Discussion in 'Serious' started by Mighty Yoshimi, 4 Aug 2008.
On the contrary, the majority of people will refuse to believe how random everything they see is.
Then that ruins the whole idea, of "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" physically speaking.
I should have been clearer, but I was meaning to point out that there is allot of info that man chooses to hide from the general public. Like allot of the things that go on in freemasonary for example at it's highest world leader level. It's certainly helps control our understanding of science for a kickoff.
You're taking that out of context. That's Newton's third law of forces, and you can't just apply it to anything and everything willy-nilly.
So you're into conspiracies? The Freemasons do not control our understanding of science, most information is not hidden from the general public. I'll agree that governments and media twist truths in favour of themselves or their loyalties, yes, but there is no hidden organisation which controls everything else in the world. Such an organisation would need a tremendous number of people, and an amazing capacity for secrecy which is just unrealistic.
How many things do you apply randomness to then? I was not applying it willy nilly, but to things that happen physically. It is physics after all.
It would have to be a conspiracy if it was not well known about in the case of something big like Masonary. I'm not trying to imply that it's freemasons that do this, but that it is done. Sorry for being unclear about that.
Why would there need to be a tremendous amount of people? There would certainly need to be a certain amount of people from every nation for this to occur. I certainly beleive that the world is becoming more and more controlled and smaller in the sense of nations being united. Certainly technology, currency, future carbon trading etc, are big factors that allow people to recognise how msall, ie controlled the world is becoming.
I think this thread needs some more Terry Pratchett quotes (please: no flames intended, I just like em :O):
"In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded." - Terry Pratchett, (on the big bang theory)
"Seeing, contrary to popular wisdom, isn't believing. It's where belief stops, because it isn't needed any more." - Terry Pratchett, Pyramids
"Gods don't like people not doing much work. People who aren't busy all the time might start to think." - Terry Pratchett, Small Gods
"He says gods like to see an atheist around. Gives them something to aim at." - Terry Pratchett, Small Gods
And one that always makes me laugh:
"The trouble with being a god is that you've got no-one to pray to. " - Terry Pratchett, Small Gods
Now that's out of my system, thanks all for the good read. I'm an Athiest, don't hate Christians and enjoy clubbing. To me: God is a DJ
The existence of a higher being; an omnipotent, all-encompassing symbol of perfection is pretty hard to prove. So for myself: unless she pops round mine for a cream team and scones I don't think I'll be believing in him.
EDIT: gar I think as you believe in God I think you probably find it easier to believe there's some sort of super-secret organisation controlling the world. I'm fairly sure they don't exist, but then I suppose if they did then they wouldn't want us to know. Oh bugger: that could almost end in QED, couldn't it??
Yes, because I beleive in the context of Biblical prophecy, but not because I'll beleive in anything like you seem to be implying.
I wasn't implying that at all.
I do wish you'd spell believe right though, can't believe in God without it. Personally for this type of predicament I believe in Firefox spell-checker
"I think as you believe in God I think you probably find it easier to believe there's some sort of super-secret organisation controlling the world."
Then would you tell me what you are implying by the above quote?
Human logic and understanding is very flawed indeed, but it works enough to fly planes and cure diseases. I guess I'm a pragmatist that way. But it does highlight the point I believe you are making: proof is relative.
As I said: proof is relative. I look at what works in this world. Logic and science make planes fly and cure illnesses. They work, in this world. Moral and ethical principles make for a more functional society in which everybody can be relatively happy. They work, in this world. Certain religious beliefs give people moral and philosophical guidelines and viewpoints that help them maintain a sane and balanced life in an apparrently nonsensical and dangerous universe. They work, in this world.
Certain other religious, scientific or moral beliefs make people commit genocide, oppress people and generally mess things up. They don't work, in this world.
That doesn't mean there is someone doing the controlling; I don't know. All I know is that the planes fly, and illnesses get cured. The point is what works for us, in this world.
You believe in God and the Lord Jesus? That's fine by me if it works for you and does not affect other people negatively. Similarly, if I do not, that should be fine by you if it works for me and does not affect other people negatively. The rest is just personal opinion and no big deal.
The randomness incorporated into quantum mechanics, the heisenberg uncertainty principle, etc. That's what I mean by randomness. When it comes to physics, we can never directly control, we can only manipulate based on what previous observations have suggested should occur.
Not sure what planet you've been on for the last 150 years, but Masonry isn't a particularly big trade anymore. I'm not even sure what you mean by this.
You mean that in order to control the world, and all that occurs therin, you would need a handful of people in each country? How many people do you think there are that are in positions of prominent power? Not to mention any subordinates. In order to co-ordinate a totally international organization which controls a 6.6 billion strong populace, you're going to need an awful lot of people, and some way of ensuring they all keep quiet. It's just not realistic.. Why would anyone even want to control the entire planet from behind the scenes, so to speak? Why do we have government, international councils, economics, international trade? Is it a front? It'd take a hell of a lot of work to build up such a front.
Anthropomorphication? Everything has a reason, therefore an intention, therefore is directed by a mind with intent?
Ah, there's that dodgy human logic again...
The way I see it is that at the end of the day it comes down to motives, actions and consequences. Beliefs affect motives sure, but if your motives and actions are good, i don't see why the beliefs matter, and I certainly don't see the point of ramming those beliefs down others throats. However, I think it can be interesting to debate said beliefs, as long as it does not descend into the usual, 'God doesn't exist, you're an idiot,'and'You're going to hell' arguments.
This is a misapplication of scientific ideas about proving negatives. It doesn't work when you step into ethical/philosophical areas.
And I told myself I'd keep out of this thread. Right. Oh well, it's actually turning out to be a pretty good one, even if Godwin's law has already been invoked.
You don't have to prove anything doesn't exist, like what has been said, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim something does exist, it being ethical/philosophical/scientific doesn't make the slightest bit of difference.
there's no proof god, flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, fairies, the invisible undetectable alien standing right behind you exist.
do we need to go disproving everything that has no evidence for it existing? no
does the person claiming something exists need something to back their claims up? yes
so basically if you say there is a green elephant orbiting the earth then its up to you to prove it, not for me to.
aka if you believe in God AND you want me to, then its up to you to prove it.
however whether or not God exists isn't really what you have to prove is it? all you have to prove is the effect that belief in God has on people. Which on the whole is positive....
Why? Because it is very hard to prove the absence of something.
The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those making the claim which is to the contrary of popular belief or observable truth.
Religion was born when the first smart a** found the first dumbass.
I can't explain why my wacom tablet works. I just use it.
Hm, let me take another step further back, and try explaining again. Who said anything about proving anything? We're talking about religion, ethics, philosophy, morality, whatever you want to call it. And people are saying 'if you don't have scientific proof for it, then I won't believe it'. Fine, if you want to reject anything beyond the physical, be my guest. But there's a reason that this stuff is called metaphysics ('beyond/above physical'), it's mostly concerned with things outside the realm of scientific observation. 'Proof' isn't really the relevant question.
To rephrase it in a totally different way, the 'you believe it, you prove it' argument demands that religion conform to scientific standards. I don't think that is a valid demand. Neither is it valid to expect science to conform to religion - I'm not going to deny the fossil record because the Bible doesn't mention it, but neither am I going to listen when science insists that God/higher beings/higher purposes don't exist because they haven't been proven by scientific standards. Each has their relevant place. There are some intersections between the two, which are very interesting, but I think it's a mistake to let one override the other.
The 'lack of proof' argument also sets up athiesm as the default, which worries me. It seems to be saying that science can't observe god, therefore god doesn't exist. If god doesn't exist, then science is the only guiding light that we have. Therefore we can trust science when it says that god doesn't exist...
If you want to let observation of the physical world dictate your ethical/religious foundation (or lack thereof), I probably can't convince you otherwise. It's not a bad place to start, in my opinion, but exclusive reliance on it for metaphysical matters seems narrow minded to me.
(Edited more than once for clarity. There was a reason I'd resolved to stay out of this debate...)
Separate names with a comma.