  He looked like death.

It's OK if you post that link.  And I'll watch it (hoping I'll make it all the way through).  But I won't watch it before bed.

Logged

Harland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 833
Re: Fascinating explanation of the human need for god
« Reply #65 on: April 21, 2008, 05:19:06 pm »

"The embryo, surrounded by the womb's fluid and warmth, receives almost complete comfort and protection."

Maybe in todays world, but the article presumes evolution, and 'almost complete comfort and protection' is laughably naive as a description of prenatal existence over the evolutionary period. In view of the first sentence, the rest of the article is a useless read.
Logged

Hallams

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1067
Re: Fascinating explanation of the human need for god
« Reply #66 on: April 21, 2008, 07:36:03 pm »

Harland wrote on Tue, 22 April 2008 07:19

"The embryo, surrounded by the womb's fluid and warmth, receives almost complete comfort and protection."

Maybe in todays world, but the article presumes evolution, and 'almost complete comfort and protection' is laughably naive as a description of prenatal existence over the evolutionary period. In view of the first sentence, the rest of the article is a useless read.


A fine example of critical thinking, something we don't see enough of. If the assumptions, implied or stated, of an otherwise sound argument are proven to be wrong, then the whole argument crumbles.

For the purpose of philosophical debate that is centered around the existence or non existence of God we start off on a level playing field given that one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God
Logged
Chris Hallam.
Melbourne, Australia.
 

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: Fascinating explanation of the human need for god
« Reply #67 on: April 21, 2008, 08:40:51 pm »

harland;  i am confused by your words.  what is "the evolutionary period"?  

chris; many may not agree with the article's thesis; but why are you questioning the assertion that
the womb provides relative  comfort and safety compared with the world
outside the womb? is that statement contentious?

scientists are not concerned with what does not exist, so they don't tend to exert
effort to prove that god or anything else doesn't exist.  the scientists' role
is to always examine what others claim as proof; and to put it
through the rigors of the scientific method; to learn if an
assertion, conjecture, hypothesis, theory,
or "proof" is scientific, or not.

do you believe in theories espoused by:

pythagorous?
copernicus?
gallileo?
newton?
einstein?

(assumedly "yes", we are people of reason. some of us are artists; many
of us claim to be engineers. some even claim to be expert engineers.)

do you believe in: chaos theory and string theory?
do you believe that there are dimensions in
the universe that we cannot see?
none of that is proven.

the big bang?  many big bangs?
this is not proven... i think
it looks like there was at
least one "big bang",
even to a layperson.
what do you see?

i do not understand why anyone feels a need
to assault science. especially on an
engineering forum.

jeff dinces

Jay Kadis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2165
Re: Fascinating explanation of the human need for god
« Reply #68 on: April 21, 2008, 10:39:16 pm »

Not all humans HAVE a need for god.

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: Fascinating explanation of the human need for god
« Reply #69 on: April 21, 2008, 10:43:20 pm »

"do you believe in: chaos theory and string theory?"

yes and maybe (even if it's not true, i love the metaphorical implications)

imo, chaos theory is pretty unassailable...
Logged

Hallams

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1067
Re: Fascinating explanation of the human need for god
« Reply #70 on: April 21, 2008, 11:13:02 pm »

cerberus wrote on Tue, 22 April 2008 10:40

harland;  i am confused by your words.  what is "the evolutionary period"?  

chris; many may not agree with the article's thesis; but why are you questioning the assertion that
the womb provides relative  comfort and safety compared with the world
outside the womb? is that statement contentious?


scientists are not concerned with what does not exist, so they don't tend to exert
effort to prove that god or anything else doesn't exist. the scientists' role
is to always examine what others claim as proof; and to put it
through the rigors of the scientific method; to learn if an
assertion, conjecture, hypothesis, theory,
or "proof" is scientific, or not.

do you believe in theories espoused by:

pythagorous?
copernicus?
gallileo?
newton?
einstein?

(assumedly "yes", we are people of reason. some of us are artists; many
of us claim to be engineers. some even claim to be expert engineers.)

do you believe in: chaos theory and string theory?
do you believe that there are dimensions in
the universe that we cannot see?
none of that is proven.

the big bang? many big bangs?
this is not proven... i think
it looks like there was at
least one "big bang",
even to a layperson.
what do you see?

i do not understand why anyone feels a need
to assault science. especially on an
engineering forum.

jeff dinces






Hi Jeff. The first part of my comment was mainly referring to Harland's example of critical thinking. It is to the point and avoids the unnecessary use of the emotive to get a point across. Anyone can directly reply to such a post by showing, if you believe so that his argument is flawed. For example, you could take the line that the original argument he refered to does not presume evolution.

My second statement points to the Cosmological Argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
Here are two small exerpts from wiki;

The argument

Framed as an informal proof, the first cause argument can be stated as follows:

  1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
  2. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself.
  3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
  4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something that is not an effect.

The cosmological argument can only speculate about the existence of God from claims about the entire universe, unless the "first cause" is taken to mean the same thing as "God". Thus, the argument is based on the claim that God must exist due to the fact that the universe needs a cause. In other words, the existence of the universe requires an explanation, and an active creation of the universe by a being outside of the universe — generally assumed to be God — is that explanation.

In light of the Big Bang theory, a stylized version of cosmological argument for the existence of God has emerged (sometimes called the Kalam cosmological argument, the following form of which was put forth by William Lane Craig):

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.
=====================================================

Scientific positions

The argument for a Prime Mover is based on the scientific foundation of Newtonian physics and its earlier predecessors — the idea that a body at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside source. However, while Newton's ideas survive in physics since they conveniently and easily describe the movement of objects at the human (that is, not cosmic or atomic) level, they no longer represent the most accurate and truthful representations of the physical universe. Some scientists feel that the development of the laws of thermodynamics in the 19th century and quantum physics in the 20th century have weakened a purely scientific expression of the cosmological argument.[14]

Modern physics has many examples of bodies being moved without any moving body, seriously undermining the first premise of the Prime Mover argument, that every object in motion must be moved by another object in motion. Physicist Michio Kaku directly addresses the cosmological argument in his book Hyperspace, saying it is easily dismissed by the laws of conservation of mass and energy and the laws governing molecular physics. He quotes one of many examples — "gas molecules may bounce against the walls of a container without requiring anything or anyone to get them moving." According to Kaku, these particles could move forever, without beginning or end. So, there is no need for a First Mover to explain the origins of motion.[15] It does not provide an explanation for the reason those molecules exist in the first place however. Some argue a challenge to the cosmological argument is the nature of time. The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into being, the start of both space and time. Then, the question "What was there before the universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time, and thus the concepts of cause and effects so necessary to the cosmological argument no longer apply. This has been put forward by Stephen Hawking, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole.[16] However many cosmologists and physicists do attempt to investigate what could have occurred before and caused the Big Bang, using such scenarios as the collision of branes to give a cause of the Big Bang, although such hypotheses are highly speculative.

[edit]
================================

Now this is all interesting stuff but i must say in all this i have not directly adressed the first post of this thread.
To me "The Embryonic and Parental Shell Theory" is not the stuff of science, rather an attempt to explain "the basis for religious feeling" seemingly inbuilt in Humans.
As an aside i would use the word spiritual rather than religious. The word religion to me points to the structural or institutional organizations formed as a response to individual spiritual quest, or journey.

Now the rigors of science should be able to test "The Embryonic and Parental Shell Theory",and I have just thought of one likely test, a study of people who are known to have experienced  significant fetal distress. Not a problem.... the results would be enlightening.....has such a study been done by Cornelis Mondt to test his theory.... Come to think of it, what scientific tests has he done to test his theory?
Logged
Chris Hallam.
Melbourne, Australia.
 

Harland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 833
Re: Fascinating explanation of the human need for god
« Reply #71 on: April 22, 2008, 01:23:51 am »

cerberus wrote on Mon, 21 April 2008 20:40

harland;  i am confused by your words.  what is "the evolutionary period"?  


i do not understand why anyone feels a need
to assault science. especially on an
engineering forum.

jeff dinces



Hi Jeff,

The evolutionary period would be the time through which the human organism evolved into its present state. Life expectancy even a very short time ago was quite short, and many more pregnancies failed than do now. If we evolved from barbaric upwards to civilized, then it's a fair assumption that the fetal life of man was no picnic.

As for 'a need to assault science', I don't have that at all. I see very little science, if any, in the opening statement. I think the role of the scientist is the search for understanding in those things which can be sensed and measured.

I think it far more likely that man has an innate sense or knowledge of his own spirituality that makes him try to connect with the cause of the universe.
Logged

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: Fascinating explanation of the human need for god
« Reply #72 on: April 22, 2008, 07:03:19 am »

Hallams wrote on Mon, 21 April 2008 23:13

Now the rigors of science should be able to test "The Embryonic and Parental Shell Theory",and I have just thought of one likely test, a study of people who are known to have experienced  significant fetal distress. Not a problem.... the results would be enlightening.....has such a study been done by Cornelis Mondt to test his theory.... Come to think of it, what scientific tests has he done to test his theory?
i agree, it is
not a theory. i think a theory asks for more than one proof, it looks
like this is a hypothesis. and not very popular.

i hadn't heard of the cosmological argument before now. the way i read the wiki
article; it immediately doesn't appeal to me personally because
i can tolerate plato and aristotle's polytheism without
questioning it.


jeff dinces

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: Fascinating explanation of the human need for god
« Reply #73 on: April 22, 2008, 07:13:37 am »

Harland wrote on Tue, 22 April 2008 01:23

cerberus wrote on Mon, 21 April 2008 20:40

harland;  i am confused by your words.  what is "the evolutionary period"?  


i do not understand why anyone feels a need
to assault science. especially on an
engineering forum.

jeff dinces



Hi Jeff,

The evolutionary period would be the time through which the human organism evolved into its present state. Life expectancy even a very short time ago was quite short, and many more pregnancies failed than do now. If we evolved from barbaric upwards to civilized, then it's a fair assumption that the fetal life of man was no picnic.

As for 'a need to assault science', I don't have that at all. I see very little science, if any, in the opening statement. I think the role of the scientist is the search for understanding in those things which can be sensed and measured.

I think it far more likely that man has an innate sense or knowledge of his own spirituality that makes him try to connect with the cause of the universe.


harland; i agree, except where it seems you think primitive women were not being
"protected". i mean, why do you think males of our species are so
aggressive toward one another? while women are culturally,
politically, and spiritually "on venus"? (know any
hillary supporters? my mom is one, all she
wants is a woman president, more than
anything else. so i leave it alone...)

perhaps that is related to how i am noticing that every
successful culture grew from sexist practices, maybe
there was a useful purpose in that, as in parts
of the world that have yet to experience the
industrial and information revolutions
firsthand, we find women are not
granted equal rights. and they
don't complain. it bothers
us, not them.


so i can imagine why men go mountain biking and cut themselves and laugh
about it. while women don't complain about the pain of childbirth
as much as it really hurts, i think we know now that women
have a higher threshold for pain than men.

and yet they are not as
warlike as men. so
i still say:

the womb is a -relatively- protected and comfortable place
for every human who has ever lived.

jeff dinces

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: Fascinating explanation of the human need for god
« Reply #74 on: April 22, 2008, 07:20:04 am »

most men i know have been desperately trying to get back in the womb, one way or another...
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9   Go Up