UFO's - Do you believe that Extraterrestrials have visited/are visiting this planet?

[DTES]

However on the other side of the coin, God is an explanation for the creation of everything. What is yours?

I really don't think it is. A god (whichever one) is a (possible) explanation for the creation of the universe. He is not an explanation for the creation of everything, as "everything" must include that god. So the "first point of creation" is just raised one level higher, and not "answered".

Again, as I said earlier in this thread about aliens - the fact that we do not have a full explanation yet for something (anything) is not evidence in favour of the supernatural/higher powers/aliens.

The simple example is the Sun - humans used to believe the Sun was a god because they had no other explanation, but the fact that we hadn't yet explained what the Sun was did not make them right.

 

[Driver8]

Is probably the most ridiculous posting on this thread. And that's saying something.

Really? Makes sense to me.

 

[Silent Bob]

I really don't think it is. A god (whichever one) is a (possible) explanation for the creation of the universe. He is not an explanation for the creation of everything, as "everything" must include that god. So the "first point of creation" is just raised one level higher, and not "answered".

Again, as I said earlier in this thread about aliens - the fact that we do not have a full explanation yet for something (anything) is not evidence in favour of the supernatural/higher powers/aliens.

The simple example is the Sun - humans used to believe the Sun was a god because they had no other explanation, but the fact that we hadn't yet explained what the Sun was did not make them right.

And if everyone took the view that everything is explained by God Done It With His Amazing Magic and that our human minds were too tiny to comprehend anything else, we would still think that.

Admittedly there are some people on this thread that probably do still think that...

 

[readingstockport]

We've been here before Readingstockport, DTES hasn't.

However thank you for that label and for judging me and my logic. Tells me so much about you.

Firstly I have absolutely zero intention in trying to bring you to believe in god or anything else. I am not the sort of person who posts on the internet to convert or to protect others from "untruths" because I think that I am right and everyone else is wrong. Ring any bells?

But same answer as before. To think that our human brains can comprehend ANYTHING about the divine is absurd. Our level of consciousness is like a grain of sand in the vastness of space.

However on the other side of the coin, God is an explanation for the creation of everything. What is yours?

So special pleading IMMEDIATELY enters the lack of argument. If everything requires a first cause then your god also requires a first cause, to claim otherwise is known as special pleading and is a redundant position. the onus is on you to explain why your divine being does not require a first cause, not on those of us who dispute that silly argument to explain why it is wrong.

And the fact you went straight away to special pleading indicates quite clearly that your logic in this is flawed.

You rely on superstition and faith. I rely on science. Try an experiment for me. Next time you or one of our loved ones is seriously ill try using your faith and see if they are cured. I will bet EVERYTHING I own that you will fall back on science and use the drugs and treatments developed using the scientific method to save their lives and not rely on your juju man.

 

[One Love]

Please explain why you feel that?

Firstly you have made a definite statement ("never") about something you have obviously not experienced. How anyone can do that is bad enough.

Secondly because you have never experienced it you accuse it of being invented and fantastical. Wow do you think you are God?

Thirdly I'm not forcing my nonsense on anyone. They can believe what they like. Why can't you accept that in others?

From my own personal experience I did not appreciate the beauty of creation until I became more aware of the truth. Now it becomes more and more beautiful every day.

 

[Nibble]

Firstly you have made a definite statement ("never") about something you have obviously not experienced. How anyone can do that is bad enough.

Secondly because you have never experienced it you accuse it of being invented and fantastical. Wow do you think you are God?

Thirdly I'm not forcing my nonsense on anyone. They can believe what they like. Why can't you accept that in others?

From my own personal experience I did not appreciate the beauty of creation until I became more aware of the truth. Now it becomes more and more beautiful every day.

I'm glad we agree it is nonsense.

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

Religious people are unable to accept a creatorless universe but are quite happy to accept a creatorless creator.

 

[DTES]

Thirdly I'm not forcing my nonsense on anyone. They can believe what they like. Why can't you accept that in others?

Not that I "can't accept" it, but personally I do find it frustrating that so many people "believe" things that are in direct contradiction to solid, testable evidence. Here I'm not meaning you - I'm particularly talking about extreme examples such as 'New Earth Creationists' who insist that the world (and the universe) is only 4,000 years old despite the large number of completely separate pieces of evidence disproving this.

It's even more frustrating when those same people who refuse to acknowledge contradictory evidence turn to others and accuse them of being "closed minded".

 

[One Love]

So special pleading IMMEDIATELY enters the lack of argument. If everything requires a first cause then your god also requires a first cause, to claim otherwise is known as special pleading and is a redundant position. the onus is on you to explain why your divine being does not require a first cause, not on those of us who dispute that silly argument to explain why it is wrong.

And the fact you went straight away to special pleading indicates quite clearly that your logic in this is flawed.

You rely on superstition and faith. I rely on science. Try an experiment for me. Next time you or one of our loved ones is seriously ill try using your faith and see if they are cured. I will bet EVERYTHING I own that you will fall back on science and use the drugs and treatments developed using the scientific method to save their lives and not rely on your juju man.

Hang on a minute, the onus would be on me IF I was trying to prove something which I am not. You are the one trying to prove something, that God does not exist.

All I am doing is trying to demonstrate that we know so little in the great scheme of things. We can't even explain how we came about. So to act as if we know it all is ridiculous. Why can't we just accept other people's experiences without ridiculing them.

May I point out that the way you argue these things is firstly very aggressive (why you have something against God is your business) and secondly identical to the "sceptic" forums that pervade the internet. I assume you are a member.

I rely on science AND faith. I have met people who have been given days to live only to shock their doctors and now lead normal healthy lives.

 

[The Optimist]

Again, as I said earlier in this thread about aliens - the fact that we do not have a full explanation yet for something (anything) is not evidence in favour of the supernatural/higher powers/aliens.

The simple example is the Sun - humans used to believe the Sun was a god because they had no other explanation, but the fact that we hadn't yet explained what the Sun was did not make them right.

This is spot on. History is full of people filling voids in our knowledge with superstition, ghosts, UFOs, gods etc. And to repeat the most important point "the fact that we do not have a full explanation yet for something (anything) is not evidence in favour of the supernatural/higher powers/aliens"

 

[DTES]

EDIT - Removed, apologies - I misread the post I was quoting.

 

[The Optimist]

I have met people who have been given days to live only to shock their doctors and now lead normal healthy lives.

Are you presenting this as evidence of something?

 

[Silk]

Not that I "can't accept" it, but personally I do find it frustrating that so many people "believe" things that are in direct contradiction to solid, testable evidence. Here I'm not meaning you - I'm particularly talking about extreme examples such as 'New Earth Creationists' who insist that the world (and the universe) is only 4,000 years old despite the large number of completely separate pieces of evidence disproving this.

It's even more frustrating when those same people who refuse to acknowledge contradictory evidence turn to others and accuse them of being "closed minded".

I think you mean "Young Earth Creationists". But otherwise spot on.

 

[One Love]

One thing I am sure of is that this thread has meandered off-topic and I believe the last time the subject of God came up on here most people got pretty pissed off about it.

So I'll leave it at that.

You want me to prove the existence of God and I can't. We agree on something.

 

[DTES]

I think you mean "Young Earth Creationists". But otherwise spot on.

Ha - yes, you are right. Oops.

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

...........(why you have something against God is your business)..............

How can "you have something against god" if you don't believe he exists. This makes no sense.

 

[brunswick]

I really don't think it is. A god (whichever one) is a (possible) explanation for the creation of the universe. He is not an explanation for the creation of everything, as "everything" must include that god. So the "first point of creation" is just raised one level higher, and not "answered".

Again, as I said earlier in this thread about aliens - the fact that we do not have a full explanation yet for something (anything) is not evidence in favour of the supernatural/higher powers/aliens.

The simple example is the Sun - humans used to believe the Sun was a god because they had no other explanation, but the fact that we hadn't yet explained what the Sun was did not make them right.

infinity / eternity / divine mind (for want of better words than god) maybe has no beginning and no end.....as symbolised in the orobus (oh u are so going to hate this post).

we still don't know what the sun is, yes we know the chemicals, but we do not know if "it has consciousness." some mystic fraternities believe we evolve to become stars (5th density) as in "every man and women is a star."

as a 19th century theosophist once said,

"Thousands of years have passed away since mankind first saw the sun and the
stars, and modern telescopes have brought them nearer to us. Nevertheless our knowledge of these
cosmic bodies and the conditions of life existing upon them, consists merely of speculations and
opinions, which may be overthrown at any time, when our means for observation are supplanted by
better ones. We give names to the substances discovered by the spectroscope, but we will not know the
true nature of the stars as long as we are not able to partake of their consciousness and experience the
qualities of life and characters embodied in their forms."


you can name call, and act the scientist, but whatever, you cannot prove these opinions to be wrong.

 

[One Love]

How can "you have something against god" if you don't believe he exists. This makes no sense.

I'm just pointing out that some posters on here as soon as they get a sniff of religion/God/etc on here (and presumably every other internet forum they are members of) immediately it seems to raise their hackles and they have to fight it with all of their might.

Just wondered why it seems to invoke such an emotional reaction, that's all.

Any ideas?

 

[brunswick]

Just wondered why it seems to invoke such an emotional reaction, that's all.
Any ideas?

because it is the ultmate mystery, and stirs thoughts and emotions in every man.

 

[DTES]

infinity / eternity / divine mind (for want of better words than god) maybe has no beginning and no end.....as symbolised in the orobus (oh u are so going to hate this post).

we still don't know what the sun is, yes we know the chemicals, but we do not know if "it has consciousness." some mystic fraternities believe we evolve to become stars (5th density) as in "every man and women is a star."

as a 19th century theosophist once said,

"Thousands of years have passed away since mankind first saw the sun and the
stars, and modern telescopes have brought them nearer to us. Nevertheless our knowledge of these
cosmic bodies and the conditions of life existing upon them, consists merely of speculations and
opinions, which may be overthrown at any time, when our means for observation are supplanted by
better ones. We give names to the substances discovered by the spectroscope, but we will not know the
true nature of the stars as long as we are not able to partake of their consciousness and experience the
qualities of life and characters embodied in their forms."


you can name call, and act the scientist, but whatever, you cannot prove these opinions to be wrong.

The thing is, I don't need to "prove these opinions to be wrong".

I'm pretty certain that if I claimed (or it was proven) that the universe itself was eternal, you'd still say an explanation was needed of why it exists or what/"who" created it. But it seems that this doesn't apply to your eternal "divine mind", that you've helpfully provided a drawing someone once did as evidence for. Why doesn't it, and how does it help to answer any of the questions?

And we do indeed know the chemical make up of the Sun. We also, however, know how & when it was created, and how & when it will "die" (as you say, for want of a better word). In addition, we also know that its the same as the other stars in the universe. So my point about humans once believing it was a god (and linking the points, that it was 'responsible' for us) is still entirely valid.

As for your last point, I'm honestly not sure what you are trying to prove by demonstrating that one person, approximately 200 years ago, agreed with you. It's a nice quote though. More recently, David Tennant starred in an episode of Doctor Who where a star had consciousness. That doesn't add anything either, but it's a more up-to-date example than yours so you might want to use it in future.