KCRag Forum

Man, if I have to be an a*ist for everything I don't believe in...

mean wrote: Looks like someone beat me to it, but for the record, when it asks for a password it just wants your password again.

just wear one of these on your chest, to preemptively "A" anything your opponents lob at you...

ignatius wrote:  Human consciousness isn't a product of a god, it is the result of billions of years of evolution.

Go ahead and believe that if you wish, I tend to disagree.  Not that we haven't evolved but disagree that there isn't a god.  You can believe in the "Big Bang" and how it all just happened.  I, too, believe the "Big" one happened but that there was some force to make, or let, it happen.

In the past you have talked about plausibility or probability or reasonable explanation but to say that the Big Bang just happened all on its own, without a cause, just doesn't sound reasonable.  Or to take the flip side, it is as reasonable that the Big Bang happened because God made it happen as it is to say "one moment there was nothing and then the Big Bang happened and there was something."

How God made His presence known to mankind I do not know but I don't need to know.  And that is what faith is about.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:In the past you have talked about plausibility or probability or reasonable explanation but to say that the Big Bang just happened all on its own, without a cause, just doesn't sound reasonable. 

It may not seem reasonable to you, but that may be partially because the ideas behind it are fairly complicated and you don't have a strong background in physics. I can imagine someone who had never heard of or seen an airplane, and wasn't familiar with the physics of flight, might find the idea of a couple hundred people flying together in a metal tube pretty unreasonable, too.

aknowledgeableperson wrote: Go ahead and believe that if you wish, I tend to disagree.  Not that we haven't evolved but disagree that there isn't a god.

I don't call it a belief.  It is an acceptance based on information gathered external to our minds.  Many different sources that tell generally the same story.  The belief in a god is based on faith that is entirely dependent on the mind, not testable external references.  It is entirely in the head.

You can believe in the "Big Bang" and how it all just happened.  I, too, believe the "Big" one happened but that there was some force to make, or let, it happen.

In the past you have talked about plausibility or probability or reasonable explanation but to say that the Big Bang just happened all on its own, without a cause, just doesn't sound reasonable.  Or to take the flip side, it is as reasonable that the Big Bang happened because God made it happen as it is to say "one moment there was nothing and then the Big Bang happened and there was something."

How God made His presence known to mankind I do not know but I don't need to know.  And that is what faith is about.

Actually I've stated several times I don't fully accept the Big Bang theory.  It's a plausible proposal but there isn't enough varying independent sources to accept it yet (for me).  I do accept though that the universe is a continuous change of energy - the big bang could have been of one of those transformations but I don't see enough info yet to suggest it is a something from nothing.  

I find no purpose in putting faith in science or any proposal.  But I do tend to accept things usually based on multiple independent paths (information external to our minds) that tell the same story.  In the case of evolution, there is a great deal of information to show it can happen without an external supernatural force or higher power involved.  Nature itself is the power and I accept it operates independent of our minds.  The god concept argument has no information that it operates outside our minds - all arguments (faith, philosophical logic) for the god concept have a mind dependency, so is reasonable to conclude that the god concept is indeed all in the head.

ignatius wrote:  In the case of evolution, there is a great deal of information to show it can happen without an external supernatural force or higher power involved.

Drop the evolution argument, at least with me.  A belief in God does not throw out evolution.  It is all about how things started.  You can believe that it all started accidently, by itself, or whatever.  I choose to believe that there was an entity that started the ball rolling.

Evolution likely didn't start accidentally as there are all kinds of natural forces/energy churning and there is plenty of structure in nature to kickstart it.

Your belief that an entity started evolution has no information to suggest that as a reasonable possibility since it is just a concept in your head, which is how superstitions work.  There is plenty information independent of our minds that evolution can occur with no supernatural force to kickstart it.

I support your right to believe in anything you want, but your belief in supernatural forces being involved has no more support than a belief in flying unicorns.  I would continue to question anyone who would go as far as to base their life on that.

ignatius wrote: Evolution likely didn't start accidentally as there are all kinds of natural forces/energy churning and there is plenty of structure in nature to kickstart it.

Your use of the word "accidentally" is quite interesting.  Definitions of accident found at:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accident

3. any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause.
4. chance; fortune; luck: I was there by accident.
5. a fortuitous circumstance, quality, or characteristic: an accident of birth.

So, if evolution "didn't start accidentally" then
3.It was expected to happen with a deliberate plan or cause.
4.It did not happen by chance, fortune, or luck
5.It was not because it was fortuitous

Of course, antonyms of accident are design and intent.  Evolution likely happened by design and intent with god or gods kickstarting it.

So are you now arguing for the existance of a god or gods?

There's a difference between structure that occurs within nature and suggesting that a sentient being influences it.  Fractals, symmetry and many kinds of 'order' occur in nature, not particularly by 'accident'.  I guess it depends on the context you use the word.

Fractals in nature...
http://www.hulu.com/watch/181084/nova-h ... -dimension

Is fascinating that just about every living thing has a general symmetry on the external body but not necessarily with internal organs.  Am thinking living sponge-like creatures are only exception.  There are many studies that show how symmetry in biology occurs through gravitational responses.

There is no information (outside of our imagination) that suggests a higher power is putting these in motion.  There is plenty information that explains such structure occurs within nature itself and with no need for a higher power (above nature) to occur.

ignatius wrote:I support your right to believe in anything you want, but your belief in supernatural forces being involved has no more support than a belief in flying unicorns.

Hey, once I get my degree and, in a couple decades, establish my biotech corporation, flying unicorns are going to be top priority.
Think of the potential market in transportation.

As genetic engineering is mastered, and it will be, flying unicorns might be possible some day.  Like the god concept, it would be a human invention out of our imaginations.

Even the existence of society itself is a result of human inventions.  Without fabricating agriculture, managing water supply, waste, etc. we couldn't have a large society in one location.  Things will get really interesting when we start mixing human genes with others or creating new species of other forms.  Whether it's unethical is irrelevant as that is culture and era dependent.  If it can happen, it will happen. Genetic manipulation of humans would be considered generally unethical in our era but in a few more hundred years, it will be acceptable, just as dissecting humans was broadly unacceptable until about 500+ years ago.  As far as our abilities today, replacing the human heart with a mechanical one is generally not considered unethical like it would have been in previous eras.

Society is what we make it to be and with the extraordinary power of altering nature that we are acquiring, society and definition of 'human' could potentially take on radically different directions in the fairly near future.  Traditionalists will fight but don't realize what they are fighting for are ideals set by other humans in past eras, not a supernatural force that has instructed us to have very specific attributes.  We work that out for ourselves.  It cheapens humanity when we claim our own ideas came from a power above us.

If traditionalists/fundies want to fight major upcoming changes, they need to take a look back at fighting the existence of society itself, which is a man made creation.

BTW, methinks some Asian country will first clone humans.  In the West, we tend to value the individual a bit more than society.  In the East, they tend to value society a bit more than individuals so may not have as much of an issue with human cloning or genetic alterations.  It is already starting with animals and plant life, then perhaps new lifeforms, then significant human manipulation - perhaps starting with removing cancer genes and then to the point of creating both lungs and gills.  

FWIW...

I wish I could have been there.

http://www.philly.com/philly/video/106492678.html

Peer-reviewed paper which claims to demonstrate the existence of ESP / precognition to be published in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-precognition.html

Not that reasonable information would ever detract believers in imaginary things...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookou ... y-be-wrong

Eh. I subscribe the Eastern Zodiac anyways... just for the fact that I am a ****ing dragon.

The Eastern Zodiac is the one that's affected by this earth-shattering revelation.  The Western Zodiac is based on seasons, not stars.  I didn't know any of this until people who care way more about it than I do explained it in the course of fretting over this shift and then learning that it wouldn't affect them.

phuqueue wrote: The Eastern Zodiac is the one that's affected by this earth-shattering revelation.  The Western Zodiac is based on seasons, not stars.  I didn't know any of this until people who care way more about it than I do explained it in the course of fretting over this shift and then learning that it wouldn't affect them.

The link itself is talking about the Western Zodiac, not the Eastern one. And as I recall, all of the signs in the Western Zodiac are celestial-based; note that they are derived constellations and that there is a reason they are called astrological signs. Chinese zodiacs are yearly and stem from the lunar cycle.
Besides, this isn't exactly, Earth-shattering. It has been known that the Earth wobbles, and the Zodiac is shifted by just a few days. That's not even factoring what calendar you subscribe to.

I'm not gonna argue with you about this cuz you really couldn't pay me to give a shit about astrology, just sharing what I was told.

*shrugs* Even I myself don't subscribe to the philosophy of astrology, I find it to be a relevant thing to look at in a cultural/historical view as it is connected to how people in the past did their long-term timekeeping.

my hooha>your hooha