This thread is off topic enough that I'm going to reply to a post from the third page (I think) which I don't think was answered.
The suffering comes from Sin, and don't get it wrong, God didn't create Sin, he gave Angels and Humans a choice, and they chose sin.
Lucifer was the greatest angel. Lucifer became proud and thought himself greater than God, so he decided to sin, the theological definition of which, is displease God. He went to the garden to try and prove he was greater than God by making Adam and Eve eat from the 1 tree God had forbidden them from, he forbid it from them so they would have a choice between Sin and Righteousness. It would otherwise be impossible to Sin in the garden, and thus Adam and Eve might as well have just been mindless little people doing the only thing they ever could. Without making any choices, we would just be animals, God made us the kings and queens of the world by giving us the ability to choose.
God didn't create sin, god allowed us the choice, and we chose it. Don't fool yourself.
The Dark Knight is a great analogy. The Joker=Lucifer, he proved anyone could fall to sin in Harvey Dent, 2 face.
You can have choice without sin. Lust for instance, is something hardwired into the human brain along with many other animals that must continue their species with sexual reproduction. Lust influences humans to sin. However, this one of many sources of sin, is not needed to create an animal or machine that makes decisions.
The intelligent design movement all happened after einstein died .. i can't disagree with that .. but ...the origins of intelligent design seem to stem all the way back to plato , here's some references;
...
so if this is the case it would seem that intelligent design had been around for 2300 years
Yes in one form or another. I think after Laplace (a.k.a. the Newton of France) solved an issue with gravity (perturbations) that Newton gave up on and left in the hands of the God of Gaps, people got uncomfortable and decided to put God back into the Heavens a different way. Since God was no longer governing the stars and all of the sudden people were just left with gravity controlling the Heavens, they made the watch maker analogy and saw the Heavens as a mechanical wonder created by God. People were uncomfortable with god missing and found a way to get him back by making him a mechanic / engineer / intelligent designer. Laplace, when asked about his lack of god in his book (Newton mentioned God in his), is often quoted as saying "I had no need of that hypothesis".
Even though he is not needed, he can be placed in the background as the watch maker to make everyone feel more at ease. It is such a powerful idea, because even if say, The Big Bang Theory is true or The Theory of Evolution is true, which Intelligent Design opposes, you could still say that, like the Theory of Gravity, The Big Bang and The Theory of Evolution were designed by God and consider them as being a part of another variety of Intelligent Design instead (note: The Big Bang was originally an idea promoted by a Bishop who actually did see it that way).
I see this, and other similar ideas, as very different from the Intelligent Design movement which is focused on The Big Bang and Evolution. Simply just saying that Newton agreed with Intelligent Design for instance, is deceptive, the Theory of Evolution wasn't even around back then. Not that it really matters, Newton also is said to have believed in astrology and alchemy, which, like Intelligent Design, are also now considered to be junk science.
It reminds me of an argument where people will say philosophers thought of the atom 1st, it took scientists another 1,000 years to catch up. What an atom is now and what it was back then, is far different. A 6 year old, 2300 years ago could have thought, that maybe if you cut something in half enough times, that you will come across an indivisible piece. Eureka! He thought of the Atom! This doesn't mean it took scientists 2300 years to catch up with the intellect of a 6 year old. The modern atom is a far cry different, it's composed of charged particles, something they could never even fathom.
Evolution, in one form or another, was around long before Darwin, but what evolution was 1,000 years ago is absolutely nothing like what it is today. Saying that (x) ancient philosopher believed in evolution is deceptive as well.
But anyhow, I don't disagree with you on this point. Intelligent Design, like Evolution or the Atom, has been around for a very long time. However, be careful when applying modern terms that have modern definitions, such as The Atom or Evolution or Intelligent Design, to old or flat out ancient ideas.
I don't intend to join the argument or side with anybody , but some of you seem to share different views about Einstein's religious outlook, which made me decide to investigate it ..lol
1st from what i can gather he was'nt atheist , he was agnostic (according to wiki) (which is the best view in my opinion as it does not restrict you to such a narrow view) or Pantheistic (according to other references) .. my ref =
anyway .. don't shoot the messenger , i'm just trying to help set some facts straight so you can atleast eliminate one thing from the argument .. which has come a very long way from the original question..lol
Thanks for your contribution. I find quotes to be the most revealing.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religion than it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it... I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism...
Most claims about Einstein stem from a quote showing his frustration with Quantum Mechanics:
God does not play dice with the Universe
You could call him an agnostic or pantheist. But I don't see anything that would pin him down as a proponent of Intelligent Design. Being that Einstein was a physicist and not a biologist, the quotes are focused at physics, not The Theory of Evolution, biology, etc... I've never come across a quote where he is talking about his dislike for evolution, and the Intelligent Design did NOT even exist back then, so of course, there is no quotes about his thoughts about that either.
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.
I personally disagreed with evolution until sometime after high school. I wasn't religious, but I didn't agree with science either. What changed my mind was actually taking the time to read about it. You could spend hundreds of hours reading about evolution, and still have much more ahead of you.
If you are really interested in understanding both sides, I would recommend reading Evolution: And Why The Fossil Record Matters by Donald Prothero, who is an actual paleontology, unlike most of the people that try to educate each other on its flaws. There are thousands of people, that have been, for over a hundred years, dedicated their lives to advancing the theory of evolution, there is mountains of information to digest. Don't make the mistake of assuming your ignorance is shared by everyone, it's very easy to do, and even though I believe in evolution, I still make that mistake myself. Many of the holes people think exist in evolution, where already figured out decades ago, but people don't bother looking for the explanations enough to say that there isn't one. Just because you cannot find the answer from someone you may have had a previous debate with on the Inernet or by using Google or another search engine, doesn't mean the explanation does not exist, sometimes you have to pick up a book and read it from beginning to end to come across it.
Even after spending as much time as I have learning about it, I myself, still find that something I thought was not figured out, was figured out long ago or was never even an issue to begin with. There's tons of knowledge within the scientific community, but it can be difficult to find unless you're will to take quite a bit of your time to find those answers.
Quote from "Umpa65" »
intelligent design is the idea that everything had a designer. Where there is a design there is a designer. Einstein supported this.
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.
And how do you know this? Do you actually know how many transitional fossils they have found. The first one was found just a couple years after Darwin wrote his book on the origin of species I believe. There has been much progress in the 100+ years since then, this isn't the 1800's anymore.
Quote from "Equinox" »
That is all fine. But this does not make me believe that this theory works everywhere outside of Earth, or outside of Earth perception. Satelites deal with Earth and its gravity. So does everything else we did. But no more.
And how do you know that? Have you even bothered to look into it or are you just making an assumption? Time dilation is also a factor that must be dealt with.
Quote from "Equinox" »
I don't remember asking you to pretend to be smart and tell me about gravity theory. I can go and refresh my memory if I want with internet, but I don't need that.
That's funny because you ASKED "what the hell is the theory of gravity". It's quite obvious that I was trying to answer that question, rather than just bringing it up out of nowhere in an attempt to sound smart.
Um, what? Reasons that I should care about what people do? Or what? I don't really get you.
You asked the question "why would anyone care about what humans try to do with religion to get what they want".
Quote from "Equinox" »
Well, that's the movement, not the idea. Most religious groups try to make the gap less anyway.
I never said it was an idea. I was telling you that the issue stems beyond what you say.
Quote from "Equinox" »
What the hell is the theory of gravity. If you are talking about the theory of relativity, well, I do not believe that either, because I know where it stems from: speed of light being the max...
Gravitational theory is simple the understanding we have of gravity, it is what has been being worked on since at least Galileo Galilei and improved by Kepler, Newton and Einstein. And it the general theory of relativity stems more from light being constant, than it being the max. Also, the general theory of relativity is used to make things work, such as satellites and made predictions that classic mechanics failed to make, it's not just some belief to believe or disbelieve in, like all scientific theories it is a tool that is used quite extensively.
Quote from "Equinox" »
When it comes to gravity, I believe, as far as Earth goes, it pulls things on Earth to itself. O believe that an apple will fall. That's all I believe when it comes to gravity - something that I can reason with. The theory that big masses attract smaller masses doesn't really do it for me on the universal level.
This is not how gravity works. In classical mechanics gravity is a force that exists between all matter. Which does not include light of course. In the general theory of relativity, it is the bending of the fabric of space-time, which is why it predicted that light would be affected as well, which was proven in 1916, just 1 year after the general theory of relativity was published.
Quote from "Equinox" »
Evolution is a total out-of-the blue idea that came up some guy's mind at one point. It's a good idea but it's not complete and simply not enough to say "evolution has been". There are no middle fossils found, carbon fossil records become false after certain time periods, and on the main scale, if you read about, evolution is a pretty blurry department among scientists. That's not enough for me. No one can explain to me how can a lizard become a bird, no matter how many times they shove the fossil of the archeopteryx at me. If they can, I'll believe them.
Just like your idea of gravity, this is inaccurate. You should try to read more about it. One thing most people have in common when they don't believe in (x) theory is they know very little about it. For instance, read about endogenous retroviral inserstions, and try to explain it without evolution.
Quote from "Equinox" »
I thought intelligent design said that evolution was pre-programmed by God. Unless they changed their views or something, but that's what I was told in my biology class.
Some people view it as that. The thing with Intelligent Design is that it can include evolution, or no evolution. Intelligent Design is made to be very flexible, and able to fit in gaps of knowledge very easy. Usually it only includes what they call "microevolution", which is just basic adaption that we see today with insects becoming immunse to pesticides.
OK, why would anyone care about what humans try to do withe religion to get what they want, really?
Wow, hopefully you're just not being very clear with your question. There's lots of reasons. Very obvious reasons. Even if you don't agree with those reasons, it would be amazing if you did not actually know any of them.
Quote from "Equinox" »
As far as I know, there was an issue with people in biology class claiming evolution is 100% proven (which it totally is not) and the intelligent design folks opposed that.
That's not the issue, it goes far beyond that. The Intelligent Design movement is not just disagreeing with how evolution is taught, they want to insert their own non-scientific ideas into a science class. They want to bridge the gap between church and state, as I have already stated.
Also, nothing his 100% proven, that's not even relevant. The Theory of Evolution is just as well proven as the theory of gravity. The mechanics may change, such as the transition from classical mechanics to the general theory of relativity, but the core idea remains.
Quote from "Equinox" »
I don't believe in evolution so I can't really believe in intelligent design, doesn't mean I don't believe in God, doesn't mean I do believe in Bible.
Intelligent Design does not require that you believe in evolution... so not believing in evolution does not mean you cannot believe in Intelligent Design.
That sounds more like a boss to me. And I think the stallion's phallus would be completely retracted within its sheath. Perhaps the burden of males choosing female characters will be getting to see the boss in his full glory, since tiny female heroes will surely excite him.
Has bigger boobs then Andariel! I mean that was like the biggest highlight of D2. I'm sure when you all fought her the first time your were like O_O. Stomping towards you with that thong on. They need to bring that back! Diablo is not truly Diablo without bewbies.
I too know what it is like to thirst want bosses with larger "bewbies".
Alright, so we have at least 1 account that says Diablo took his true form. What accounts are there that he did not? Zero?
It's funny how people try to use logic. Diablo is fiction... remember? Whether or not the prime evils can take their true form after possessing a human body is completely up to the FICTION writers. This isn't physics or biology.... And again, it's fiction, it's a video game story, haha, getting irrate about it is ridiculous.
Also, if Diablo did not actually take his true form, then the cinematic dialog with him and Mephisto is most likely a fuck up, it happens... Blizzard story telling isn't the infallible word of God. We're not talking about the fall of Man in the garden or Eden or Satan. So chill out...
0
You can have choice without sin. Lust for instance, is something hardwired into the human brain along with many other animals that must continue their species with sexual reproduction. Lust influences humans to sin. However, this one of many sources of sin, is not needed to create an animal or machine that makes decisions.
0
http://blackhearted.deviantart.com/art/post-apocalyptic-undies-26810129
http://blackhearted.deviantart.com/art/bernadette-body-26811230
Remember to click the actual pictures to enlarge them.
0
Yes in one form or another. I think after Laplace (a.k.a. the Newton of France) solved an issue with gravity (perturbations) that Newton gave up on and left in the hands of the God of Gaps, people got uncomfortable and decided to put God back into the Heavens a different way. Since God was no longer governing the stars and all of the sudden people were just left with gravity controlling the Heavens, they made the watch maker analogy and saw the Heavens as a mechanical wonder created by God. People were uncomfortable with god missing and found a way to get him back by making him a mechanic / engineer / intelligent designer. Laplace, when asked about his lack of god in his book (Newton mentioned God in his), is often quoted as saying "I had no need of that hypothesis".
Even though he is not needed, he can be placed in the background as the watch maker to make everyone feel more at ease. It is such a powerful idea, because even if say, The Big Bang Theory is true or The Theory of Evolution is true, which Intelligent Design opposes, you could still say that, like the Theory of Gravity, The Big Bang and The Theory of Evolution were designed by God and consider them as being a part of another variety of Intelligent Design instead (note: The Big Bang was originally an idea promoted by a Bishop who actually did see it that way).
I see this, and other similar ideas, as very different from the Intelligent Design movement which is focused on The Big Bang and Evolution. Simply just saying that Newton agreed with Intelligent Design for instance, is deceptive, the Theory of Evolution wasn't even around back then. Not that it really matters, Newton also is said to have believed in astrology and alchemy, which, like Intelligent Design, are also now considered to be junk science.
It reminds me of an argument where people will say philosophers thought of the atom 1st, it took scientists another 1,000 years to catch up. What an atom is now and what it was back then, is far different. A 6 year old, 2300 years ago could have thought, that maybe if you cut something in half enough times, that you will come across an indivisible piece. Eureka! He thought of the Atom! This doesn't mean it took scientists 2300 years to catch up with the intellect of a 6 year old. The modern atom is a far cry different, it's composed of charged particles, something they could never even fathom.
Evolution, in one form or another, was around long before Darwin, but what evolution was 1,000 years ago is absolutely nothing like what it is today. Saying that (x) ancient philosopher believed in evolution is deceptive as well.
But anyhow, I don't disagree with you on this point. Intelligent Design, like Evolution or the Atom, has been around for a very long time. However, be careful when applying modern terms that have modern definitions, such as The Atom or Evolution or Intelligent Design, to old or flat out ancient ideas.
0
0
0
Thanks for your contribution. I find quotes to be the most revealing.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religion than it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it... I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism...
Most claims about Einstein stem from a quote showing his frustration with Quantum Mechanics:
God does not play dice with the Universe
You could call him an agnostic or pantheist. But I don't see anything that would pin him down as a proponent of Intelligent Design. Being that Einstein was a physicist and not a biologist, the quotes are focused at physics, not The Theory of Evolution, biology, etc... I've never come across a quote where he is talking about his dislike for evolution, and the Intelligent Design did NOT even exist back then, so of course, there is no quotes about his thoughts about that either.
0
I personally disagreed with evolution until sometime after high school. I wasn't religious, but I didn't agree with science either. What changed my mind was actually taking the time to read about it. You could spend hundreds of hours reading about evolution, and still have much more ahead of you.
If you are really interested in understanding both sides, I would recommend reading Evolution: And Why The Fossil Record Matters by Donald Prothero, who is an actual paleontology, unlike most of the people that try to educate each other on its flaws. There are thousands of people, that have been, for over a hundred years, dedicated their lives to advancing the theory of evolution, there is mountains of information to digest. Don't make the mistake of assuming your ignorance is shared by everyone, it's very easy to do, and even though I believe in evolution, I still make that mistake myself. Many of the holes people think exist in evolution, where already figured out decades ago, but people don't bother looking for the explanations enough to say that there isn't one. Just because you cannot find the answer from someone you may have had a previous debate with on the Inernet or by using Google or another search engine, doesn't mean the explanation does not exist, sometimes you have to pick up a book and read it from beginning to end to come across it.
Even after spending as much time as I have learning about it, I myself, still find that something I thought was not figured out, was figured out long ago or was never even an issue to begin with. There's tons of knowledge within the scientific community, but it can be difficult to find unless you're will to take quite a bit of your time to find those answers.
No he didn't.
0
And how do you know this? Do you actually know how many transitional fossils they have found. The first one was found just a couple years after Darwin wrote his book on the origin of species I believe. There has been much progress in the 100+ years since then, this isn't the 1800's anymore.
And how do you know that? Have you even bothered to look into it or are you just making an assumption? Time dilation is also a factor that must be dealt with.
That's funny because you ASKED "what the hell is the theory of gravity". It's quite obvious that I was trying to answer that question, rather than just bringing it up out of nowhere in an attempt to sound smart.
0
You asked the question "why would anyone care about what humans try to do with religion to get what they want".
I never said it was an idea. I was telling you that the issue stems beyond what you say.
Gravitational theory is simple the understanding we have of gravity, it is what has been being worked on since at least Galileo Galilei and improved by Kepler, Newton and Einstein. And it the general theory of relativity stems more from light being constant, than it being the max. Also, the general theory of relativity is used to make things work, such as satellites and made predictions that classic mechanics failed to make, it's not just some belief to believe or disbelieve in, like all scientific theories it is a tool that is used quite extensively.
This is not how gravity works. In classical mechanics gravity is a force that exists between all matter. Which does not include light of course. In the general theory of relativity, it is the bending of the fabric of space-time, which is why it predicted that light would be affected as well, which was proven in 1916, just 1 year after the general theory of relativity was published.
Just like your idea of gravity, this is inaccurate. You should try to read more about it. One thing most people have in common when they don't believe in (x) theory is they know very little about it. For instance, read about endogenous retroviral inserstions, and try to explain it without evolution.
Some people view it as that. The thing with Intelligent Design is that it can include evolution, or no evolution. Intelligent Design is made to be very flexible, and able to fit in gaps of knowledge very easy. Usually it only includes what they call "microevolution", which is just basic adaption that we see today with insects becoming immunse to pesticides.
0
0
What about Wyoming? What's so glorious about it?
0
Wow, hopefully you're just not being very clear with your question. There's lots of reasons. Very obvious reasons. Even if you don't agree with those reasons, it would be amazing if you did not actually know any of them.
That's not the issue, it goes far beyond that. The Intelligent Design movement is not just disagreeing with how evolution is taught, they want to insert their own non-scientific ideas into a science class. They want to bridge the gap between church and state, as I have already stated.
Also, nothing his 100% proven, that's not even relevant. The Theory of Evolution is just as well proven as the theory of gravity. The mechanics may change, such as the transition from classical mechanics to the general theory of relativity, but the core idea remains.
Intelligent Design does not require that you believe in evolution... so not believing in evolution does not mean you cannot believe in Intelligent Design.
0
0
I too know what it is like to thirst want bosses with larger "bewbies".
0
It's funny how people try to use logic. Diablo is fiction... remember? Whether or not the prime evils can take their true form after possessing a human body is completely up to the FICTION writers. This isn't physics or biology.... And again, it's fiction, it's a video game story, haha, getting irrate about it is ridiculous.
Also, if Diablo did not actually take his true form, then the cinematic dialog with him and Mephisto is most likely a fuck up, it happens... Blizzard story telling isn't the infallible word of God. We're not talking about the fall of Man in the garden or Eden or Satan. So chill out...