Dictionary:   A    B    C    D    E    F    G    H    I    J    K      M     N    O    P    Q    R    S    T    U     V    W    X    Y    Z

 

home   .   dream info   .   common dreams  dream dictionary  dream bank   site map   discussion forum  contact us

So everything that will happen is already preordained?

This forum is dedicated to topics of spirituality, spiritual growth, self awareness and religious beliefs. Share your ideas and insights on spirituality and personal enlightenment.

Re: So everything that will happen is already preordained?

Postby Guardian7347 » Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:59 am

That however does not means that anything can turn directly into energy or vice versa.
Actually, it does. It is scientifically proven that matter can be created at the expense of energy. Scientists do it all the time. They also destroy matter, releasing huge quantities of energy. This is a well-known aspect of science.
You can not have omnipotence without omniscience. It would not work in practice, because you would lack the ability to predict the future, ergo, you are not 'all powerful'. That also enters the field of omniscience. It does not means it is restricted to it.
Yes. You can. You're confusing knowledge with power. While we often equate the two as being related, that's not necessarily what this means here. Gross over-simlification, but think of omniscience and omnipotence as two catagories, mental and physical. You don't have to have one to have the other. They are mutually exclusive. If God were not omniscient, that would have no bearing on his ability to cause the Earth to shake or to move celestial objects. Physical control of all existence is omnipotence. Knowing that you're thinking about that chick in class while masturbating is omniscience. Separate the two, don't roll them into one.
There is seemingly nothing illogical about National Socialism (Nazism) when you consider the reasons and intentions of Hitler (ie: the 'grand plan'). However, common sense tells us otherwise.
National-Socialism has nothing to do with either the universe or God. It's a flawed political system of liberal governance. Try to stay on topic.
The Big Bang, as-is today, is a flawed theory which frankly only Atheists dare defend to the bitter end with zeal. It kind of defeats the point, to concede to the idea that something god-like had to partake in the creation of the universe when you are an ardent believe in the opposite.
Science also points at the Big Bang theory (complete with it's flaws) being a possibility. Upon closer examination, we understand that the lack of empirical evidence makes impossible to assert it as truth. Granted, there are still the theorical flaws, but even if you could look past them there is nothing to validate the theory.
It's so flawed that it continues to stand as the predominant scientific theory relating to the creation of the universe. There IS Empirical evidence for the big bang. There just isn't enough to sufficiently declare it as the definitive answer. It's like watching a race where the front-runner is so far out ahead that you know they're going to win, short of something dramatic happening, such as a crippling accident. That's the big bang. Unless something dramatic shows up, there's not really any good alternatives in science for an answer. It even dovetails in nicely with religion. Let there be light. Then the creation of matter, the planets. Then plant life. Then animals. Here. http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/does-god-exist-c.htm Second and third paragraphs describe you.
The first law of logic: ex nihilo nihil fit: you can't get something from nothing.
:rofl: science then destroyed the first rule of logic. Because science knows that everything came from nothing to begin with.
It does not "seem" illogical. It is illogical.
It was also illogical to presume that the Earth was round. In fact, it was the deranged fantasy of lunatics. Any idiot could look around and see that the Earth was flat. It was illogical to claim that the Earth was NOT the center of the universe when one could simply look into the heavens and SEE the sun, moon, and stars ALL moving around the Earth. It was illogical to believe that there would EVER be a computer that could process information faster than the human brain. Computers just weren't capable of ever reaching that level. It was illogical to think that men could breath water. Common sense will tell you that our lungs just aren't designed to work that way. The use of "logic" to measure the world around you is no different than the old lady who relies solely on her religious beliefs to understand the world around her. It's fallible because it's based solely on what one already knows. You force the world to fit into a mold that fits your comfort level instead of letting it be what it is. Scientific breakthroughs have traditionally come about because someone questioned what was "known" and dared to look at the world around them without prejudice.
Exept, while they are not inherently oppossites, they are not inherently compatible, either.
That's my point....THEY ARE inherently compatible!
Religion is about the organizational framework for the study of theological-philosophical questions, while science is about the observation of the natural world (this includes the effects of man upon it, as well).
And what is the point of knowledge obtained through observation if it cannot be applied? Moreover, while some religions may be an organizational framework for studying theo-philo questions(Taoism and Buddism off the top of my head), it is a gross over-simlification to try to paint them all with the same brush. It demonstates a lack of understanding on the topic, or a lack of respect of opposing views, to do so.
I will tell you what I tell New Agers: Being open minded may be a good thing. But if you indulge in such a thing in excess, your brains can easily fall out.
And I would be inclined to agree. I didn't say to be open-minded to the point of your brains falling out. I said try being more open-minded. You're closed-off views leave you unable to learn anything new.
“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” ― Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
Guardian7347
The Legend
The Legend
 
Posts: 2110
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:36 pm

Re: So everything that will happen is already preordained?

Postby DRLHyper » Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:46 am

Guardian7347 wrote:Actually, it does. It is scientifically proven that matter can be created at the expense of energy. Scientists do it all the time. They also destroy matter, releasing huge quantities of energy. This is a well-known aspect of science.

No.

Destroying something to release energy is not the same thing as converting something to energy. Nuclear fission is based around the first. Only pseudosciences or fiction apply the later.
Guardian7347 wrote:Yes. You can. You're confusing knowledge with power. While we often equate the two as being related, that's not necessarily what this means here. Gross over-simlification, but think of omniscience and omnipotence as two catagories, mental and physical. You don't have to have one to have the other. They are mutually exclusive. If God were not omniscient, that would have no bearing on his ability to cause the Earth to shake or to move celestial objects. Physical control of all existence is omnipotence. Knowing that you're thinking about that chick in class while masturbating is omniscience. Separate the two, don't roll them into one.

Oh, and they are not mutually exclusive. It will lead me to the next point, so:
Guardian7347 wrote:National-Socialism has nothing to do with either the universe or God. It's a flawed political system of liberal governance. Try to stay on topic.

Oh, an evasive answer. But there is no need for that.

Knowledge is power. Why else do you think the U.S.A. brought back Nazi-affiliated scientists to it's own soil? Because knowledge grants power. It is not always the case, but it often is. If I know how to make an atomic bomb, by definition I have a power others do not -- and provided the resources, I could have a far greater power (which would be my knowledge applied physically).

Back to omniscience and omnipotence: Omniscience could be reduce to knowledge and omnipotence to physical power, yes. The first could provide the means to use the second. I do not see how that excludes one from the other, if not neatly complementing it.

If I know what a man is thinking, then I am likely to be able to find out his secrets. If I do, then I automatically gain the power to blackmail him, or steal his ideas.

On a less negative connotation, if I knew what a was thinking, and I found out he was thinking about shooting himself, I could act upon that and [perhaps] save him.

Once again -- knowledge is power.
Guardian7347 wrote:It's so flawed that it continues to stand as the predominant scientific theory relating to the creation of the universe. There IS Empirical evidence for the big bang. There just isn't enough to sufficiently declare it as the definitive answer. It's like watching a race where the front-runner is so far out ahead that you know they're going to win, short of something dramatic happening, such as a crippling accident. That's the big bang. Unless something dramatic shows up, there's not really any good alternatives in science for an answer. It even dovetails in nicely with religion. Let there be light. Then the creation of matter, the planets. Then plant life. Then animals. Here. http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/does-god-exist-c.htm Second and third paragraphs describe you.

milesmathis.com/inflat.html

There, a few of the flaws of the Big Bang theory.
Guardian7347 wrote:It was also illogical to presume that the Earth was round. In fact, it was the deranged fantasy of lunatics. Any idiot could look around and see that the Earth was flat. It was illogical to claim that the Earth was NOT the center of the universe when one could simply look into the heavens and SEE the sun, moon, and stars ALL moving around the Earth. It was illogical to believe that there would EVER be a computer that could process information faster than the human brain. Computers just weren't capable of ever reaching that level. It was illogical to think that men could breath water. Common sense will tell you that our lungs just aren't designed to work that way. The use of "logic" to measure the world around you is no different than the old lady who relies solely on her religious beliefs to understand the world around her. It's fallible because it's based solely on what one already knows. You force the world to fit into a mold that fits your comfort level instead of letting it be what it is. Scientific breakthroughs have traditionally come about because someone questioned what was "known" and dared to look at the world around them without prejudice.

The men of old [as far back as Aristotle] pondered about the possibility of the world being round. They did not deny it, but they did not assert it, either. The possibility was there. Likewise, it other of their theories were proven and disproven over time. Sailors pondered upon such a thing for a very, very long time, as well.

As the men of science would tell you: There are the scientific facts and there are the 'popular culture "facts" '. The flat Earth theory was for the masses, so they could have an easy understanding of the world. It was for the philosophers and sages of old to question this.

There was, nor there is now, nothing illogical about the Earth being round. What was lacking were the facts and the means to observe the Earth as being round [or more properly, spherical].

To state that a being with omnipotence and omniscience would exist, however, and claim that free will does at the same time -- that is illogical.
Guardian7347 wrote:That's my point....THEY ARE inherently compatible!

No, they are not.

The job of a Scientist is to observe the natural world. His duty is not to answer any 'ultimate anything' answers of any sort. Such claims commited by metaphysicians are invalidated at their source for that very fact. A scientist's duty is not to answer how the universe was created; merely how it works. If the second can lead to the first, and he can find out how the universe began into existence, that would be great. But, it is not his duty.
Guardian7347 wrote:And what is the point of knowledge obtained through observation if it cannot be applied? Moreover, while some religions may be an organizational framework for studying theo-philo questions(Taoism and Buddism off the top of my head), it is a gross over-simlification to try to paint them all with the same brush. It demonstates a lack of understanding on the topic, or a lack of respect of opposing views, to do so.

Your religion, like it or not, also answers theological/philosophical questions. Whatever homosexuality should be permitted or not, the concept of sin, etc.

There is nothing in science that proves (or disproves) that such things are of importace to the natural world. Therefore, such questions have no place in a scientific workspace.
Guardian7347 wrote:And I would be inclined to agree. I didn't say to be open-minded to the point of your brains falling out. I said try being more open-minded. You're closed-off views leave you unable to learn anything new.

I do not have closed-off views, I merely opposse 'facts' that are claims without proof.

The Big Bang is a claim without proof. God is a claim without proof. They may exist, they may not. That is where the issues end for me. However, if anyone were to insist that one of the either [or both/none] were real, then I would find myself trying to prove them why this is not the case.
"Spirituality" is a code word of sorts: "I have a confession to make — I believe in God! I'm so sorry!" - "Your 'science' cannot explain my transcendental experiences!" - "I'm a quack. Give me all your money."
User avatar
DRLHyper
Dream Warrior
Dream Warrior
 
Posts: 1261
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:08 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: So everything that will happen is already preordained?

Postby The Eagle » Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:19 am

Guardian7347 wrote:Actually, it does. It is scientifically proven that matter can be created at the expense of energy. Scientists do it all the time. They also destroy matter, releasing huge quantities of energy. This is a well-known aspect of science.

You are saying energy created matter. So then that’s not the creation of all things – but merely the creation of matter. So then – what created the energy?
Matter cant be created out of nothing. Energy cant be created out of nothing.
So where does that leave your theory?
Guardian7347 wrote:Yes. You can. You're confusing knowledge with power. While we often equate the two as being related, that's not necessarily what this means here. Gross over-simlification, but think of omniscience and omnipotence as two catagories, mental and physical. You don't have to have one to have the other. They are mutually exclusive..

Errrmmm……You cant have mental without physical………. Unless you know of an example to use to prove the point? Whether you can have physical without mental is not based on evidence – its based on lack of evidence.
Guardian7347 wrote:If God were not omniscient, that would have no bearing on his ability to cause the Earth to shake or to move celestial objects. Physical control of all existence is omnipotence.

I think you are confusing very powerful for all powerful.
can do anything – but making exceptions to the word “anything” to maintain the belief?
God makes a rock he cant lift and then afterward he tries to lift it. What happens? – illogical omnipotence will suggest yes he can create it and yes he can lift it – or a quick get out is god is limited by himself . either way it says god is limited. – not omnipotent.
Guardian7347 wrote:National-Socialism has nothing to do with either the universe or God. It's a flawed political system of liberal governance. Try to stay on topic.

Its in the universe and god allowed it, god was on hitler’s side – didn’t you listen to his speeches and see the catholic church doing the hile hitler?? – I got a picture somewhere if you missed it – anyway it has just as much to do with the universe as you or any other belief about anything.
Guardian7347 wrote:It's so flawed that it continues to stand as the predominant scientific theory relating to the creation of the universe. There IS Empirical evidence for the big bang. There just isn't enough to sufficiently declare it as the definitive answer. It's like watching a race where the front-runner is so far out ahead that you know they're going to win, short of something dramatic happening, such as a crippling accident. That's the big bang. Unless something dramatic shows up, there's not really any good alternatives in science for an answer. It even dovetails in nicely with religion. Let there be light. Then the creation of matter, the planets. Then plant life. Then animals. .


Hmmm – but again what about the creation of energy???!!?!??! Saying god created the universe is just as bad as saying the same as saying universe has always existed just that the universe existed in a different form. And for that to happen you do not need to have a creator omnipotent omniscient being in order to create the universe as we know it.
Guardian7347 wrote::rofl: science then destroyed the first rule of logic. Because science knows that everything came from nothing to begin with. .

And the assumption of that is just as bad as saying god has always existed…….. logically either way something has always had to exist. Whether that be something without form that can use magic powers to form the universe or – the universe itself has always existed.
Saying something comes from nothing is illogical. You and those that say something can come from nothing are mistakenly putting science on a path that it doesn’t belong on. Science doesn’t say something can come from nothing.
Guardian7347 wrote:It was also illogical to presume that the Earth was round. In fact, it was the deranged fantasy of lunatics. Any idiot could look around and see that the Earth was flat. It was illogical to claim that the Earth was NOT the center of the universe when one could simply look into the heavens and SEE the sun, moon, and stars ALL moving around the Earth. .

An omnipotent god allows a flat earth to be logical though – check the other thread out where we discussed this.
Guardian7347 wrote:The use of "logic" to measure the world around you is no different than the old lady who relies solely on her religious beliefs to understand the world around her. It's fallible because it's based solely on what one already knows. You force the world to fit into a mold that fits your comfort level instead of letting it be what it is. Scientific breakthroughs have traditionally come about because someone questioned what was "known" and dared to look at the world around them without prejudice. .

Logic moves forward and builds yes. “Those that dared” also followed logic….
At our current understanding – omnipotence is illogical and omniscience is illogical where free will is concerned. If you can dislodge the logic by all means go for it and we can all move forward………
Guardian7347 wrote:That's my point....THEY ARE inherently compatible!

Religion attemps to deal with the why – science deals with the how. But when religion tries to deal with the how with illogical theories – they are incompatible. The why for science is always the preceding factor cause and effect – once that stops it is no longer science.
Guardian7347 wrote:And I would be inclined to agree. I didn't say to be open-minded to the point of your brains falling out. I said try being more open-minded. You're closed-off views leave you unable to learn anything new.

there is no need to go down that road Guardian7347. I think we can agree no one is closed minded here – we are discussing logic and theories . for it to become “you don’t agree with me so you have a are closed mind” – and then the next person can say the same back . What does it achieve?
The Sun is Life, The Moon is Magic
User avatar
The Eagle
Dream Warrior
Dream Warrior
 
Posts: 1883
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:21 am

Re: So everything that will happen is already preordained?

Postby Guardian7347 » Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:16 pm

No.

Destroying something to release energy is not the same thing as converting something to energy. Nuclear fission is based around the first. Only pseudosciences or fiction apply the later.
And kindly point out where I said anything about converting something to energy? I spoke of matter being created from energy and matter being destroyed to release energy.

You cannot make a definitive statement like "Knowledge is power" when you yourself acknowledge this isn't always the case. For both of your examples of how knowledge is power, you acknowledge the inherent error of your conclusion. Potential. Knowledge in and of itself has NO power. Let's use potential and kinetic energy as an example. Knowledge being potential energy, power being kinetic. What you know is nowhere NEAR as important as what you DO with that knowledge. If I knew where to find gold and oil deposits around the world, but told no one, what power did that knowledge grant me? Using your example, if I were the only man on Earth who knew how to make an atomic weapon, but no one knew I knew how to do it, and I DIDN'T gather any of the material together, what power did that knowledge grant me? HAVING knowledge DOESN'T automatically translate into power. You're mistranslating the idea of power to mean something it doesn't.
Because knowledge grants power. It is not always the case, but it often is.
Omniscience could be reduce to knowledge and omnipotence to physical power, yes. The first could provide the means to use the second.
Once again, NOT definitive statements. God COULD exist, so therefore he must?
milesmathis.com/inflat.html

There, a few of the flaws of the Big Bang theory.
lol This guy who attacks a wikipedia post on Big Bang is your source for all that's wrong with the theory? 1. Wikipedia is notorious for not always being accurate. It's a great way to get general information, but if you need accuracy, you're still better off going for an encyclopedia or another source. 2. https://mathisdermaler.wordpress.com/ There's a reason your guy is soliciting donations on the web instead of making millions in speaking fees. Don't get me wrong, the BBT has it's flaws, sure. That's why it's still theory....because it can't be proven OR DISPROVEN as of yet.
There was, nor there is now, nothing illogical about the Earth being round. What was lacking were the facts and the means to observe the Earth as being round [or more properly, spherical].

And yet, to the masses, the idea of a round earth WAS illogical. Tell you what, scrap the flat-earth argument. The point being not what actually IS right or wrong, but how perception of what is logical is based on scientific knowledge at the moment. Logical or illogical changes with new information. To shut out ideas and ignore them because they seem illogical is to do science a huge disservice. Science should question every held "fact" but shut out no possible answer, otherwise you slant the results just to prove your own ideas.
The job of a Scientist is to observe the natural world. His duty is not to answer any 'ultimate anything' answers of any sort. Such claims commited by metaphysicians are invalidated at their source for that very fact. A scientist's duty is not to answer how the universe was created; merely how it works. If the second can lead to the first, and he can find out how the universe began into existence, that would be great. But, it is not his duty.
And? No one's arguing that. As I said before, science can be used to explain those things in the bible we didn't understand before. To demystify the mysteries. To better understand God. Just out of curiosity....why do you believe a scientist's job shouldn't be to answer how the universe is created? Isn't that part of the natural world?
Your religion, like it or not, also answers theological/philosophical questions
MY religion? And which religion was that again? More to the point, while any beliefs I have may or may not address theo/philo issues, it is not an organizational framework for the study of said issues.
There is nothing in science that proves (or disproves) that such things are of importace to the natural world. Therefore, such questions have no place in a scientific workspace.
If nothing in science DISPROVES their importance to the natural world....why not include them?
I do not have closed-off views, I merely opposse 'facts' that are claims without proof.
You oppose ideas that run contrary to your own, out of hand. You cling to logic despite it's obvious fallacies. If I told you I seen 23 people flying through the air yesterday, you would say it's illogical. If I said I seen a plane carrying 23 people flying through the air yesterday, suddenly my statement becomes logical. The facts didn't change, just the information you had available to you. What seems illogical today becomes tomorrow's commonly accepted facts. Once again, BBT HAS proof, just not sufficient evidence. Flawed? Yeah, but it's still a working theory as of right now, which means men much smarter than the both of us with far more intimate knowledge of this stuff than miles have been over the numbers repeatedly. If there was a fundamental flaw, someone would have already pointed it out and laid claim to their Nobel. Think outside your box for a change. Explore the crazy...just to see if any of it has merit. Never know when you might find something new.
“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” ― Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
Guardian7347
The Legend
The Legend
 
Posts: 2110
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:36 pm

Re: So everything that will happen is already preordained?

Postby DRLHyper » Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:36 pm

Guardian7347 wrote:You cannot make a definitive statement like "Knowledge is power" when you yourself acknowledge this isn't always the case. For both of your examples of how knowledge is power, you acknowledge the inherent error of your conclusion. Potential. Knowledge in and of itself has NO power. Let's use potential and kinetic energy as an example. Knowledge being potential energy, power being kinetic. What you know is nowhere NEAR as important as what you DO with that knowledge. If I knew where to find gold and oil deposits around the world, but told no one, what power did that knowledge grant me? Using your example, if I were the only man on Earth who knew how to make an atomic weapon, but no one knew I knew how to do it, and I DIDN'T gather any of the material together, what power did that knowledge grant me? HAVING knowledge DOESN'T automatically translate into power. You're mistranslating the idea of power to mean something it doesn't.
Because knowledge grants power. It is not always the case, but it often is.
Omniscience could be reduce to knowledge and omnipotence to physical power, yes. The first could provide the means to use the second.
Once again, NOT definitive statements. God COULD exist, so therefore he must?

No, just because something 'could' exist does not means it should. My point was to prove that omniscience and omnipotence are not mutually exclusive, as you stated before.

Also: 'but no one knew I knew how to do it' -- only grants you more power. If you ever gathered the resources, you would have one-of-a-kind weapon.
Guardian7347 wrote:
milesmathis.com/inflat.html

There, a few of the flaws of the Big Bang theory.
lol This guy who attacks a wikipedia post on Big Bang is your source for all that's wrong with the theory? 1. Wikipedia is notorious for not always being accurate. It's a great way to get general information, but if you need accuracy, you're still better off going for an encyclopedia or another source. 2. https://mathisdermaler.wordpress.com/ There's a reason your guy is soliciting donations on the web instead of making millions in speaking fees. Don't get me wrong, the BBT has it's flaws, sure. That's why it's still theory....because it can't be proven OR DISPROVEN as of yet.

Read the entire article. He is not attacking Wikipedia, but using it as a means to prove why the [current] model of the Big Bang is flawed. Also, he specifically mentions how nobel-prize scientists endorse such theory despite it being flawed. The concept of the Big Bang is not what he is attacking; he is attacking the mathematical ecuations that modern physicists count as 'proof' of the Big Bang.

Furthermore, I can attack the Big Bang theory using logic alone. The link I provided to disprove the mathematical equations was merely a bonus, so that we could avoid being enganged in the specifics of the Big Bang theory.
Guardian7347 wrote:And yet, to the masses, the idea of a round earth WAS illogical. Tell you what, scrap the flat-earth argument. The point being not what actually IS right or wrong, but how perception of what is logical is based on scientific knowledge at the moment. Logical or illogical changes with new information. To shut out ideas and ignore them because they seem illogical is to do science a huge disservice. Science should question every held "fact" but shut out no possible answer, otherwise you slant the results just to prove your own ideas.

No; such knowledge was not based on 'scientific knowledge' but on 'popular perception'. Even today there are many myths the popular culture continues to uphold that are scientifically unsound.

But yes, I agree: Science should question every fact. However, once results get increasingly similar, and more similar, there is a point when you must agree that something will not change beyond a certain point. I could argue that a certain metal bar has a 10 centimeter lenght, and a colleague could argue it is 9 centimiters long. But as we perform observations and measures, we would eventually run into a conclusion. That is how science works.

"Nature is uniform."

Is the second postulate of science. No matter how you try, you are not going to get a metal bar to turn into an automobile. Or put simply, scientifically proven facts can not be 'denied' -- they are expanded onto.
Guardian7347 wrote:
The job of a Scientist is to observe the natural world. His duty is not to answer any 'ultimate anything' answers of any sort. Such claims commited by metaphysicians are invalidated at their source for that very fact. A scientist's duty is not to answer how the universe was created; merely how it works. If the second can lead to the first, and he can find out how the universe began into existence, that would be great. But, it is not his duty.
And? No one's arguing that. As I said before, science can be used to explain those things in the bible we didn't understand before. To demystify the mysteries. To better understand God. Just out of curiosity....why do you believe a scientist's job shouldn't be to answer how the universe is created? Isn't that part of the natural world?

Let me rephrase, then:

The beggining of the universe, by definition, occurs only once, and only at a single point in time and space. A scientific fact would require the observation of such an event [preferibly repeatedly] to assert whatever it is true or not. But a scientist can not travel back in time (and personally, I think time travel is a bunk theory, but let us not go there now); this means that he can only research what he can observe and replicate in his investigations, and only that.
Guardian7347 wrote:
I do not have closed-off views, I merely opposse 'facts' that are claims without proof.
You oppose ideas that run contrary to your own, out of hand. You cling to logic despite it's obvious fallacies. If I told you I seen 23 people flying through the air yesterday, you would say it's illogical. If I said I seen a plane carrying 23 people flying through the air yesterday, suddenly my statement becomes logical. The facts didn't change, just the information you had available to you. What seems illogical today becomes tomorrow's commonly accepted facts.

Not at all. I would ask proof on the first. And you could be lying on the second. Just because something seems logical, does not makes it so. Scientific facts can not negate logic -- only exist inside of it.
Guardian7347 wrote:Once again, BBT HAS proof, just not sufficient evidence. Flawed? Yeah, but it's still a working theory as of right now, which means men much smarter than the both of us with far more intimate knowledge of this stuff than miles have been over the numbers repeatedly. If there was a fundamental flaw, someone would have already pointed it out and laid claim to their Nobel. Think outside your box for a change. Explore the crazy...just to see if any of it has merit. Never know when you might find something new.

And I am willing to 'Explore the crazy...'. However, as with your 'flying people' example, I could ultimately ask you for empirical proof.

The Big Bang theory of today is flawed because it uses only a part of science -- namely, mathematics. But when you try to port the mathematical ecuations from the Big Bang into chemistry, physics, etc., suddenly the theory becomes that, a theory. To state otherwise: just because something can not be disproven, it is not automatically proven by that situation, either.

And as a side-note: the modern Nobel prize in physics is considered deprecated in modern physicist circles. This is, again, because much of the 'accepted' modern physics is purely mathematics without the methods of science (but again, that is a point I would rather not dwell much into).
Guardian7347 wrote:
Your religion, like it or not, also answers theological/philosophical questions
MY religion? And which religion was that again? More to the point, while any beliefs I have may or may not address theo/philo issues, it is not an organizational framework for the study of said issues.

You made references to the Bible and, judging from past discussions, it would be safe to assume that you are either a Christian or a Muslim. Since your avatar of choice features a U.S.A. flag, I am more inclined to think you are a Christian.

But yes -- religion is not an organizational framework for such issues, indeed. Science deals with the 'how', religion on the 'why'. The conflicts start when one tries to answer the other.
"Spirituality" is a code word of sorts: "I have a confession to make — I believe in God! I'm so sorry!" - "Your 'science' cannot explain my transcendental experiences!" - "I'm a quack. Give me all your money."
User avatar
DRLHyper
Dream Warrior
Dream Warrior
 
Posts: 1261
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:08 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: So everything that will happen is already preordained?

Postby Daniel24 » Tue May 08, 2012 3:50 pm

Guardian7347 wrote:There is, as yet, an answer that could satisfy both camps. An answer, quite frankly, that I'm surprised hasn't already been discussed.
According to the bible, our futures are pre-ordained. Known long before we ever even set out upon our paths, if you will. This is taken to mean that our future is set, which runs contrary to the concept that our future is determined by our own actions, or free will. The fact that we can't reconcile the two only goes to demonstrate the limited understanding of mankind. Both can be in operation at the same time without a single contradiction. Just to keep the example managable, let's go simple Think of your life as a straight line from birth. As you age, that line moves to the right. Pretty standard model so far. Now, let's say at age five you come to your first real decision. You're sitting outside playing, with your mother watching out a window at you(this used to be fairly normal believe it or not). Before you is your favorite toy, and your tricylce. A choice. Back to your "life line". Make your line split in a Y, one going up and one going down to represent your choices. Let's say top is riding the tricycle. As soon as you go up this branch, you immediately have another choice, so make another Y here, top for ride your tryke on the driveway, bottom for riding your tryke out into the back yard. Again, let's go top. As you come to the end of the driveway, you come to another choice. Do you turn your tryke around before you reach the end of the driveway, or do you ride out into the street to turn around. If you choose to ride out into the street, you end up getting hit by a speeding drunk. Now, if you look at the timeline, you can clearly see where multiple choices were available, and where any one of them would have led to an outcome completely different to the one just witnessed. Is the idea of preordination to say that God doesn't know what would happen if any of those other choices were made? Or does the idea of preordination, foreknowing, mean that God knows the outcome of every decision option and how it will impact our lives all the way out to our end? How much more can God say "I know best" if he has already seen all 9 million endings of your life and what choices get you to which ones. That's what I believe. I believe God sees all the choices we will ever have to chose from and he sees all the possible outcomes from those choices. Free will is like a checkers piece moving on the board. You have all these different options on how to get to the other side, and you don't have a set destination, but not all of your choices will get you to the other end. I don't believe God knows what our choices will be, he just knows what they could be, and the consequences thereof. This is why we are instructed to seek his counsel, ie prayer on decisions. So he can give us a free hint on which way to go. Sure, it may not always seem like the preferred decision at the moment, but maybe from that missed promotion, a business entrepreneurship comes about that leads you to meet someone at a convention years down the road who becomes the love of your life. Sure, you're never as well off as you would have been with that promotion you turned down all those years ago, but you live happier with your wife and children than you ever did alone. In fact, maybe if you had taken that promotion, seven years down the road you end up jumping out the window of our very nice corner office window to your death. That's my answer. Free will is the conscious movement of man through the almost limitless options foreseen by God.


The part of all this I believe is most overlooked actually is the god part. This entire idea of "preordination" is based on god. The idea of god after all these thousands of years is still in the idea phase. It is not proven, it has never been proven or even come close to being proven nor does anyone even try to prove it. So to skip this very basic step and move on to what we think god does and what god is, is an enormous fault in logic.

Not only do we not know the mind of god, the motives of god; we also don’t know that god exists. As of now the entire idea is on paper and in our minds and does not actually exist in the real world.

Any person who makes a claim is burdened with providing proof of said claim. Religion is NOT the exception.

Preordination being the claim which is based on another unproven claim…it’s a house of cards waiting to be knocked over.
Daniel24
Dream Seeker
Dream Seeker
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:48 pm
Location: California

Re: So everything that will happen is already preordained?

Postby HazyFantayzee » Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:44 am

I guess everybody likes the idea that we are free. yet some people easily accept the concepts of fate and destiny too. Cant the two really work together? I'm not sure.

No we're not completely free... how could we ever be? We are restricted by physicalities, society... everything. Everything has limits. There is no endless list of options... We're even limited by our own personalities... how may times do you hear people say " oh they would never do that" ? To an extent we're predictable... we were "always going to do something a certain way"... to me this doesn't illustrate freedom.

So if we're not free... whats the point ? Maybe we were 'destined' to learn something instead... If you believe as I do that your soul has multiple lives in different 'hosts' then this method could be beneficial and not a waste of time, irrespective of whether we ever really have choices or if choice is just an illusion.

Then there's the nature / nurture argument... :?: :?: :?:
User avatar
HazyFantayzee
Dream Child
Dream Child
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:32 am

Previous

Return to Spirituality And Religious Beliefs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Shared Bottom Border