How were you created?

[Reefer Rogue]

How

[junther22]

well when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much they do something called sexual intercourse. then the sperm fertilizes the egg and a babby starts growin

roughly 9 months later the babby is born

well thats how i came to be i dont know about you

[The Marsh Wiggle]

Well see first. God was nice enough to give our ancestors life. Which passed on to us.

[Reefer Rogue]

Well who created you mommy and daddy and theirs etc

Search deeper, I wouldn't just blow off your creation as a joke

People are voting other and not explaining... Tisk tisk :)

[JunkYard]

My daddy and my momma kinda did a dirty dance.
Inbetween the sheets, with shaving cream, in paris france.
Daddy got the lube then momma got the tube;
nine months later I'm sucking milk from momma's boob

Let me tell you bout the birds and the bee's and flowers and the trees . . .

[jammin26]

when your mum and dad know each other for long enough you start to happen and then you come alive and then you see like because you are you

[JunkYard]

Well who created you mommy and daddy and theirs etc

Search deeper, I wouldn't just blow off your creation as a joke

People are voting other and not explaining... Tisk tisk :)


I beleive in creation, Reefer. What's your stance? Sorry bout my tasteless rhyme, bro. I just felt a little condescension coming from the OP. If I'm wrong I appologize.

Junk

[igot4cheep]

Let see... My dad spit some game to my mon and them he hit it. Then cam me.

[Reefer Rogue]

I beleive in creation, Reefer. What's your stance? Sorry bout my tasteless rhyme, bro. I just felt a little condescension coming from the OP. If I'm wrong I appologize.

Junk

How is my post condescending when i put 'how'

My stance is i was created by God.

Make all the sexual intercourse jokes you want, it doesn't offend me, it simply reflects on your maturity to actually think about an issue instead of simply joking it aside, deflecting your thoughs with humour.

I used to be agnostic but now i truly believe i was not just thrown into existence. Ganja is the key to a new understanding of the self, the universe and Jah.

[JunkYard]

How is my post condescending when i put 'how'

My stance is i was created by God.

Make all the sexual intercourse jokes you want, it doesn't offend me, it simply reflects on your maturity to actually think about an issue instead of simply joking it aside, deflecting your thoughs with humour.

I used to be agnostic but now i truly believe i was not just thrown into existence. Ganja is the key to a new understanding of the self, the universe and Jah.

I simply assumed, reefer. Most posts like this are antagonistic towards the creation theory, so I deflected with a crude joke. My appologies, bro. (Again)

I try to avoid arguments as they serve no real purpose, man. I'm happy that you have found your spiritual side, but my maturity is what it is. No one is perfect brother.

All joking aside, I believe that God created all things.


Junk

[Hardcore Newbie]

How is my post condescending when i put 'how'

My stance is i was created by God.

Make all the sexual intercourse jokes you want, it doesn't offend me, it simply reflects on your maturity to actually think about an issue instead of simply joking it aside, deflecting your thoughs with humour.

I used to be agnostic but now i truly believe i was not just thrown into existence. Ganja is the key to a new understanding of the self, the universe and Jah.Yes, jokes mean immaturity. none of us have discussed this much at all in this section of the website. And besides your poll asked how I was created, not people or life in general.

Having said that, my mom and dad boned each other, did the nasty, bumped uglies, horizontal mamboed, and put the penis into the vagina and ejaculated all up in there, got a few tadpole swimmers around the egg and I'm the one that won out :D

[40oz]

I believe god is a creation of Man and life is simply a natural miracle. It's something that should be revered but not taken too seriously.

[4gan2ja0]

my parents banged and TADA!

[krazy chino]

yeah God had my soul resting and he threw me inside a sperm cell and permitted me to win the race and fertalize the egg so my soul could get combine with its other side the "evil side"...............basically God put me in my daddys balls my dad shoots me out (hoping i dont land in a toilet or a napkin like my other dead brothers n sisters) then i combine with my other side and rip thru a vagina

[slipknotpsycho]

uh.. my mom and dad fucked... what else do you want me to tell you? :wtf:

[junther22]

well i would make a serious post about how i and the entire human race came to be but i dont want to start a debate about creationism/evolution so i just used humor to avoid that

[jamstigator]

I was conceived the day JFK was killed, and born nine months later, so I'm going with...I am JFK reincarnated! Now if only I could figure out how to tap into the family fortune! ;)

[Oneironaut]

Well, at the beginning of our observable universe, matter and energy came into existence (without violating the conservation laws regarding the creation of such things, mind you; all the matter and the energy in the universe, when they are added together, equal zero). The universe was mostly hydrogen and helium, which gravity collapsed together into clumps, which became dense enough to undergo nuclear fusion in their cores, synthesizing the heavier elements. The larger stars, the ones with the most heavy elements, end up going supernova and exploding their contents throughout their galactic region. Over a few generations of stars, the new stars now have planetary disks of heavier elements, which was the case with our Sun. Clumps of matter in the solar planetary disk coalesced together by gravity, until many of them had assembled into planets. On Earth, some sort of chemical process occurred where organic molecules became capable of making crude copies of themselves. The molecules which were more accurate and more efficient at self-replication created lots of copies of themselves, and the molecules which weren't died off. Thus began the process of Darwinian natural selection, a powerful process by which energy from the Sun is able to create amazingly complex machines that are extremely efficient at self-replication. Four billion years of that and here our horny asses are.

There is no reason to posit anywhere in this process the intervention of some amazingly complex designer. Consciousness and intelligence are the most complex things we know of in the universe. The purpose of evolution is to explain how complex things like consciousness and intelligence arise from simple beginnings. The "intelligent design" hypothesis is so obviously untrue because its basic argument goes like this:

Gee, wee need to explain how all these complex things like biological organisms, and especially consciousness and intelligence, got here. So let's assume that there was some amazingly complex, conscious, intelligent creature with magical superpowers. We have no idea how he got there. Maybe we weren't meant to know. He invented all these amazingly complex things which are much much less complex than he is.

Really, think about it. Anything complex enough to design and create all of life would have to be much much more complex than even the entirety of life itself. If your main problem with evolution is that it's hard to swallow that complexity can arise from simplicity, you should have a much larger problem with the God hypothesis, which says there is something more complex than life itself that arose from nothingness.

[burnable]

wow oneironaut. that's an astounding combination of practical science and ethereal awareness. I'd give you rep but it wouldn't let me cuz I've given you some recently.

I believe that in some way, our "souls" or some type of awareness existed pre-mortally. I don't think they were ever created though, just recycled from one form of energy to another. One reason I lean that way is by observing the characteristics of each astrological sign. Whether you believe in a daily horoscope or not (which I don't), there are obvious general personality similarities with people born during the same time period in the year, with some exceptions. It indicates to me the possibility that those individuals possessed those attributes pre-earth and somehow were consigned to specific time of year for birth, maybe due to the orbital position of the earth around the sun.

I also believe that in some ineffable way, all human beings and animal beings and plant beings and probably all matter and energy were at one time or will be one great whole and possibly one conscious entity.

These are just my current conjectures about this topic. I like what the 'naut said about how the complexities in conscious life shouldn't encourage you to work backwards from the point of something much more supreme, but rather to look at the foundations of that life to better understand our nature. But like always, our minds have a hard time with infinite matters because all we are capable of perceiving is based in a finite universe and any superior intellect we are capable of is founded on natural, raw molecular material.

[king of the world]

this thread has potential but the immature posts are fucking it up.

[Quantummist]

My mom and dad screwed...

[delusionsofNORMALity]

given the vast amount of time and the infinite number of chances available, i suppose a critter like me was just bound to happen. no deity in its right mind would ever dream up the bizarre mixture of psychosis, logic and infantile humor which continually revolves around what passes for my mind. though i would love to believe that my grand delusions are the planned result of the workings of some ultimate intelligence, i'm afraid we'll just have to blame random chance and chaos's strange sense of humor.

[savagepossum]

(bursts into song) 'When a maaaaannnnnnn!!! loves a woman......

[Reefer Rogue]

Well, at the beginning of our observable universe, matter and energy came into existence (without violating the conservation laws regarding the creation of such things, mind you; all the matter and the energy in the universe, when they are added together, equal zero). The universe was mostly hydrogen and helium, which gravity collapsed together into clumps, which became dense enough to undergo nuclear fusion in their cores, synthesizing the heavier elements. The larger stars, the ones with the most heavy elements, end up going supernova and exploding their contents throughout their galactic region. Over a few generations of stars, the new stars now have planetary disks of heavier elements, which was the case with our Sun. Clumps of matter in the solar planetary disk coalesced together by gravity, until many of them had assembled into planets. On Earth, some sort of chemical process occurred where organic molecules became capable of making crude copies of themselves. The molecules which were more accurate and more efficient at self-replication created lots of copies of themselves, and the molecules which weren't died off. Thus began the process of Darwinian natural selection, a powerful process by which energy from the Sun is able to create amazingly complex machines that are extremely efficient at self-replication. Four billion years of that and here our horny asses are.

There is no reason to posit anywhere in this process the intervention of some amazingly complex designer. Consciousness and intelligence are the most complex things we know of in the universe. The purpose of evolution is to explain how complex things like consciousness and intelligence arise from simple beginnings. The "intelligent design" hypothesis is so obviously untrue because its basic argument goes like this:

Gee, wee need to explain how all these complex things like biological organisms, and especially consciousness and intelligence, got here. So let's assume that there was some amazingly complex, conscious, intelligent creature with magical superpowers. We have no idea how he got there. Maybe we weren't meant to know. He invented all these amazingly complex things which are much much less complex than he is.

Really, think about it. Anything complex enough to design and create all of life would have to be much much more complex than even the entirety of life itself. If your main problem with evolution is that it's hard to swallow that complexity can arise from simplicity, you should have a much larger problem with the God hypothesis, which says there is something more complex than life itself that arose from nothingness.

Thank you for your intelligent and mature post. I respect your opinion, however i just can't believe that we arose from nothing. The universe is too complex to be just a coincidence, imo. That's the kind of response i was looking for, not a stupid post saying my mom banged my dad =/ I just wanted to see other people's views on the subject. However, we came to be i believe we should embrace existence while we are on earth.

[Oneironaut]

I don't think we arose from nothing either. I find it very hard to believe anything can just pop up out of nothing, which is one reason I find it so hard to believe in a God who did precisely that. I can more easily swallow a universe popping out of whatever quantum fluctuation or whatever set the whole thing off, than I can swallow the idea of an already-formed intelligent universe-creator popping out of nowhere, then deciding to pop everything we see into existence.

It's a completely unnecessary step in the process. It would be like a chemist doing an experiment and saying "Gee, I don't know how this particular chemical reaction took place, so I'm going to posit the existence of a super-intelligent chemical reaction creator who popped into existence 2 seconds before the chemical reaction, miracled the chemical reaction into existence, and he needs me to believe in him on faith." The idea of a universe god is as ridiculous to me as the idea of a sun god. People who have no idea how physics work find it hard to imagine that the sun just came into existence by natural physical law, so historically they have often anthropomorphized it and worshiped it, turning it into a god. Nowadays people do the same thing to the whole universe and laugh at the sun gods of our ancestors. Why? Do they know for a fact that there is no sun god? Of course they don't. That doesn't mean anybody should actually take the sun god hypothesis seriously though, until there's some real evidence for a real sun god. Just because you don't understand the physics behind the sun's creation, or the universe's creation (things our human brains did not evolve good equipment for imagining), that doesn't mean at all that a deity is a responsible, any more than it means a swarm of magical fairies is responsible.

[Reefer Rogue]

If you bet on theism and win, what do you gain? Eternal life, infinite reward, an endless positive payoff. And if you lose, you lose nothing. For any pleasures you gave up, there was an acceptable one to substitute. If you bet on god and lose, you won't survive death to discover you lost.

To believe in God means to see that life has a meaning.

[Hardcore Newbie]

If you bet on theism and win, what do you gain? Eternal life, infinite reward, an endless positive payoff. And if you lose, you lose nothing. For any pleasures you gave up, there was an acceptable one to substitute. If you bet on god and lose, you won't survive death to discover you lost.

To believe in God means to see that life has a meaning.That's assuming you know God's heart, which no one can claim.

What if God decided that the only way to get into a "heaven equivalent" was to not worship false gods. If everybody is worshipping Christ, Muhammed, or anything of the sort, then you don't get eternal life.

Maybe god just wants people to be good without being scared into being good.

So to say that the gamble will only pay off for theists is to assume that you know God's heart... you know... if It even exists.

[jamstigator]

The question then becomes, which god? Then you have to sort through all the evidence for god from all the religions to pick the one that seems most probable. But then you discover that none of them actually have an objective repeatable test that there *is* a god, and you have to resort to assuming that they're right. Or 'believing' if you like that word better than 'assuming'. Same thing though.

I suspect if there is a god, he's not going to be that picky. In fact, you might get bonus points and an extra virgin or two to molest if you do good while believing there *is* no god. In other words, do good for its own sake, rather than being told you 'should', or out of fear of eternal damnation or whatnot. And the people who did good to earn 'God points' or to avoid hell perhaps don't get such a good deal. In which case, you might regret believing, and pay for it forever. There's every bit as much evidence that this is the case as there is that it isn't.

[Reefer Rogue]

God is the one and only greatest possible being. (By definition)

A greatest possible being has the greatest form of existence possible, which is necessary existence, or existence in all possible circumstances. (By definition)

It is at least possible that there is a God. (There is a God in some possible set of circumstances, whether they are actual circumstances, or fictional, yet possible, ones)

A god who exists in any possible circumstances exists in all. (From premise 2)

Therefore,

God exists in the actual world. (In the circumstances in which we actually find ourselves)

It is necessary to assume something which is necessary of itself, and has no cause of its necessity outside itself but is rather the cause of necessity in other things. And this a man calls God.

[Hardcore Newbie]

God is the one and only greatest possible being. (By definition)
Who's definition are we going by? Yours? God's? It's certainly not mine.


It is at least possible that there is a God. (There is a God in some possible set of circumstances, whether they are actual circumstances, or fictional, yet possible, ones)
There's a possibility for a Flying Spaghetti Monster too.



A god who exists in any possible circumstances exists in all. (From premise 2)
OYG! FSM exists too!



God exists in the actual world. (In the circumstances in which we actually find ourselves)
Only if one subscribes to your assumptions would they think that.


It is necessary to assume something which is necessary of itself, and has no cause of its necessity outside itself but is rather the cause of necessity in other things. And this a man calls God.So, why is it necessary to assume? You lost me here.

[Reefer Rogue]

Who's definition are we going by? Yours? God's? It's certainly not mine.

The definition of God

There's a possibility for a Flying Spaghetti Monster too.

OYG! FSM exists too!

No, because there is no definition, or essence of a FSM

Only if one subscribes to your assumptions would they think that.

Not necessarily

So, why is it necessary to assume? You lost me here.

We all hold our own assumptions about God because God is necessary in itself due to the definition of God.

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation. (by definition of intelligibility)

2.The existence of the universe this either

a: is unintelligible, or

b: has an explanation (from step 1)

3. No rational person should accept 2-a (by definition of rationality)

4. A rational person should accept 2-b: The universe has an explanaiton

5. There are only three kinds of explantion:

a: scientific: explantions of the form C+L->E (independent initial physical conditions, plus relative laws, yield the event explained)

b: Personal: explantions that cite the desires, beliefs, powers, and intentions of some personal agent.

c: Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existenceor qualities.

6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can't be scientific. (There can't be initial physical conditons and laws independent of what is to be explained)

7. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can't be essential. (the universe is not the sort of thing that exists necessarily.)

Therefore

8. A rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.

9. No personal agent but God could create an entire universe.

Therefore,

10. A rational person should believe that there is a God.

As a house implies a builder, and a garment a weaver, and a door a carpenter, so does the existence of the universe imply a creator.

[Hardcore Newbie]

We all hold our own assumptions about God because God is necessary in itself due to the definition of God.

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation. (by definition of intelligibility)

2.The existence of the universe this either

a: is unintelligible, or

b: has an explanation (from step 1)

3. No rational person should accept 2-a (by definition of rationality)

4. A rational person should accept 2-b: The universe has an explanaiton

5. There are only three kinds of explantion:

a: scientific: explantions of the form C+L->E (independent initial physical conditions, plus relative laws, yield the event explained)

b: Personal: explantions that cite the desires, beliefs, powers, and intentions of some personal agent.

c: Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existenceor qualities.

6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can't be scientific. (There can't be initial physical conditons and laws independent of what is to be explained)

7. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can't be essential. (the universe is not the sort of thing that exists necessarily.)

Therefore

8. A rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.

9. No personal agent but God could create an entire universe.

Therefore,

10. A rational person should believe that there is a God.

As a house implies a builder, and a garment a weaver, and a door a carpenter, so does the existence of the universe imply a creator.But of course God doesn`t need a creator. God is the only thing that gets a free pass on this implication because it suits your view. Why does the rationality stop at god, why can it not stop at the existence of a universe?

[Reefer Rogue]

The existence of God is intelligible not because it was caused by anything or anyone, but because it flows from his essence. God cannot fail to exist. God exists necessarily. It is God's essential nature to exist. And in this regard, God is very different from anything in the universe. God's existence logically follows from God's essence.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Of course it is. The universe's purpose obviously can't be simply to exist. that would negate the need of a god, and we can't have that. Sorry, you can't have that.

[Reefer Rogue]

Hope to see ya on Mt. Zion :rasta:

[Hardcore Newbie]

I guess that means you're done arguing and it isn't illogical for someone to believe that God doesn't exist.

*edit* I'm not saying you're wrong, but to imply that you know the exceptions to rationality is misleading at best.

[MadSativa]

haha what a question......I was forged outta alien steel and a NYC cupcake

[Reefer Rogue]

Of course it is. The universe's purpose obviously can't be simply to exist. that would negate the need of a god, and we can't have that. Sorry, you can't have that.

The point of debating is not to win, rather to become enlightened.

If going by the definition of God, (he is perfect) then for God not to exist would be an imperfection.

I don't expect to convince anyone, i believe what i believe, as do you. We can only gain knowledge from each other's perspective. No one can actually know for a fact, whether or not God actually exists. This leads people to scepticism. Doubt is the vestibule to truth. Like i've said, I used to be agnostic, however, after experimenting with cannabis and reading about the Rastafari (head creator) That really opened up my mind and too many coincidences have happened in my life, i truly believe Jah want I around to fulfil his philosophy and to share that knowledge with anyone who is willing to listen. Spirituality is personal, but is shared by billions of people.

What's wrong with the world is, it's not finished yet.

[Hardcore Newbie]

The point of debating is not to win, rather to become enlightened.

If going by the definition of God, (he is perfect) then for God not to exist would be an imperfection.
That's the whole point of debate, yes. I'm not claiming to *know*, I'm claiming ignorance, and I'm trying to figure out why you say that you do know, and your rationalities for your logic.

Why must there be something perfect in or outside of the universe?


I don't expect to convince anyone, i believe what i believe, as do you. We can only gain knowledge from each other's perspective. No one can actually know for a fact, whether or not God actually exists. This leads people to scepticism. Doubt is the vestibule to truth. Like i've said, I used to be agnostic, however, after experimenting with cannabis and reading about the Rastafari (head creator) That really opened up my mind and too many coincidences have happened in my life, i truly believe Jah want I around to fulfil his philosophy and to share that knowledge with anyone who is willing to listen. Spirituality is personal, but is shared by billions of people.

What's wrong with the world is, it's not finished yet.I'm sceptical myself. If I'm shown otherwise, then I'll be swayed.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

if i were to explain, i would have a tripple bible's worth of spam.


the gist is long too... but here goes.


there is a begining and end to all things, nothing is forever, with the exception of, nothing, itself.

IF there is a begining it is a loop, and nothing marks the end and start of the loop.

because all that which exists is mental, mind stuff, nothing cannot last forever as a time. as the mind stuff become self aware, nothing becomes something, and the spark of evolution of nothing begins, just as it ends after periods of great suffering and strife, couppled with the will to ceace. the mind receeds back into nothing(ness).

HOWEVER, due to the rule of infinity, there are always somethigns and nothings in all infinite ends of the infinite mind, that is to say: there is no period of absolute nothingness over the whole of infinity, a contradiction to the very essence of infinity.
if infinity has no bounds, then the whole of infinity can never be one, or an absolute, but a complete collection of all sects and variations of what we percieve to be chaos.

i came and went from infinity to infinity to infinity, without conscious awareness of my travels, just like all else of infinity fluxuates.

WE are the gods of our bodies, and we symbolise, quite perfectly, the gods of US.

if we were created by some sort of god, then our cells were created by us, worship us, and know nothing about us.

perhaps, to our cells as with us, there is no true order in this life within this realm of infinity. it wont last forever, so when it ends, our energies will move on to open space(s) in other sections of infinity, as it continously fluxuates, infinitely.

[Reefer Rogue]

1. So far as we are able to determine, every highly complex object with intricate moving parts is a product of intelligent design. (The only such objects whose ultimute origin we are sure about are artifacts designed by people.)

2. The universe is a highly complex object with intricate moving parts. (from observation)

Therefore,

3. Probably, the universe is a product of intelligent design. (from steps 1 and 2)

4. No one could design a universe but God (its a big job)

Therefore,

5.Probably, there is a God. (from steps 3 and 4)

The visible order of the universe proclaims a supreme intelligence.

[imitator]

1. So far as we are able to determine, every highly complex object with intricate moving parts is a product of intelligent design. (The only such objects whose ultimute origin we are sure about are artifacts designed by people.)

2. The universe is a highly complex object with intricate moving parts. (from observation)

Therefore,

3. Probably, the universe is a product of intelligent design. (from steps 1 and 2)

4. No one could design a universe but God (its a big job)

Therefore,

5.Probably, there is a God. (from steps 3 and 4)

The visible order of the universe proclaims a supreme intelligence.

Your logic train started at the station, and then crashed horrifically the second it left.

What if everything we see here, right now, was created by intelligent aliens? That would explain the intelligent design, and derail a portion of your arguement.

Essentially, it all comes back to, how did God come to be?

Its has been stated by some here, that there is no way that everything we see in life happened by random, its too complex, and there is too much of it to have just happened by chance. But then, the only being that would be able to create such a thing, well... we dont have to explain that one. We can just say it existed, with no explaination of what created it. Something infinitely more complex then everything we have seen or ever will see, by the definition you and others have given, doesnt need an explaination on how it was created... do you see the problem with the logic there?

What/Who created God? If everything we see here is intelligent design, and required an omnipotent omniprescent being to create it, what created such a being?

And personally, I think that believing in something because if you are right you get rewarded is a bunch of bullshit, to put it lightly. That goes against EVERYTHING that chrisitanity and other religions teach. Its not do good in your life for the chance of infinite candy, its do good for no other reason then to do good, and then you will get candy.

[Reefer Rogue]

The existence of God is intelligible not because it was caused by anything or anyone, but because it flows from his essence. God cannot fail to exist. God exists necessarily. It is God's essential nature to exist. And in this regard, God is very different from anything in the universe. God's existence logically follows from God's essence.

...

[water]

i believe the big bang theory

which means we evolved from a pool of bacteria and evolved over millions of years into smaller mammals and then so on

[imitator]

...

What created gods essence?

We can play this game forever, but linking gods existance back to god itself doesnt work for this excercise, sorry.

What created WHATEVER it is that you have to explain gods existance?

Saying that he is required, or always existed, just cant work logically with all the conclusions you yourself made earlier about this universe. Something so complex, so amazing on every level, had to have been created by something, right? Well I cant think of anything, by definition, more amazing and complex then God, so what created him, since anything so complex and amazing had to have been created by something?

If god can just exist, why cant this universe just exist?

[Hardcore Newbie]

What created gods essence?

We can play this game forever, but linking gods existance back to god itself doesnt work for this excercise, sorry.

What created WHATEVER it is that you have to explain gods existance?

Saying that he is required, or always existed, just cant work logically with all the conclusions you yourself made earlier about this universe. Something so complex, so amazing on every level, had to have been created by something, right? Well I cant think of anything, by definition, more amazing and complex then God, so what created him, since anything so complex and amazing had to have been created by something?
Exactly, saying that God is necessary is the same as saying the universe is necessary, or the atom is necessary.

You can play madlibs and make the same argument.

[ganjzilla]

i believe my god created me...of course after my mom and dad did the nasty

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

i believe the big bang theory

which means we evolved from a pool of bacteria and evolved over millions of years into smaller mammals and then so on


1. what started the big bang? what was there before hand?

2. have you read about the big bong yet?

[Reefer Rogue]

I myself believe that the evidence for God lies primarily in inner personal experiances. It is the heart which experiances God, and not with reason.

1. Every being is either dependent or self-existent.

2. Not every being can be dependent

Thus,

3. There is a self-existent being.

Because of the principal of sufficient reasoning, step 1 rules out ther being anything that is explained by nothing. A dependent being is explained by something else. A self existent being is self explanitory, or necessary.

Step 2 results from this reasoning: If all beings were dependent, then there would be one positive fact--that these beings exist at all--that would have no explanation, and this is ruled out by PSR also; that fact can only be explained by a nondependent being, thus 2 is true.

And step 3 follows from 1 and 2. There is no reason to think that anything in the universe, or the total composed of these things, is self existent, thus there must be a GOd outside the system of dependent being who created them. The universe doesn't exist necessarily, it is not the universe's essence to exist. It's concept does not logically imply its reality in all sets of possible circumstances. And that is different from the concept of God as a greatest possible being.

[Hardcore Newbie]

1. Every being is either dependent or self-existent.Where did you get this from?


Step 2 results from this reasoning: If all beings were dependent, then there would be one positive fact--that these beings exist at all--that would have no explanation, and this is ruled out by PSR also; that fact can only be explained by a nondependent being, thus 2 is true.
If a microscopic being comes into existence (chemical reaction maybe), it either eats or dies. Therefore it is entirely possible that dependant life is the first life

[quote=Reefer Rogue]There is no reason to think that anything in the universe, or the total composed of these things, is self existent, thus there must be a GOd outside the system of dependent being who created them. The universe doesn't exist necessarily, it is not the universe's essence to exist. It's concept does not logically imply its reality in all sets of possible circumstances. And that is different from the concept of God as a greatest possible being.[quote=Reefer Rogue]Where did you pull that from? Since when did you know the reason for the universe? Why doesn't every philosopher come to you for answers, since you know so much about the necessity, or lack thereof, of the universe?

[JohnHerer]

My mom and dad combined their egg and sperm.

[Pass That Shit]

But of course God doesn`t need a creator. God is the only thing that gets a free pass on this implication because it suits your view. Why does the rationality stop at god, why can it not stop at the existence of a universe?



It doesn't stop at God. If I didn't believe that God created the world, I could easily accept that the world has always been.
But since I know that God created heaven and the earth, and the world was formed by God, I know that God existed before the heaven and the earth.

But who's to say that the universe hasn't always been? God is invisible. Why can't Gods' existence consist of the universe? To me, it's very logical that the universe is a part of God's existence. I mean since God always existed, didn't he need to be somewhere? I think God always existed in the universe. I think that if God is eternal, so is the universe. Food for thought. :jointsmile:

[Reefer Rogue]

Imagine that you're walking along in a field, and you come upn a watch on the ground. You pick it up and admire its complexity, apparently contrived by an intelligent designer for a particular purpose - that of telling time. It would not occur to you to imagine that such an object had literally been there forever and had never been brought into existence at all. That would be ludicrous.

Nor would it enter your mind that such a complex set of interworking parts just happened to come into their structural relationship and thus come into being as a watch merely by the outworkings of chance.

You'd assume instead that the mechanism had been designed and assembled by a highly intelligent and very skilled being - a person - and that it was such a being who most likely was responsible in some way for its being in the field.

The natural world around us contains many apparently complex and seemingly well-designed working structures that appear to serve well various purposes. Again, it is improbable that these natural processes and structures have been here forever or ot have been produced by blind chance, as it would the watch to either lie in the field forever, or to have come together by chance. The conclusion, is there is a divine watchmaker, a divine designer, behind the mechanisms of nature responsible for the designs we see there.

As a house imples a builder, and a garment a weaver, and a door a carpenter, so does the existence of the Universe imply a creator.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Imagine that you're walking along in a field, and you come upn a watch on the ground. You pick it up and admire its complexity, apparently contrived by an intelligent designer for a particular purpose - that of telling time. It would not occur to you to imagine that such an object had literally been there forever and had never been brought into existence at all. That would be ludicrous.
But if I walked through a field and picked up.... let's say, a rock, would I come to the same conclusion? One could literally come to the conclusion that "Wow, this thing seems like it's been here forever!" Your example only works if one picks up an object that they deem to be complex.


Nor would it enter your mind that such a complex set of interworking parts just happened to come into their structural relationship and thus come into being as a watch merely by the outworkings of chance.Given billions of years (and billions more), sure. Since time keepers exist naturally in the real world (like the quartz from a watch), why can something not happen accidentally? there have been many inventions that happened from accidents, not every invention was thought up for a specific purpose.

Would a watch be crafted the way a human would make it? probably not, but could something arise that has the same function. Again, quartz is a good example. it keeps time because of its vibrations. our invention turns the quartz' vibration into the way we keep time.


The natural world around us contains many apparently complex and seemingly well-designed working structures that appear to serve well various purposes. Again, it is improbable that these natural processes and structures have been here forever or ot have been produced by blind chance, as it would the watch to either lie in the field forever, or to have come together by chance. The conclusion, is there is a divine watchmaker, a divine designer, behind the mechanisms of nature responsible for the designs we see there. Again, complex is generally subjective and in the eye of the beholder.

The wheel could be viewed as complex, yet can occur naturally. A somewhat straight tree, on its side, functions as a wheel.

Levers can occur naturally. A Tree that falls onto a rock can become a lever.

So wheels and levers have existed for quite some time, man just figured out how to use what was already there.


As a house imples a builder, and a garment a weaver, and a door a carpenter, so does the existence of the Universe imply a creator.do you copy and paste this?

I have no problem in someone believing that the universe was intelligently, that's fine. But to say that it was the *only* way, and then to say that you know *for sure*, and then proceed to *know* what is in this beings heart, drawn on conclusions based from assumptions... that is something that I have a problem with.

[Pass That Shit]

I was just saying that since God is omnipotent, he is the universe. The universe is filled with his presence. There had to be substance and evidence of his existence. I'm not saying that the universe is where "God dwells", I'm saying that he was always there. Therefore his existence (substance and evidence) was always present. You can't put a beginning to his existence, nor did he need anything for him to exist. I'm saying that what we see as "life" has always been, cause he has always been. I'm reasoning because the word "universe" is not in the bible. I think that what man has labeled universe, has always been there. This is different than him creating the heavens and the earth. I'm just saying that his presence was always there, so why do we have to put a beginning to the universe?

[palerider7777]

Yes, jokes mean immaturity. none of us have discussed this much at all in this section of the website. And besides your poll asked how I was created, not people or life in general.

Having said that, my mom and dad boned each other, :D

boned each other?? only men can bone...am i missing something ??daddy/ daddy=mommy?? who knows

[palerider7777]

Given billions of years (and billions more), sure. Since time keepers exist naturally in the real world (like the quartz from a watch), why can something not happen accidentally? there have been many inventions that happened from accidents, not every invention was thought up for a specific purpose.

Would a watch be crafted the way a human would make it? probably not, but could something arise that has the same function. Again, quartz is a good example. it keeps time because of its vibrations. our invention turns the quartz' vibration into the way we keep time.

Again, complex is generally subjective and in the eye of the beholder.

The wheel could be viewed as complex, yet can occur naturally. A somewhat straight tree, on its side, functions as a wheel.

Levers can occur naturally. A Tree that falls onto a rock can become a lever.

So wheels and levers have existed for quite some time, man just figured out how to use what was already there.

do you copy and paste this?

I have no problem in someone believing that the universe was intelligently, that's fine. But to say that it was the *only* way, and then to say that you know *for sure*, and then proceed to *know* what is in this beings heart, drawn on conclusions based from assumptions... that is something that I have a problem with.

really anything worth using was crafted by people, and with out manipulation of diffrent things nothing would exist. so wrong again as usual, cause it takes something with a brain or higher knowledge to try diffrent things out or there would still be just trees and rocks.so from the way u believe if we wait long enough buildings will build them selfs like humans evolved into them selfs right i mean if u wait long enough the food will cook it's self too i bet the bottom line is if sumthing with a higher knowledge does'nt manipulate "matter" meaning god then none of this would be here now.name 1 thing that man has not touched that has advanced humans foward in anyway??

[Ganj]

You want deep, Reefer Rogue?

I merely cultivated from the land. I'm a biological product of the planet's waste. Actually, no. I was hand crafted by the Lord. He stuck his mighty fingertips into clay, brought them to a point and viola! A spiritual being was created.

[GROWin GRACE]

God created Adam out of the dust of the ground and we are all offsprings of him. :s2:

[Reefer Rogue]

How was the universe and humanity created except for God? Has it been here forever? Has humanity? What was before the big bang? It seems illogical that i was simply thrown into existence, on a whim, on a chance.

[GraziLovesMary]

I coallesced into existence some 3.4 million years ago from hydrogen and oxygen.

[LA.Jgirl]

Whoa I reckon Iâ??m going to have to smoke a bit before I can join this conversation. Glad I found this place. Good ADULT conversation. On the other message boards that I am a member of must of the conversations seem to revolve around stupid childish mess, and most of the posters are adults. This topic is something I have thought long and hard about.

[40oz]

really anything worth using was crafted by people, and with out manipulation of diffrent things nothing would exist. so wrong again as usual, cause it takes something with a brain or higher knowledge to try diffrent things out or there would still be just trees and rocks.so from the way u believe if we wait long enough buildings will build them selfs like humans evolved into them selfs right i mean if u wait long enough the food will cook it's self too i bet the bottom line is if sumthing with a higher knowledge does'nt manipulate "matter" meaning god then none of this would be here now.name 1 thing that man has not touched that has advanced humans foward in anyway??

This post is a disaster for your argument. First off, trees and plants are very complex organisms, and since you seem to be able to grasp the idea that they are the offspring of the earth there should be no problem seeing how humans came from the same place.

Your examples to try to make hardcore newb look dumb actually sort of make you look dumb. Buildings and food are not living organisms so they will never in millions of years be able to build themselves or cook themselves.

I think the belief in god is a by-product of our powerful brains. Humans are so smart that they are able to stop and think "what am I doing here? What is this for?" No other animal (as far as I know) has this ability. They all just live and keep on living.

I think this is the same reason only humans commit suicide. Our brains can comprehend what life is to the point that we realize we don't have to live, and we don't have to push forward. Animals, who act mostly on instincts and cannot think about their lives introspectively don't realize this. All they know is that they are alive and they want to stay that way.

So when humans need a way to explain why we are here and how we are here, the idea of an all powerful god who created us seems to answer those questions fairly easily.

[jdmarcus59]

just to prove that us christian also have a sence of humor, let me say this.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..................and thats all I got to say about that.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

i had a sense of humor, it was my 8'th sense.

everyone has a 6'th sense, it's called communication.

my 7'th sense was, and now it isnt.

but i dont know what.

[Hardcore Newbie]

This post is a disaster for your argument. First off, trees and plants are very complex organisms, and since you seem to be able to grasp the idea that they are the offspring of the earth there should be no problem seeing how humans came from the same place.

Your examples to try to make hardcore newb look dumb actually sort of make you look dumb. Buildings and food are not living organisms so they will never in millions of years be able to build themselves or cook themselves.

I think the belief in god is a by-product of our powerful brains. Humans are so smart that they are able to stop and think "what am I doing here? What is this for?" No other animal (as far as I know) has this ability. They all just live and keep on living.

I think this is the same reason only humans commit suicide. Our brains can comprehend what life is to the point that we realize we don't have to live, and we don't have to push forward. Animals, who act mostly on instincts and cannot think about their lives introspectively don't realize this. All they know is that they are alive and they want to stay that way.

So when humans need a way to explain why we are here and how we are here, the idea of an all powerful god who created us seems to answer those questions fairly easily.Palerider seems to have a grudge with everyone that disagrees with him on anything, i honestly don't even bother reading his posts anymore.

I did read it in the quote tho, and i was amusing.

Food can't cook itself? Ever heard of a fire? :p An animal just needs to be dead and near fire to cook itself, maybe even alive.

Dwellings exist naturally as well (caves)

And catapults even exist in nature, by chance. Do I expect to see houses build themselves? No. But if we live in an infinite universe, then of course it's possible. If you disagree, then you have no understanding of what the word infinite means.


name 1 thing that man has not touched that has advanced humans foward in anyway??how can something "advance" humankind if we don't touch or use it?

[Hardcore Newbie]

How was the universe and humanity created except for God? Has it been here forever? Has humanity? What was before the big bang? It seems illogical that i was simply thrown into existence, on a whim, on a chance.You've gone from making faulty step by step conclusions to this? I guess if there are no steps, there's less to pick apart :p

And I'm just curious, why is it that if you are not created by god, then you are thrown into existence? it seems to me to be created by god just as aptly describes the action of being thrown into existence. What if god decided that he wanted to make popples instead of peoples because he wanted a laugh? Wait, maybe that's why he did create us :P

[Reefer Rogue]

The thing is, i've given many arguements, logical ones in my opinion, as to why i believe there is a God. It's easy to criticize but it's a lot harder to propose your own theory isn't it?

Being created and thrown into existence are two different ideas. One is saying I was created by a divine being and explains how i am here today. The other is saying that it is by chance i am here and really explains nothing imo. I used those words carefully in my poll because they are the words of athiest existentialist Sartre and notions from Kierkegard, whom i disagree with on this respect but agree with others.

[Hardcore Newbie]

The thing is, i've given many arguements, logical ones in my opinion, as to why i believe there is a God. It's easy to criticize but it's a lot harder to propose your own theory isn't it?
You know what's easier? admitting that you don't know and just think about it. Remembering that you don't know, and that you (nor anyone else) probably never will. Discussing what you don't know as a matter of opinion, and not a matter of fact. And have some fun conversations with those that do not agree, but have no facts either. Just a collection of ideas to share with each other, and burning some herb.

Yes, I'm very high right now, this shit gets me thinking sometimes :p


Being created and thrown into existence are two different ideas. One is saying I was created by a divine being and explains how i am here today. The other is saying that it is by chance i am here and really explains nothing imo. I used those words carefully in my poll because they are the words of athiest existentialist Sartre and notions from Kierkegard, whom i disagree with on this respect but agree with others.I have no idea who those guys are, but the idea I get of creation is *POOF* magically appearing. Kind of a silly sight :)

[Reefer Rogue]

I know i don't know for a fact there is a God, what i propose is rationally philosophy as to explain why i think my beliefs are justified. However, i do not have to justify my beliefs to myself, I know what i believe and am content in life. Some may see the idea of creation as silly, yet i think a lack of creation is silly, lol. We can only continue to ponder until death, which all men face, no matter how rich or poor. This is inevitable. For the athiests, what is the meaning to life, why and more importantly how are we here? I've said it before but believing in God is believing that there is meaning to life, i completely reject nihilism.

[angry nomad]

My parents went on vacation to New Zealand. They relaxed and had a "good time".

[Hardcore Newbie]

I know i don't know for a fact there is a God, what i propose is rationally philosophy as to explain why i think my beliefs are justified. However, i do not have to justify my beliefs to myself, I know what i believe and am content in life. Some may see the idea of creation as silly, yet i think a lack of creation is silly, lol. We can only continue to ponder until death, which all men face, no matter how rich or poor. This is inevitable. For the athiests, what is the meaning to life, why and more importantly how are we here? I've said it before but believing in God is believing that there is meaning to life, i completely reject nihilism.I can't speak for all atheists, but I believe the meaning of life is to live. that's it. enjoy it while you're here, you might not get a second chance.

[angry nomad]

You cannot disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Oh I love him and believe in him so. I challenge any other religion to disprove the existence of the FSM. Ramen.

[Hardcore Newbie]

You cannot disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Oh I love him and believe in him so. I challenge any other religion to disprove the existence of the FSM. Ramen.A fellow Pastafarian! Good eats to you my friend. I take it you've been touched by his noodley appendages?

[Myself]

After 14.6 billion years my soul decided to settle on this planet to live out multiple lifetimes. My existence has been, and always will be. I am more than just my body, I am an ethereal being that has traveled to this planet to learn. We come and go, until our human consciousness has faded and we become aware of all that is (enlightenment). Until my shells die, and my ego released...I will stay on this planet for generations to come. Then I will return to what was, and be used to support the wholeness of this universe.





Just a lil' sumthin' inspired by the words of David R. Hawkings ( I )

[40oz]

For the athiests, what is the meaning to life, why and more importantly how are we here? I've said it before but believing in God is believing that there is meaning to life, i completely reject nihilism.

Why does life need predetermined meaning? I think the point of life is to just live. You can find your own meanings along the way.

I guess it is hard for some people to swallow but maybe there is no reason we are here. Maybe there is no greater purpose for our existence. This could be depressing to some, but think of it this way; all this life is is what you get out of it. It's a chance to actually see what the sunset looks like, a chance to experience what love feels like, a chance to explore the physical world and to find all the beauty it has to offer.

[Reefer Rogue]

If you know anything about existentialism, them you know that you should reject nihilism. I believe the meaning of life to be subjective. I believe we create our own meaning of life through the choices we make. I believe the meaning of life is to live in peace by following the philosophy of Jesus Christ, Jah. No one has convinced me that there is not a God or ever shall. All things speak of God. I find in the universe so many forms of order, organisation, system law, and adjustment of means to ends, that I believe in a cosmic intelligence and I concienve God as the life, mind, order, and law of the world. Let us weigh the gain and loss, in wagering that God is. Consider these alternatives: if you win, you win all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Do not hesitate, then, to wager that He is. When you have succeeded in enshrining God within your heart, you will see Him everywhere.

'It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe without the agency of a supreme being.' - George Washington

[Hardcore Newbie]

I disagree with existentialism as it has been summarized to me. To not care about life because you believe in nothing afterwards seems silly to me. If in fact there is nothing after this, then you should cherish life while you have it.


Let us weigh the gain and loss, in wagering that God is. Consider these alternatives: if you win, you win all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Do not hesitate, then, to wager that He isplease please please don't use this argument. We are both gambling in regards to faith and gods, I just believe in one less God than you do. And the "gambling" aspect only works if the faith you choose is true.

It's entirely as conceivable that there is a God that wants people to realize morals on their own, rather than through fear. God may or may not punish anyone based on their beliefs if such a God exists. So to say that betting on God is the winning bet, would be the exact same as me saying that disbelief and scepticism are the winning bet(s).

'Anything is possible' - Me.

[Hardcore Newbie]

I had a funny thought with the gambling thing.

imagine going to a casino with some chips, waiting to play the million numbered roulette. You want to bet on a few numbers to increase your odds, but the casino tells you that with certain numbers, you can only bet on those numbers and no others. If you do, you automatically lose the bet. And they tell you they'll let you know if you've won when you die :p

This isn't meant to illustrate anything really, it was just a funny thought.

[hippiemommaida]

I was planted by aliens, man:hippy:

[afghooey]

Other: There was no beginning.

[Reefer Rogue]

Life is a gamble. We're always placing our bets. Very little is certain in this world. We live and breathe probabilities. We are constantly making rational calculations as to what we need to do, and how we should structure our lives, in order to secure the goals that we value. We are always wagering our time and energy on one strategy or another in pursuit of our own hopes and dreams. To be alive at all involves some risk.

Life is process. We are always pursuiing goals and placing our bets on what will work and what's not worth our trouble. We are engaged in that process every day. But, we are also typically engaged in avoidance behavioir concerning some of the things that really matter most. We sleepwalk through life. I believe that the deepest reality is spirituality. We can live on a physical level, and even on an intellectual level, and miss it completely. They physical is the level of the body, the intellectual is the level of the mind. But the spiritual is the level of the heart, that core capacity we all have where thought and feeling and will all come together.

If you bet on athiesm and win, then what do you win? Not much. Perhaps any sense pleasures that you indulged yoursefl in within the confines of this life that you would have avoided for moral reasons if you had been making the contrary bet. But, in the end, you wouldn't know that you won. So you won't even have the pleasure of knowing you were right.

Everyone has self interest and that's in no way an immoral or unworthy attitude.

[rocktheganj]

i'm actually a government experiment. i was grown in a jar of organic matter, and as such, i have neither a belly button, nor nipples.

[mfqr]

well when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much they do something called sexual intercourse. then the sperm fertilizes the egg and a babby starts growin

roughly 9 months later the babby is born

well thats how i came to be i dont know about you

What he said ^

I really don't understand how people can believe in God. It's a delusion. Seriously, how can anyone believe such a thing, when absolutely no concrete evidence exists for it?

[Reefer Rogue]

I think there are more people that believe in a creator then who don't. Athiesm is an urban phenomenon.

[Hardcore Newbie]

I believe that the deepest reality is spirituality. We can live on a physical level, and even on an intellectual level, and miss it completely. They physical is the level of the body, the intellectual is the level of the mind. But the spiritual is the level of the heart, that core capacity we all have where thought and feeling and will all come together.
I equate the spiritual with the emotional. If you think I'm wrong, that's fine, but we live for each other. Extended isolation is considered the cruelest of punishments. When we send people to jail for murder, you'd think that the best thing would be to keep bad people away from each other, but no, that's too cruel. People get lonely when they have no other murderers and rapists to talk to. We live for each other's company.


If you bet on athiesm and win, then what do you win? Not much.Did you even read my last post?


It's entirely as conceivable that there is a God that wants people to realize morals on their own, rather than through fear. God may or may not punish anyone based on their beliefs if such a God exists. So being right and having the "winning" bet might be two different things. Who says there isn't a "heaven" that accepts moral atheists and the like?


Perhaps any sense pleasures that you indulged yoursefl in within the confines of this life that you would have avoided for moral reasons if you had been making the contrary bet.
I take deep issue with this. Not listneing to the bible is NOT equal to no morals. I'm not going to do something I consider immoral because I'm an atheist. I might do something that the Bible considers immoral, because the Bible isn't the be all and end all to morality. There is nothing immoral about premarital sex. The only argument against it is "the bible said so". That's not a very good argument in my eyes.


But, in the end, you wouldn't know that you won. So you won't even have the pleasure of knowing you were right.

And again, there are more than two bets. Did you retain any information about my last post at all? How can you make a good bet when you only see two of the near-infinite amount of choices? Not that my bet's any better, but I can tell you that I see many more than just two choices.

[Hardcore Newbie]

I think there are more people that believe in a creator then who don't. Athiesm is an urban phenomenon.1/6th of the world is either atheist or agnostic. Yes, the believers outweigh the non-believers. That doesn't make either faction any more or less right.

[Reefer Rogue]

There are only 2 choices, either there is a divine creator, or there isn't. The wager appeals to as many people as possible, the more rational person places his bet on God, realising that serving the Lord serves the self interest, which everyone shares, because there is promise of the afterlife. More people believing means more people believe, it doesn't make them right or wrong because we know God can't be definitively proven or disproven. You don't bet on God out of fear but out of love and faith and rationality when you comprehend what athiesm offers you holisticly. Athiests can be as moral as christians. The bible isn't the be all, end all. It's a lot of things. It gives wisdom and advice about moraility. Every choice we make, we make alone, God does not make it for us nor does another man. We are condemned to freedom and therefore responsible for our actions. I don't think pre marital sex is wrong, i don't have to believe that to think i and the universe was created.

[Hardcore Newbie]

There are only 2 choices, either there is a divine creator, or there isn't. The wager appeals to as many people as possible, the more rational person places his bet on God, realising that serving the Lord serves the self interest, which everyone shares, because there is promise of the afterlife.Again, that's assuming that God wants or requires your worship. What if God despised your worship? It's not such a definite "yes or no" gamble, as you're trying to state. Believing that there is a God, is completely different than saying that you believe God has an afterlife for people who worship It.

If there is a God, that doesn't automatically mean that you get to heaven, even assuming that you've met what you perceive as the requirements. What you perceive as requirements may in reality be quite different to what the actual requirements are, again assuming It's set up such an afterlife in the first place.



More people believing means more people believe, it doesn't make them right or wrong because we know God can't be definitively proven or disproven. You don't bet on God out of fear but out of love and faith and rationality when you comprehend what athiesm offers you holisticly.
Just to be clear, I'm not an atheist. I'm agnostic. I'm claiming ignorance. I'm not betting at all, I refused to play the game in the first place. Now that in itself may be a bet at the wheel, but it's got the exact same odds as the bet that you're making.

Who knows, maybe you get to place your bet after the wheel has been spun (after death, in case that wasn't clear), so to speak. So "rationally", as you like to put it, I may actually have the best chance of receiving a good afterlife.



Athiests can be as moral as christians. The bible isn't the be all, end all. It's a lot of things. It gives wisdom and advice about moraility. Every choice we make, we make alone, God does not make it for us nor does another man. We are condemned to freedom and therefore responsible for our actions. I don't think pre marital sex is wrong, i don't have to believe that to think i and the universe was created.If you believe the world was created, so be it. I've wouldn't want to argue that viewpoint. It's when you go beyond that single viewpoint that I call things into question. I hope you can see in this post that I'm arguing the philosophies you present that you believe this creator would posses, and saying that you have the rational conclusion, when it seems you haven't thought things out nearly enough.

[Reefer Rogue]

Again, that's assuming that God wants or requires your worship. What if God despised your worship? It's not such a definite "yes or no" gamble, as you're trying to state. Believing that there is a God, is completely different than saying that you believe God has an afterlife for people who worship It.

God does want us to worship him, why would God despise someone worshipping him? It would be the opposite. If you beleive in God then it follows that you believe in the afterlife. It follows that if you worship God then you become one with God in the afterlife.

If there is a God, that doesn't automatically mean that you get to heaven, even assuming that you've met what you perceive as the requirements. What you perceive as requirements may in reality be quite different to what the actual requirements are, again assuming It's set up such an afterlife in the first place.

No, it doesn't. You have to believe in God and praise him to get in heaven. You can't just claim to believe in God, you must practise your faith to be recognized. What i percieve as the requirements are layed out in the bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Just to be clear, I'm not an atheist. I'm agnostic. I'm claiming ignorance. I'm not betting at all, I refused to play the game in the first place. Now that in itself may be a bet at the wheel, but it's got the exact same odds as the bet that you're making.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Who knows, maybe you get to place your bet after the wheel has been spun (after death, in case that wasn't clear), so to speak. So "rationally", as you like to put it, I may actually have the best chance of receiving a good afterlife.

Maybes and mays aren't the best terms for rationality. Fundamentally, we should work with facts, or logical conclusions.

If you believe the world was created, so be it. I've wouldn't want to argue that viewpoint. It's when you go beyond that single viewpoint that I call things into question. I hope you can see in this post that I'm arguing the philosophies you present that you believe this creator would posses, and saying that you have the rational conclusion, when it seems you haven't thought things out nearly enough.

I go beyond that single viewpoint because there are many views from different people about the origins of God, so i made some available in this thread. Are they infallible? No. Do they make you think? Yes. And this my friend is all we can do and all we can know, that we are thinking, all the time. How we recieved this power is up to ponder.

[Hardcore Newbie]

I go beyond that single viewpoint because there are many views from different people about the origins of God, so i made some available in this thread. Are they infallible? No. Do they make you think? Yes. And this my friend is all we can do and all we can know, that we are thinking, all the time. How we recieved this power is up to ponder.
It's fine to make people think, but claiming that the "rational" conclusion was to believe in God is ignorant at best. That's what I took issue with.

[Reefer Rogue]

How does a rational gamber place his bets? Not always on the contender most likely to win, suprisingly enough. Not always on the option with the highest purse. A rational gamber seeks to maximise his/her gains over the long run and tends to place his bets in accordance with what is known now as expected value and is determined by the formula:

Bet: (chance X payoff) - cost = expected value.

Rational wagering is not always in accordance with chance only, or with payoff only, or even with cost only. It is a function of all three.

Eternal life may be a gift, but it can only be given to someone capable of recieving it. The wager is meant to break any tie in evidential considerations between athiesm and theism.

[greenbeard]

As a buddhist, I believe that I am a creation of my own mind. Therefore I created myself and the world around me. Ask me my views and I will say, "There is no God, and I am Him."

Basically, I am Buddha.

[afghooey]

I'd like to pose a question.

You refer to the choice between atheism and belief as a wager, where on one side one has everything to gain, and on the other one has everything to lose.

But isn't the act of believing in God solely for one's own purposes (IE: the benefit of one's purportedly immortal soul), rather selfish? It doesn't matter whether it's the fear of hell or the desire for heaven that leads you to your belief. If you look at it as a bet, a wager, you're always looking at what is to be gained and lost for you.

And what if someone uses rational thinking to compare atheism and belief, and decides... "Well, maybe it's so. Maybe if I believe in a higher power, I will have more to gain than if I didn't." Then what? They might try to believe, though perhaps other rational thoughts may contradict this new line of thinking. But the very act of trying, all other goals regarding gain and loss aside, implies insincerity. If you try to love someone, do you really love them? If you try to believe, do you really believe? And even when you believe, there is always doubt, because belief is not the same thing as knowledge.

Can you choose to love God? Is it really that easy? Remember, the very act of trying implies failure. Likewise, should morals be a means to an end? Or should they flow naturally, incidental to your love for God?

[Hardcore Newbie]

How does a rational gamber place his bets? Not always on the contender most likely to win, suprisingly enough. Not always on the option with the highest purse. A rational gamber seeks to maximise his/her gains over the long run and tends to place his bets in accordance with what is known now as expected value and is determined by the formula:

Bet: (chance X payoff) - cost = expected value.

Rational wagering is not always in accordance with chance only, or with payoff only, or even with cost only. It is a function of all three. I take it you play poker?

And regardless, in order to make a rational decision on betting, you have to know the odds. Do you claim to know them?

It seems that you're willing to dedicate your life to God (I think, correct me if I'm wrong). So we know what you're willing to give up (the wager or cost) but that might not be all that you are wagering, you may unknowingly be wagering your afterlife. Your bet may unknowingly cost your soul. We don't know the odds of the bet, and we don't even know the payout.

There is no "rational" edge in a bet with unknown odds, an infinite amount of payouts which may include negative 'prizes', and you aren't even sure of what you're wagering. You're taking a stab in the dark, as am I. Neither of our bets have an advantage because neither of us even knows the game we're playing, assuming there is one.


Eternal life may be a gift, but it can only be given to someone capable of recieving it. The wager is meant to break any tie in evidential considerations between athiesm and theism.
And I've already shown you that an atheist is capable of receiving eternal life, if such a creator deemed it the qualification of eternal life. You haven't argued my previous point, but it seems like you keep stating that betting on theism is the probable winning bet.

[Reefer Rogue]

I'd like to pose a question.

You refer to the choice between atheism and belief as a wager, where on one side one has everything to gain, and on the other one has everything to lose.

It's called 'Pascals Wager' if you wanna look it up and it's criticisms.

But isn't the act of believing in God solely for one's own purposes (IE: the benefit of one's purportedly immortal soul), rather selfish? It doesn't matter whether it's the fear of hell or the desire for heaven that leads you to your belief. If you look at it as a bet, a wager, you're always looking at what is to be gained and lost for you.

Everyone has their own self interests and this is in no way immoral. If one's self interests include choosing to serve a God and choosing to believe in the afterlife, then what is selfish about that? I believe it would be selfish of me not to share this information with people.

And what if someone uses rational thinking to compare atheism and belief, and decides... "Well, maybe it's so. Maybe if I believe in a higher power, I will have more to gain than if I didn't." Then what?

Then you will share a belief held by millions of others. Does this necessarily mean anything? It depends on your perception. People make choices depending on what interests them and what they view as valuable. The point of the wager is why not bet on god? What's there to lose? There is more to lose in terms of afterlife if you are wrong when betting against God. If you win while betting on athiesm, you don't get to know you won, so what's the point?

They might try to believe, though perhaps other rational thoughts may contradict this new line of thinking. But the very act of trying, all other goals regarding gain and loss aside, implies insincerity. If you try to love someone, do you really love them? If you try to believe, do you really believe? And even when you believe, there is always doubt, because belief is not the same thing as knowledge.

Trying is the first step towards failure OR success. Knowledge is justified true belief, causation may flow in there somewhere.

Can you choose to love God?

Yes, with free will.

Is it really that easy? Remember, the very act of trying implies failure. Likewise, should morals be a means to an end? Or should they flow naturally, incidental to your love for God?

Mankind creates morality as a painter creates a painting, through our choices in every day life, we decide what is good or bad. Morals should flow from the highest region. We should treat people as means, not means to an end.

The odds would be 50/50, i do not take stabs in the dark yet footstep after footstep into the light.

[Reefer Rogue]

Check it out if you want: Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_wager)

[Hardcore Newbie]

Check it out if you want: Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_wager)
I checked it out, actually, and the Criticism section explains my viewpoint rather well, specifically the section that deals with the assumption that god rewards belief.

The Atheist's wager pretty much sums up my belief as well.

[mfqr]

I think there are more people that believe in a creator then who don't. Athiesm is an urban phenomenon.

They've done a good job of brainwashing the majority of the world then.

[Reefer Rogue]

Who is THEY? How were they created? ;)

People make their own choices about God, no one is brainwashed, expcept perhaps at an early age, as i was. However, having those beliefs forced on me at a young age, made me instantly reject God. Now i am mature enough to make my own mind up, i CHOOSE to believe in God, and i am much happier.

For every criticism, there is a rebuttle.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Who is THEY? How were they created? ;)

People make their own choices about God, no one is brainwashed, expcept perhaps at an early age, as i was. However, having those beliefs forced on me at a young age, made me instantly reject God. Now i am mature enough to make my own mind up, i CHOOSE to believe in God, and i am much happier.

For every criticism, there is a rebuttle.Then please, rebut my criticisms :)

[Reefer Rogue]

I don't have the answers for everything, other more knowledgable scholors may be better advised to suit your needs. I have tried to express my opinions and reply to that which i can. I've stated pretty much all the information i have at my immediate knowledge about what i know about God and why i think my beliefs are justified. This is all i can do, for this thread shall not be able to answer whether there is or is not a God. Every individual must make his or her own mind up, regardless of what other people tell you.

[Hardcore Newbie]

I don't have the answers for everything, other more knowledgable scholors may be better advised to suit your needs. I have tried to express my opinions and reply to that which i can. I've stated pretty much all the information i have at my immediate knowledge about what i know about God and why i think my beliefs are justified. This is all i can do, for this thread shall not be able to answer whether there is or is not a God. Every individual must make his or her own mind up, regardless of what other people tell you.So if this is the case, that you don't have immediate answers to the criticisms of views, do you relinquish the train of thought that the more "rational" view is to believe in God? For someone who doesn't have immediate answers to defend their own thoughts and beliefs, you sure know a lot about rationality.


8. A rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.

10. A rational person should believe that there is a God.

...the more rational person places his bet on God, realising that serving the Lord serves the self interest, which everyone shares, because there is promise of the afterlife...


How does a rational gamber place his bets? ... A rational gamber seeks to maximise his/her gains over the long run and tends to place his bets in accordance with what is known now as expected value and is determined by the formula:
Rational wagering is not always in accordance with chance only, or with payoff only, or even with cost only. It is a function of all three.
Eternal life may be a gift, but it can only be given to someone capable of recieving it. The wager is meant to break any tie in evidential considerations between athiesm and theism.

[Reefer Rogue]

The philosophy i've posted all throughout this thread is comprehensive and rational, imo. I believe i am rational in holding my beliefs based on these theories as you probably believe you are rational for holding your own beliefs. There are two fundamental theories of knowledge: Rationalism and Empiricism. I can justify my belief in God with both.

[Hardcore Newbie]

that's fine in stating that you believe it's rational, but to say specifically that "a rational person does ...." would stand to reason that an irrational person does the opposite.

To state that the "more rational" person gambles on God, would imply that a less rational person gambles against God. I gamble against God, and criticize your reasoning. You cannot claim to be "more rational" if you can't defend your reasons against a less rational person... ie: me.

I'm asking if you're relinquishing the idea that your views are "more rational" than another's, I'm not asking if you're relinquishing the views themselves.

[Reefer Rogue]

You're taking me out of context. Those statements came from a lot of steps before the conclusions. The reason it says the more rational person should believe in God follows from the premises before that statement. It's philosophy, there's no room for flip flopping, the theories attempt to their best ability to put forward why someone can justify believing in God. It does not say 'there is a God' It says based on the premises, it is rational to hold these views that there is a God.

Personally, i don't think i'm more rational then anyone for believing in God. Some people don't associate rationality with faith and some do.

I do believe everything has an explanation. Including the universe and why humanity is here on Earth. Perhaps the answer is the most simplest, yet the most complex.

[mfqr]

What makes the Christian God so much more valid than any other god? Why is it he that is real? I'd like to know why, other than "because the Bible says so." And if that is your response, I'd like to know why the Bible is more credible than any other book like it. Really, there is no reason to believe in the Christian God rather than any other god, except that it all comes down to personal preference. So considering that, Christians have no argument for why they should believe the Christian God is the right and real one, rather than Allah, or the Sun god, or some other Pagan gods. What about Zeus? Most Christians deny the existence of Zeus and many other gods within greek mythology. But why can't they be right, and your Christian God be wrong?

[Reefer Rogue]

I believe in Jesus Christ, i follow his philosophies to the best of my ability. I don't believe the issue should be which religion but that there's a divine creator, that's what i think. I believe Jesus Christ was reincarned as Ras Tafari, son of the Queen of Sheeba and the King of Soloman, Lord of Lords and King of Kings, His Imperial Majesty, was crowned Haile Selassie I. I am a follower of the head creator.

[BeforeYourTime]

M Theory

[hippiemommaida]

that doesn't mean at all that a deity is a responsible, any more than it means a swarm of magical fairies is responsible.
Personally, if I had known this was going to be such a heady and wordy thread, I may have passed it by. When I stated that I was planted by aliens, it was how I felt at that moment. Personally I could care less if it is creation or evolution. I happen to know that this planet supports me and all my needs. Even synthetics come from Momma Earth. I no longer beleive in the other patriarchal gods, because of all the violence done in their names. Be it Allah, Jehovah, or Jesus...the followers have really not been nice to Momma or her inhabitants. I believe spiritual matters are private and Momma doesn't need me to prostelitize. Oh, and by the way I and most of Iceland believes in fairies. But I apoligize for invading this thread.

[Hardcore Newbie]

You're taking me out of context. Those statements came from a lot of steps before the conclusions. The reason it says the more rational person should believe in God follows from the premises before that statement.
It's not out of context. You're saying the more rational person believes yadda yadda because of these steps, but when those steps were under scrutiny, and the argument about those steps and the conclusion brought us here, with yourself not having the answers to the arguments and criticisms, then it obviously can't be more rational if you can't defend those points within a rational means yourself.

It's like me saying that a more rational person believes that dogs taste like chocolate, and showing the steps that lead to that conclusion. Someone argues a few of those steps and thus the conclusion brought about from those steps. If I can't defend the steps that I used to get to the conclusion (ie, people have different perceptions of taste), then I can't claim that I have the more rational conclusion without being a liar.

So no, it's not out of context.


It's philosophy, there's no room for flip flopping, the theories attempt to their best ability to put forward why someone can justify believing in God. It does not say 'there is a God' It says based on the premises, it is rational to hold these views that there is a God.
It'd be different if you said that it's "a" rational view, but going out of your way to say that a rational person "should" believe this, and "should" believe that. If you replaced it with "could", then I wouldn't be arguing what you're implying rational people "should" do.

I believe myself to be a rational person, and I have arguments as to why I should follow the points that you've laid out. Very specifically, the gambling part, where you assert that a more rational person does such and such in considering bets. Yes, that's true, but you claim the more rational person places his bet on God, when it's obvious that neither of us knows they expected value of the bet, nor the cost. For the sake of debate, we can assume that it's a 50/50 toss up between created vs not created, but even that we don't know for sure.

Odds are created from known information. Since we don't *know*, we shouldn't even assume the odds are 50/50.

[Reefer Rogue]

It's not out of context. You're saying the more rational person believes yadda yadda because of these steps, but when those steps were under scrutiny, and the argument about those steps and the conclusion brought us here, with yourself not having the answers to the arguments and criticisms, then it obviously can't be more rational if you can't defend those points within a rational means yourself.

It's like me saying that a more rational person believes that dogs taste like chocolate, and showing the steps that lead to that conclusion. Someone argues a few of those steps and thus the conclusion brought about from those steps. If I can't defend the steps that I used to get to the conclusion (ie, people have different perceptions of taste), then I can't claim that I have the more rational conclusion without being a liar.

So no, it's not out of context.


It'd be different if you said that it's "a" rational view, but going out of your way to say that a rational person "should" believe this, and "should" believe that. If you replaced it with "could", then I wouldn't be arguing what you're implying rational people "should" do.

I believe myself to be a rational person, and I have arguments as to why I should follow the points that you've laid out. Very specifically, the gambling part, where you assert that a more rational person does such and such in considering bets. Yes, that's true, but you claim the more rational person places his bet on God, when it's obvious that neither of us knows they expected value of the bet, nor the cost. For the sake of debate, we can assume that it's a 50/50 toss up between created vs not created, but even that we don't know for sure.

Odds are created from known information. Since we don't *know*, we shouldn't even assume the odds are 50/50.

I stated the philosophy. I didn't create it. The philosophers who created it claimed that a more rational person blah blah. Perhaps it should be mitigated into could believe. Like i said, i can't defend all the criticisms against it because i didn't create it. There are criticisms for everything, it depends on the conclusion. Do the criticisms outweigh the proposals sufficiently enough to discredit the theories? Imo, no, there are not enough criticisms to change my opinion on the matter. Imo, there are more proposals in favour of God then against, therefore, imo, more evidence that there is a God instead of there isn't. This is what we have to go by, since without definitive proof we can only speculate.

The afterlife provides an infinte reward, which a rational gamber seeks because he looks to improve his earnings or his winnings over the long run, since the afterlife is eternal, his reward is infinte. Unlike athiesm, which offers a finite reward. You die, that's it. Out of the two possibilities, i choose the infinite reward and i believe i am rational for doing so.

The odds are 50/50, either God exists or doesn't.

[40oz]

So you're saying it makes you feel better to believe there's more to life than...life itself?

I just see this whole gambling perspective where you feel the odds are better to live one way rather than another a little bit of a weird reason to hold a certain belief.

Maybe its just me

[Reefer Rogue]

It's not the only reason, it's one of many. I look forward to the afterlife, some may not.

[Hardcore Newbie]

The afterlife provides an infinte reward
may provide an infinite award, may provide infinite punishment. This is one of the faulty assumptions that you have. You don't know this, you think it.



which a rational gamber seeks because he looks to improve his earnings or his winnings over the long run, since the afterlife is eternal, his reward is infinte.
I don't want to become catty, but you're not reading a word I'm saying if you still think this way. The reward is UNKNOWN. People have made claims to a reward, but no one can know for sure.



Unlike athiesm, which offers a finite reward. You die, that's it.
Again, it seems you're not paying attention to a single word. Being right and getting the best reward are not the same. There could be a God whose requirement for an afterlife is scepticism and disbelief. So even if the atheist is wrong, in this case, they win the prize that you're going after, and you get a really bad one.



Out of the two possibilities, i choose the infinite reward and i believe i am rational for doing so.
The odds are 50/50, either God exists or doesn't.
Odds, again, are made from known information. If I asked you if I was wearing a sock, to you it would be a 50/50 guess, but in reality, I either am or I am not. Why is it that I can get the question right 100% of the time if the odds to you are 50/50? Because the odds aren't 50/50. Odds *really* only work for things that haven't happened yet. I'm pretty sure the verdict for creating the universe is already in, we just don't know that verdict.

Having said that, even if we assume the odds are 50/50 (which we have to because we have no information), belief in God doesn't guarantee the best prize, it could bank you the worst prize, being the negative infinite award.

You need to separate the idea of a GOD, with the idea of a Xian God. They share the same requirements of GOD status, but they are not the same.

Do I have to write you a flow chart or a matrix for you to stop saying that you have the best odds? You only believe you have the best odds because you aren't considering all of the information and possibilities, which I've pointed out at least three times in this thread.

[mfqr]

I guess nobody wanted to answer my question. Oh well.

[L Rag]

Wtf, everyone seems really keen on discussing their parents having sex :wtf:

[Mr. Bubbles]

To me this thread seems like a false poll. You're asking whether or not we believe in creation. I don't. I believe in evolution. I got here because of the evolution of the human race. Every birth is a step, be it a small one, to even greater and more advanced human beings. Does it not strike you odd how we've not always been gifted with electricity and indoor plumbing? These things came with time. We evolved far enough to understand and comprehend things we simply could not 1,000 years ago. That's how I see it, anyway. Sorry if I came off a little aggressive, it's early in the morning and I'm getting ready to take a nap. :jointsmile:

[Reefer Rogue]

The poll is over: Other is the winner.

I may or may not have been created by God. I personally choose to believe the teachings of Jesus Christ and Jah. Therefore i believe and have faith there is an afterlife where i will become one with God.

Thank you all for participating in this thread, i've said basically all i need to say and want to say. I don't feel like refuting anymore criticisms because it shall only end in an infinte regress.

Peace to all humanity.

[BeforeYourTime]

What makes the Christian God so much more valid than any other god? Why is it he that is real? I'd like to know why, other than "because the Bible says so." And if that is your response, I'd like to know why the Bible is more credible than any other book like it. Really, there is no reason to believe in the Christian God rather than any other god, except that it all comes down to personal preference. So considering that, Christians have no argument for why they should believe the Christian God is the right and real one, rather than Allah, or the Sun god, or some other Pagan gods. What about Zeus? Most Christians deny the existence of Zeus and many other gods within greek mythology. But why can't they be right, and your Christian God be wrong?

I'd like to know a Sane and justified answer too, without using a bible as "proof".

[Hardcore Newbie]

Belief in Santa also has no negatives and only positives, so we should also gamble in belief of Santa.

Also, WONKO (http://www.satori3.com/justdrew/wonko.html) has better rewards and harsher punishments, so if you're gambling in anything, make sure it's WONKO.