Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Serenity]

You are all missing the point, which is that when you reach questions like that and try to invoke Ockham's Razor (that the shorter formula is more likely to be the more accurate one), the religious explanation will always be the one favored by that type of reasoning.-

"Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." - Occam's Razor

Young Earth Creationism, for example requires countless entities which are bizarre and contradictory with real world experience. It requires a vast scientific conspiracy to cover up the truth (science is a field which rewards debunking false theories with great prestige - Einstein debunked Newtonian physics, and look at the fame he's got now!), some sort of crazy magical change in the radioactive decay of atoms (in order for that to happen, the mass of subatomic particles would have to change... which would basically kill everything), a fundamentalist Christian God (the only advantage is that this one is defined, unlike many other Gods, but it's still nonsensical because I'm supposed to believe that Mr. sentence-a-man-to-death-for-gathering-sticks-on-the-Sabbath is the same person as Mr. I-love-everyone), a full laugh in the face of evolutionary biology with classifying "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" as being different things when they are the same thing over a longer course of time(and then spitting on logic by requiring that we prove macroevolution... when of course humans don't live long enough to see macroevolution in action), ignoring basic geology and claiming that the dinosaurs lived a few thousand year ago because our "highly inaccurate" dating techniques don't agree on when the dinosaurs died out (hint: they do). Furthermore, beyond all that laughing at what we know about the universe, you have to assume that because evolution is wrong (a false premise, but oh well), that therefore God made the Earth in seven days six thousand years ago or less.

And theistic evolution is evolution with an extra term added - God.

[POS Industries]

Backing up a bit because I ain't sifting through two pages worth of arguing over Occam's Razor, because it's basically the duct tape of the atheistic argument (similar to how "God did it" is the theistic alternative) and doesn't actually prove anything one way or the other.

Originally Posted by Serenity

Theistic evolution (less dumb, but still kinda dumb) is the premise that evolution was caused by God. Of course, there are many flaws with this theory. Just to name the three most obvious:
• the human eye is built in a moronic way. The squid's eye, on the other hand, is built quite well, without inadvertantly flipping the image and some other crap.
• 99% of all species that have ever existed on earth are currently extinct. Imagine if an engineer had that failure rate! Remember, God is supposed to be omnipotent, so the failed species being prototypes is stupid.

Essentially, the argument here is that, because the universe has flaws, the idea that a driving consciousness could be behind the design of the universe is flawed. A nice, succinct, simple argument, to be sure, but not really accurate. However, this could more be arguing against the idea that what would be best referred to as "God" would

A) Be constantly manipulating every minute detail of existence and/or
B) Be absolutely knowledgeable and powerful, thus negating any need for "prototypes" or really any earlier evolutionary designs because, hey, God' all-powerful, right? Wouldn't it know that it's easier to just poof everything into existence the way you want it?

Well, maybe this simply isn't the case. If you apply a Biblical interpretation of God to the idea of theistic evolution, then yes, the idea breaks down becausea perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful deity wouldn't let the world suck this much. However, this is something that tends to happen when you apply the Bible to much of anything outside maybe some occasional decent advice on how not to be an asshole.

So, perhaps an entity that would best fit the "God" role isn't so perfect after all, and perhaps not even so hands on. Take a look at the universe from its smallest vantage point and from one of its largest. Note the atom, regardless of element: the electrons orbit the nucleus in a manner strikingly similar to the way a moon orbits a planet and planets orbit a sun. A single animal plays host to an entire ecosystem of microorganisms in the same way that a forest hosts countless animals and plants.

From looking at the universe in this regard, one could infer that, perhaps, the whole thing is itself one larger body of nebulous construct, and that what we would call "God" is merely the brain, an organ in place to regulate the conscious and unconscious machinations of life within the body. By this thinking, while there's an intelligence behind the growth and workings of the universe that has some level of concern over its parts, it would also be reasonable to assume that this intelligence shows as much concern for you or I as we do for a single blood cell.

Of course, this is only one idea based on subjective observation and experience and, of course, can't be laboratory tested, but it's not an unreasonable assessment, in my opinion. Of course there are flaws in the system, but on a broader scale the whole thing is damn near perfect.

Take Sith's argument: Yes, it is perfectly plausible that life in any environment could and very likely would become suited for it. However, looking at our solar system, it seems that life was only able to develop and thrive on Earth. Mars appears to have had it at one point, but couldn't maintain a survivable ecosystem of its own. Mercury has zilch for atmosphere, is too close to the sun, and rotates so slowly that anything would be either burned away or frozen before being burned away. Venus' atmosphere is so deadly that we can't even get probes to survive for more than an hour on its surface. The rest of the planets don't have surfaces to begin with. The only other body we've found so far that could support life is Europa, and we haven't been able to prove it one way or the other yet.

Earth, meanwhile, absolutely reeks of life and is in a perfect position where the odds of said life being wiped out by any outside force is beyond slim. The last time any large astral body managed to get past our Jupiter/moon defense system and actually impact on Earth's surface is the best thing to happen to damn near every animal on the planet that wasn't a dinosaur, and the odds of it happening were so infinitesimally small and the end result so beneficial for the advancement of species that could evolve in such a way as to give rise to higher intelligence that it seems to difficult to just flat-out dismiss the idea that something out there might have consciously made it happen. At least to me, anyway.

[ZAKtheGeek]

However, looking at our solar system, it seems that life was only able to develop and thrive on Earth. Mars appears to have had it at one point, but couldn't maintain a survivable ecosystem of its own. Mercury has zilch for atmosphere, is too close to the sun, and rotates so slowly that anything would be either burned away or frozen before being burned away. Venus' atmosphere is so deadly that we can't even get probes to survive for more than an hour on its surface. The rest of the planets don't have surfaces to begin with. The only other body we've found so far that could support life is Europa, and we haven't been able to prove it one way or the other yet.

Earth, meanwhile, absolutely reeks of life and is in a perfect position where the odds of said life being wiped out by any outside force is beyond slim. The last time any large astral body managed to get past our Jupiter/moon defense system and actually impact on Earth's surface is the best thing to happen to damn near every animal on the planet that wasn't a dinosaur, and the odds of it happening were so infinitesimally small and the end result so beneficial for the advancement of species that could evolve in such a way as to give rise to higher intelligence that it seems to difficult to just flat-out dismiss the idea that something out there might have consciously made it happen. At least to me, anyway.

This would only hold water if ours was the only solar system...

[Serenity]

Originally Posted by POS Industries

Well, maybe this simply isn't the case. If you apply a Biblical interpretation of God to the idea of theistic evolution, then yes, the idea breaks down becausea perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful deity wouldn't let the world suck this much. However, this is something that tends to happen when you apply the Bible to much of anything outside maybe some occasional decent advice on how not to be an asshole.

Deistic God can't be disproven, but it's just an extra term with no reason to add.

Originally Posted by POS Industries

From looking at the universe in this regard, one could infer that, perhaps, the whole thing is itself one larger body of nebulous construct, and that what we would call "God" is merely the brain, an organ in place to regulate the conscious and unconscious machinations of life within the body. By this thinking, while there's an intelligence behind the growth and workings of the universe that has some level of concern over its parts, it would also be reasonable to assume that this intelligence shows as much concern for you or I as we do for a single blood cell.

Pantheism is attempting to define "deity" in such a way to stretch it even further. I mean, fuck. Loki is a god and the Christian Satan isn't? You're going to put even more stress on the blatantly inefficient, breaking down system?

Originally Posted by POS Industries

Of course, this is only one idea based on subjective observation and experience and, of course, can't be laboratory tested, but it's not an unreasonable assessment, in my opinion. Of course there are flaws in the system, but on a broader scale the whole thing is damn near perfect.

Well of course it's not an unreasonable assessment in your opinion. Because you aren't thinking about it properly.

In order for an organ to function, there has to be communication between it's cells, the pieces of those cells, etc etc. However, the galaxies don't intersect, solar systems don't communicate, blah blah et cetera. The physics of a galaxy's functionality are horrific for any organism. There's no membrane to protect this galaxy from the next, no method of self-replication, and assuming that galaxies could even replicate and had some kind of DNA-like codex, their constituent parts would bash into eachother, break apart, and generally fuck up the whole system at such a rate that self-replication would do more harm than good.

Plus the (estimated) total number of galaxies in the observable universe is more than one hundred billion, whereas the number of cells in the human body number FAR past ten trillion.

The last time any large astral body managed to get past our Jupiter/moon defense system and actually impact on Earth's surface is the best thing to happen to damn near every animal on the planet that wasn't a dinosaur, and the odds of it happening were so infinitesimally small and the end result so beneficial for the advancement of species that could evolve in such a way as to give rise to higher intelligence that it seems to difficult to just flat-out dismiss the idea that something out there might have consciously made it happen. At least to me, anyway.

God isn't an answer to any question, ever, because (thanks to pantheism and polytheism and monotheism and dualism and atheism competing over the meaning) it means basically nothing. God is less of an answer than unicorn, because at least "unicorn" is something I can actually define.

And individual gods (like Christian God, Allah, Brahman, etc) can be disproven by showing contradictions between them and the facts, or just in themselves.

[TheSpacePope]

Your rather insistint, "Nuh-uh, there is not a God, cause of the fact that there have been other Gods." Is not proof that God doesn't exist.
No matter how many times you say it.

[Nique]

In order for an organ to function, there has to be communication between it's cells, the pieces of those cells, etc etc. However, the galaxies don't intersect, solar systems don't communicate, blah blah et cetera.

This is kind of misleading actually. The gravity of celestial bodies (among other forces and energies) effects other celestial bodies. "Communication" if you will. Galaxies DO in fact, intersect at times. It is said that the potential merging of our own galaxy and another spiral galaxy (Andromeda?) would cause a large elliptical galaxy to form.

Plus the (estimated) total number of galaxies in the observable universe is more than one hundred billion, whereas the number of cells in the human body number FAR past ten trillion.

This is Hubris in the extreme - The observable universe is far from the entirety of creation.

Think about it - You would be making arguments much similar if you lived on a proton, no? You don't seem to have the sense of perspective that you seem to have, if you get my meaning.

And individual gods (like Christian God, Allah, Brahman, etc) can be disproven by showing contradictions between them and the facts, or just in themselves.

Mm. Ok. So contrasting schools of thought within evolutionary theory disprove evolution. I mean, what?

Come on. You aren't even trying.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Mm. Ok. So contrasting schools of thought within evolutionary theory disprove evolution. I mean, what?

I think you misunderstood... I'm pretty sure he isn't saying that particular ideas about gods are false because they contradict each other, but because they contradict things known to be fact and/or themselves.

[Serenity]

Originally Posted by TheSpacePope

Your rather insistint, "Nuh-uh, there is not a God, cause of the fact that there have been other Gods." Is not proof that God doesn't exist.
No matter how many times you say it.

Fortunately, I never actually said that.

I can point out that the interrelationship between Judaic God and Christian God is quite interesting (in that one of them is a dick and the other one... claims not to be a dick) and we can clearly draw a correlation between Zoastrianism and Christian mythology (with Satan being Dr. Evil, whereas in Judaic mythos, Satan was simply a bloke who came about to test you - he was with God), especially considering that there are a bunch of Wise Men from the East who were astrologers in the myth of Jesus' birth (psst - Persia, Zoroastrianism and Astrology go together).

Furthermore, I can point out that despite the lovey-dovey stuff he preaches, his actions tell quite a different story - that even thoughts can be crimes, that every human is a criminal, that you will be punished for any crime you commit with an eternity of torture and hellfire (or with a total annhilation of your self, depending on your particular determination of theology), and that the only way out is through The Blood Sacrifice.

Fuck, Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations outdate the YEC's claim of the age of the earth in and of themselves. And Mesopotamian civilization has a creation myth which involves the creation of man from clay...

Is it so inobvious that the surviving religions are greatly influenced by primordial religions? Is it a coincidence that Akhenaten and Moses lived in the same century? Is it some kind of luck that Zoroastrians were part of the "Jesus gets born (and is awesome)" myth and Christianity also had a very different view of the Accuser - mainly painting him as the Cosmic Evil to God's Cosmic Good?

This is kind of misleading actually. The gravity of celestial bodies (among other forces and energies) effects other celestial bodies. "Communication" if you will. Galaxies DO in fact, intersect at times. It is said that the potential merging of our own galaxy and another spiral galaxy (Andromeda?) would cause a large elliptical galaxy to form.

Yes, rocks getting near eachother and adjusting the course of gravity is the same as actually being alive...

Galaxies are NOT cells, they will never BE cells, and they don't even vaguely RESEMBLE cells. They. Cannot. Self. Replicate.

If a thing cannot self replicate, it is not alive. That is the BASIC DEFINITION of life.

Besides, how can the universe be alive with the Big Bang? That's not a theory - that's a fact. Everything is moving out from a central point. This is an observed fact. If the universe is intelligent, he is exploding, and doing so quite quickly (at least for all he can tell, what with his slow-ass runs-on-galaxy-intersection brain)

This is Hubris in the extreme - The observable universe is far from the entirety of creation.

Think about it - You would be making arguments much similar if you lived on a proton, no? You don't seem to have the sense of perspective that you seem to have, if you get my meaning.

"The observable universe" doesn't mean "only what we can observe right now" - we can't observe dark matter, but we know it exists, and it is part of the observable universe. It is what is possible to observe inside of this universe.

Also, if I lived on a proton I would not be making any arguments because I would be made of particles which have behavior that is random.

Mm. Ok. So contrasting schools of thought within evolutionary theory disprove evolution. I mean, what?

Come on. You aren't even trying.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. If you're saying that contradictions between Demiurge and Allah don't disprove them, I agree. If you're saying something else, I have no idea what it is.

I'm not saying compare and contrast: Yahweh versus Brahman. I'm saying compare and contrast: "love your neighbor as yourself" and "The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp" (after a bloke is found gathering sticks on the sabbath - horror of horrors). Could the same man love everyone and punish them for anything and everything they do? I suggest that he could not (at least not without stretching the word "love" to meaninglessness).

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

This would only hold water if ours was the only solar system...

Except that we haven't been able to explore any planets in any other solar system outside of our own. We have no proof whatsoever that there's life anywhere other than Earth. I mean, if we're going to allow for "Well, we haven't been out there and so we just don't know what sort of life can really exist in different, un-Earthlike environments, so let's just assume that they exist" then it's perfectly reasonable to allow "Well, since we don't really know for sure how the universe was created, then let's just assume God did it", because both are totally unsubstantiated arguments.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Actually, I misread what you wrote before. Never mind, I was objecting to something you weren't even supporting.