Question For Religious People

[Loismustdie 0]

You know, I will throw this out there, and I have observed this many times, but here goes: I don't seek out atheists for conversation. Don't go to atheist websites, don't try and challenge there beliefs, etc. I think it may just be the most pointless act I could possibly choose to do on any given day. They believe what they do, I believe what I do. Done. I will never, ever understand what drives some people to do what it is they do, I will never understand the joy that comes with trying to destroy someones joy. You know who does understand? Satan. Carry on. Time to go back to not giving a shit about 80% of the available posts in here.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

is it possible that in the future we will have a much better understanding of what we currently call evolution? that as we define it and narrow it down it necessitates that we get a larger scope of it? haven't scientists always had their theories reshaped? darwin's understanding of evolution may have been less than 10% of what my understanding of evolution is. couldn't kids in 80 years will have 100x the understanding of it that i do?do you think it makes sense to call evolution "increasing levels of order and complexity"? where does evolution (only as biology) begin? does it start w/ protiens, replicating DNA, bacteria, or something else? who should decide where evolution begins?i don't feel that i'm postulating these concepts and models all from my head.i've been reading books that have opened my thinking to other perceptions. i'm currently trying to find out how you guys answer these questions. saying that i'm on drugs seems to me a juvenile way to debate a linguistics game.if one person says "the reason i am here is evolution" and another person says "the reason i am here is god" don't they both have the same search? though they may approach it differently it seems like they are both trying to figure out their history and their universe.do you feel it limits ones pursuit of the universe if they are in any way affected by the dogma of religion? why do you have a bad taste in your mouth from the "god" word? please explain.

I figured out this thread... Navy is taking a class and needs help with his homework.Seriously though...those are some awesome questions and thoughts by the OP.I've grown to respect Crow more from his intelligent thoughts and theories lately also.Debating God vs. Evolution is like Pro-life vs Pro-choice.... I can see both sides but I also understand that convincing the other side to change their views is a long shot.It's also not my goal."why do you have a bad taste in your mouth from the "god" word? please explain." <-- very good I also wonder that but a lot of (I nearly said most) Christians also have the same bad taste for the word evolution or atheist. I'm fairly sure that some of the "anti-God's" who post here aren't truly atheist or agnostics but are rather more of anarchist. (not crow) I have a good friend that is a proud atheist and we have had multiple conversations about God and evolution. The same thing that seems to bother non-believers about Christians also bothers a lot of Christians when it comes to atheist. To an atheist or non-believer -- Christians ideas are silly and have no value because a God can not be proven.Science vs faith -- oil and water

[Spademan 94]

Refreshing in it's unabashed assholery. How you been big fella?

Pretty damn good, finally coming back to the States in a very short while. Good times. Will even be in AZ for a few weeks.How about yourself?

my theory as it were that God could be nothing more than just energy, life force if you will, that thing that goes away when the line goes straight and the sound goes beeeeeeeep

More of that old "life force" mumbo jumbo. =PGlad you occasionally find my assholery refreshing, because I have that shit in spades.

You know, I will throw this out there, and I have observed this many times, but here goes: I don't seek out atheists for conversation. Don't go to atheist websites, don't try and challenge there beliefs, etc. I think it may just be the most pointless act I could possibly choose to do on any given day. They believe what they do, I believe what I do. Done. I will never, ever understand what drives some people to do what it is they do, I will never understand the joy that comes with trying to destroy someones joy.

Refer to whatever I said to Hollywood about beliefs, and why two conflicting can't both be right, and there are ways to discern which is more likely. Also understand that this whole "taking of joy" thing is a bit absurd.Someone losing their fairy tale isn't losing joy, it's gaining clarity of the moment.You got over losing Santa Claus, you'd get over the adult version.

[Spademan 94]

maybe god is what being a good bird is. the force that drives what many of us call evolution, or (as only can i see it) the force that makes me want to be a "good" man.

God dammit.I made a long response to this post and apparently it didn't post for whatever reason and I didn't notice till now.Anyhow, the gist of it was thus:Here we have one of the most common things I run into when I ask someone about how they define god, spirit, soul and the like. I get responses that are vague and obscure to the point of meaninglessness. So you say that you "believe" that your god "may be what being a good bird is"? That god is "the force that drives evolution", the "force that makes you want to be a good man"?Ok, well, that's fine if we are sitting around at a college bonfire, drinking beers and you've got a couple joints in you. But what the fuck does it mean?If you don't mean God in the common usage of the word, that is to say a personal, thinking being who feels emotions like wrath of love, then why not just talk about a "law" or "force" that is inherent in these processes. Or instinct or something. (all of it pretty much boils down to self preservation, but that is a bit tangential at the moment). If you don't think this force is an intelligent, thinking being with a personality, don't use the word god and we've solved the problem that was based purely on semantics.If you do think this Bird Force of Goodness does have a personality, why? Show your work. Remember not to make any illogical claims about it being "omni-everything" because you'll get wtfpwned by The Problem of Evil. Explain how and why you think there is an alien being who's very nature manifests itself as laws of physics and base instinct to us lowly peons. Explain why it is necessary and be cautions of Occam's Razor, anecdotal meanderings and cultural bias.People often claim that many of us "skeptical cynic" types are just like them when it comes to "beliefs". They like to toss that about with things like "close-mindedness" and "their own brand of faith". It's all bullshit. When I enter a debate with a "believer" there is only one of us coming into it with something to guard and hold on to. Something to rationalize and be vague about. I'm at the zero point of the scale. You have some fine equipment to sell me, random salesman at the door? It is incredible and a great value? It is better than every other brand of it's type? Well, that all sounds interesting, now show me.When it comes to the arguments of [insert innumerable arbitrary belief system] believers, I have found one, and I mean one that has utilized strong and valid logic in his process. Aquinas. Though he always came to a point of "the unknown" and made a predisposed belief jump at the end and came up with god, he still at least put in the effort. Point being, you'll have to be much more specific and precise in what you mean when you say "god" for any real discussion on the topic to take place.p.s. I'm sure you'll be ok with any curse words or direct tone I may have taken, because you are not a sissy.

[Loismustdie 0]

Pretty damn good, finally coming back to the States in a very short while. Good times. Will even be in AZ for a few weeks.How about yourself?More of that old "life force" mumbo jumbo. =PGlad you occasionally find my assholery refreshing, because I have that shit in spades. Refer to whatever I said to Hollywood about beliefs, and why two conflicting can't both be right, and there are ways to discern which is more likely. Also understand that this whole "taking of joy" thing is a bit absurd.Someone losing their fairy tale isn't losing joy, it's gaining clarity of the moment.You got over losing Santa Claus, you'd get over the adult version.

Unless you believe Santa Claus can **** your shit up for like, ever. Not to mention sometimes clarity is just the opposite, and more of a game of eyesies closies than anything else. I have been good, really good. I have been meaning to make a post about that in the general vicinity but just haven't got around to it. While you are in town ,if you feel like hitting up a bar or two let me know. I am generally good for a drink or two once in awhile, and it would be my pleasure to buy a soldier a few rounds.

[Spademan 94]

I have been good, really good. I have been meaning to make a post about that in the general vicinity but just haven't got around to it. While you are in town ,if you feel like hitting up a bar or two let me know. I am generally good for a drink or two once in awhile, and it would be my pleasure to buy a soldier a few rounds.

Possible.You need to understand however, that I will never. ever. ever. hump a dude.Never.Not ever.

[crowTrobot 2]

is it possible that in the future we will have a much better understanding of what we currently call evolution? that as we define it and narrow it down it necessitates that we get a larger scope of it?

again you're talking about what would be a different theory. if some "force" is shaping non-living things the mechanism would have to be different.

do you think it makes sense to call evolution "increasing levels of order and complexity"?

no

where does evolution (only as biology) begin? does it start w/ protiens, replicating DNA, bacteria, or something else? who should decide where evolution begins?

it definitionally begins with adaptation to environment through self-replication with variation. celestial bodies don't do that.

saying that i'm on drugs seems to me a juvenile way to debate a linguistics game.

no, it's a humorous way to point out that the concept of an asteroid belt being a planet that evolved to adapt to its environment is silly. nothing personal meant.

if one person says "the reason i am here is evolution" and another person says "the reason i am here is god" don't they both have the same search? though they may approach it differently it seems like they are both trying to figure out their history and their universe.

nobody (who understands evolution) has ever said "i am here" because of it. all they can say is living species on earth take the forms they do because of it.otherwise it has nothing to do with the history of the universe or any kind of purpose, intent, or reason for the existence of anything. it's just a mechanism.

do you feel it limits ones pursuit of the universe if they are in any way affected by the dogma of religion?

does crap smell?

[HollywoodAFD 0]

Simple question for Crow:Where did the first cell come from?Understanding the basic law of physics about matter... what is your take on this?I understand your views on adaptation and all...(I also believe in most of that).... just wondering your take on which came first...the chicken or the egg?

[Spademan 94]

Simple question crow: Where did the first cell come from?Oh, wait, that is one of the most difficult questions someone can ask you, since there is no possible way you can answer that question at this moment in human fucking history.Let me save you the trouble of fielding this simple question by telling you that since you won't be able to answer it, you can't prove there is no God, therefore there is a god and he is a fucking mystery.

[navybuttons 15]

Here we have one of the most common things I run into when I ask someone about how they define god, spirit, soul and the like. I get responses that are vague and obscure to the point of meaninglessness.

you'll have to forgive me for finding difficulty in describing something i'm still searching for. as i walk my path it's difficult to see where the path goes.

So you say that you "believe" that your god "may be what being a good bird is"? That god is "the force that drives evolution", the "force that makes you want to be a good man"?Ok, well, that's fine if we are sitting around at a college bonfire, drinking beers and you've got a couple joints in you. But what the fuck does it mean?

to me it might be something i seem to be able to witness in nature that drives life. it drives change. it makes differences in individuals and after time i got to be here to witness it. you'll have to find out for yourself what it means to be a "good" man, or rather what it means to you. but your "god" might look something like: every decision that you make is done for the betterment of the human species.

If you don't mean God in the common usage of the word, that is to say a personal, thinking being who feels emotions like wrath of love, then why not just talk about a "law" or "force" that is inherent in these processes. Or instinct or something. (all of it pretty much boils down to self preservation, but that is a bit tangential at the moment). If you don't think this force is an intelligent, thinking being with a personality, don't use the word god and we've solved the problem that was based purely on semantics.

why should christians be the only one allowed to use "god"?if christians believe that it's god and scientists believe in evolution then the answer will probably lie somewhere in the middle (and i just chose to call it god). the problem, as i see it, is that too many religious people get trapped into the dogma. do i think the force is intelligent? it's intelligent as i perceive it. it made the arrow of time point forward, complex atoms, and the opposable thumb. do i think it's a thinking being w/ a personality? i don't know. i imagine that whatever created our universe probably was, but i'm just speculating.

Explain how and why you think there is an alien being who's very nature manifests itself as laws of physics and base instinct to us lowly peons. Explain why it is necessary and be cautions of Occam's Razor, anecdotal meanderings and cultural bias.

i just don't see much of a difference between science and religion. but i think that something probably created the universe. whether or not it was an alien being with personality or just a natural force i don't know. but no matter what it was, our very nature (physics, etc.), seems to be comprised of it.

People often claim that many of us "skeptical cynic" types are just like them when it comes to "beliefs". They like to toss that about with things like "close-mindedness" and "their own brand of faith". It's all bullshit. When I enter a debate with a "believer" there is only one of us coming into it with something to guard and hold on to. Something to rationalize and be vague about. I'm at the zero point of the scale. You have some fine equipment to sell me, random salesman at the door? It is incredible and a great value? It is better than every other brand of it's type? Well, that all sounds interesting, now show me.

as soon as i say "god" you seem to turn your ears. many people mis-construed my understanding to fit their perception of the word. if this is your reaction, that there HAS to be a "right" and a "wrong," then how can anyone show you there isn't?

Point being, you'll have to be much more specific and precise in what you mean when you say "god" for any real discussion on the topic to take place.

i think we've already had quite a bit of real discussion.

p.s. I'm sure you'll be ok with any curse words or direct tone I may have taken, because you are not a sissy.

yes, of course. 10 or 100x times worse and it still wouldn't matter.

[navybuttons 15]

no

why not? why doesn't "increasing levels of order and complexity" work as a definition for evolution?

it definitionally begins with adaptation to environment through self-replication with variation. celestial bodies don't do that.

are you able to see man's technology as an extent of evolution? are you able to see societies as man evolving?

no, it's a humorous way to point out that the concept of an asteroid belt being a planet that evolved to adapt to its environment is silly. nothing personal meant.

the point was that it is not only biology that has to fit its environment to "survive."

nobody (who understands evolution) has ever said "i am here" because of it.

i understand evolution and i said it. you mean no one who has YOUR understanding of evolution would say that?

does crap smell?

you don't see that your aversion to the god word is allowing you to be affected by the dogma of someone else's religion?

[HollywoodAFD 0]

Simple question crow: Where did the first cell come from?Oh, wait, that is one of the most difficult questions someone can ask you, since there is no possible way you can answer that question at this moment in human fucking history.Let me save you the trouble of fielding this simple question by telling you that since you won't be able to answer it, you can't prove there is no God, therefore there is a god and he is a fucking mystery.

I'm asking his thoughts.... not asking him to prove or disprove anything.You're an angry person....Life is too short to be so angry.

[crowTrobot 2]

Simple question for Crow:Where did the first cell come from?

a cell in the modern sense i assume you're talking about is an advanced form of life that likely took 1/2 billion years or more of gradualincremental evolution to form. it's not a matter of which came first, since complete cells are way down the evolutionary chain.a better way to put the question is where and how did the first self-replicating thing that started the evolutionaryprocess form. nobody knows that, but science IS working on some promising theories of how it might have happened.in any case saying "god did it" does not answer the question.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

a cell in the modern sense i assume you're talking about is an advanced form of life that likely took 1/2 billion years or more of gradualincremental evolution to form. it's not a matter of which came first, since complete cells are way down the evolutionary chain.a better way to put the question is where and how did the first self-replicating thing that started the evolutionaryprocess form. nobody knows that, but science IS working on some promising theories of how it might have happened.in any case saying "god did it" does not answer the question.

Awesome answer...thanks.By "cell' I did mean the first self-replicating thing that started the evolutionary process form but was too lazy and uneducated to put it that way.Agree to disagree about the God thing though... but I am interested in the scientific explanation of these things.

[Loismustdie 0]

Possible.You need to understand however, that I will never. ever. ever. hump a dude.Never.Not ever.

Common ground FTW

[navybuttons 15]

just wondering your take on which came first...the chicken or the egg?

i believe this is christopher michael langan's answer:Assuming a chicken eggIn this case, the egg is assumed to be a chicken's egg. This is an obvious assumption since the question itself implies a link between the two.If one assumes the egg to be a chicken egg then one must define what a chicken egg is:If: A chicken egg will hatch a chickenThen a bypass is allowed: An animal that was not a chicken laid the chicken egg which contained the first chicken. In this case the egg came first.If: A chicken egg is the egg that a chicken laysThen a bypass is allowed: A chicken (that hatched from a non-chicken egg) laid an egg (a chicken egg). In this case the chicken came first.If: A chicken egg will hatch a chicken and A chicken egg is the egg that a chicken laysThen there may be an error of definition. If the definition of "chicken" used does not refer to "chicken eggs", then the chicken must come first, because without chickens there cannot be any chicken eggs.Biological AnswersIn this case, the egg is not assumed to be a chicken egg. In effect this changes the question to: "Which came first, a chicken or any egg".From a cellular biology point of view this question can be answered quite easily. The egg came first because any female sex cell is called an egg.If the egg is defined structurally as the hard shelled thing, and the chicken a feather covered animal, the answer is still simple. Evolutionary scientists believe the first hard shell egg was the amniotic egg laid around 300 million years ago, and was laid by the animal who was the link between amphibians and reptiles. One of the first dinosaurs that we know had feathers was the Archaeopteryx, and came much later. Modern birds would not arise until 150 million years ago, descending from theropod dinosaurs.In this case, the first chicken must have been the mutated offspring of a proto-chicken that laid the egg containing the first true chicken. In any case, this creature hatched from a recognizable egg. After all, the question is purposefully ambiguous -- it is not, "Which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?"The crux of the matter is how to biologically define 'a chicken'. What level of genetic similarity or structural similarity determine whether an organism is a chicken? One can only define what was the first chicken after the fact, thus any definition of the first chicken becomes arbitrary. The question 'which came first?' ignores the complicated reality of speciation. The concept of species is an abstraction intended to categorize a broad swath of genomes and their subsequent phenomes. If one were to do away with approximate categories, each individual 'chicken' actually represents a unique genotype. Under this definition, if a 'chicken' possessing genome A were to lay an egg possessing genome B, then an egg of genome B is antecedent to an animal possessing genome B and that the parent--genome A--is antecedent to, yet different from the egg of genome B. Hence, in an absolute sense, the egg came before the 'chicken.'According to the principles of speciation, neither the chicken nor the egg came first, because speciation does not occur in simple, obvious units. In fact, evolution is about a slow transition in an overall population. What qualifies as "chicken" (ignoring the many diverse modern types of chicken) involves a wide range of genetic traits (alleles) that are not encompassed in a single individual and continue to be modified from generation to generation.The transition from non-chicken to chicken is a grey area in which several generations are involved, and therefore which includes many many chicken-and-egg events, with no one step representing the whole. Since the result of the process is an incomplete transition into various new characteristics rather than one single blueprint, a new species, "chicken", is only identified in hindsight when the species can be obviously identified as different from its ancestral stock.Theological answersAccording to creationists who believe in Biblical inerrancy, birds were created "on the fifth day". Since there is no reference to the creation of eggs, they presumably were then made by chickens afterwards by the normal process. Therefore, the chicken came first.Alternatively, for those who accept the intelligent design form of creationism, Eugene Volokh has noted that "In my experience, most creationists are also pro-life -- in which case, the egg is a chicken."

[crowTrobot 2]

why doesn't "increasing levels of order and complexity" work as a definition for evolution?

if you want to redefine what it means it can mean whatever you want.

are you able to see man's technology as an extent of evolution? are you able to see societies as man evolving?

extensions of evolution, yes. you're still talking about the adaptation of living self-replicating things, though.

the point was that it is not only biology that has to fit its environment to "survive."

fit yes. adapt no. in an enviornment of erosion a harder rock will survive longer than a softer rock. so what?

you don't see that your aversion to the god word is allowing you to be affected by the dogma of someone else's religion?

i'm not adverse to god. god is just a theory that is irrelevant due to lack of supporting evidence.

[navybuttons 15]

if you want to redefine what it means it can mean whatever you want.

why is it that calling it something different from you means redefining it? is there a chance you are trying to redefine my understanding of it? is there a chance that i have a better understanding of it than you? but thank you i will.

extensions of evolution, yes. you're still talking about the adaptation of living self-replicating things, though.

do you believe man will eventually create self-replicating intelligent technology?would those technologies be an example of evolution? they would not be a part of your definition of evolution since they are not biology. how would you explain to them how they got there?

fit yes. adapt no. in an enviornment of erosion a harder rock will survive longer than a softer rock. so what?

so nothing.

god is just a theory that is irrelevant due to lack of supporting evidence.

the word of millions of people who "feel" it doesn't work as evidence? why not? do you believe that you are more intelligent than everyone else and that you are able to perceive everyone else's "true" answers for the world?

[HollywoodAFD 0]

i believe this is christopher michael langan's answer:Assuming a chicken eggIn this case, the egg is assumed to be a chicken's egg. This is an obvious assumption since the question itself implies a link between the two.If one assumes the egg to be a chicken egg then one must define what a chicken egg is:If: A chicken egg will hatch a chickenThen a bypass is allowed: An animal that was not a chicken laid the chicken egg which contained the first chicken. In this case the egg came first.If: A chicken egg is the egg that a chicken laysThen a bypass is allowed: A chicken (that hatched from a non-chicken egg) laid an egg (a chicken egg). In this case the chicken came first.If: A chicken egg will hatch a chicken and A chicken egg is the egg that a chicken laysThen there may be an error of definition. If the definition of "chicken" used does not refer to "chicken eggs", then the chicken must come first, because without chickens there cannot be any chicken eggs.Biological AnswersIn this case, the egg is not assumed to be a chicken egg. In effect this changes the question to: "Which came first, a chicken or any egg".From a cellular biology point of view this question can be answered quite easily. The egg came first because any female sex cell is called an egg.If the egg is defined structurally as the hard shelled thing, and the chicken a feather covered animal, the answer is still simple. Evolutionary scientists believe the first hard shell egg was the amniotic egg laid around 300 million years ago, and was laid by the animal who was the link between amphibians and reptiles. One of the first dinosaurs that we know had feathers was the Archaeopteryx, and came much later. Modern birds would not arise until 150 million years ago, descending from theropod dinosaurs.In this case, the first chicken must have been the mutated offspring of a proto-chicken that laid the egg containing the first true chicken. In any case, this creature hatched from a recognizable egg. After all, the question is purposefully ambiguous -- it is not, "Which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?"The crux of the matter is how to biologically define 'a chicken'. What level of genetic similarity or structural similarity determine whether an organism is a chicken? One can only define what was the first chicken after the fact, thus any definition of the first chicken becomes arbitrary. The question 'which came first?' ignores the complicated reality of speciation. The concept of species is an abstraction intended to categorize a broad swath of genomes and their subsequent phenomes. If one were to do away with approximate categories, each individual 'chicken' actually represents a unique genotype. Under this definition, if a 'chicken' possessing genome A were to lay an egg possessing genome B, then an egg of genome B is antecedent to an animal possessing genome B and that the parent--genome A--is antecedent to, yet different from the egg of genome B. Hence, in an absolute sense, the egg came before the 'chicken.'According to the principles of speciation, neither the chicken nor the egg came first, because speciation does not occur in simple, obvious units. In fact, evolution is about a slow transition in an overall population. What qualifies as "chicken" (ignoring the many diverse modern types of chicken) involves a wide range of genetic traits (alleles) that are not encompassed in a single individual and continue to be modified from generation to generation.The transition from non-chicken to chicken is a grey area in which several generations are involved, and therefore which includes many many chicken-and-egg events, with no one step representing the whole. Since the result of the process is an incomplete transition into various new characteristics rather than one single blueprint, a new species, "chicken", is only identified in hindsight when the species can be obviously identified as different from its ancestral stock.Theological answersAccording to creationists who believe in Biblical inerrancy, birds were created "on the fifth day". Since there is no reference to the creation of eggs, they presumably were then made by chickens afterwards by the normal process. Therefore, the chicken came first.Alternatively, for those who accept the intelligent design form of creationism, Eugene Volokh has noted that "In my experience, most creationists are also pro-life -- in which case, the egg is a chicken."

Pffft... duhlol.Nice job showing your work.

[crowTrobot 2]

why is it that calling it something different from you means redefining it? is there a chance you are trying to redefine my understanding of it?

in the context you're trying to use it in it already has a proper set definition. the reason i'm being stubborn on thisis that you're postulating some underlying purpose or intent to existence and why things happen, and that has nothingto do with evolution.

do you believe man will eventually create self-replicating intelligent technology?

not anything approaching us, no.

would those technologies be an example of evolution?

they could in principal be similar to biological evolution, yes.

the word of millions of people who "feel" it doesn't work as evidence? why not?

because feelings or other subjective internal revelations are demonstratably unreliable and demonstratablysubject to peer influence. people delude themselves all the time. what they feel is not evidence in any way.

do you believe that you are more intelligent than everyone else

no, just less prone to justifying nonsensical beliefs with impractical speculation.

and that you are able to perceive everyone else's "true" answers for the world?

there's only one answer.

[navybuttons 15]

in the context you're trying to use it in it already has a proper set definition. the reason i'm being stubborn on thisis that you're postulating some underlying purpose or intent to existence and why things happen, and that has nothingto do with evolution.

it just doesn't have to do with your definition of evolution.

not anything approaching us, no.

you believe that at some point man's technological growth is going to slow down? what makes you believe this?

no, just less prone to justifying nonsensical beliefs with impractical speculation.

like justifying the belief that we'll never have advanced self-replicating artificial intelligence that can pass a turing test with impractical speculation?

there's only one answer.

a 1980s dictionary does not acknowledge the pronunciation of the word nuclear as nuke-u-ler. a 2008 dictionary most likely will. which is the answer?

[HollywoodAFD 0]

there's only one answer.

I agree with this statementMy contention is that it is possible that our minds aren't capable of understanding everything. We consider ourselves to be the superior life and some people seem to think that we should be capable of understanding and/or figuring out everything. There was a time when man was certain that the world was flat.

[Spademan 94]

i just don't see much of a difference between science and religion. but i think that something probably created the universe. whether or not it was an alien being with personality or just a natural force i don't know. but no matter what it was, our very nature (physics, etc.), seems to be comprised of it.

"Think that something probably", "whether it was alien or force, i don't know"... sounds a lot like just making stuff up and fun guesswork."Our very nature seems to be comprised of [vague, unknown, maybe this or maybe that "it" that I have no evidence for other than it seems to me to be so]." Can you not see how meaningless this is? And I don't mean that in an insulting way, I mean it in the literal sense. This has no meaning, no content. It is vague, obscure, without any identifiable subject, and most important - unvalidated and unnecessary.

as soon as i say "god" you seem to turn your ears. many people mis-construed my understanding to fit their perception of the word.

It isn't just the christian connotation, behold the definitions;God -noun1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy. The vast majority of those who use the word God use it to define a personal being, the thinking, feeling, intelligent being of one or more particular religious systems. God as law of nature or random "force" is relegated to some secondary sphere of usage. Not misconstruing your understanding so much as as questioning whether or not you actually understand what it is you're talking about.We also seem to have a difference in how we use the word "believe". Your posts are riddled with "do i think it's a thinking being w/ a personality? i don't know. i imagine that whatever created our universe probably was, but i'm just speculating", "it might be", "it seems like"... a bunch of speculation couched in a sea of possibility riding in a boat of could-be's. I don't use belief for things that I really have no idea about, and am just speculating possibilities about. I would use "it is possible that..." not "I believe that...". Could there be a thinking "force" behind the concept of giving, could there be a being out there that is responsible for, or drives us towards charity? Maybe. It's possible. Let's call him, "Santa Claus". Sure, there could be, but because I allow for the possibility, I wouldn't then say I "believe in Santa Claus." You're taking things that have no evidence from them, no justification, are mere speculation, arbitrary things mind you, and indicating that you find them more likely than not. You are violating Occam's razor, and adding unnecessary complications based on absolutely no evidence other than the fact that you "believe it".

if this is your reaction, that there HAS to be a "right" and a "wrong," then how can anyone show you there isn't?

They can't.If two beliefs contradict, one or both of them are wrong. "A is not A" is impossible.There is nothing on heaven or on earth that can change this. This is a priori.God, evolution, random chaos, Santa, science and Tom Cruise himself all together could not change this.

[Balloon guy 158]

a cell in the modern sense i assume you're talking about is an advanced form of life that likely took 1/2 billion years or more of gradualincremental evolution to form. it's not a matter of which came first, since complete cells are way down the evolutionary chain.a better way to put the question is where and how did the first self-replicating thing that started the evolutionaryprocess form. nobody knows that, but science IS working on some promising theories of how it might have happened.in any case saying "god did it" does not answer the question.

Actually it very much does answer the question. you just want a different answer

[navybuttons 15]

sounds a lot like just making stuff up and fun guesswork.

fun being the operative word. (if i understand operative correctly)

It is vague, obscure, without any identifiable subject, and most important - unvalidated and unnecessary.

i agree except with all of it except unnecessary. this is just the way in which i try to formulate my ideas. i find it necessary.

It isn't just the christian connotation, behold the definitions;God -noun1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.

who's definitions are those?i am not christian nor am i merriam webster. i am free to use my own definitions. and those definitions do not always have to fall under verbal or written communication.

The vast majority of those who use the word God use it to define a personal being, the thinking, feeling, intelligent being of one or more particular religious systems. God as law of nature or random "force" is relegated to some secondary sphere of usage. Not misconstruing your understanding so much as as questioning whether or not you actually understand what it is you're talking about.

of course i don't understand what i am talking about. if i knew what i was talking about i'd be... well, i'd be a higher being i suppose.

We also seem to have a difference in how we use the word "believe". Your posts are riddled with "do i think it's a thinking being w/ a personality? i don't know. i imagine that whatever created our universe probably was, but i'm just speculating", "it might be", "it seems like"... a bunch of speculation couched in a sea of possibility riding in a boat of could-be's. I don't use belief for things that I really have no idea about, and am just speculating possibilities about. I would use "it is possible that..." not "I believe that...".

point taken.

They can't.If two beliefs contradict, one or both of them are wrong. "A is not A" is impossible.There is nothing on heaven or on earth that can change this. This is a priori.God, evolution, random chaos, Santa, science and Tom Cruise himself all together could not change this.

How about this? i'm trying to figure out how i got here and all i have is a dictionary. i don't know how to define phsyics so i look up physics and i read "a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions" but i don't know what "matter" and "energy" are so i then have to look them up, and so on and so on. i will never be able to solve the universe of the dictionary. it is constantly changing.i don't think i'm saying that "A is not A" but rather that your definition of A will never be my definition of A. Maybe you call the structure of "A" as geometry or physics or technological light pixels within the screen's resolution and maybe I call the structure of "A" as "god." then i use geometry, physics, evolution, etc. to define god (which i already understand is a problem i will never solve). at the end of the day we are each just looking for our individual solution to define the same thing we both witness. you are free to call your solution whatever you like and so am i.at least that's how i'm perceiving this debate.