Do you see anything wrong?

[Emanresu13]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

EXACTLY

yeah that's pretty much where i live 99% of the time (cloud9). i get your arguments, they're sound and all. you're probably right about things, i agree with most of what you say. i just think the "silly" things are too interesting to dismiss. and not entirely impossible.

i want the red pill so badly.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

In the end, though, there are infinitely many things that are possible. But that doesn't give us good reason to assume they exist unless we have evidence.

Read this short story (only one page): http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
The Dragon In My Garage, by Carl Sagan

"Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so."

[Emanresu13]

that last line (of the story).

i dunno if you saw the thread i made, with the flowchart. i said a very similar thing as you. occam's razor gives non-god explanations the edge.

<_< pun

qvestion.

It seems reasonable to posit a mechanism by which you get to complex things like universes through simpler predecessors just like we do everything else we know of. The universes that allow for life, well, allow it -- because here we are! There may be other universes that have different laws of physics altogether but do not allow for sentient life to ever occur naturally, so we don't know about them.

But as I take this idea back further and further, it almost feels like our universe is just yet another result of existential evolution giving rise to a framework that just so happens to have the conditions that ultimately allow for life.

are you saying you believe there are multiple universes, but ours just happens to be able to support life? that our universe is a winner in natural selection amongst universes? and just so it doesn't seem like i'm trying to trick you into specifically saying something, these are as of yet unobserved universes, correct? i think you see where i'm going with this.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

qvestion.

are you saying you believe there are multiple universes, but ours just happens to be able to support life? that our universe is a winner in natural selection amongst universes? and just so it doesn't seem like i'm trying to trick you into specifically saying something, these are as of yet unobserved universes, correct? i think you see where i'm going with this.

I don't technically believe in any one thing. I think there are many interesting explanations that allow for a complex universe containing life without the need of a god, based on principles we've learned from science.

[Emanresu13]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

totally, there are good explanations without pulling the god card.

mentioned earlier was the notion that everything was made "just for us". that is a very strange thing to imagine being true. assuming there is a creator, it seems apparent that things were made for him, considering how insignificant we are.

do you automatically reject any notion of a creator? not necessarily a god. also mentioned earlier was a hypothetical creator who went on his merry way after making everything. is that idea truly too far-fetched?

[Reincarnate]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

totally, there are good explanations without pulling the god card.

mentioned earlier was the notion that everything was made "just for us". that is a very strange thing to imagine being true. assuming there is a creator, it seems apparent that things were made for him, considering how insignificant we are.

do you automatically reject any notion of a creator? not necessarily a god. also mentioned earlier was a hypothetical creator who went on his merry way after making everything. is that idea truly too far-fetched?

I don't rule out anything unless evidence contradicts it. However that doesn't necessarily mean I have any reason to believe it. A god/creator, to me, doesn't solve anything anything, has no evidence, isn't necessary, and is really just a product of human psyche.

[Emanresu13]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

man, i totally get you now.

i hope i didn't completely sound like a crazy drunk throughout this


time to watch some let's make a deal
also yummy ketchup

[rushyrulz]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

I find it a bit humorous ya'll put so much "faith" in science. scientific results are drawn from our crummy little senses, and interpreted by our crummy little brains. it's the best we got, sure, but it's totes fallible. i ain't even sayin you're wrong, i'm just sayin check yo self.

Let's say I go up to a second grader and hold in front of him a brick and a marble and tell him I'm going to drop them both at the same time. I ask him which he thinks will hit the floor first, and having never encountered this situation before, he naturally assumes the brick will descend faster since it is heavier; second grader's common sense.

Scenario 1: I drop the brick and marble and they both hit the ground simultaneously and I explain to the second grader why that happens, repeat the experiment again, sometimes with different objects to prove the point. He comes away from it with new knowledge on how gravity works and he lives happily ever after, knowing this scientific law.

Scenario 2: I explain to him what will happen before I do the experiment. I say, "If I drop this brick and this marble at the exact same time, they will both hit the ground at the same time as well." Naturally, the second grader is skeptical since he doesn't understand why that would happen.. since the brick is heavier, it should hit the ground first (in his mind). He seems persistent that the brick will hit first, so I simply drop the brick and marble and they hit the ground at the same time. I explain further why that happens and he comes away from it with new knowledge on how gravity works and he lives happily ever after, knowing this scientific law.

Scenario 3: I explain to him what will happen before I do the experiment. I say, "If I drop this brick and this marble at the exact same time, they will both hit the ground at the same time as well." Naturally, the second grader is skeptical since he doesn't understand why that would happen.. since the brick is heavier, it should hit the ground first (in his mind). He seems persistent that the brick will hit first. I try to explain in more detail, but the second grader simply doesn't understand the concepts I'm trying to teach him. He's adamant in his belief that the brick will fall faster than the marble. I pack up my things and leave, depriving this child of knowledge of the scientific law of gravity and he goes on not believing for several more years being a "gravity agnostic" believing that the brick will hit first until proven otherwise.

This example is great in showing how science can be proven and requires little or no faith (some is required unless you've proved the laws yourself). Religion however requires a substantial amount of faith since there is no brick and marble experiment to conduct when trying to prove a divine being's existence. When reading scenario 3, you probably wondered why I didn't just drop the brick and marble to put the poor kid out of his misery. The reason I didn't is because it's a symbol of the religion argument from the standpoint of someone who believes in a deity. All they can do is argue with words and supposed facts, but the one being preached to has their belief (and they are usually quite firm on it). Until the religious person summons some evidence, the other person will remain a -religious agnostic- until they see proof of a deity.

tl;dr: The difference between faith in science and faith in religion is that science can be tested and proven with sufficient understanding. Religion cannot be proven sufficiently (he said, she said stories from 2000 years ago are not sufficient for most people.).

[Choofers]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

well rushy

you say god isn't real because you can't see him but what about air, hmm ??!?!?!?!?!?!?! you must think ur soooo smart, believing in something as far fetched as this silly gravity. anyone can see that God is pushing down your brick and marble.

[Frank Munoz]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

I don't think rushy ever said God wasn't real because of said reason.. /o/

But, you can feel air so, ya

[rushyrulz]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

choofr dy in torpical wohmbaton maelstrom WRATH OF GOD
RAPTURE
RAPTURE
RAPTURE

[Frank Munoz]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

~*~yolo~*~

[Choofers]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

~*~yolouybitgm~*~
(you only live once unless you believe in the gingerbread man)

[Pseudo Enigma]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

the gingerbread man isn't real? :OOOO

[rushyrulz]

Re: Do you see anything wrong?

Hinduism would suggest that one does not only live once. /religion