[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by REASON

The fact that there are all of these different forms in nature exemplifies that geometric and physical laws are being followed randomly. Otherwise, you would always get the same results.

Chaos has not been replaced by order. Order and chaos occur simultaneously in the universe.

A random cloud of gas and dust may condence to form an orderly, energy producing star, until it explodes or collapses, and randomly disperses elements back into the universe.

I think random is not the best word for the opposite of order, it should be chaos. I can work with that word better because it has some meaning.

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by REASON

The fact that there are all of these different forms in nature exemplifies that geometric and physical laws are being followed randomly. Otherwise, you would always get the same results.

Chaos has not been replaced by order. Order and chaos occur simultaneously in the universe.

A random cloud of gas and dust may condence to form an orderly, energy producing star, until it explodes or collapses, and randomly disperses elements back into the universe.

There would be no manifestation without order. Now chaos may continue to exist at a quantum level, but that does not change the fact that there would be no manifestation without order. If you want to argue this, please begin with the existance of something that does not have order? That would not be a cloud of gas and dust, as there would be no gas or dust, without order.

[InfiniteNow]

Regardless what you call it, none of that evidences the existence of a purple unicorn... erm... I mean, the entinty being described when theists discuss the god concept.

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Regardless what you call it, none of that evidences the existence of a purple unicorn... erm... I mean, the entinty being described when theists discuss the god concept.

The theists do not have the only concept of God. These discussions of God are a waste of time if they are limited to the biblical concept of God. If that is the intention of a discussion of God, it needs to be so stated. Then the question would be, does the God of Abraham exist, not an open does God exist.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Huh? what are you talking about? Form, uh, a dog looks like a dog, not a rock, and a tree has a different from, and as far we know there is not life on the sun, and planets are very different from our own. Manifestation takes many different forms. This is not random, but follows geometric and physical laws.

I was talking about the laws that came into being at eh begining of teh universe. To us the unverse looks as thought it was made just for us, all laws seem to be there fo no reason other than cause us to come about. In reality the reason the laws look like they made for us is because we are already evolved to match the universe as it is. If the universe was different we wouldn't be here to ask the question.

[goku]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

It has nothing to do with stupid and I'm quite sure you know that.

i have no idea what your talking about
but if you ever feel like running around naked just spray windex on yourself







that way you wont streak

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

I was talking about the laws that came into being at eh begining of teh universe. To us the unverse looks as thought it was made just for us, all laws seem to be there fo no reason other than cause us to come about. In reality the reason the laws look like they made for us is because we are already evolved to match the universe as it is. If the universe was different we wouldn't be here to ask the question.

I am also speaking of the laws since the beginning of the universe, and what does our self interest have to do with these laws? We can become extinct and we better respect that. I sure don't see the laws as designed for us, and what does that to do with an argument if God exist, anyway?

As Genhis Khan understood God, he was a sky God who just assume kill pathetic humans. Is it possible to discuss the existence of God, without that concept of God being limited to the God of Abraham? If discussions are limited to the existence of the God of Abraham, would people make this clear by stating it is the God of Abraham people are talking about?
There are other ways to understand God. However, as far as we know, we are the only creatures capable of being conscious of the manifestation of God and this may be very important to the God. Kind of like having awareness of ourselves is important to us.

Note I did not say we are the only creatures capable of knowing God. It is possible there is life such as ours on other planets, and like Q of Star Trek informed us, our continued existence is in question. If we do continue to exist or not, surely depends our ability to understand the laws and to comply with them.

Reason, is the controlling force of the universe. This is not the God of Abraham. We need ancient concepts to have an intelligent discussion of the existence of God. Democracy is about understanding universal laws and basing our own laws on them, and without this understanding democracy has no meaning worthy of taking human life in wars to defend it, or risky one's own life in frontiers to manifest it.

The principle of "twoness" of "otherness", was called Dyad by the Greek philosophers of the five centuries before Christ. They were suspicious of it because it seemed to revolt from unity, distancing inself from the divine Monad. They referred to the Dyad as "audacity" for its boldness in implying a separation from the original whileness and "anguish" due to its invitable yearning to return to unity. It was also called "distress", "falling short", "the lie", and "illusion" since they believed the Monad alone was all. Today, we employ this negative aspect in the derogatory phrase "two-faced" and "speaking with a forked tongue."

The principle of the Dyad is polarity.... The paradox of the Dyad is that while it appears to separate the ;unity, its opposite poles remember their source and attract each other in an attempt to merge and return to that state of unity. quoted from A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe

Now think of the meaning of God and Satan, and Jesus saying to conqure death you only have to die. Can we do this with the past consciousness, instead of our present one? The fall is the original division from monad to dyad, and our condition is the yearning for reunionification. This is not about the God of Abraham, okay?

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by phoenixbyrd

Quarks do exist, but they do not in any way prove magical deities exist and most certainly not the biblical god.

Hell, if we're going to so readily accept that magical deities exist then in turn we must also readily accept that the universe was created at this very moment, with all our memories as is, all previous actions and experiences having never existed prior to this very moment. But that would be a rather large leap of faith wouldn't it?

Hell, why do you insist on a magaical diety explanation of God, instead of a scientific one? The question about quarks is far more worthy of our mental attention than the annoying insistance of arguing over it a magaical diety exists or not. Stop ruining discussion of the existence of God by making it impossible to disucss anything but magical dieties!

[goku]

think about it, why do most if not all people follow at least one of God's 10 comandments?

what is evolution's deffinition of right and wrong?

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by goku

think about it, why do most if not all people follow at least one of God's 10 comandments?

what is evolution's deffinition of right and wrong?

You are assuming that people cannot define right and wrong without religion. I do not choose to follow any commandments, I simply do not feel that harming another person is the right thing to do. I think humans are quite capable of seeing how violence, stealing, taking advantage of another human hurts others not to mention hurts society as a whole. If you cannot see pain in another human and feel it's wrong without being told by someone else then something is wrong with you.

Evolution has no right or wrong, it's not a philosophy nor is it religion, it's simply the way life grows and changes to meet the challenges of a changing environment.

I think that science has had as much of an impact on the evolution of religion as it has on society. Science is what has allowed religion to see it's own faults and change to meet the real needs of people. Religion has been changing drastically ever since science become independent of religion. We have come from burning people at the stake who didn't believe the earth was at the center of the universe or even people who have a different idea of life to a separation of religion in society that allows people to make up their own minds about anything. Science has also caused religion to have to try and convert people by appealing to the people not by coercing them with threats of torture and death. I think this is a good thing, only a religion that is freely chosen is really a religion. Forced belief is not religion, it's a tyranny.