Anyone want some cake?

[40oz]

Now here is the difference between someone who believes in a creator and someone who doesn't. In this hypothesis, both these people will describe the existence of a cake, just so we can bring it all down to a level we can understand:

The person who doesn't believe in a creator explains the existence of a cake like this. It all started when there was just flour, baking powder, water, egg, sugar, butter. Over a long period time given a very small chance, the butter and sugar were whisked by gravitational forces that attracted smaller elements including baking powder, flour and egg. The chances of this happening was minute, but there was a lot of time for this coincidence to happen. Eventually the mixed up elements were exposed to a furnace that literally cooked these ingredients at 180° Celsius for about 20 minutes. Now if you try to argue with me then I can give you mathematical equations and theories to prove this, and you should just assume that I am right as this theory was wrought from many experiments and by many people who are probably out of your intellectual depth.

Now here is the explanation of the existence of the same cake explained by someone who believes that it was made by someone.

The cake was baked by someone who made it perhaps so it could be eaten. He/She mixed all the ingredients together and then cooked it in an oven.

Courtesy of : http://www.heaven.net.nz/answers/answer02.htm

[nrj]

And the one who think it was a creator, thinks that the flour, sugar and bakingpowder appeared out of the thin air, breaking all the physical laws.

[dcookcan]

And the one who think it was a creator, thinks that the flour, sugar and bakingpowder appeared out of the thin air, breaking all the physical laws.

Actually, you are describing the beliefs of the one who does not believe in a creator. The one who believes in a creator realizes that the creator bought the ingredients at a supermarket/grocery store.

[nrj]

What I, and most atheist's believe, is that mater has existed for all eternity. It has then changed into what it is now. That site speak of atheist's as if they say that mater just appeared out of absolute vacum faster then you could say "Hi there!". Please, can't that site editor do some research before he publishes something flawed from the very begining?

[liberdave]

The person who doesn't believe in a creator explains the existence of a cake like this. It all started when there was just flour, baking powder, water, egg, sugar, butter. Over a long period time given a very small chance,LOL!!!! WOW! 40oz was able to figure out (or find) the chances of all of the elements that make humans would coalesce into humans! Good job! So what were the chances of us not coalescing? Eh? What were the odds? Huh?

the butter and sugar were whisked by gravitational forces that attracted smaller elements including baking powder, flour and egg. This ad absurdum argument doesn't work. All throughout the universe we find elements in close proximity of all other elements. There is a limited number of elements, and an infinite (but bounded) amount of space and mass.

The chances of this happening was minute, but there was a lot of time for this coincidence to happen. ...

Eventually the mixed up elements were exposed to a furnace that literally cooked these ingredients at 180° Celsius for about 20 minutes. Wait. Are you saying that life has to have a certain temperature to survive? :Llol: !!! OK, now humans do need a certain temperature to survive. But your telling me that in an infinite world, with infinite possibilities, life can only exist within a mere fraction of all possible temperatures? I just can't buy that.

Now if you try to argue with me then I can give you mathematical equations and theories to prove this, With all due respect, consider this an argument.

...and you should just assume that I am right... :rolling: OMFGawds! That is the problem with organized religions!!! They taught you well, young crusader.

...as this theory was wrought from many experiments... As a matter of fact, I did carry out this exact same experiment for my wife's birthday! It was a cheesecake though, does that make me god?

...and by many people who are probably out of your intellectual depth. :dork: Yeah, anyone who can be thinkin up with one really good pastry/creation storey is pobably waaaaay smartser then I are.

The cake was baked by someone who made it perhaps so it could be eaten. !!!! LOL!!!!!! Only if the person who baked the cake was Cthulhu!!!

He/She mixed all the ingredients together and then cooked it in an oven. I could believe this only if every time he rolled up another human dough man, he said "BAM!!" LOL, "...and here we have a wonderful collective conscious crust with a human filling, Do you want to kick it up a notch? I'll add a pinch of free will to the human filling! BAM!!" LOL!!!!

[40oz]

2 Pe 3:3-KNOWING THIS FIRST, THAT THERE SHALL COME IN THE LAST DAYS SCOFFERS, WALKING AFTER THEIR OWN LUSTS.

Jude 18-HOW THAT THEY TOLD YOU THERE SHOULD BE MOCKERS IN THE LAST TIME, WHO SHOULD WALK AFTER THEIR OWN UNGODLY LUSTS.

[liberdave]

THAT THERE SHALL COME IN THE LAST DAYS SCOFFERS...HOW THAT THEY TOLD YOU THERE SHOULD BE MOCKERS IN THE LAST TIME.
:bs: You answer those gems of logic and comedy with scripture? This really takes the fun out arguing.

Now if you try to argue with me then I can give you mathematical equations and theories to prove this *liberdave taps his foot for a while, throws his hands up, sighs, and walks away...

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

liberdave did a good job saying some of the things that I would have said in response to the first post on this thread. All that I have to say, 40oz, is that was a HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE analogy. The ingredients of the cake do not chemically react with eachother when you just throw them together. Fortunately, for all life on Earth, there are many, many chemicals that make up living organisms that undergo chemical reactions simply by mixing them together. For example, put some water into a shallow bowl and then pour a small amount of dish soap on top and - presto! - you have a basic cell membrane. It's not rocket science...

[marglarg]

That site speak of atheist's as if they say that mater just appeared out of absolute vacum

It happens all the time actually ... you may need to research that a bit.

[40oz]

liberdave did a good job saying some of the things that I would have said in response to the first post on this thread. All that I have to say, 40oz, is that was a HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE analogy. The ingredients of the cake do not chemically react with eachother when you just throw them together. Fortunately, for all life on Earth, there are many, many chemicals that make up living organisms that undergo chemical reactions simply by mixing them together. For example, put some water into a shallow bowl and then pour a small amount of dish soap on top and - presto! - you have a basic cell membrane. It's not rocket science...

Let’s just put this into perspective for a minute. Your claim that various elements randomly clung together and began what we see now (everything to include life itself) Life is far more advanced then any cake (and much harder to "create"), yet it is impossible for cake ingredients to cling together and create a cake which as millions of times more lenient in creation then a living creature? It would be easier for cake mix to mix itself then random elements swishing around and make the simplest form of life. Of coarse this is My opinion. If random elements did create a living creature out of chaos. Then I would think that given all the appropriate tools and ingredients that a random cake mixture would mix itself given the right amount of time and circumstances. It is so much easier to believe that out of chaos came, perhaps the moon, planets, and stars. But life? The cake theory is just as sound. Also remember that the cake theory also has a higher probability since the ingredients and everything to include order (being antichaotic) are all laid before us. We don’t even have to wait the millions upon millions of years for the certain parts of the cake to waltz by accidentally.

*PS there are many chemicals that make up a cake.

[40oz]

:bs: You answer those gems of logic and comedy with scripture? This really takes the fun out arguing.
*liberdave taps his foot for a while, throws his hands up, sighs, and walks away...

First of all this isn't my website and I gave the credit for whos it was. Second, this part

"Originally Posted by 40oz
Now if you try to argue with me then I can give you mathematical equations and theories to prove this"

Is a Facetious remark meant to mock evolutionist.

Cant seem to figure out how to quote your quote where you quoted me.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

40oz, I think what your theory neglects to realize is that it was unlikely humanity as it stands was created randomly... but if the world had been created in a different manner, in a way that humanity could not have survived, life would've simply evolved differently to make up for these differences.

There was a tiny chance humanity would be created. But there were an almost infinite amount of possibilities of life which could've been created instead. We got lucky.

I also think you ignore the fact that we're talking about beings with intelligence and the will to survive - not a cake. I really hate quoting Jurassic Park in a friggin' religious discussion, but what the hell - Life breaks free. Life finds a way.

[nrj]

It happens all the time actually ... you may need to research that a bit. Huh? Ok, could you post a source?

[marglarg]

Huh? Ok, could you post a source?

I'll give you a random one I came across which should point you in the right direction as to find out more ...

"The vacuum is seething with activity. Particles continuously come into existence and go out of existence all of the time. This property follows directly from the quantum nature of the sub-atomic world."

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/apr14/virtual.html

[marglarg]

What I, and most atheist's believe, is that mater has existed for all eternity. It has then changed into what it is now. That site speak of atheist's as if they say that mater just appeared out of absolute vacum faster then you could say "Hi there!". Please, can't that site editor do some research before he publishes something flawed from the very begining?

... and while we are on the subject nrj, do you have a source for 'this' belief? You are saying matter has existed for all eternity and has been somewhat transformed into something different, ie what it is now ?? So matter used to exist as something different than what it is now?

This sounds uncannily like the 'faith' of the person you are in fact trying to debunk in this thread. Atheist you may be, but you certainly act like one who believes in something based on faith rather than hard evidence.

You may not be as different in belief as you think.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

You are saying matter has existed for all eternity and has been somewhat transformed into something different, ie what it is now ?? So matter used to exist as something different than what it is now?

Have you ever taken a Chemistry class? Matter transforms into other forms of matter all the time, which is referred to as a "chemical reaction". The changes atheists discuss is on a more epic scale, but it's still far from unlikely, given the amount of energy that would be released by the Big Bang or anything like it.


This sounds uncannily like the 'faith' of the person you are in fact trying to debunk in this thread. Atheist you may be, but you certainly act like one who believes in something based on faith rather than hard evidence.

Faith that there is no other evidence than what we've collected so far. Or at least, nothing completely outside the realm of what we know now. It's still faith of a sort, but it's hardly the same. It's really no different then my belief that I am not a shipwrecked alien from Alpha Centauri with amnesia.

[marglarg]

Have you ever taken a Chemistry class? Matter transforms into other forms of matter all the time, which is referred to as a "chemical reaction". The changes atheists discuss is on a more epic scale, but it's still far from unlikely, given the amount of energy that would be released by the Big Bang or anything like it.

I was in fact stating this in terms of a more epic scale. In that the basic building blocks (matter/energy) have always 'been' the same. Electrons, protons, qluons, quarks etc have always been the same no matter which point in time you refer to. The way he stated it was "It has then changed into what it is now" which to me says that once upon a time it 'was' something else other than what it 'is' today. Epic scale no ???


Faith that there is no other evidence than what we've collected so far. Or at least, nothing completely outside the realm of what we know now. It's still faith of a sort, but it's hardly the same. It's really no different then my belief that I am not a shipwrecked alien from Alpha Centauri with amnesia.

I'm not sure what your point was ... as far as evidence collected so far, is there more evidence supporting a definate beginning to the Universe (big bang) or is there more tending towards the fact that it has 'been' for all eternity.

Who's faith is stronger ?

[Philosopher Foelhe]

I was in fact stating this in terms of a more epic scale. In that the basic building blocks (matter/energy) have always 'been' the same. Electrons, protons, qluons, quarks etc have always been the same no matter which point in time you refer to. The way he stated it was "It has then changed into what it is now" which to me says that once upon a time it 'was' something else other than what it 'is' today. Epic scale no ???

You're jumping to conclusions. A man "was" a boy but "is" now an adult. The change doesn't have to be as drastic as you portray it. It seems to me that nrj was simply saying that the elements that "are" making up life "were" formerly scattered. True, I don't know for sure if that's what he was getting at... but nrj is a firm believer in science, and the change of electrons and protons and whatnot would defy the basic laws of science. Nrj is not an idiot, so let's look at it my way for now and move it on.


I'm not sure what your point was ... as far as evidence collected so far, is there more evidence supporting a definate beginning to the Universe (big bang) or is there more tending towards the fact that it has 'been' for all eternity.

Who with the what now?

I don't know. Like I said, nrj is a firm believer in science. I like to think most scientists don't get hung up on proving a theory correct if the evidence is against it, so I'm pretty sure he'll follow whatever evidence seems convincing to him.

But what the hell does this have to do with the Cake Theory? 40oz claims there's a being controlling things. There is no evidence to support this. Whether the planet has been here forever or was created in the Big Bang is incidental.

[nrj]

You may not be as different in belief as you think. I truly wish english was my first language right now... "believe" roghly translated to swedish, is "tro". And when you do that, it's like a verb for "having a theory". Well, now when I saw the source, I have now put less trust into my theory. And dragging all atheist's over one edge was very dumb, I know, anyway; on topic!

[marglarg]

You're jumping to conclusions. A man "was" a boy but "is" now an adult. The change doesn't have to be as drastic as you portray it. It seems to me that nrj was simply saying that the elements that "are" making up life "were" formerly scattered. True, I don't know for sure if that's what he was getting at... but nrj is a firm believer in science, and the change of electrons and protons and whatnot would defy the basic laws of science. Nrj is not an idiot, so let's look at it my way for now and move it on.

Jumping to conclusions? ... I see it the way it is and I have done nothing to exagerate that which was written. I guess this may come down to a question of semantics but if you are not sure what he meant, rather than look at it 'your' way I feel we should find his opinion on the statement. Afterall he is no idiot and I'm sure he can explain himself.



Who with the what now?

I don't know. Like I said, nrj is a firm believer in science. I like to think most scientists don't get hung up on proving a theory correct if the evidence is against it, so I'm pretty sure he'll follow whatever evidence seems convincing to him.

Sounds like 'faith' to me.



But what the hell does this have to do with the Cake Theory? 40oz claims there's a being controlling things. There is no evidence to support this. Whether the planet has been here forever or was created in the Big Bang is incidental.

What the hell does the stuff nrj wrote have to do with cake theory either. Thats my point. If you are going to bag someone do it with facts rather than that which is based on more faith, else your argument if for nix.

NRJ states the ingredients can pop out of thin or what? ... I reply with the fact that particles can in fact come into and out of existence in the vacuum. NRJ comes back with theories stating the universe has always been for all eternity and the nature of matter has changed over time from something in the past to what it is now (on an epic scale). These are comments based on faith aswell, as the evidence does not support what he is saying. Just like 40oz ...

My point is if you are going to come at someone with counter arguments based on no more faith than that which you are trying to rebuke, why come back at all.

Some advice you yourself might be wise in the taking.

[marglarg]

This was no pun on you nrj ... I was sincerely trying to address issues with the statements you made ... as you say. Back on topic :2thumbs:

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Jumping to conclusions? ... I see it the way it is and I have done nothing to exagerate that which was written. I guess this may come down to a question of semantics but if you are not sure what he meant, rather than look at it 'your' way I feel we should find his opinion on the statement. Afterall he is no idiot and I'm sure he can explain himself.

Until he tells us what he meant, I thought my way fit the situation better. I really could've explained that better.


Sounds like 'faith' to me.

And it is faith of a sort, like I said. But not on the level of believing something with no evidence.


What the hell does the stuff nrj wrote have to do with cake theory either. Thats my point. If you are going to bag someone do it with facts rather than that which is based on more faith, else your argument if for nix.

... I guess I see your point. Alright, sorry.


My point is if you are going to come at someone with counter arguments based on no more faith than that which you are trying to rebuke, why come back at all.

Some advice you yourself might be wise in the taking.

I hate to distract from the argument, but this throws me. When did I make any argument based entirely on faith? I've checked my previous posts, and I'm just not seeing it. Care to enlighten me?

[marglarg]

Eh .. my bad, I guess I fell into offering a 'cheap shot'. You hadn't really and for that comment I do apologise.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Hey, no problem. Heh, for a second there you had me worried. :nibble:

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

It's really no different then my belief that I am not a shipwrecked alien from Alpha Centauri with amnesia.
<< several people surround Foelhe and point at him and scream >>

Editor's Note: You know... like... in the movie "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"?... um... the movie... Invasion... aw, screw it...

[Philosopher Foelhe]

*laughs hysterically... even if he is the only one that gets that one*

[Assassin X]

:Thinks were talking about religion but got thrown off topic by the subject and had weird urge and went to go buy a nice cake!: :drool:

[salvador]

40oz claims that cake doesn't appear out of nowhere and therefore someone (or something) must have created it. (By "cake" I mean the universe of course).

There are several problems with this argument.

Firstly, and most obviously, the question must be asked: Who created the creator? If you invent a rule that says that the universe must have been created, then you must also apply that rule to the creator himself. Anything else is arbitrary.

Secondly, you have no evidence that the universe (or humanity) could not have emerged from nowhere. How do you know this? You may argue that things just don't work that way. The problem here is that you are using the physical rules that occur in the universe to explain its origin. It may be that things cannot be spontaneously created within the universe, but there is nothing to tell us that the universe could not spontaneously appear.

Thirdly, you may argue that God always existed. Why can you not apply that to the universe as well? Or at least, to the process that created the universe? It's like saying, "God always existed but the universe couldn't have." You have arbitrarily changed your argument half way through.

Fourthly, with regard to evolution (and I bet the Richard Dawkinses of this world are getting tired of repeating this fact): While genetic mutation is random, natural selection is not. The creatures that we see around us are, by definition, those that survived long enough to breed. Anything that didn't survive or didn't breed isn't around today. It's that simple. Douglas Adams put it at its most succint (I'm paraphrasing): "To be amazed that life is suited to this planet is like being amazed that a puddle is the same shape as the hole."

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

While genetic mutation is random, natural selection is not. The creatures that we see around us are, by definition, those that survived long enough to breed. Anything that didn't survive or didn't breed isn't around today. It's that simple.
It really IS quite simple. Unfortunately, many creationists don't understand the important role that natural selection plays in evolution. They don't understand that the VAST majority of mutations are harmful and thus are not genetically passed on to the next generation. Many creationists think that a mutation happens and that we suddenly have a new species, which is wrong. It's basically trial and error. If a mutation happens to benefit an individual (which is extremely rare), then that individual will pass on this beneficial mutation to its progeny and it becomes more prevalent in the population over the course of each successive generation. Harmful mutations do not survive in the population because these mutated individuals either cannot breed or do not live long enough to breed. Trial and error...


Douglas Adams put it at its most succint (I'm paraphrasing): "To be amazed that life is suited to this planet is like being amazed that a puddle is the same shape as the hole."
GREAT quote! I've always found it funny how many creationists think that the conditions on the earth are perfectly suited to the animals that live on it, when it's actually the exact opposite. If you think about it for a second, how exactly is a planet that is 70% covered with water perfect for humans? Life adapts to its environment and the puddle analogy is perfect. No offense, 40oz, but comparing evolution to making a cake perfectly demonstrates how you and many other creationists really don't completely understand evolution. If you don't understand evolution, then of course you won't believe it...

[Beatnik Bob]

Humans really dont understand life well enough to come to conclusions on what would happen if a bunch of organic chemicals were thrown together. No scientist even knows what our pienal gland does for crying out loud!

[Beatnik Bob]

2 Pe 3:3-KNOWING THIS FIRST, THAT THERE SHALL COME IN THE LAST DAYS SCOFFERS, WALKING AFTER THEIR OWN LUSTS.

Dose this mean you are refering to yourself?

[40oz]

It really IS quite simple. Unfortunately, many creationists don't understand the important role that natural selection plays in evolution. They don't understand that the VAST majority of mutations are harmful and thus are not genetically passed on to the next generation. Many creationists think that a mutation happens and that we suddenly have a new species, which is wrong. It's basically trial and error. If a mutation happens to benefit an individual (which is extremely rare), then that individual will pass on this beneficial mutation to its progeny and it becomes more prevalent in the population over the course of each successive generation. Harmful mutations do not survive in the population because these mutated individuals either cannot breed or do not live long enough to breed. Trial and error...


GREAT quote! I've always found it funny how many creationists think that the conditions on the earth are perfectly suited to the animals that live on it, when it's actually the exact opposite. If you think about it for a second, how exactly is a planet that is 70% covered with water perfect for humans? Life adapts to its environment and the puddle analogy is perfect. No offense, 40oz, but comparing evolution to making a cake perfectly demonstrates how you and many other creationists really don't completely understand evolution. If you don't understand evolution, then of course you won't believe it...

I am having a hard time following evolution then. If a creature had no eyes, and would greaty improve its chance of survival if it had a means to see prey then it takes on various "mutations" until it gets the eyeball one? And if some of the mutations were like feelers and antenna and stuff like then the creature decides "well, this isnt what I had in mind but I'll keep it cause it looks cool" doesnt make sense. If this creature first developed antenna to find prey why wouldnt it stop there? What I hear you saying is like we are all slot machines hoping for lucky 7. Why is it plants cant walk? Some plants thirst more then others, some do not get enough sunlight. Why does the archer fish spit water to catch its main food source? Why doesnt this fish just grow a frog tongue and be done with it? Are the insects that fly related to birds and bats?

[40oz]

Dose this mean you are refering to yourself?


This is a first for me, I have never seen anyone use the "I know you are but what am I" tactice on a forum before. Bravo!

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

If a creature had no eyes, and would greaty improve its chance of survival if it had a means to see prey then it takes on various "mutations" until it gets the eyeball one?
Such a mutation would be one of massive proportions. Mutations generally do not happen on such a large scale. Mutations usually happen in small steps and over a very long period of time. Using your eyeball example, somebody recently mentioned somewhere on the boards about the pineal gland. As far as I know, the pineal gland responds to light, so some people believe that this gland may be one of the intermediate steps that led to the formation of the eyeball which is why some people refer to it as a third eye. But going from the pineal gland to the eyeball would have taken many, many successive and cumulative mutations to get to the finished product. Besides, there are many organisms that do not have eyes and they survive very well as is, so there is no need to develop eyes...


And if some of the mutations were like feelers and antenna and stuff like then the creature decides "well, this isnt what I had in mind but I'll keep it cause it looks cool" doesnt make sense.
The creature can't decide to keep the feelers or not. I suppose that it could chew them off if it didn't like the feelers, but the mutation is still present in its DNA. Generally, this sort of mutation would happen in a single individual in the population and it would be a random mutation, not by choice. If the development of feelers is beneficial, or at least not harmful, to the individual's survival, then it may pass on this mutation to its offspring and the mutation will not only survive in the population, but it may increase its prevalence in the population if successive generations survive despite the mutation. Thus, for this population of creatures, a fork in the evolutionary road has been reached whereby part of the population remains physiologically and physically as it has always been, and the other part of the population has developed feelers. If this mutation had been detrimental to the individuals who had it, then these mutated individuals most likely would not have successfully mated or lived long enough to mate and thus the mutation would not have been passed on to its offspring, thus eliminating the mutation from the population. So a part of evolution is trial and error and survival of the fittest. As I've mentioned already, the vast majority of mutations are harmful and never get passed on to subsequent generations. But once in a blue moon, a beneficial mutation occurs and it changes the population over subsequent generations...


What I hear you saying is like we are all slot machines hoping for lucky 7.
It IS like that in a sense. Although with modern humans, even if an individual is dealt a harmful mutation, they can still live a normal life and possibly pass on their defective genes to their children, all thanks to modern medicine. Survival of the fittest is not really in play in the modern human world...


Why is it plants cant walk?
Quite simply, they don't NEED to walk. They can manufacture their own food via photosynthesis with nothing but carbon dioxide, water and sunlight. And as far as reproduction is concerned, pollen is transmitted from plant to plant by insects such as bees and also by animals. They survive and reproduce quite successfully the way that they are...


Why does the archer fish spit water to catch its main food source? Why doesnt this fish just grow a frog tongue and be done with it?
It spits water to catch food because that's what works for it. I don't know this for sure, but chances are, if you go back far enough in the evolutionary tree, you will see a point where amphibians branched away from fish. Thus, the answer to the question as to why doesn't this fish just grow a frog tongue is that it DID eventually grow a frog tongue and we know it today as being a frog. The fish likely mutated and the mutated fish population eventually evolved into frogs and other amphibians while the fish population that remained normal simply remained as normal fish.


Are the insects that fly related to birds and bats?
Flying insects are not directly related to birds and bats. Insects are insects and birds and bats are animals. But if you once again go far back in the evolutionary tree, you will reach a point where they shared a common ancestor that was a much simpler and basic organism before it branched off to become different and more complex organisms. I think that if you just look at even a basic evolutionary tree, you will see quite clearly how organisms evolved from a single cell into the flora and fauna that we see on the earth today. It all makes too much sense to simply dismiss it...

[Philosopher Foelhe]

I am having a hard time following evolution then. If a creature had no eyes, and would greaty improve its chance of survival if it had a means to see prey then it takes on various "mutations" until it gets the eyeball one?And if some of the mutations were like feelers and antenna and stuff like then the creature decides "well, this isnt what I had in mind but I'll keep it cause it looks cool" doesnt make sense.

Well, "cause it looks cool" isn't really a valid reason to develop anything in the animal kingdom. But a creature doesn't try to adapt new features. An insect doesn't think, "I'd better get to work on making myself some eyes!" It just adapts them. If the antenna assists in its ability to survive, it makes the creature stronger and helps it live long enough to breed and pass on its superior traits.


If this creature first developed antenna to find prey why wouldnt it stop there?

Why would it stop there? That's like being confused because someone is working toward a raise. ("You're already getting money, why do you want more?") If an evolutionary step helps something do what it needs to do, better, then it should take that step.


Why is it plants cant walk? Some plants thirst more then others, some do not get enough sunlight.

Plants have an advantage with the root system they have developed, which allows them to pull nutrients out of the ground. If a plant was to become mobile, it would lose access to these nutrients, thus probably dying sooner.

Of course, the creeper vine has gained the ability to move into sunlight, or toward water. Maybe evolution on plants is starting to move in that direction.


Why does the archer fish spit water to catch its main food source? Why doesnt this fish just grow a frog tongue and be done with it?

Maybe they will, someday. Evolution is a long and tricky process. But the method it has developed so far has worked for the archer well enough - possibly a frog tongue would carry disadvantages you haven't seen yet.


Are the insects that fly related to birds and bats?

No, they just happened to develop in similar ways. Doesn't mean they're related.

Edit: Damn you, Nye! Sneaking in before I can make my post and having a better answer than I did? Uncool, man! :D

[40oz]

Such a mutation would be one of massive proportions. Mutations generally do not happen on such a large scale. Mutations usually happen in small steps and over a very long period of time. Using your eyeball example, somebody recently mentioned somewhere on the boards about the pineal gland. As far as I know, the pineal gland responds to light, so some people believe that this gland may be one of the intermediate steps that led to the formation of the eyeball which is why some people refer to it as a third eye. But going from the pineal gland to the eyeball would have taken many, many successive and cumulative mutations to get to the finished product. Besides, there are many organisms that do not have eyes and they survive very well as is, so there is no need to develop eyes...


The creature can't decide to keep the feelers or not. I suppose that it could chew them off if it didn't like the feelers, but the mutation is still present in its DNA. Generally, this sort of mutation would happen in a single individual in the population and it would be a random mutation, not by choice. If the development of feelers is beneficial, or at least not harmful, to the individual's survival, then it may pass on this mutation to its offspring and the mutation will not only survive in the population, but it may increase its prevalence in the population if successive generations survive despite the mutation. Thus, for this population of creatures, a fork in the evolutionary road has been reached whereby part of the population remains physiologically and physically as it has always been, and the other part of the population has developed feelers. If this mutation had been detrimental to the individuals who had it, then these mutated individuals most likely would not have successfully mated or lived long enough to mate and thus the mutation would not have been passed on to its offspring, thus eliminating the mutation from the population. So a part of evolution is trial and error and survival of the fittest. As I've mentioned already, the vast majority of mutations are harmful and never get passed on to subsequent generations. But once in a blue moon, a beneficial mutation occurs and it changes the population over subsequent generations...


It IS like that in a sense. Although with modern humans, even if an individual is dealt a harmful mutation, they can still live a normal life and possibly pass on their defective genes to their children, all thanks to modern medicine. Survival of the fittest is not really in play in the modern human world...


Quite simply, they don't NEED to walk. They can manufacture their own food via photosynthesis with nothing but carbon dioxide, water and sunlight. And as far as reproduction is concerned, pollen is transmitted from plant to plant by insects such as bees and also by animals. They survive and reproduce quite successfully the way that they are...


It spits water to catch food because that's what works for it. I don't know this for sure, but chances are, if you go back far enough in the evolutionary tree, you will see a point where amphibians branched away from fish. Thus, the answer to the question as to why doesn't this fish just grow a frog tongue is that it DID eventually grow a frog tongue and we know it today as being a frog. The fish likely mutated and the mutated fish population eventually evolved into frogs and other amphibians while the fish population that remained normal simply remained as normal fish.


Flying insects are not directly related to birds and bats. Insects are insects and birds and bats are animals. But if you once again go far back in the evolutionary tree, you will reach a point where they shared a common ancestor that was a much simpler and basic organism before it branched off to become different and more complex organisms. I think that if you just look at even a basic evolutionary tree, you will see quite clearly how organisms evolved from a single cell into the flora and fauna that we see on the earth today. It all makes too much sense to simply dismiss it...


This doesn’t sound right to me; let’s get back to the bug. Here I am a bug, I can’t see, so through random evolutionary events I developed a knot on my. My offspring also have this not but later down the line of oh I donno weeks! The 10th generation of this bug has now a larger knot. And yet still further in the future, lets go with a year for the bugs mutation should happen relatively quick in that some only have a lifespan of a week sometimes less. Ok so if its lifespan is a week, then one year would be 52.177457 generations which is ample time to complete the antenna right? Or does the generations immediately after its awareness of needed antenna grow a full antenna?

I will say that in all of our differences you do have your faith down packed. I commend that. However I will still not purchase it and to each his own.

[40oz]

This is still not acceptable to me in that I can think of thousands of "better" mutations that should have occurred if this where the natural course of events. Why didn’t grazing animal’s mutated eyes in the back of there head to watch for predators? Why didn’t man keep his "gills" so he can still catch fish?

This is also funny to me in that we went onto land for a better life, yet we create ways to
Maintain our aquatic diet? The isolation for the Giraffe must have been for a really long time. Explain animals with multiple hearts and/or stomachs? Explain why a caterpillar, in its own lifespan changes to butterfly? Why no mutate the changing part out and just be a butterfly? Explain why nothing we having mutated into a peaceful people? The mere fact that we can sit here and discuss this with intelligence is proof positive that this is false. Humans have through ALL of history been a war like creature. Why don’t we have tougher skin? Why aren’t our skulls thicker for protection?

How come I don’t have an Uzi for my right arm? This is all silly however relevant. Why hasn’t evolution mutated a why to live for ever? In all the wonderful things your faith can do I would assume that evolution could do far better for oriental people then mutated a slanted eyelid. Correct? If birds could mutate hair into feathers and hollow bones for lightweight flight then surly the human could have mutated a thin layer to protect the eyes from the sun and dust? The reptile family has protection for their eyes and still allows them to see. Too many questions and not enough answers.

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

Edit: Damn you, Nye! Sneaking in before I can make my post and having a better answer than I did? Uncool, man!
MWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! << steeples hands >> Eeeeexcellent. My plan went perfectly according to... um... well... plan...

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

This is still not acceptable to me in that I can think of thousands of "better" mutations that should have occurred if this where the natural course of events. Why didn’t grazing animal’s mutated eyes in the back of there head to watch for predators? Why didn’t man keep his "gills" so he can still catch fish?

This is also funny to me in that we went onto land for a better life, yet we create ways to Maintain our aquatic diet? The isolation for the Giraffe must have been for a really long time. Explain animals with multiple hearts and/or stomachs? Explain why a caterpillar, in its own lifespan changes to butterfly? Why no mutate the changing part out and just be a butterfly? Explain why nothing we having mutated into a peaceful people? The mere fact that we can sit here and discuss this with intelligence is proof positive that this is false. Humans have through ALL of history been a war like creature. Why don’t we have tougher skin? Why aren’t our skulls thicker for protection?

How come I don’t have an Uzi for my right arm? This is all silly however relevant. Why hasn’t evolution mutated a why to live for ever? In all the wonderful things your faith can do I would assume that evolution could do far better for oriental people then mutated a slanted eyelid. Correct? If birds could mutate hair into feathers and hollow bones for lightweight flight then surly the human could have mutated a thin layer to protect the eyes from the sun and dust? The reptile family has protection for their eyes and still allows them to see. Too many questions and not enough answers.
Your problem is fairly evident in this post, 40oz >>> In science, there is no WHY, there is only IS...

These changes that evolution has resulted in are PURELY random. There is no rhyme nor reason for these changes. Changes don't neccessarily have to make sense. They simply HAPPEN because they happen. You mention that you can think of thousands of better mutations that SHOULD have happened. Well, first of all, mutations don't happen because they SHOULD happen, they happen randomly and the TYPE of mutation is random as well. Second of all, humans and other organisms on the earth may still be in the process of evolving into these changes that you speak of, but they just simply haven't reached that stage of evolution yet. Thus, another erroneous assumption on your part is that all life on earth is at the end stage of evolution. Not so! Life continues to and ALWAYS WILL continue to evolve for the rest of time in an effort to become better adapted to their environment. Who knows, maybe in a few hundred thousand years you WILL have an Uzi for an arm! (kidding...) Ironically, the Uzi thing is not as farfetched as you seem to think. I recently saw on Animal Planet that there is an insect that defends itself against predators by violently expelling a BOILING liquid from its abdomen that it AIMS at its attacker. If that isn't a gun, then I don't know what is! Oh yeah, and some snakes spit venom VERY accurately into the eyes of attacking animals which is another pretty good example of a biological Uzi. Again, not so farfetched as you think...

I will try to answer all of the individual questions that you have asked in your last post in separate posts, but this pesky thing called employment keeps getting in my way...

[Philosopher Foelhe]

This is still not acceptable to me in that I can think of thousands of "better" mutations that should have occurred if this where the natural course of events.

... Did you miss it when B.Nye said that evolution was just a shot in the dark and we basically got what we got? Trial and error. Of course, if you believe in God and evolution this isn't entirely true, but God creates flawed products, so there we go.

Of course, people say they can think of "better" ways to do things all the times, but often this is an example of not seeing all the consequences. For example,


Why didn’t grazing animal’s mutated eyes in the back of there head to watch for predators?

This would be totally unnecessary. Grazing animals generally depend on other senses - smell, hearing - to realize when a predator is on its way. Not to mention the ability to focus in two different directions would probably require more brain power than most herd mammals have.


Why didn’t man keep his "gills" so he can still catch fish?

Too complex. The air pipes of animals boil down to gills or typical lungs. It would complicate the human body immensely if you had to develop a way to switch between these two - and it would be a needless complication, given how much time we spend underwater. (Let me guess. "If we had gills, we might spend more time underwater"? It's an entirely different environment, and I doubt we'd deal with it more than we had to.)


This is also funny to me in that we went onto land for a better life, yet we create ways to
Maintain our aquatic diet?

... What? Maybe a select few humans keep an aquatic diet, but that has more to do with individuality than evolution. Most of us eat red meat and plenty of earth-borne vegitation.


Explain animals with multiple hearts and/or stomachs?

Well, some animals have multiple stomachs in order to digest more difficult foods, thus widening their ability to find nutrition. And some animals develop multiple hearts to help push blood a farther distance through the body, which allows the animal to grow larger, which gives the animal several evolutionary advantages (such as the ability to defend itself).


Explain why a caterpillar, in its own lifespan changes to butterfly? Why no mutate the changing part out and just be a butterfly?

A caterpillar is born from a tiny egg, which keeps it concealed from predators while at the same time allowing it to be surrounded by nutrition for a caterpillar (the leaf), but which isn't large enough to allow a creature to develop butterfly wings large enough to carry the creature. A caterpillar gathers nutrients and grows large enough to create a cucoon which is firm enough to protect it from predators, which the butterfly will eventually fight its way out of, gaining the strength to fly. It's actually an impressively streamlined process, if you look at it from the view of nature, and not just, "Pretty wings!"


Explain why nothing we having mutated into a peaceful people?

People have gotten to the point where they can pretty much ignore Darwin, because we actually fight to keep genetically impure people alive. (As Nye points out.) Besides, if a "peaceful" people met a "warlike" people, the "warlike" people would probably survive and the peaceful clan would be wiped out. A better question would be, "Why are there any pacifists left?"


Why don’t we have tougher skin? Why aren’t our skulls thicker for protection?

Tougher skin would probably lessen our ability to sense through the ability of "touch", and might slow down our reactions to various dangers (such as putting our hand on a hot stovetop) until that danger has done a lot of damage; thus thick skin becomes a liability in the end.

As for the thick skull, where would we put it? The brain takes up much of the room in our cranium, would you cut back on brainmass to fit a thicker skull in? In today's society, that would be a step backward, not forward.


How come I don’t have an Uzi for my right arm? This is all silly however relevant.

ROFL! That might cut back on your ability to find a mate, don't you think?

But seriously, "Uzi" is going way too far. Evolution has limits - it can't turn steel into biological mass.


Why hasn’t evolution mutated a why to live for ever?

Because there would be severe over-population issues, which would cause major problems? Because there would be no point, since most men and women are unable to pass on genetics after sixty or so?


In all the wonderful things your faith can do I would assume that evolution could do far better for oriental people then mutated a slanted eyelid. Correct?

No. Partly, we haven't been separated from any other group of humans for very long, but there's another factor. While the animal kingdom may continue to evolve, Asians, like all human beings, would probably react badly to mutations in a possible mate, as we are a species that is mostly capable of survival, and is more concerned with social stability. Humans have stepped out of the evolutionary game for the most part.

(Oh, and as for the "slanted eyelid" bit, I should point out there's more variation for such features within a race than between the various races. Thought it should be said.)


If birds could mutate hair into feathers and hollow bones for lightweight flight then surly the human could have mutated a thin layer to protect the eyes from the sun and dust? The reptile family has protection for their eyes and still allows them to see.

Again, the human race has stepped off the evolutionary ladder. Think about it, if you had a date and you suddenly realized s/he had a layer of film over his/her eyes, wouldn't that freak you out just a bit?


Too many questions and not enough answers.

There are plenty of answers. You just have to look for them.

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

Damn you, Foelhe... Damn you, and such... You have cleverly and deviously turned the tables on my treachery to become treacherous yourself, answering 40oz's questions before I could do so myself... << reluctantly claps his hands >> Well done, sir... well done... Nemesis, thy name is Foelhe...

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

I will say that in all of our differences you do have your faith down packed. I commend that. However I will still not purchase it and to each his own.
I find the need to say that science and evolution are not my "faith". Everything that I have told you has been taken from facts and evidence (evidence that is MILLIONS upon millions of years old) based on simple observation. What it is, is what it is. WHY things are the way they are have no influence on the simple observation that things simply ARE the way that they are. That's it! You give up too easily, 40oz... LOOK at an evolutionary tree >>> we went from a single cell to what we are now with a zillion baby steps in between. It makes sense if you look at it...

[DontBeAfraid]

Some website is speaking through 40 oz. Some stupid creationist website. BEGONE website I command thee! The power of Nye complels you. The power of nye compels you!

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

<< DBA, clutching a copy of "The Origin of Species", sprinkles tap water on 40oz as 40oz's head spins uncontrollably from trying to assimilate too much evolutionary knowledge at one time >>

[liberdave]

Your problem is fairly evident in this post, 40oz >>> In science, there is no WHY, there is only IS And it actually goes a step further with, There IS no IS, only a does.


The power of nye compels you!

DBA, clutching a copy of "The Origin of Species"
funniest two posts Ever.

[salvador]

Gordon Bennett! I really need my own Internet connection. I spent ages coming up with more argument and by the time I get online, it's all over.

Oh well. I'm partly repeating what has already been said, but I'm not going to waste the paragraphs I came up with. Here they are (in part). And please bear with me about the cakes:

Certain things do not appear spontaneously. Things like cakes, cameras, Wedgwood plates and episodes of "The Simpsons" require human intervention. If I believe that cakes are created rather than evolved, it's not because it feels intuitively right, but because I walk past the bakery every morning on the way to work. Evidence.

Yet there is no evidence for the belief that people were made by a god. To my knowledge there is no mystical factory anywhere that churns out humans. No evidence. On the other hand, there is a great deal of evidence to support the theory that people evolved: The fossil record; genetic mutation; observable changes to species such as butterflies and bats. Evidence.

The argument that "human invention is proof of the existence of a Creator" is like saying: "Because I baked a cake, there must be a god."

40oz, even if your logic were not flawed, it would still fall down when we take into account the evidence. When it comes to a competition between logic and evidence, the winner is always evidence. If it applied to Newton, Einstein and Darwin, it applies to you.

[nrj]

Just so you know, 40oz, you're argument kinda conrtadict's itself. You forgot to say
Only a fool would think that the baker would've been eternal, since nothing can be eternal. I mean, basically you're argument slaughters itself. because, if a cake can't suddenly appear out of the thin air, neither can the baker. And if the baker is eternal, the cake could also have been eternal.

[Assassin X]

I got a good one for you guys that really makes you ponder about God.

God has a plan for everyone right? But yet we are allowed to make are own choices, so if we make the wrong choice we will never see the plan right?

Well this got me to thinking....you'll all like this.

Gods one person right? So if God all ready knew for instance "My plan" and he also knew my other endings and other roads i would go down wouldnt that means he would "know" perhaps millions of different paths?

This would mean he would be able to hold millions of memories (or whatever you would call them) of my paths depending on the millions of choices i would make. So no matter what i do he knows where im always going to go right?

WAIT heres my points and where it gets good!

So if hes able to remember these now hundredes of millions of muti paths of mine. That means hes doing it for everyone else in the world too! So now hes able to remember 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999. ........etc

Basically an Infinite amount of choices when you add them all up!

How is a single person....entity....whatever able to remember EVERY single persons millions of choices and paths? Not to mention he also knows everything! And able to be in mutiple places and the same time while....well you get my drift! Hes like the worlds biggest universal harddrive!

Im gonna guess someones gonna say its just beacuse I can't comprohend how hes able to do it.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

It's a possibility that god is omnipotent, all-knowing, and therefore would have no difficulty realizing a nigh-infinite amount of paths. Saying it's ridiculous for him to be able to do this is like saying, "No way that computer can remember a ten-thousand digit number for a week! I couldn't!" It's just a matter of ability.

But that's kind of a moot point. People saying "God has a plan" are generally talking about destiny, saying that God does control everything. People saying we make our own decisions believe in free will. Destiny and Free Will are opposing powers - therefore your example was paradoxical.

Or... I guess it's possible you can say both "God has a plan" and "We make our own decisions", if you lessen the strength of what the sentences mean. "God has a plan" could mean God has a general plan which he will fit into the equation when the world is ready. Or it could be God hopes things will go a certain way, but has a limited ability (or chooses to limit his ability) to actually see that plan through. Or "We make our own decisions" could be read to mean, "Destiny is no excuse."

And then there's the theory of "Variable Destiny", where God doesn't actually control the situation, per say, but he knows what will happen, because he can see all the factors that go into a decision. A "coin toss" is considered random, but if you measure the weight of the coin and how evenly it's distributed, and the force someone puts behind the coin, and the wind currents and surface of your thumbnail and angle of launch... and suddenly you know how the "random" event will pan out.

[Mezurashi]

is it better to be Doing, or Being?

By Doing I don't mean anything specific, just the act of doing.

By Being I don't mean anything specific, just living and Being ones self.

there are many sides to this, but the Do'ers seem to wrapped up in Production (of a solution, or a cake, or whatever) and the Be'ers seemed to be wrapped up in Definition (who are you, what are you, why are you).

The Do'ers wind up not Being, thus they've Done stuff for no reason and it drives them crazy. They have no idea who they are.

The Be'ers wind up not Doing, thus they're 'sitting pretty' in the middle of a pile of wreckage. They have no idea where they are.

anyways - just thought I'd throw this in to watch the flames shoot up again.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

No flames from me! I'm an obvious "Be'er", and I can certainly see the flaws in thinking all the time.

But I don't know if you can truly say one path is better or worse than the other. Both have flaws and merits that carefully oppose one another, forming the careful study of opposites that damn near everything else has in abundance. So I suspect the penalties for either would even out. And of course the best option would be to know when to philosophize and when to kick ass. Balance in all things.

[Mezurashi]

That was kind of my thoughts on the matter but lately I've been running into polarization in the world regarding this.

It's almost as if the normally middle of the road types I know have started leaning towards extremism.

Doing or Being - these choices should never be considered mutually exclusive yet stuff like the Katrina Relief Effort only creates a wider rift between the two sides.

Are we as humans doomed to keep making obvious mistakes?

Are we as humans so confused that we cannot even decide for ourselves?

Are we as humans really sure we deserve any sort of credit for anything?

(and where is my coffee, dammit!)

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Doing or Being - these choices should never be considered mutually exclusive yet stuff like the Katrina Relief Effort only creates a wider rift between the two sides.

Unfortunately, most people have difficulties with the whole "balance" thing, and I don't think it's just on this issue. And during a crisis, people tend to take the simplest road, which then leads to extremes.

But I am curious how you think Katrina has affected this, because to be honest I haven't noticed.


Are we as humans doomed to keep making obvious mistakes?

Ah, and what is an obvious mistake? Yeah, people screw up. Unfortunate fact of life.


Are we as humans so confused that we cannot even decide for ourselves?

For the most part? I'd say the majority is. The flux of trends and archetypes in society is pretty much proof of this.

Of course, that leaves the rest of us to take the reins, either by command or by example. Dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it.


Are we as humans really sure we deserve any sort of credit for anything?

*shrugs* Success is abstract and subjective. You can say we deserve credit for everything we do right, or you can say we deserve blame for everything we do wrong. Or you can find a happy medium. Balance in all things.

I will say that as flawed as humanity may be, there are a lot of people who do try. Even if they don't turn the world into a place of perfect harmony and joy, they keep trying for it. I'd say that's worth a little credit.


(and where is my coffee, dammit!)

Didja check the fridge? You'd be surprised the dumb stuff people put in the fridge.

[Defiant Noquisi]

As a matter of fact, I did carry out this exact same experiment for my wife's birthday! It was a cheesecake though, does that make me god? Yes, any man whipping up one and then whipping out something else for me would be god.

Hmm, on second thought there was that time a man told me that god couldnt help me now...oh nevermind. Just one of hedonisms finer moments.

You cook for woman, you god....or was that mog?

[Defiant Noquisi]

*PS there are many chemicals that make up a cake. You left out the mexican oregano. :P

[Defiant Noquisi]

Okay, so in light of the first cake post, was that an angel food, a devils food or a spice cake?

[dcookcan]

Your problem is fairly evident in this post, 40oz >>> In science, there is no WHY, there is only IS...

...hmmm... This sounds like faith to me Bill. Science developed because people asked WHY. People of faith use that 'just because it IS' line too often.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

...hmmm... This sounds like faith to me Bill. Science developed because people asked WHY. People of faith use that 'just because it IS' line too often.

If B. Nye was talking about... what's a good word... circumstances? If Nye was talking about the circumstances that caused something to happen, you'd be right. But I think in this case he's talking about motivation. Science has no agenda and plays no favorites, it does what it does and that's all there is to it.

40oz was asking "Why doesn't it do this? Why doesn't it do that?" Can it? In some cases it could, yes. So why hasn't it? Because it hasn't. *shrugs* There are probably complexities beneath the surface, variables that would spell the whole thing out, but in the meantime we just accept that some things happen and others don't.

Edit: Oh, and I think there are some cases in theism where God's actions can be defended with a simple, "Just 'cause". Not nearly as many as some theists think, but sometimes it's just that simple.

[marglarg]

... and just to stir it up a bit more:

If we take God and religion out of the equation, do all the atheists out there still hold open the idea that there could be more to the universe than what we currently know? Is it the fact that the religions lay claim to the answers and it is that which you don't believe, and hence that which makes you an atheist? Or is it simply a belief that there is no higher power, nothing more than just galaxies, stars and planets all doing their thing, resultant in life as we know it?

Is it possible within the realms of science that there are other dimensions, beings, life even, that can somehow intervene within our current space. There is much evidence towards the paranormal aswell. How do we explain away these things. Some maybe the laywork of crackpots but there is much credence in what I have read IMO.

You might see where I am heading with this line of reasoning ...

Are some of you totally closed to that which may be beyond your understanding and thus leaving you totally in the belief that there is nothing more? The evidence you see is finite, it is unchanging, and that is that so they say.

Alternatively, are you somewhat open to things which may be beyond your current knowledge and understanding of the universe, and thus leaving you open to the possibilities of a God? I don't necessarily think the evidence may lead to a God as such but is there a possiblity?

I myself don't believe in religions as such for a number of reasons but I do believe in a higher power ... I don't know if I would call him God as I have not met him/her/it just yet. :nudge:

[40oz]

Your truths are just as valid as mine. We just have to accept that some will believe in this and some will believe in that. If the universe all started with a big bang from a small heavy ball of mass. Then it should stand to reason that everything in that ball of mass should be like materials and components. There is a vast array of elements in the universe, yet one planet is comprised of totaly different elements from any other. A chicken cant give birth to a frog. Things "out there" should not differ in great degrees if it all originated from the same event imo. But then again I am no scientist dreaming of what I can put into a text book to fool the masses.

[DontBeAfraid]

omg....thats what you think of science and scientists? Where ever did yo uhear that our planet is made of things entirely different from any other planet? You ever hear of mars? With every post you become more and more of a joke.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Is it possible within the realms of science that there are other dimensions, beings, life even, that can somehow intervene within our current space. There is much evidence towards the paranormal aswell. How do we explain away these things. Some maybe the laywork of crackpots but there is much credence in what I have read IMO.

On the one hand, marglarg, I do agree with you. I think it's a mistake to completely ignore the possibility a powerful being exists, even if you don't think it does.

On the other hand... those dimensions and beings you mentioned? Science and logic actually support their existance to some degree. And if they don't (like God), then I'm not going to feel foolish for not believing in a hunch which happened to pan out.

Suppose I demanded that you believed in dragons, without any evidence? And then suppose later on we actually proved that dragons did indeed exist? Would you feel stupid because you believed they were nothing more than a fairy-tale? You certainly shouldn't. Your logical mind said they didn't exist, your gut instincts said they didn't exist, and the evidence itself said they didn't exist. You'd have to be able to see the future to know that they did. And I don't think that's a fair demand to make.


But then again I am no scientist dreaming of what I can put into a text book to fool the masses.

40oz, I love reading your posts. I'm amazed at your ability to go from "we all have valid points of view" to this. It's a kind of unfettered hypocrisy I find rather impressive.


There is a vast array of elements in the universe, yet one planet is comprised of totaly different elements from any other. A chicken cant give birth to a frog. Things "out there" should not differ in great degrees if it all originated from the same event imo.

This seems sort've simplistic to me, to be honest. I mean, let's try to look at the universe as a cake again... only in this case, we're looking at a pantry full of every ingredient imaginable - pretty much any chef's dream.

Now, if you send five different people into that kitchen, and don't tell them what to make, all five will probably make something completely different, depending on their tastes and abilities. They're all using the same "vast array" of ingredients, but that still gives them plenty of ground to cover.

[marglarg]

Suppose I demanded that you believed in dragons, without any evidence? And then suppose later on we actually proved that dragons did indeed exist? Would you feel stupid because you believed they were nothing more than a fairy-tale? You certainly shouldn't. Your logical mind said they didn't exist, your gut instincts said they didn't exist, and the evidence itself said they didn't exist. You'd have to be able to see the future to know that they did. And I don't think that's a fair demand to make.

What can I say Foelhe, well said and I agree with you totally !!

[40oz]

Thank you, I strive for imperfection foelhe. Don’t be afraid, you have been on my ignore list for a long time brother. Curiosity almost made me look, but better I just imagine that you agreed with my whole heartedly and praised my insightful dialogue.

[nrj]

Your truths are just as valid as mine. We just have to accept that some will believe in this and some will believe in that. If the universe all started with a big bang from a small heavy ball of mass. Then it should stand to reason that everything in that ball of mass should be like materials and components. There is a vast array of elements in the universe, yet one planet is comprised of totaly different elements from any other. A chicken cant give birth to a frog. Things "out there" should not differ in great degrees if it all originated from the same event imo. But then again I am no scientist dreaming of what I can put into a text book to fool the masses.

Let me give a simple example to that: Drop an egg, about 5 meters above the ground. Drop another egg from an exact height against the exact same ground and the broken eggs will not look the same. Their shards will be differently spread etc.
(Why was I not born in the UK...?)And all animals babies in their mommies tummy (I know there's a different word for them, but I don't know it) look almost identical. We all eat in similiar ways and have tons of similarities.

[Rynotek]

from the documentary Brass Eye

Eastern European drug called Cake, we went as far as to ask a question about it in Parliament [1]. The drug purportedly affected an area of the brain called Shatner's Bassoon and was frequently referred to as "a made-up drug". Other celebrities such as Sir Bernard Ingham, Noel Edmonds, Rolf Harris were shown holding the bright-yellow cake-sized pill as they talked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_Eye

[DontBeAfraid]

HAHAHAHA. I know you read it 40oz. I know you will read this.

[salvador]

It's a possibility that god is omnipotentIf there were a god, he would be either incompetent or malicious.

Why do I say this? If he really were competent why would he create disease? Evil? Natural disaster? To say that this is the result of free will does not answer the question. Remember, even free will has its limitations. With that in mind, why didn't god create a world in which evil wasn't possible? If he was omnipotent, he could have, and retained free will. He can't be omnipotent and benevolent.

If he is competent, then he is malicious.

What I'm really trying to say is that if he was neither incompetent nor malicious, then why would he give me a face like this?: :Bott:

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

...hmmm... This sounds like faith to me Bill. Science developed because people asked WHY. People of faith use that 'just because it IS' line too often.
No no no no no !!! Foelhe clarified things nicely by saying the following:

If B. Nye was talking about... what's a good word... circumstances? If Nye was talking about the circumstances that caused something to happen, you'd be right. But I think in this case he's talking about motivation. Science has no agenda and plays no favorites, it does what it does and that's all there is to it.
Damn, Foelhe! Are you psychic or something? Get out of my head!!! But I'm going to reiterate that science is NOT faith because it is based on observable evidence which is accepted as fact. You can't "believe" in fact. Fact is fact, it's the way that things are. There are many theories that exist in science, which I think you may be referring to. Having gone through 7 years of university science courses (mainly biology, chemistry and physics), I'm very familiar with the scientific process. I believe that your average believer (not all) doesn't grasp the idea of how methodical and unbiased that science is. All that I can tell you is that, if something is currently a theory that has yet to be proven by observable evidence, the theory that has the most legitimacy is accepted as THE MOST LIKELY POSSIBILITY. However, it is not accepted as fact until it has been proven by evidence. Thus, if the Big Bang theory is proven wrong, then scientists will accept that and subsequently strive to find other answers. THERE IS NO BIAS IN SCIENCE. I'm not completely convinced that the Big Bang theory is correct, but there are many aspects of the theory that are backed up by observable evidence that give it some merit. But if somebody comes up with irrefutable evidence that an incredibly large space organism sneezed, thus violently releasing all matter into the universe, then I will accept it. This is the difference between science and religion. Hypothetically speaking, if somebody proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no God, I believe that most religious people would not accept it and they would continue on with their faith. Like Foelhe said, religion has an agenda which would fall apart if proven to be wrong. Science has NO agenda. Science is UNBIASED. If a theory is proven wrong in science, then it is CONSIDERED wrong because it has been PROVEN wrong. There exists NO agenda in science that would make some scientists cling to a theory that has been proven to be wrong. Science constantly strives for TRUTH and has NO desire or reason to further an agenda as is the case with religion. In science, there is NO faith, there is only TRUTH...


If we take God and religion out of the equation, do all the atheists out there still hold open the idea that there could be more to the universe than what we currently know?
OF COURSE!!! To think otherwise would be arrogant! Another mistake that believers make concerning science is that they think that science should have all of the answers RIGHT NOW. This is just plain stupid! Science is CONSTANTLY striving and will ALWAYS strive to find answers. There are many things that science cannot currently explain, but that doesn't mean that science won't eventually find the answers at some point in the future. Remember, if it wasn't for science asking questions, then we'd still believe that the sun revolves around the earth...


Your truths are just as valid as mine.
I'm sorry, 40oz, but you're wrong here. Our truths are based on proven FACT, and thus really ARE truths. Your "truths" are not truths at all, they are instead BELIEFS that are NOT backed up by fact or evidence...


But then again I am no scientist dreaming of what I can put into a text book to fool the masses.
There's your problem, 40oz. You'd rather believe in unscrupulous people who have an agenda to protect rather than believing in what incredibly intelligent geniuses who are bound by strict rules have actually PROVEN...

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Thank you, I strive for imperfection foelhe. Don’t be afraid, you have been on my ignore list for a long time brother.

I... I've been put on an ignore list? I've dreamed of this day for so long! W00T! W00T!

Although I didn't expect it from you quite that soon. Wow, you must've been really pissed when I blew your "proof" Christians were right out of the water. (And now the taunting starts.)


Why do I say this? If he really were competent why would he create disease? Evil? Natural disaster? To say that this is the result of free will does not answer the question. Remember, even free will has its limitations. With that in mind, why didn't god create a world in which evil wasn't possible? If he was omnipotent, he could have, and retained free will. He can't be omnipotent and benevolent.

Ah, this argument again.

I could point out that in order to appreciate the good things, we have to have the bad. I could point out that even if everything in the world was awesome, human beings would rail against god because some of their lives were less perfect than their neighbors.

But I'll stick with my tried-and-true argument, because it's a bit less vague - this world is a transitory experience. We're born, stuff happens to us, we die. Sometimes the life we have is rough, but if God is a good god, we either go to another plane of existance, or we come back to this one and get another chance. From our limited perspective, death seems like a horrible thing, but if we are infinite beings, it's really no more of a big deal than a toddler bumping his head on a table. And a parent who won't let his child wander for fear of a bruise is being hysterical.


Damn, Foelhe! Are you psychic or something? Get out of my head!!!

*wiggles his fingers at the screen in a menacing fashion*

We are now controlling the transmission. We control the horizontal and the vertical. We can deluge you with a thousand channels or expand one single image to crystal clarity and beyond. We can shape your vision to anything our imagination can conceive. For the next hour we will control all that you see and hear.

Uh... I mean... no. Why do you ask?

[DontBeAfraid]

I... I've been put on an ignore list? I've dreamed of this day for so long! W00T! W00T!lol

sorry bud. He was talking to me. He just added spaces to my name.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Goddammit!

[nrj]

Ah, this argument again.

I could point out that in order to appreciate the good things, we have to have the bad. I could point out that even if everything in the world was awesome, human beings would rail against god because some of their lives were less perfect than their neighbors. That is not a reason at all. If he is omnipotent, he can constantly make everyone equal. And saying we should apriciate the world more is not an argument at all. If he wanted to, he could make the world into two colors, and then we would understand how fun it was through having many clors... no... wait... if teh world would only have 2 colors, we would not at even imagine a world in more then 2 colors. And also, if he beats the crap out of us all the time just to make us love him, he have some fucked up logic for being omnipotent.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

If he is omnipotent, he can constantly make everyone equal.

Well, yes, but what would be the point of that? Everything being equal means everything being the same. If I have a character trait, and if someone else doesn't have that trait, we aren't really equal... but character traits make us who we are.

If you wanted to make everyone equal, you'd have to take away one of two things - either the differences between people, or our ability to form opinions. Neither of which sound good to me.


And saying we should apriciate the world more is not an argument at all.

I'm sorry, I must've misspoken. I don't think we should "appreciate" the world per say, just keep it in perspective. You can use any "flaw" to argue against the existance of a loving god, it's just that we choose the worst ones. If we didn't have death, we'd be angry at poverty. If we didn't have poverty, we'd be angry at limited abilities. If we didn't have limited abilities, we'd be angry at... I dunno, hair color or something.

I'm just saying that people focus on the worst thing that could happen to them, and there will always be that limit. The only way to take that away would be to make everyone equal. [Redux first point HERE]


And also, if he beats the crap out of us all the time just to make us love him, he have some fucked up logic for being omnipotent.

How can I put this best? Your perceptions as a human, finite being make death one of the worst things you can think of. But if there is an afterlife, it's just a transition. Maybe a painful transition, but then most are.

[Beatnik Bob]

No unity without seperation, no seperation without unity................ By the way, funny "Outer Limits" quote Foelhe.

[Mezurashi]

Goddammit!

... which is as good an explanation as any of what's going on lately ...

(gales of self-derisive laughter)

[salvador]

this world is a transitory experience
...
If we didn't have death, we'd be angry at poverty. If we didn't have poverty, we'd be angry at limited abilities. If we didn't have limited abilities, we'd be angry at... I dunno, hair color or something.I'm angry at all those things--including hair colour. Trouble is, we have the problem of anger itself. Why would god create anger in the first place? Seems to me anger is an evolved attack/defence mechanism and not much fun for anyone--including the person who is angry. And surely the idea that we are better off with these negative emotions is a contradiction. If god hadn't created negative emotions, we'd..er..be happy. What's wrong with that? Mindless happiness. Most people persue that anyway through drink, drugs, work, etc.


Your perceptions as a human, finite being make death one of the worst things you can think of. But if there is an afterlife, it's just a transition. Maybe a painful transition, but then most are.I heard the afterlife was perfect. Does this mean there will be no anger, no pain, no natural disaster? If so, then why didn't god just skip the bad bit (i.e. this life) and give us the "afterlife" as the main deal? I'm sure someone will tell me that we either have to earn our place in paradise, or accept a religious figure from the past as our saviour. But why? Does god enjoy playing a sick cosmic gambling game with us, where the prize is eternal life and the penalty is eternal torture? Get the right religion and you are saved. Get the wrong one and--BURN!!

Also, I'm a little worried about this heaven thing. I've stated somewhere before that if there's an infinite amount of time and only a finite number of things to do, then not only will you be able to do everything, but you'll be able to do everything an infinite number of times. Talk about boredom. And that really would make heaven hell.

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

Why would god create anger in the first place?
He had to create anger so that the Hulk could change into a big green dude...

[nrj]

Where do you get it from, Nye :Llol:

[DarkAce]

Why would god create anger in the first place?...If god hadn't created negative emotions, we'd..er..be happy. What's wrong with that? Mindless happiness.


That would depend on how emotions work. If we didn't have anger or the 'negative emotions' would we have happiness and the 'positive emotions'? We define happiness through our experience with anger, depression etc. If we didn't have those, would we truly know what 'happiness' is? You seem to forget that all the emotions are connected and neccessary in order to have the other.

Another perspective is that it's a test. We have these 'negative emotions' as a way for God to test our temperance, or whatever to see if we give in completly to these 'negative emotions' or not.


I heard the afterlife was perfect.
....


Really all of that is up to whatever religion you heard it from or whatever your belief is. Doesn't mean it's true and the way your stating things is as if it's cold hard fact. No one really knows what any of it is like, or how these things really work. For all I know when I die instead of seeing Jesus I could be greeted by Cthulhu!

[nrj]

Wll, DarkAce, he didn't give us the ability to read other peoples mind. So, we donät possibly know if that's cool to do, or if it's just very annoying. We're neutral, since we can't read other peoples mind. So, why not neutralise our feelings?

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Trouble is, we have the problem of anger itself. Why would god create anger in the first place? Seems to me anger is an evolved attack/defence mechanism and not much fun for anyone--including the person who is angry.

But anger is a necessity for improvement. Or at least, dislike is a necessity for improvement, and anger is just dislike intensified. If we didn't dislike anything, we wouldn't be able to improve or lives, our situations. Our time on Earth would be meaningless. Let alone the fact that we'd all be dead, since we'd be happy to starve to death.


What's wrong with that? Mindless happiness. Most people persue that anyway through drink, drugs, work, etc.

Well, insomuch as drug-users are wrapped in mindless happiness, they are a drain on friends, family and society. There's no meaning in their lives, no growth. If the human race has no meaning, then yes, we might as well be completely happy all the time. The question then becomes, "What is our purpose?" And the truthful answer is that none of us know for certain.


I heard the afterlife was perfect.

I've heard that too. It's bollocks. Humanity was designed to pursue the dream, whatever dream that may be. A perfect afterlife is friendly fiction.


Wll, DarkAce, he didn't give us the ability to read other peoples mind. So, we donät possibly know if that's cool to do, or if it's just very annoying. We're neutral, since we can't read other peoples mind. So, why not neutralise our feelings?

We're not necessarily neutral, we "read other people's minds" through simple human empathy. And sometimes we don't realize the concequences our actions will have on another person, but that's not a sign to just give the whole thing up, any more than fumbling a football is a sign that you should never play the sport again. We grow, we learn. That's what human beings accomplish.

[nrj]

Yes, but I'm talking reading what other people think. We are neutral for that matter. Ever been able to guess what the clerk thinks of you're cloths? Reading what other feels, sure, I can go for that. But we do not have the ability to read other people's mind. That's for sure.

[salvador]

You seem to forget that all the emotions are connected and neccessary in order to have the other.I didn't forget this. My question is WHY? Why would an omnipotent benevolent god create a situation resulting in so much misery and pain?


If we didn't dislike anything, we wouldn't be able to improve or lives, our situations. Our time on Earth would be meaningless. Again. An omnipotent god would be able to engineer a mental outlook in people to allow happiness and meaning without the negatives, just as he has engineered our current emotions to be so unpleasant. As it stands, it still looks like a twisted game.


What If......There were colors that had yet to be seen.....
Music that had never been heard ?
Animals that did'nt exist here but existed there?That's lovely, but my point was that even if there were a vast number of things to do or see or hear, eventually you're still going to run out of colours, music, animals, etc., even if it takes a billion years. You still have the rest of eternity to see them all again, and again, and again, and again (repeat ad infinitum). Eventually you'd want to die but couldn't kill yourself. Isn't that hell?


I guarentee It would'nt be boring.Guarantee? Sounds good. Wait, this isn't one of those extended warranty scams is it?

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Again. An omnipotent god would be able to engineer a mental outlook in people to allow happiness and meaning without the negatives, just as he has engineered our current emotions to be so unpleasant. As it stands, it still looks like a twisted game.

Translation: You want the world handed to you on a silver platter. You want the best of everything with none of the downsides.

I'm not trying to be rude, Salvador, but that is basically what you are asking for. You want meaning... but you don't want to earn it. Meaning is achieved through success, which is achieved through strife. Without pain and discomfort, there is no meaning. Happiness is achieved through contentment, the polar opposite of strife. You can have both contentment and strife, but it's a balancing act, a world you have to build yourself.

[DarkAce]

My question is WHY? Why would an omnipotent benevolent god create a situation resulting in so much misery and pain?


First things first, we're not sure if 'God' is omnipotent or even benevolent. Second is it God creating the situation, or ourselves? What causes the misery and pain? Why does one choose to feel that way?


An omnipotent god would be able to engineer a mental outlook in people to allow happiness and meaning without the negatives, just as he has engineered our current emotions to be so unpleasant. As it stands, it still looks like a twisted game.


Again, what we define as 'happiness' extends out of our experience with the 'negatives'. How would we know what 'happiness' is without them? How exactly are our emotions so unpleasant? We have a wide spectrum of them ranging from what you would consider 'negative' all the way to 'positive'. How we choose to feel would be based upon our state of mind. Not some distant being playing us as strings forcing us to feel a certain way.

It will always look like a twisted game if you allow yourself to only see it as that. What you propose would see to make the world quite 'colourless' in my opinion.


That's lovely, but my point was that even if there were a vast number of things to do or see or hear, eventually you're still going to run out of colours, music, animals, etc., even if it takes a billion years. You still have the rest of eternity to see them all again, and again, and again, and again (repeat ad infinitum). Eventually you'd want to die but couldn't kill yourself. Isn't that hell?


Again we have no idea what the afterlife is like, or if even there is one. How do we even know that we stay in an afterlife? Perhaps 'Heaven' is a pit stop before we get thrown back (reincarnated).

[marglarg]

Originally Posted by marglarg
If we take God and religion out of the equation, do all the atheists out there still hold open the idea that there could be more to the universe than what we currently know?


OF COURSE!!! To think otherwise would be arrogant! Another mistake that believers make concerning science is that they think that science should have all of the answers RIGHT NOW. This is just plain stupid! Science is CONSTANTLY striving and will ALWAYS strive to find answers. There are many things that science cannot currently explain, but that doesn't mean that science won't eventually find the answers at some point in the future. Remember, if it wasn't for science asking questions, then we'd still believe that the sun revolves around the earth...




Almost what I was getting at but not quite. It wasn't so much an attack on what science stands for or where it is currently at, but moreso, I was trying to influence your thought in such a way that if you are open to the fact that there are many things we do not understand; many things that science is trying to find answers for(but hasn't just yet) ... is your mind open to the fact that one day science may prove that there are other dimensions, beings, and perhaps a particular being of higher power other than what we know off in this universe?

If you answer yes, then is it possible that one day God may be found to exist? If that is in fact what he/she/it will be called or is your answer simply a closed 'no'?

Remember I am no religuous believer, nor do I know if there is a god as such. I feel there is more to this plane of existence and I know, I know with all that I am, that there is something more ... what that is I do not yet know but I will never attack those that feel they do.

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

... is your mind open to the fact that one day science may prove that there are other dimensions, beings, and perhaps a particular being of higher power other than what we know off in this universe?
Yes, my mind is open to this fact, which is why I consider myself to be agnostic instead of atheist. I don't BELIEVE that a higher being exists, but I realize that there is still a very small possibility that one DOES exist despite the current lack of evidence to support this possibility...

[salvador]

You want the world handed to you on a silver platter. You want the best of everything with none of the downsides.Ah! You've got it now. I'm glad my post was clear.

Again, what we define as 'happiness' extends out of our experience with the 'negatives'. How would we know what 'happiness' is without them? How exactly are our emotions so unpleasant? We have a wide spectrum of them ranging from what you would consider 'negative' all the way to 'positive'. How we choose to feel would be based upon our state of mind. Not some distant being playing us as strings forcing us to feel a certain way.There is a current consensus among many self-help gurus that we choose how we feel. This seems to me to be nonsense.

If we are physically attacked, we don't think: Hmm, someone has just pummelled my face repeatedly against the wall. How shall I feel about this? I know! I'll choose to be happy. Oh joy! My face has flopped open! Isn't my blood a beautiful colour?

Won't happen. While I've occasionally seen people wind themselves up into a lather (usually just before they demand to see my TV licence), it's not possible to stop yourself from feeling an emotion. Saying we choose how to feel is almost like saying that emotions don't exist at all: That they are only an extension of conscious thought.

While conscious thoughts can have an influence on the intensity of emotions, they can't stop them. It's true that we can control our behaviour in response to events despite our feelings, and it's that behaviour which feeds back into our emotions with a desirable or undesirable result. Of course, what is desirable or undesirable is subjective.

So, we can choose our behavioural response to emotions, but not choose to stop or change the emotions through thought.

Now to the idea of an afterlife.

Think about this: Assume for the moment that the universe really is fifteen billion years old, as cosmologists tell us. Think now about all the time that is left--about a hundred billion years, apparently.

Think about the tiny amount of time we have alive.

What are the chances of being alive now? How is it that despite the huge amount of time in existence in the universe, I'm conscious right now?

It could mean several things:
-It could be pure chance that "now" coincides with my time alive.
-It could mean that every person who ever lived perceives him/herself to be alive "now." That "now" is an entirely subjective concept.
-It could be evidence of reincarnation. That is, I only feel alive now because I'm always alive, in one form or another. If, on death, we become another person, this would explain the apparently minute chances of existing.

Of couse, if you believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old, this is less of a problem. But frankly, I go with the scientists on this one (ironic, I know).

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Ah! You've got it now. I'm glad my post was clear.

I see. Well, what you want out of life is your choice, of course. But just because God doesn't suck you off nightly doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

Y'know, people keep asking why God doesn't make a perfect world. I find it a little bewildering. Doesn't perfection exclude growth? Isn't growth one of the most important abilities for a human being? If you'd like to spend the rest of your life sitting on the couch, go right ahead, but leave me out of it.


What are the chances of being alive now? How is it that despite the huge amount of time in existence in the universe, I'm conscious right now?

... What are the odds of someone winning the lottery? Not anyone in particular, just someone.

I'm sure there have been people throughout time who have asked this question. I have. Right now your turn has come up. It was bound to eventually.

[DarkAce]

There is a current consensus among many self-help gurus that we choose how we feel. This seems to me to be nonsense.


Sure we can, at times it's overwhelming to control your emotions (Re: Behavioural attributes), but we surely can choose how to 'feel'. For instance, if someone does me wrong, I can choose to feel depressed, feel angry, or shrug it off, etc. Some people haven't 'learned' how to deal with their emotions and allow themselvies to be consumed by them and guided by their insight. Infact I'd probably go through a wide range of emotion in this case, but in the end, personally, I'd choose not to be negative about the situation and go on with my life.


If we are physically attacked, we don't think: Hmm, someone has just pummelled my face repeatedly against the wall. How shall I feel about this? I know! I'll choose to be happy. Oh joy! My face has flopped open! Isn't my blood a beautiful colour?


(Well totally off topic there are people who have attuned themselves towards enjoying pain, so perhaps...)
As a side note, I've been completly emotionless at times in situations like that. One time I just sat there looking at the blood on my hands, without a single thought of how to 'feel'.


While conscious thoughts can have an influence on the intensity of emotions, they can't stop them. It's true that we can control our behaviour in response to events despite our feelings, and it's that behaviour which feeds back into our emotions with a desirable or undesirable result. Of course, what is desirable or undesirable is subjective.

So, we can choose our behavioural response to emotions, but not choose to stop or change the emotions through thought.


Well then we've reached common ground on that understanding, which then leads us back to the dilemna of your initial question. It than becomes a question of how we express our feelings, which is clearly a choice, conscious one or not. If your still proposing the never feel anger, hate, depression, etc. I lead you back to my answer that they're necessary to have in order to 'feel' happiness, joy, love, etc. as they are all connected.

And why do I ask is feeling these 'negative' emotions such a bad thing? It all comes down to is how we act upon and do while feeling these emotions and it's different for everyone. If I feel angry, it doesn't mean I'm going to use that anger to go and beat someone up ( althought it's different for all) using my other human qualities such as reason, I'd deem it unnecessary.

Good things have also come out of feeling these 'negative' emotions as well, such as make up sex.

[salvador]

Foelhe, my problem with the concept of an omnipotent, benevolent god is not that we have to do some work, but (in an entirely imaginary, hypothetical, fictional scenario that has nothing to do with my actual situation) imagine that one of your relatives had spent the majority of their lives praising and worshipping god, living a wholesome healthy life, sincerely believing that they were saved. And then... What happens? They contract cancer. What kind of a god does that? Where, please tell me, is the emotional growth? Disease is destructive and pointless, and any emotional development is no compensation. So excuse me if I get a bit angry. And if, as DarkAce suggests, the afterlife may not be perfect, but just an extension of this life, where's the benefit in following him? He doesn't help us in this life, and he doesn't help us in the next. Utterly useless Twat. He may as well not exist at all.


What are the chances of being alive now? How is it that despite the huge amount of time in existence in the universe, I'm conscious right now?I'm sure there have been people throughout time who have asked this question. I have. Right now your turn has come up. It was bound to eventually.I'm sure you have asked that question. You have an inquiring mind.

I'm interested in the possible answers. I was hoping you'd come up with some other options, so I'm a bit disappointed. Perhaps your mind isn't that inquiring after all. Come on, don't make me do all the work. Or do you already have the answer? Come on. Let us in on it.


As a side note, I've been completly emotionless at times in situations like that. One time I just sat there looking at the blood on my hands, without a single thought of how to 'feel'.Sounds like emotional shock to me. Doesn't it make you angry to recall these events now?

[Philosopher Foelhe]

imagine that one of your relatives had spent the majority of their lives praising and worshipping god, living a wholesome healthy life, sincerely believing that they were saved. And then... What happens? They contract cancer. What kind of a god does that? Where, please tell me, is the emotional growth? Disease is destructive and pointless, and any emotional development is no compensation. So excuse me if I get a bit angry.

I don't even understand what you're trying to say. "Emotional development is no compensation"? What makes you think that? You've already made up your mind as to how you feel about it, so I'm not sure anything I say will change it. All I can say is, if I got cancer, I would try to accept that fact and react to the situation as best I could. I'm not saying I wouldn't be angry or depressed, but I would try not to let it control me. Sometimes there is pain, but the pain doesn't last forever. You deal with it in your own way, you move on. One way or another.

Life is a learning experience. Whether you choose to learn from something or let it overwhelm you is your decision. I know we don't control our emotions, but we can control the reactions we have to them.


And if, as DarkAce suggests, the afterlife may not be perfect, but just an extension of this life, where's the benefit in following him?

Well... I actually don't believe in Hell, so "following him" for the sake of an afterlife isn't what I'm going for. That said, I follow God because I want answers. I like to understand how the world works, how the internal tick sounds off. I also follow "God", in this case my own conscience, because I want to be a better man than I am. Helping other people, trying hard to be selfless and caring, helps me do that. Naturally you don't have to believe in "God" to be a good person, but it's one of my motivators. So.

Also, I can't speak for DarkAce, but when I say that the afterlife isn't perfect, I just mean that I believe humanity can't reach perfection. The afterlife could be very, very nice, but if there's nothing to fight towards or against, I imagine it would get boring. (You might not have this problem, Salvador). Possibly reincarnation comes into the picture here, to let us go back and fight a few battles and sort've earn our right to enjoy the peace again.


I'm interested in the possible answers. I was hoping you'd come up with some other options, so I'm a bit disappointed.

*grins* Sorry. I'd like to throw a few more into the ring, but the truth is your three examples pretty much covered everything I could think of.

Of course, a lot of the problem has to do with the afterlife. Most of the answers to this question brings up "What happens after we die," and that's a question I'm pretty much waiting for before I try to answer. But mostly I just consider it a coincidence. You were, one day, going to ask that question. Now you have. It was bound to happen sometime, and this just seems to be the chance starting point.

[DarkAce]

imagine that one of your relatives had spent the majority of their lives praising and worshipping god,


Maybe they worshipped the wrong God and was smited!


imagine that one of your relatives had spent the majority of their lives praising and worshipping god, living a wholesome healthy life, sincerely believing that they were saved. And then... What happens? They contract cancer. What kind of a god does that?


Why is it that you hold 'God' responsible for everything? What if the relative contracted cancer from living in a radioactive zone, or... I'm sorry but I don't hold the view of 'God' being some grand puppet master pulling our strings at every moment. You need to realize that the 'God' concept isn't limited to the Christian perspective which is what you seem to be completly basing the nature and structure of 'God' on. Not every religion holds the same views as I'm sure you're already aware of, so why do you keep reinforcing one certain perspective?


is the emotional growth? Disease is destructive and pointless, and any emotional development is no compensation.


It's not completly negative. Often times people faced with tragedy will examine their life more carefully reassessing their priorities and what they've been doing with their lives and often seek change. Events like these also have the affect of bringing family together, perhaps even establishing new bonds that have faded away.

Is that not emotional growth? Why isn't it not compensation? We're all going to die regardless, all we really have are our moments and the life lessons we learn.


And if, as DarkAce suggests, the afterlife may not be perfect, but just an extension of this life, where's the benefit in following him? He doesn't help us in this life, and he doesn't help us in the next. Utterly useless Twat.


Again you're making assumptions on what exactly? Nothing we know is cold hard fact. How do you know it doesn't help us? You don't. You're basing this on your view and your view only without being open minded to other possibilities or perspectives, atleast giving them a chance.


Sounds like emotional shock to me. Doesn't it make you angry to recall these events now?


Not at all. I understood why I had to do what needed to be done. Rationalization is a great way to rid guilt...err I mean gain understanding.

[salvador]

I wrote:
((((And if, as DarkAce suggests, the afterlife may not be perfect, but just an extension of this life, where's the benefit in following him? He doesn't help us in this life, and he doesn't help us in the next. Utterly useless Twat. He may as well not exist at all.))))

Er... For anyone who's confused (I clearly am): To be clear, by "him" I meant "god," not DarkAce. Or does that make it worse?

That's it really. What was this thread about? Oh yeah. Cake. Battenburg anyone?