Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Baruch]

Nope, no proof. Just common sense. The vastness of the observable universe coupled with our seeming unique ability for life, and potential as a whole, including earth, is quite telling to me. Why would we be formed with such uniqueness​ and potential if what formed us didn't care about it's creation or the energy it used to form it? If we where so absolutely insignificant, then why are we so unique in terms of life as we know it within the observable universe, and why can we observe and fathom our exponential potential as a whole, be it good or bad​?



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

People cover their asses with epiphenomenalism ... that purely random shit can develop into something interesting.  According to entropy, that ain't happenin'.

[Ananta Shesha]

It does explain why people are such turds though ... we are in G-d's intestinal tract ;-)

Holy shit… You may be closer to correct than you realize! Lol

[aitm]

Why would we be formed with such uniqueness​ and potential

ah..the arrogance of humanity. God made us because "I" am special enough to have been made by a god. 

[aitm]

You'll find the idea of an original infinite undifferentiated substance rife throughout ancient religions and sciences.

well of course we would because, science is so.....ancient.

But to the point..when are you going to actually describe this "god" of yours? This force that sounds so very much like star wars because how romantic is that eh?

[aitm]

Westerners assume that the Western religion they are familiar with, are the only religions.  Parochialism.

So.....propose the "religion" that supports this supposition that a "god" as in the a classical interpretation of a god, is indeed...a god and not some magical cloud that floats through the vastness shitting out tidbits of luck to those fortunate enough to have a turd land upon them. I am interested in such a "religion".

[popsthebuilder]

ah..the arrogance of humanity. God made us because "I" am special enough to have been made by a god.

Pretty sure I repeatedly emphasised life and earth as a whole, and not I. I'm pretty sure I have also repeatedly stated that I regard my self as very close to nothing with no value or worth. I do know of potential, but as I hinted at; the potential I most often am able to actually realize is that negative one. All I talk about is equity, unity and life as a whole; as such, your false point is too moot.



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[popsthebuilder]

People cover their asses with epiphenomenalism ... that purely random shit can develop into something interesting.  According to entropy, that ain't happenin'.

Is that the same people who openly admit that all existence seems to be approximately 1%material, but who only accept the utterly materialistic view as one with any credibility?

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[aitm]

your false point is too moot.

No, it is most certainly not, you said:

Why would we be formed with such uniqueness​ and potential if what formed us didn't care about it's creation or the energy it used to form it?

That is arrogance my friend, plain and simple. Something created "me" to be special, and thusly, "I" was special because I was created. Meh. Do you give the squirrel and cockroach the same podium? They have out performed you in longevity.

[popsthebuilder]

ah..the arrogance of humanity. God made us because "I" am special enough to have been made by a god.

Unique; as in life as a whole in/ on Earth relative to the seeming absence thereof elsewhere.

Potential; as in the potential of humans as a whole/ a unit, to better the quality of life and advancement thereof as a whole for the sake of life as it pertains to this planet as a whole and it's habitat.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[Hydra009]

Is that the same people who openly admit that all existence seems to be approximately 1%material, but who only accept the utterly materialistic view as one with any credibility?

Never thought it'd have to use this:



The idea that only a small portion of the universe is composed of matter, compared to (relatively, not absolutely) empty space is unrelated to materialism in the sense of the philosophical position that everything in the universe, including mental phenomena, are the products of material interactions (as opposed to the idea of souls)

[aitm]

Potential; as in the potential of humans as a whole/ a unit, to better the quality of life and advancement thereof as a whole for the sake of life as it pertains to this planet as a whole and it's habitat

ah..potential....now..which god are you suggesting is in favor of the potential of the human species as a whole over the potential of "his" particular followers? Just curious. Are you ever going to have enough faith to claim your god or are you just a tad embarrassed at his relative "lack of recent participation"? But to be sure, this could be any one of the thousands of the gods man is willing to claim, so failure is not a empty parking lot eh?

[popsthebuilder]

No, it is most certainly not, you said:
That is arrogance my friend, plain and simple. Something created "me" to be special, and thusly, "I" was special because I was created. Meh. Do you give the squirrel and cockroach the same podium? They have out performed you in longevity.

You are missing the point wholly. When I speak of creation as a whole I don't consider myself. As wrong as that may be; it is the case.

Something created all existence and all life is of that which it was created by. All life is special and the potential I speak of is unattainable by man without peaceable unity of all mankind. Definitely a thing not accomplished by putting ones self over others in any regard.

I am nothing;of no worth to my own self at this point. The same could be said for my opinion about myself for the vast majority of my life (minus two occasions or stints I can recall). If by special you mean twice dead, half deformed, quarter retarded, socially inept, seemingly hopeless failure then I might agree.
I regard myself as low; I regard other life; perhaps even insects, as higher than me. Surely in devotion and backbone.


I was not referring to me when I was talking about the unique potential of life on Earth as a whole, though; as stated; I have observed it in negative form within myself, and do perceive a positive potential in me, though not one of any great magnitude. A very gracious and merciful amount to be sure. The least of any others potential, and rightly so.

peace



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[popsthebuilder]

ah..potential....now..which god are you suggesting is in favor of the potential of the human species as a whole over the potential of "his" particular followers? Just curious. Are you ever going to have enough faith to claim your god or are you just a tad embarrassed at his relative "lack of recent participation"? But to be sure, this could be any one of the thousands of the gods man is willing to claim, so failure is not a empty parking lot eh?

Claim? What is it you want me to claim.

I confess; all names for GOD are simply that; names. The human mind cannot fully comprehend the attributes or qualities or fullness of GOD. It is impossible it seems. If you must know; I generally refer to IT as Lord, GOD, or both in my mind. I believe any name is sort of okay as long as it is sincerely meant as a respectful reference to the One Creator GOD. I believe the writings of the Jew to show signs of power hunger and war mongering, and have found the things of GOD in my personal life to be compassionate, loving, giving, forbearing, and nurturing, for these reasons among others, if I had to assign a name to IT i would say Eloha, but it would be ELOHA, but even that is just a reference to the same One Creator GOD.

To be clear; when I was given my faith, a name was not mentioned. As in it seems of little importance. I will admit that when I had prayed out of desperation sometime before being given faith that I had called upon God, Jesus, Lord, whatever was there that I was oblivious to; I asked to help.

What is it you want to know. I will tell you what I can.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

well of course we would because, science is so.....ancient.

But to the point..when are you going to actually describe this "god" of yours? This force that sounds so very much like star wars because how romantic is that eh?

Physical science has the same age as philosophy ... the "water thief" proved that atomic theory was correct, 2500 years ago.  But it took another 2400 years to prove it.  The Bible as we now have it has about the same age.

Always funny how people who aren't even Greek, claim the Greeks as the master race, even though most Greeks thought the early scientists and philosophers were crack pots.

[Drew_2017]

Cont'd Hakurei Reimu

When has anyone who has proposed "Goddidit" ever gone further than "God wanted it to be that way and God had the power to put it that way"? I honestly can't think of one.

There are all kinds of theologies regarding the nature of God that go into great depth about the nature and character of God. God's expectations and all that sort of thing. I'm not a religious believer or a theologian, I'm a theist which is a philosophical position that believes we owe our existence to a Creator commonly referred to as God. I've stated we could owe our existence to a scientist in an alternate universe and theism would still be more accurate. By the way neither belief guarantees we're going to continue to drill down further and get more answers.

By the way what explanation are you hoping natural forces will have?

Have you ever cracked open a science book? Ever? When you consider the principle of relativity (that the laws of the universe don't change when you are moving as opposed to you standing still) and the constancy of the speed of light, then you are forced to conclude that something like special relativity is true for the universe.

I think we're referring to two different types of explanations there are how type explanations and why type explanations. Only a personal agent could possibly have the former type. But either type of explanation allows for how type explanations. If God did cause the universe to exist we are discovering how it works. Whats interesting is that the method of scientific investigation doesn't change depending on whether the phenomenon is believed to be naturally occurring or known to have been designed by sentient beings such as codes and pyramids.

I think you're looking at properties as if they have to be bestowed onto things from an outside source. This is in my opinion philosophical nonsense. A thing wintout properties is simply absurd, because a thing without properties is indistinguishable from nothing at all.

I agree if something exists it makes sense it has properties. I don't know if they have to be bestowed from an outside source. Let me make something clear I'm not suggesting it would be impossible for everything we observe to have been caused by naturalistic forces I just think its unlikely. My mouth (not my money I don't have that much faith) is on theism.

You are so afraid that there isn't an answer, a rhyme and reason to the way the universe works that you have to invent one

.

Ironically its because we have been able to deduce so much primarily because of the laws of nature and is explicable in mathematical terms that it looks more like reverse engineering to me.

Physical laws aren't enforced as such. They are simply always observed to be true. We never observe photons being given a ticket for traveling faster than the speed of light. The nature of the way nature and things in it behave means that some things will happens and others will not. There's no cosmic cop to enforce the laws.

There is no terrestrial cop inside electronics that enforces the flow of electricity, the amount of resistance or capacitance. PCB's were intentionally created to run at certain tolerances per design.

Now you've just gone off the deep end. What these scientists you talk about have power over is the manipulation of a bunch of numbers. That's all these "virtual unverses" are. That's why they're "virtual;" they don't exist in reality by definition. It is hoped that these virtual universes replicate the dynamics of the real universe closely enough so that they can be used as tools for understanding, but no one is fooling themselves into believing they are manipulating a real universe.

I understand as mortal humans we're not able to create a real universe. Nonetheless if one were to consider the plausibility of whether we owe our existence to a creator who caused the universe to exist virtual universes created by scientists, engineers and programmers are a observable simulation of such. Do you think naturalistic forces could given enough time and chance create a virtual universe? You better say yes they could otherwise I'd ask then how could they have created the real universe? I would say you have no better idea how naturalistic forces without plan or intent could create a virtual universe anymore than you have any idea how such could have caused the real universe. You simply short circuit the process by believing that's how it happened.