well put, but i dont think separate universes can explain anything though. either he cant lift it or he cant create it. if he is omnipotent he shouldnt need various universes. and that would also disagree with the fact that He is omnibenevolent.
Perhaps. However, if he is omnipotent, then he would have created everything, including all natural laws and logic itself. So if he wanted, he could just make it so that the question is not a true/false statement, but perhaps there is also a third answer. Of course, none of that would be possible with our logic, but then again it doesn't seem likely that he'd have to abide by it.
Quote from "applesoffury" »
theres also the can He make 2 + 3 = 7 and can He break a promise? interesting stuff. philosophy is a really fun class after you get past the boring first few chapters
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
then he is not omnipotent, and by definition of the Christian bible, God is omnipotent. thus this is contradictory of Him. weird huh? either he cant make the large stone, or he cant lift it.
The problem with this whole question is the concept of omnipotency.
"Yes, God can make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it, but he would still be able to lift it." That's the only way to fulfill that statement.
"How would that work?"
"We don't know. The whole Universe woul annihilate itself if God did that."
"But if he's omnipotent he should be able to stop that from happening, otherwise he isn't omnipotent."
"Then we still wouldn't be able to comprehend it, we're not intelligent enough or even physically able to understand such an event."
"Then why can't God make it so we understand? Otherwise he's not omnipotent."
Ad infinitum...
The only way I think we could give God such a quality would be if the universe had some established principles, like time and continuity etc. that would prevent him from doing it, because he would have imposed the limitations in himself. Doesn't stop him from doing it in another universe entirely.
Or perhaps those additional 7 dimensions lying around somewhere could possibly explain this paradox of 3 dimensions.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
I don't think we can accurately date anything when it comes to "amazing billions of years". Carbon dating is imprecise, and how do we know under what conditions did the world exist at any point in time? I think guessing how old this planet is outside of the existence of mankind is assumptive and purely theoretical.
From a pure philosophical standpoint, if we cannot trust the results produced by technology that has proved to work in conjecture with established theories of the world, such as the fundamental basics of radiation, how then can we know that the knowledge of past civilizations is true?
What I'm saying is, if the natural laws and physical principles of our Universe were different in our past, then would this not also apply to our records of past human civilizations? How can we trust that Greece did exist back then?
Well, we do have massive columns standing everywhere, texts and explanations for everything. But we also have fossil records and DNA from past and present creatures.
(Sort of rambling here, I'm having trouble formulating myself.)
Quote from "Equinox" »
If evolution was true, tigers would adapt to radiation, and species wouldn't die out because of some little atmospheric disbalance. If you look at nature, it's hella fragile. Touch it, and it dies. Where did anyone see evolution? It only exists as steady improvement (like with the iguanas that adapted a bit better), but there are no extreme cases. If anything ever gets too extreme they just die. If anyone can adapt truly, it's humans.
Touch it, and it gets thrown out of balance. But it doesn't die. Mess with it, and bacteria that are otherwise in minority spread like wildfire. Life continues on like it always has, only the most advanced seem to be hit.
This can be seen in fossil records. After every massive wipeout in history, tons of life has disappeared. But life never went entirey backwards. We never went back to some primordial state of bacterial life.
Quote from "Magistrate" »
Extinction is a prime example of why evolution is stupid. If everything was evolving to live with the enviroment, then nothing would ever go extinct- everything would be perfect.
I don't see how this is true. A natural extinction would be something like a cataclysmic seismic activity, such as massive volcanic eruption. Evolution doesn't say creatures will be able to adapt to poisonous air and liquid rocks within moments.
Quote from "Umpa65" »
jeez, magistrate just killt it lmao
Once again, how does this contribute to anything?
And speaking of why only one species of humans exists, well, I don't have the answer to that. But that doesn't disprove evolution in either case.
Saying that we don't know isn't proving anything. To disprove something, you will need to bring forth evidence which is clearly incompatible with the current theory.
An example would be if we were two find two animals who looked different, but had the exact same DNA. That would be proof against the theory of evolution. So far nothing like that has been presented however.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
But, I do hate it when people tell me "evolution is proven". That is simply so not true. Show me a lab experiment of a lizard becoming a bird - I'll believe you. Until we can do that, I'll take this theory with a grain of salt.
Arguably though, that's wouldn't really prove evolution to you either. You don't seem do doubt the fact that a lizard can theoretically get feathers, only that evolution will never make it happen in practicality.
Quote from "Equinox" »
I was thinking of this. But I also thought of many many other possibilities. Nothing is entirely truthful. Why should I believe this theory, only because it's the only theory?
You should believe it, for it prevails where others fail. So far there's no evidence that outright disproves the theory, only areas where it hasn't been proven or disproven in.
That's how science works. We come up with an idea, and we test it. The Greeks did it with gravity, then came Newton, and today we have Einstein. Each step in the chain improves upon the flaws of the previous theory when they become apparent.
Newtonian mechanics were flawless at their time, and so were thought to be true, because they served their purpose. Then one day they turned out to be incorrect. What happened then was science found a better solution, one that did not discard the original ideas, only described them differently.
Evolution is the same. Dawrin "came up" with it, and since then it has evolved. Many ideas that Dawrin had are today known not to be true.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
intelligent design is the idea that everything had a designer. Where there is a design there is a designer. Einstein supported this.
Einstein was an atheist. He said if there was anything he believed in,, it was the beauty of the Universe and everything in it. Now you can interpret that as much as you want a s him supporting a higher belief, but he called himself an atheist, so that's what I'd go by.
Quote from "Equinox" »
I do not imagine a lizard gaining feathers. No matter how similar scales may seem to feathers for some people you cannot evolve from one into another in one day. You need a moderate term first. And, trust me, a lizard with feathery (aka weaker) scales would not survive. A lizard with lighter bone allowing it to jump would not survive either, lighter bones would hinder it. Moderate terms would not survive. Nor would mutants, which can at least explain where feathers come from. But even if a mutant is more advantageous, it won't reproduce without another identical mutant. Thus, the whole theory of evolution crashes down for me.
I understand what you're saying, and I've thought about this problem myself, though not specifically feathers.
But there are other aspects to keep in mind. A creature does not die simply because it has some features worse than it's competitors. Perhaps the lizard lacked natural predators for a long time where it lived, thus allowing it to develop in-between without dying. Perhaps a plague wiped out all the other lizards eating the same food, leaving a massive surplus to grow from.
We don't know, but not knowing does not disprove.
Quote from "Equinox" »
No one ever found a fossil of a moderate term of any evolutionary cycle. They saw the beginning, and the end, and that's it. Sounds a lot more like someone came, loaded up Spore, added a new creatures, and let it go whee run around to surprise the lizards.
So Homo Erectus is not considered the fossil in between Homo Habilis and Homo Sapiens?
Quote from "Umpa65" »
You make perfect sense to me, but for who it actually concerns im afraid it might fall upon deaf ears.
Evolution seems to be a trend or a fad almost. People adopt these concepts as their own and turn down the idea of anything else and they slowly become these people not open to suggestion.
You know you're not contributingin any way with this statement. If you people here are ignorant, feel free to leave the discussion.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
my point is that you shouldnt let your scientific views get to your head so that you act like on your short time on the earth already you have figured out the key to life. Maybe you have, maybe all religion is wrong, but considering our entire species for the most part COULD be right maybe it would be wise to try and understand their point of view.
Well that's all good, but it still leaves us with the problem of what to believe, and how we decide what to believe in.
Quote from "Umpa65" »
Now phrozenDragon i have a question for you. Why are humans the only creatures we know of in existence that has the ability to, and lead our life with Free will. No other animal or anything uses free will. They use instinct. PURELY instinct. Its amazing to think that some birds can literally fly across the entire world to land on the same tree they were hatched long before, all with instinct. In evolution when did we make a transition from instinct to free will? As a matter of fact, what in our genes and dna can account for the concept of free will. This amazing ability to CHOOSE exactly what we want to believe. Why dont animals have this ability? at least one species?
Quote from "Umpa65" »
thts common sense, not free will. tht falls under instinct. where does that dog get its food? from the human, instinctively the dog does what is necessary to survive and that dog knows that to survive it is in its best interest to go back home where the food is. its still under instincts
I think you need to separate instict from free will a whole lot more.
Instict is something a creature knows from birth or learns automatically as it evolves, such as a human liking sweet food.
However, if you can teach an animal something, it has the ability to accept new information and choose whether or not to use it. A dog can be trained to sit, and when it does, it gets rewarded. This is not instict, this is a learned behavoir. A human can be taught to do something (work) and get a reward (salary) just as an animal.
I'd say that a fly doesn't have a free will, they cannot learn and adapt. They are born, they eat, they breed new flies, and they die. That's it.
A dog, cat, dolphin, elehpant, whatever, has free will. They can learn and imrpove themselves. Exaply is a window. A fly will smash into a window again and again and again and again, because it can't do anything about it. It is driven by isntincts, and instincts tells it to get outside. A cat however doesn't. It learns that it cannot get through the window, and so makes the choice not to bang it's head against it.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
i would actuallly love to see a poll from some scientist that tried to calculate atheists vs everyone in human history with a religious belief. i wonder if there is one
And how does that prove anything? Believing something is correct doesn't make it correct, no matter how many people do it.
Quote from "Umpa65" »
you implied that mythology was a really old religion that is now no longer believed and didn't stand the test of time, i felt it necessary to point out that your point didn't really prove anything whatsoever. Original belief in one god can be traced all the way back to the first civilization we know of, Ur.
and no you didnt SAY religion was wrong but there was certainly an implication. you didn't SAY any of those things, nor did i say you said them, i merely pointed out the implications
So the fact that millions of people have once believed in mythologies that we today view as superstitious proves that a God exist? I don't see how them being wrong proves that there is in fact a higher being.
I understand your reasoning however. You say, that since so many people have always throughout the world had some form of belief in a higher being, such a being must exist.
Well then I say, if so many people in the world believe in a higher being, how come not one of them came up with the same God, but all had different ways to explain their lives?
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
Your idea of "solid proof" is god knocking on your door with a chemistry set. Other people see proof in different ways- does that make them wrong? Other people prefer to believe in more abstract views than yours. And, indeed, your own views are considered abstract by people with other views. Just because you have naturalistic science at the base of your views does not mean that your view is the only "right" one, or even one of the "right" ones.
I think the heart of the matter isn't really what people believe, it's what the consequences of those beliefs are.
If a person believes in God, or if a person doesn't, fine. The trouble arises when people cannot coexist with others because they do not share the same beliefs. Unfortunately, for a lot of people accepting science is a challenge, and when you deny what a whole society is built upon, you're bound to get into trouble.
Quote from "Magistrate" »
Naturalistic and evolutionary science could well be completely inaccurate and wrong in a few decades, who knows? Something else could come up. As it is, new scientific discoveries are making its future look grim. But what do I know? I don't have a pHD.
Which certainly isn't a reason not to believe in it as of now.
Scientific rules exist to explain how and why things happen. New theories get us closer to observed data, and even though they may be constructed very differently, that doesn't mean they have to turn everything we know upside down. Most of the time they've a different and more precise way to describe what we've seen but couldn't explain. That onle happens rarely, as with the Theory of Relativity for example.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
okay so alot of humans believing in a higher power means there is automatically a higherpower i dont get that logic...i love how u used wikipedia... the most inaccurate and useless encyclopedia on the net :-/...and that fact that you brought up the complexity of things... we evolve and change who/what we are in order to survive... look at darwins finches... if u dont know what they are look them up (not on wiki) even to this day your brain is different than your parents brain... constantly evolving to keep up and survive... its jsut something that happens u cant stop it only change it by posing new obstacles to a certain generation of people that their makeup will eventually change over time. and the whole thing about needing a greater power to create us? thats only if u believe in a greater power... i dont have a religion or believe or answer to a higher power, i was made by chance... i could just as likely been a xark on the planet kekrzy... its just chance that i happend to be created a human being on planet earth... the only way i will believe... at least at this point and time... is if we find another civilization that believes or has similar god(s) until then science has been treating me well...peace
You clearly did not get the point of Equinox's post.
First of all, the point she made was that everything has a cause. You we're created from your parents, your parents from you ancestors, your ancestors from baacteria, bacteria from dead material, dead material from big bang, big bang from... what?
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
The point I was trying to make wasn't that angels do or do not exist, just to explain that there are other things that can exist, and to say that anything is impossible is to be unscientific. Example: If I drop an apple, it will fall towards the earth. Yes, common sense would tell you this is always true, but that might just be because we haven't found the exceptions (in reference to Earth, not talking about differences in gravitational pull and what-not.) However, from a religious stand point it is also wrong to say that something absolutely does exist, unless you yourself have experienced it. But even in that sense you'd still be taking faith in the information your mind received, and, well, it's just a circle:
While this is true and that at the very there can never be an absolute truth, that doesn't mean you can necessarily have any opinion of the world, since there's no "wrong".
If I say "Gravity doesn't exist." I'm obviously wrong, since gravity does exist and affects us everyday. If I however say that gravity sometimes doesn't work on Earth, I could theoretically perhaps be right, butto what end? It would not be based on any form of fact whatsover, only a philosophical line of reasoning with no proof. Thus, just because it is an opinion, it doesn't prevent you from being wrong.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
This made me think. We knew who the leader of hell was, but does any of the books say who the leader of heaven is? Did I completely miss out on that somewhere??
Tyrael, Imperius, Auriel, Ithrael and Malthael. Those 5 are the leaders of Heaven.
Quote from "Umpa65" »
lol...so..thers some athiests here <_<
question. what about the idea that something created everything is illogical??i just dont get how its illogical. who made the house your in? obviously a big bang didnt make it. so whos to say that something didnt create us? to completely abandon the thought of religion which was held in belief by your entire species is completely stupid, not even ignorent. to think that "theres no proof" is thinking most definitly inside the box, maybe there is some sort of matter that we are unable to detect and a light by which is out of our visual persective. to come on and just try to shut down any idea of their existence is somewhat rude to the thread if ya ask me, its ment for discussion not for argument and to offend
10 billions flies can't be wrong; shit tastes good.
People believed the Earth was flat, because that's what we were told. This was based on eye witnesses: There is an edge at the horizon, thus the world must end there. And although everyone believed something to be true, it turned out to be false.
Quote from "JohnRambo" »
It's not that I think it's not real if I didn't see it, it's just HARD to believe when NOBODY in the history of the world has ever seen it. Because scientists gather information about whatever they are trying to learn more about, how do you study angels and such beings? If there were facts how do you know they are facts if nobody proved them?
I think what John is trying to say is that he finds it hard to believe there are so many accounts of angels and supernatural beings in religion around the world, yet there are is no data whatsoever that isn't coming from eyewitnesses. Considering how often eyewitnesses are wrong, it doesn't lend itself to sound plausible either.
Quote from "Magistrate" »
Maybe. Thing is, people of various religions since the dawn of the concept of religion as well as the concept of angels and demons have claimed to see these things with their waking eyes, or sleeping eyes, in some cases. This would be "scientific" because it was "observed". Now it is up to you whether to believe the accounts or not, which I'm assuming most of you will say ney to.
However it is no scientific, because all of the results come from eye witness accounts. It cannot be replicated in any way, and it cannot be measured in any way.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
another explaination as to where their dead bodies go? if no then i believe what i believe and u believe what u believe... regardless of what you believe... im right
So a small bug-like thing, which is from the beginning no proof at all, it might very well be tampered with, is proved to be "magical" in nature because no one has found its body?
I mean sure, if a herd of elephants disappears right before your eyes, we might be talking. But this tine little thing? Please.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
If were are to assume that there are angels, then we have to assume we, too, have spirituality. That is the level, then, that a "spirit" would communicate on. But, in another sense, if you assume there are angels, then something must have created them, unless you want to buy in to some kind of spiritual evolution or something, like some new agers do. If we are to assume then, for sake of argument, that angels do exist, and that they also have a creator, we would have to assume that the same being created our spirituality, and, thus, everything that would come along with that, primarily meaning everything, at which point the creator would be called "god". And if this god were to create everything, he or she would have no chains to our rules, and thus be able to change them or go beyond them at anytime he/she so wishes. So, this god could command the angel to appear to deliver some kind of divine message, and then take whatever necessary steps he or she so chooses to keep that creature from being defined quantitatively.
Very good point there.
Quote from "gamma11" »
explain what doesnt make sense plz... i dont see how it doesnt make sense... i just said its the only creature we know about (or believe in, which i do) that can slip between third and fourth dimension... is that really that hard to comprehend? ill ask my prof how i can explain it better... zzz or u can ask urs
You're talking about some creature I've never heard about that seems to exist purely from light and which slips between the third and fourth dimention.
You keep getting back to this dimension. Can you actually describe it? I'll give you a head start. First comes length, second is width and third is depth. What is the fourth one? Do you perhaps mean time?
Quote from "3CXOD" »
You do realize some ancient civilizations that have claimed to see Aliens.. referred to them as angels.. so I would happen to think that maybe some of those sightings and accounts have been molded into an idea of somewhat.
They could very well be, but there's already a thread active discussing whether aliens exist or not. That question is entirely scientifical, while this one can also incorporate religious arguments.
Quote from "gamma11" »
i and we dont know anything ab out the physical nature of these creatures except for the fact that they have been appearing in photographs since we have been able to take photographs
There have actually been pictures of these creates then? Can we see it please?
Quote from "AcidReign" »
Aren't there like 22 different dimensions that scientist have theorized?
I don't know. The main theory right now says either 11 or 12, can't remember which, but it just starts to lose meaning at a certain point. We can't even comprehend what they look like, if they even look like. It all gets very abstract.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Of course. Just rename 5 into 3
"Yes, God can make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it, but he would still be able to lift it." That's the only way to fulfill that statement.
"How would that work?"
"We don't know. The whole Universe woul annihilate itself if God did that."
"But if he's omnipotent he should be able to stop that from happening, otherwise he isn't omnipotent."
"Then we still wouldn't be able to comprehend it, we're not intelligent enough or even physically able to understand such an event."
"Then why can't God make it so we understand? Otherwise he's not omnipotent."
Ad infinitum...
The only way I think we could give God such a quality would be if the universe had some established principles, like time and continuity etc. that would prevent him from doing it, because he would have imposed the limitations in himself. Doesn't stop him from doing it in another universe entirely.
Or perhaps those additional 7 dimensions lying around somewhere could possibly explain this paradox of 3 dimensions.
What I'm saying is, if the natural laws and physical principles of our Universe were different in our past, then would this not also apply to our records of past human civilizations? How can we trust that Greece did exist back then?
Well, we do have massive columns standing everywhere, texts and explanations for everything. But we also have fossil records and DNA from past and present creatures.
(Sort of rambling here, I'm having trouble formulating myself.)
Touch it, and it gets thrown out of balance. But it doesn't die. Mess with it, and bacteria that are otherwise in minority spread like wildfire. Life continues on like it always has, only the most advanced seem to be hit.
This can be seen in fossil records. After every massive wipeout in history, tons of life has disappeared. But life never went entirey backwards. We never went back to some primordial state of bacterial life.
I don't see how this is true. A natural extinction would be something like a cataclysmic seismic activity, such as massive volcanic eruption. Evolution doesn't say creatures will be able to adapt to poisonous air and liquid rocks within moments.
Once again, how does this contribute to anything?
And speaking of why only one species of humans exists, well, I don't have the answer to that. But that doesn't disprove evolution in either case.
Saying that we don't know isn't proving anything. To disprove something, you will need to bring forth evidence which is clearly incompatible with the current theory.
An example would be if we were two find two animals who looked different, but had the exact same DNA. That would be proof against the theory of evolution. So far nothing like that has been presented however.
You should believe it, for it prevails where others fail. So far there's no evidence that outright disproves the theory, only areas where it hasn't been proven or disproven in.
That's how science works. We come up with an idea, and we test it. The Greeks did it with gravity, then came Newton, and today we have Einstein. Each step in the chain improves upon the flaws of the previous theory when they become apparent.
Newtonian mechanics were flawless at their time, and so were thought to be true, because they served their purpose. Then one day they turned out to be incorrect. What happened then was science found a better solution, one that did not discard the original ideas, only described them differently.
Evolution is the same. Dawrin "came up" with it, and since then it has evolved. Many ideas that Dawrin had are today known not to be true.
I understand what you're saying, and I've thought about this problem myself, though not specifically feathers.
But there are other aspects to keep in mind. A creature does not die simply because it has some features worse than it's competitors. Perhaps the lizard lacked natural predators for a long time where it lived, thus allowing it to develop in-between without dying. Perhaps a plague wiped out all the other lizards eating the same food, leaving a massive surplus to grow from.
We don't know, but not knowing does not disprove.
So Homo Erectus is not considered the fossil in between Homo Habilis and Homo Sapiens?
You know you're not contributingin any way with this statement. If you people here are ignorant, feel free to leave the discussion.
I think you need to separate instict from free will a whole lot more.
Instict is something a creature knows from birth or learns automatically as it evolves, such as a human liking sweet food.
However, if you can teach an animal something, it has the ability to accept new information and choose whether or not to use it. A dog can be trained to sit, and when it does, it gets rewarded. This is not instict, this is a learned behavoir. A human can be taught to do something (work) and get a reward (salary) just as an animal.
I'd say that a fly doesn't have a free will, they cannot learn and adapt. They are born, they eat, they breed new flies, and they die. That's it.
A dog, cat, dolphin, elehpant, whatever, has free will. They can learn and imrpove themselves. Exaply is a window. A fly will smash into a window again and again and again and again, because it can't do anything about it. It is driven by isntincts, and instincts tells it to get outside. A cat however doesn't. It learns that it cannot get through the window, and so makes the choice not to bang it's head against it.
So the fact that millions of people have once believed in mythologies that we today view as superstitious proves that a God exist? I don't see how them being wrong proves that there is in fact a higher being.
I understand your reasoning however. You say, that since so many people have always throughout the world had some form of belief in a higher being, such a being must exist.
Well then I say, if so many people in the world believe in a higher being, how come not one of them came up with the same God, but all had different ways to explain their lives?
If a person believes in God, or if a person doesn't, fine. The trouble arises when people cannot coexist with others because they do not share the same beliefs. Unfortunately, for a lot of people accepting science is a challenge, and when you deny what a whole society is built upon, you're bound to get into trouble.
Which certainly isn't a reason not to believe in it as of now.
Scientific rules exist to explain how and why things happen. New theories get us closer to observed data, and even though they may be constructed very differently, that doesn't mean they have to turn everything we know upside down. Most of the time they've a different and more precise way to describe what we've seen but couldn't explain. That onle happens rarely, as with the Theory of Relativity for example.
First of all, the point she made was that everything has a cause. You we're created from your parents, your parents from you ancestors, your ancestors from baacteria, bacteria from dead material, dead material from big bang, big bang from... what?
If I say "Gravity doesn't exist." I'm obviously wrong, since gravity does exist and affects us everyday. If I however say that gravity sometimes doesn't work on Earth, I could theoretically perhaps be right, butto what end? It would not be based on any form of fact whatsover, only a philosophical line of reasoning with no proof. Thus, just because it is an opinion, it doesn't prevent you from being wrong.
10 billions flies can't be wrong; shit tastes good.
People believed the Earth was flat, because that's what we were told. This was based on eye witnesses: There is an edge at the horizon, thus the world must end there. And although everyone believed something to be true, it turned out to be false.
I think what John is trying to say is that he finds it hard to believe there are so many accounts of angels and supernatural beings in religion around the world, yet there are is no data whatsoever that isn't coming from eyewitnesses. Considering how often eyewitnesses are wrong, it doesn't lend itself to sound plausible either.
However it is no scientific, because all of the results come from eye witness accounts. It cannot be replicated in any way, and it cannot be measured in any way.
I mean sure, if a herd of elephants disappears right before your eyes, we might be talking. But this tine little thing? Please.
In either case it's not an angel in the very least.
You're talking about some creature I've never heard about that seems to exist purely from light and which slips between the third and fourth dimention.
You keep getting back to this dimension. Can you actually describe it? I'll give you a head start. First comes length, second is width and third is depth. What is the fourth one? Do you perhaps mean time?
They could very well be, but there's already a thread active discussing whether aliens exist or not. That question is entirely scientifical, while this one can also incorporate religious arguments.
There have actually been pictures of these creates then? Can we see it please?
I don't know. The main theory right now says either 11 or 12, can't remember which, but it just starts to lose meaning at a certain point. We can't even comprehend what they look like, if they even look like. It all gets very abstract.