GOD: How much do you believe in him?

[seagullmouse]

You're the only one who uses the term magic. f***ed if I know why.

The example of the Hummingbird is simple. It defies the logic that dictates how birds should fly. Out of every other bird on the planet it is the only one who does this.

Extrapolate that to life on other planets that could have evolved in an infinite amount of different ways and the posibility of a "dragon" in the sense of a large flying lizard like creature is a possibility.

I use the term magic to mean that which lies outside of normal science/physics. The bird flies as it does because evolution has taken it down that path, very interesting but not really anything to do with god/religion?

I agree that there is likely to be all manner of life on other planets, another reason to question the belief that the universe is somehow human-centric

 

[seagullmouse]

Simple. I'm too busy chasing after the creator of life, not the stealer of teeth.

But do you think the tooth fairy is likely/possible/plausible? Is it something I should consider believing in?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I use the term magic to mean that which lies outside of normal science/physics. The bird flies as it does because evolution has taken it down that path, very interesting but not really anything to do with god/religion?

I agree that there is likely to be all manner of life on other planets, another reason to question the belief that the universe is somehow human-centric

I never said it had anything to do with religion. And you can't say it has nothing to do with "a god" if the concept of the god being put forth is one which is a force within the cosmos that imprints certain aspects within in the fabric of the cosmos to set in motion things like say evolution.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

But do you think the tooth fairy is likely/possible/plausible? Is it something I should consider believing in?

Personally I would tend to think the probabilities of its existence are miniscule. But don't let me sway you from pusuing your interest in it

 

[Mr Burns]

If that's what you believe is possible then yes I can discuss it.

The only way you can do that though is by accepting not all scientific or biological principles that we hold as truths on this planet may apply else where in the cosmos.

Remove convential logic and anything is possible(if not always probable). The prime example of that on earth it the Hummingbird. Technically it shouldnt be able to fly (let alone fly backwards)given its wing movements. But it can.

Okay lets discuss Marshmellow planets then instead of God, who you have clearly said you don't believe, other than its a possibilty. You say anything is possible, so why not planets made of marshmellows. Pink or white, I'm not bothered.

It is in theroy possible to throw a tennis ball at a brick wall, and if in a billion trillion to one chance, all the atoms line up in the right way, the ball could in theroy pass through the wall. If thats the case, therefore in theroy, it is possible for a human being to walk straight through a brick wall. Probably a trillon trillion trillion to one chance, but its possible.

And that is the possibilty in my opinion of there being a god. So minute, that its zero. The same as I would say there is zero chance of a human passing through a solid brick wall. So in my opinion there is no chance of a god. But my mind is not shut, as if I see evidence, then I would believe.

You seem to be "discussing" in great detail whether or not you beleive whether its possible for a god to exist, not whether you believe in it or not, which was the question the OP asked.

So you are going over and over the same thing. Yes we know you think its possible, but if you are going to discuss whether you believe in god or not, then great, but to discuss whether you think its possible or not, WE KNOW ITS POSSIBLE. Get over it. 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000-1 chance in my opinion, but its possible. We get it. Its possible

 

[seagullmouse]

I never said it had anything to do with religion. And you can't say it has nothing to do with "a god" if the concept of the god being put forth is one which is a force within the cosmos that imprints certain aspects within in the fabric of the cosmos to set in motion certain things like say evolution.

Thats quite an open-ended definition of "a god", sounds like you are basically saying that god is anything we currently don't understand? i.e. because we don't have a unified theory of physics and there are still unknowns then you are calling this thing a 'god'?

This sounds quite similar to how ancient religions used to praise the sun 'god' because they didn't know what it was? the thing is now we know what the sun is, and the scientific method has shown that we are finding out more and more about the universe all the time, there is no reason to think this will end and hence it seems a bit daft to call the bit we don't know a 'god'. I just say there are things that we haven't worked out yet.

 

[HovaGirl]

really? not from what i have seen. I see arse holes making lots of money and decent people being shafted on a very regular occurrance.

Yep, and also decent people making lots of money and arseholes being shafted just as often. But it depends which side of the fence you're on.

 

[seagullmouse]

Personally I would tend to think the probabilities of its existence are miniscule. But don't let me sway you from pusuing your interest in it

Why do you think that the probabilities of its existence are minuscule? what logic/evidence are you using to infer this?

 

[HovaGirl]

Really ? No, I am very happy to be free of the dogma, ignorance and hypocracy of the Catholic Church. It's just rather sad that anybody can still swallow their bigoted lies. To be honest, it's you that's getting worked up as so many people think you're at the very least misguided.

The Catholic Church is not God. It also admits to indoctrinating its followers, principally through its little book: "A Catechism of Christian Doctrine". Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.

 

[HovaGirl]

Even in that silly example, the anger and pain fear are not balance - obviously the damage done can vary greatly, irrespective of the anger involved. We now have technology to create bombs that could kill the worlds population, but we don't have a greater capacity for anger than we had in the stone age. You can't argue (whilst remaining credible) that one angry president would be perfectly balanced with the death, pain and suffering of a few bilion people if that president presed a load of buttons.
I can understand that.

Fair enough - but given what you believe (your two main points above), why are you wasting your time justifying the stories in the bible when you don't really believe them yourself?
While there is some balance in life, and it is difficult to experience the most happy times if you have never experienced sadness, you don't think it is a perfect balance do you? ie, everyone's happiness is exactly equal to the amount of sadness they have experienced?

No, because everyone measures their own happiness differently. For example, older people, having experienced much in their lives, including the deaths of loved ones, the loss of their job, or a promotion or the birth of a first grandchild, appreciate contentment far more than happiness. Happiness is a momentary thing. It lasts a second. Contentment lasts much longer and is more sustained.

 

[HovaGirl]

Why do you think that the tooth fairy is not worth pursuing? What made you decide that?

Because we know precisely who the Tooth Fairy is, and we know precisely whom Santa Claus is. (Being careful in case youngsters are reading!)

 

[HovaGirl]

I use the term magic to mean that which lies outside of normal science/physics.

Then use the word metaphysical.

 

[seagullmouse]

Because we know precisely who the Tooth Fairy is, and we know precisely whom Santa Claus is. (Being careful in case youngsters are reading!)

Lets go with a different example then to make the point, I have faith that there is a giant invisible yellow jelly man standing behind you, what do you think of my faith in this?

 

[seagullmouse]

Then use the word metaphysical.

magic is my word of choice, it has a patronising slant to it but its kind of besides the point. When you were a kid and you saw Paul Daniels do a trick, you called it magic because you didn't understand something.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Okay lets discuss Marshmellow planets then instead of God, who you have clearly said you don't believe, other than its a possibilty. You say anything is possible, so why not planets made of marshmellows. Pink or white, I'm not bothered.

Did you know the Island nation of Nauru is made of bird shit?

Perhaps on another planet there's a creature that secretes a sugary substance(perhaps even marshmellow like in its consistency) that over a few million years has increased the size of the planets mass signifigantly...

It is in theroy possible to throw a tennis ball at a brick wall, and if in a billion trillion to one chance, all the atoms line up in the right way, the ball could in theroy pass through the wall. If thats the case, therefore in theroy, it is possible for a human being to walk straight through a brick wall. Probably a trillon trillion trillion to one chance, but its possible.

Absolutely this theory has potential to occur if time was no issue..

And that is the possibilty in my opinion of there being a god. So minute, that its zero. The same as I would say there is zero chance of a human passing through a solid brick wall. So in my opinion there is no chance of a god. But my mind is not shut, as if I see evidence, then I would believe.

But you've never said what your concept of a God is have you?

You seem to be "discussing" in great detail whether or not you beleive whether its possible for a god to exist, not whether you believe in it or not, which was the question the OP asked.

It all ties in. The reason I beleive there's something out there is because of the cosmos itself and how its so wonderfly put togetherit is in a way that suggests to my mind it didnt all occur by chance.

So you are going over and over the same thing. Yes we know you think its possible, but if you are going to discuss whether you believe in god or not, then great, but to discuss whether you think its possible or not, WE KNOW ITS POSSIBLE. Get over it. 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000-1 chance in my opinion, but its possible. We get it. Its possible

We?

There's a great deal of people who seem to suggest its not even a miniscule possibility.

Which would then counter your views as well

 

[HovaGirl]

Thats quite an open-ended definition of "a god", sounds like you are basically saying that god is anything we currently don't understand? i.e. because we don't have a unified theory of physics and there are still unknowns then you are calling this thing a 'god'?

And there you have it except God is not a "thing", but is something beyond science.

 

[seagullmouse]

hovagirl: has Ty passed on a metaphysical/magic nonsense baton to you?

(I am only playing here)

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Why do you think that the probabilities of its existence are minuscule? what logic/evidence are you using to infer this?

It has no historical ties to creation or is it a world wide phenomenon.

 

[seagullmouse]

And there you have it except God is not a "thing", but is something beyond science.

By that logic you would have called gravity/light/the sun/black holes etc 'god' until we worked out what they were? does this seem like a silly thing to do?
Is dark matter your current god because we don't understand it yet?

Room for this god is getting smaller and smaller as we learn more, why would you be so keen to invent a god into that space?

 

[Simster]

Remove convential logic and anything is possible(if not always probable). The prime example of that on earth it the Hummingbird. Technically it shouldnt be able to fly (let alone fly backwards)given its wing movements. But it can.

There was a time when we didn't know how the hummingbird flew (nor indeed the bumble bee for that matter) because incorrect assumptions of how they try to fly were put against the laws of physics. So scientists being scientists, they disected the problem - either our understanding of the laws of physics were flawed, OR the hummingbird doesn't fly in the conventional bird-like way.

Sure enough, when the technology became available, we could slow down motion sufficiently to see that the hummingbird flies using a different method:
How Does a Hummingbird Fly? | eHow.com

So what is the point of me pulling you up for this? Ah yes, you said "Remove convential logic and anything is possible". This sounds like nonsense to me. Conventional logic was not removed in the case of understanding the hummingbird, it was just that technology moved on allowing us to see how it flies in slow motion.

If I say to you, 2+2=5 and you say no it isn't, it doesn't mean I can get away with "remove conventional logic and 2+2=5, so there".