Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 68 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

I know what it's believed to be but it's still written by infallible men with an agenda.  Follow God or risk the fires of hell.

I've never understood how people who follow the bible religiously (pun intended) can just disregard all other religions since the dawn of man as being wrong.  Were the ancient Greeks and Romans wrong in their beliefs?  The Egyptians?  The Celts?  

I believe in a greater power but not one god over another.

Eta.  Totally off topic and all I have to say on religion.

I don't really want to discuss it either but I just wanted to say it's not all from family.  My Mother was a Roman Catholic as a child but later became a liberal Catholic and did not attend mass any longer.  My Father was raised as a Lutheran as a child but never attended church as an adult ever unless perhaps for a funeral as my father left the Lutheranism of his childhood and became an agnostic.  So, it doesn't always come from family.  My sister told me she "looked into Lutheranism and found it was correct" or something to that effect.  Pretty similar ideation to what I've quoted.  But, the Lutheranism did not come from my Dad as that was left in his childhood and he never spoke about it at all nor went to church ever.

Edited by FairreLilette
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hiya folks. Science is not about truth. Scientists do not claim to hold the truth. Science is merely the art of not BS-sing yourself or others, while trying to understand things and make predictions b

The term "genocide" was coined in 1944. Historians researching wars prior to then will never find the word "genocide" in accounts of those times, so it takes more careful analysis of the historical re

Posted Images

   Can't believe we've gotten to page 8 without anyone sharing this yet.

 

   ... And now this tune will be stuck in my head for a week. Let's hope no one starts a thread about hieroglyphics or highwaymen next.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I have always thought that the explanation of how things got started without a design and from nothing required much more of a leap of faith that the rather obvious point of view that there was a design somehow and that we just don't comprehend it.

My father, raised Lutheran but never terribly religious, took Pascal's wager and reserved a sliver of belief for some grand designer, figuring it couldn't hurt. As his daughter, I grew up awash in the curiosity and skepticism that never quite shook him from the tree. One of the central tenets of McMasters family thinking was that "if it's obvious, you might not comprehend it".

While it might seem obvious to you that there's a design we don't comprehend, it seems more plausible to me that we see patterns and causality (design) where none exists (there is ample evidence of that throughout human history) and that we must be careful not to be fooled by that "obviousness".

The implication of a designer is that there's intent in the design. That's an extraordinary implication that wants extraordinary evidence. "It is intuitively obvious to the casual observer that..." just doesn't cut it.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Orwar said:

   It makes pretty much perfect sense.

   Except of course the Big Bang theory has never tried to explain where the universe comes from, but rather what happened in the first instant of its existence.

   The reason the Big Bang theory remains so prevalent is because despite gargantuan amounts of time and resources spent trying to disprove it, no one has managed to do so yet - even with an almost certain Nobel prize waiting for whoever manages to do so.

   The Big Bang is merely one piece of the puzzle, along with other pieces such as quantum tunneling, Einstein's theory of relativity, and inflation theory - which, combined, give us a seemingly plausible and relatively comprehensive picture of the whole 'what the hey?'. 

So there was no space and no time, and not even an empty space.

The suddenly from nowhere, there was a bang (which obviously nobody heard) and bingo! A universe.

Not credible. Unless everything emerged from a parallel dimension. I just don't buy nothing creating something. Its flat earth thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

No, it just relies on something else that was designed or created but exists outside this existence.  More fundamentally it means we cannot see outside of this existence to see how things work out there.  There could be entirely different principles at work that we cannot even comprehend at this point.

Haven't you just created a turtle, Gabrielle?

If the "something else" that created us was also, as you say, designed or created, couldn't it be unable to see outside its existence to the turtle below?

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BelindaN said:

So there was no space and no time, and not even an empty space.

The suddenly from nowhere, there was a bang (which obviously nobody heard) and bingo! A universe.

Not credible. Unless everything emerged from a parallel dimension. I just don't buy nothing creating something. Its flat earth thinking.

So you buy something created by something else that was created by nothing?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, BelindaN said:

Not credible. Unless everything emerged from a parallel dimension. I just don't buy nothing creating something. Its flat earth thinking.

   Credible enough to be the contemporary scientific explanation for the creation of the universe we can see today. To refute it out of ignorance is the flat earth thinking. 

   But, sure, it's more likely that a divine entity popped out of nothing and then created the universe out of nothing.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Talligurl said:
7 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

It's unfortunate that so many religions dismiss Science and believe in literal translations of the Bible.

In my opinion, Young Earth Creationists do not "dismiss" science. The have a very high regard for science, so much so that they are convinced God must have written a scientific text when He wrote the Bible. In thier minds since God's science disagrees with man's science, man's science must be wrong.

Science is an agreed upon method (by humans) to increase knowledge -- it's a process along with the conclusions drawn by following that process. It would be preposterous to just read a book and decide the conclusions I see there are Science without seeing any actual Scientific activity occurring, or decide any book of my choosing came directly from God and so is some sort of special "Science".

Of course I already know what Biblical literalists and creationists are doing, but I have no sympathy for people who, in their delusion, harm others. They've caused too much trouble in this world for me to care. Like I said earlier, it's fine if these people have an opinion, but that's not all they're doing -- they attempt to control other people -- they want to rule the world and they've harmed and destroyed more people than I care to think about right now.
There's not much worse for a society than not having a clear separation between church and state. You must not be aware of the evangelical agenda gaining strength in the U.S. -- the attempt at theocracy. I don't want to live in a Christian Fascist society ruled by the alt-right and deluded evangelicals. They can take their hotline to god and shove it up their bleep.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

You must not be aware of the evangelical agenda gaining strength in the U.S.

I live with these people every day. A big part of the reason I come to SL is to escape and be able to express what I really think.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2021 at 6:17 AM, Ceka Cianci said:

My understanding  is, everything that exists in the universe is natural..

That everything on this side of the big bang or in the universe is the physics that we do  know.. where on the outside, other side of the bang, are the physics that we don't know..

Supernatural sounds like something that would be on the other side rather than within..

I mean if we're just looking at the book of books god, then right away in the first book, that god wouldn't be within the universe..

You think as I do on this point.

Yes, everything that exists within space-time is considered natural and falls in the realm of some natural science. That is a base definition, axiomatic. I agree this is the stuff we can know and learn about.

Supernatural is defined as anything else, all the stuff not natural. I agree. This is the stuff we have no way to get a handle on, study or measure. Ghost Busters and psychics excluded… This is the stuff of opinion.

The logic is that whatever created space-time and matter had to be made of something outside of space-time and not made of matter since they didn’t exist before they were created. Now that they do, where would such a creator reside?

There is nothing that says such a being can’t be inside and/or outside the space-time universe now. Nothing requires such a creator to be ONLY in one or the other. But how would we know?

On 3/11/2021 at 6:20 AM, Luna Bliss said:

That there exists a reality beyond what our limited human brain can conceive of is not a man-made theory.

I can’t tell if you are joking and deliberately making a self-defeating statement for amusement or if you are serious.

On 3/11/2021 at 6:55 AM, Arielle Popstar said:

Or man is God-made theory. That is more plausable since we are not capable of self creation whether the abiogenesis event postulated by science or the creative one postulated by creationists? The burden of proof lies on you for that event as you are making the claim the abiogenesis one happened without any creator being. 

Even this "nature" that you speak of is a set of laws upon which this universe operates but being that it is possible that there are other universes that operate unnaturally, the question is, How did these natural laws come to be operative in this one?

If there is a god then regardless of which god it is, all accounts I have read say god made man. If god did, then why would man be a theory?

The idea there are multiple universes is an interesting idea and many postulate how that may be possible. But, as far as I know there is no math, theory, or proof any such universe exists outside of ours. That makes all those ideas pure speculation or being generous, unsupported hypothesies. Not a good foundation for your following question. It takes the debate off into opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Haven't you just created a turtle, Gabrielle?

If the "something else" that created us was also, as you say, designed or created, couldn't it be unable to see outside its existence to the turtle below?

I don't think so.  It doesn't have to be that way at all.  In theory it only has to be that way for our existence.  What is beyond that could be entirely different and based on entirely different principles, as I stated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Yes, everything that exists within space-time is considered natural and falls in the realm of some natural science. That is a base definition, axiomatic. I agree this is the stuff we can know and learn about.

Supernatural is defined as anything else, all the stuff not natural. I agree. This is the stuff we have no way to get a handle on, study or measure. Ghost Busters and psychics excluded… This is the stuff of opinion.

Here's where we differ. I don't believe in the supernatural. Note that in saying this I'm not saying that I reject the possibility of anything outside of the space-time we consider to be the "universe," but that I feel anything outside of the "universe" is still part of the same system and subject to its own rules even if they're completely different from the rules we consider "natural."

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

One of the central tenets of McMasters family thinking was that "if it's obvious, you might not comprehend it".

"It's got nothing to do with you, if you can grasp it." - Up the Hill Backwards, David Bowie.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:
2 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Haven't you just created a turtle, Gabrielle?

If the "something else" that created us was also, as you say, designed or created, couldn't it be unable to see outside its existence to the turtle below?

I don't think so.  It doesn't have to be that way at all.  In theory it only has to be that way for our existence.  What is beyond that could be entirely different and based on entirely different principles, as I stated.

You said our creator was created. That implies a second level of creation, regardless of any other principles that might differ. So those different principles actually make no... difference?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

"It's got nothing to do with you, if you can grasp it." - Up the Hill Backwards, David Bowie.

Don't have a scooby what this thread's about but luv that song and album :)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Talligurl said:
2 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

You must not be aware of the evangelical agenda gaining strength in the U.S.

I live with these people every day. A big part of the reason I come to SL is to escape and be able to express what I really think.

I apologize if I misread you. I thought you were pretty evangelical-y in the past from some of our debates, though we did agree that we agreed on the most important thing for us -- a belief in God. 

I live around them too, although not to the degree you do, I'm imagining.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I'm pretty sure that cat is dead

the cat is alive...

cat psychedelic.gif

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

OMG people, can't we even agree on THIS?

   I'm pretty sure the cat is a dog.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 68 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...