Question For Religious People

[crowTrobot 2]

Actually it very much does answer the question.

saying god did it is just postulating a theory. without supporting evidence it answers nothing.

you just want a different answer

nope. i would prefer it if there were an afterlife. unlike you i just don't feel the needto delude myself about the possibility to be happy.

[Spademan 94]

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.

I didn't mean not necessary for you to work through or question, I meant necessary in terms of explaining the phenomena that we are discussing. I mean it isn't necessary that god is a force behind events to explain that events occur, if you follow me.

i am free to use my own definitions. and those definitions do not always have to fall under verbal or written communication.

Well, here we have a huge problem. If we can't agree on definitions we can't discuss anything, for any word can mean any thing. For example: falkj akwoe ejija kwjeje sojapoii fjpeaila. I've assigned meanings to each of these words, now let's talk about what I just said. It will be meaningless.

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.

Again, if we can't agree on definitions, if we can't agree that God is "this", then we can never have a logical, meaningful discussion. If we can agree on definitions, then we can test the validity of each others propositions and thereby come to reasonable, logical conclusions.

[vbnautilus 48]

Navy, I think maybe what you mean to be asking is if 'god' and 'nature' could be the same things. 'Evolution' is a specific theory of how one particular aspect of life works. If you use the word to mean 'nature' you're not using it the way science is using it. ( Which is fine, you can call a bird an elephant if you wish, but most people won't understand you when you ask about an elephant's wings. And if you come to us and say "hey maybe elephants are birds!" and all you mean is that you will henceforth refer to elephants as birds, then you haven't really said much. )

[crowTrobot 2]

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

i don't believe anything, was just answering a question you asked. all i meant is i suspect the workings of the human biological system and brain are likely to be too complex for us to ever duplicate mechanically. i have no reason to think we won't come up withsome sort of less complex self-replicating artificial intelligence at some point.

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?

i meant there apprears to be only one objective reality. the truth about god is not different for you than it is for me.

[navybuttons 15]

I mean it isn't necessary that god is a force behind events to explain that events occur, if you follow me.

oh yes. my mistake.i suppose i was seeing those forces and the events themselves as "god." i agree that it's not necessary to call it god if you're not comfortable with the implications.

Well, here we have a huge problem. If we can't agree on definitions we can't discuss anything, for any word can mean any thing. For example: falkj akwoe ejija kwjeje sojapoii fjpeaila. I've assigned meanings to each of these words, now let's talk about what I just said. It will be meaningless. Again, if we can't agree on definitions, if we can't agree that God is "this", then we can never have a logical, meaningful discussion.

my meaningful discussion is trying to learn how others perceive the concepts that i am trying to imagine and formulate in my head. if another party doesn't feel it's meaningful discussion i do myself the disservice in willfully changing my perception, in this case that a true definition can never be agreed upon, to facilitate their understanding.and the real question i was interested in was how flexible people were in imagining that "god" could be something else besides "this."

[Spademan 94]

and the real question i was interested in was how flexible people were in imagining that "god" could be something else besides "this."

I sort of follow you, but at the same time I have a problem with the way you seem to think "definitions" are necessarily arbitrary.The word "god" can mean anything you like it to, as V pointed out. But so what?In order for someone to believe that the word "God" could be something else, they would first have to define it, and base their definition on some evidence. If the evidence they feel they've amassed lead to the "belief" that "God" was "this", then they would need a reason to change their mind as to what god is, other than just a mental exercise in "open-mindedness".

[navybuttons 15]

i don't believe anything, was just answering a question you asked. all i meant is i suspect the workings of the human biological system and brain are likely to be too complex for us to ever duplicate mechanically. i have no reason to think we won't come up withsome sort of less complex self-replicating artificial intelligence at some point.

have you done much work in software developing theory? reverse brain engineering? reverse biological engineering? nano technology? technological development theory?and yet you felt comfortable giving an answer. you say "likely" because you believe that these systems are too complex. but you don't know that these systems are too complex to duplicate. and yet you still feel comfortable giving your beliefs as though it's the same answer for everyone else.

the truth about god is not different for you than it is for me.

actually that's exactly what it appears is happening. i think given a polygraph we'd both pass giving different answers to "is there a god?"

Navy, I think maybe what you mean to be asking is if 'god' and 'nature' could be the same things.

i don't know what i'm asking. i don't know what nature is and i don't know what god is. i'm trying to figure it out.

'Evolution' is a specific theory of how one particular aspect of life works. If you use the word to mean 'nature' you're not using it the way science is using it.

science has been wrong before and it will be wrong in the future.are you able to see that language evolves? are you able to see that societies evolve? are you able to see that business evolves? technology? science itself? fashion? food? etc., etc., etc., that is how i feel i am using "evolution."

( Which is fine, you can call a bird an elephant if you wish, but most people won't understand you when you ask about an elephant's wings. And if you come to us and say "hey maybe elephants are birds!" and all you mean is that you will henceforth refer to elephants as birds, then you haven't really said much. )

your conversation with my broader (not necessarily correct) perspective: BP: elephants are birds. they both have two eyes, they both have legs, they both breathe air, they both reproduce, they both eat food, drink water, eat, and crap.You: no elephants are not birds.BP: hmmm. why does he say they are not the same when from my perspective they are the same? i imagine he is using the definition of "bird" and "elephant" differently than i am. he is probably basing those definitions on the arbitrary constructs of language.

[navybuttons 15]

If the evidence they feel they've amassed lead to the "belief" that "God" was "this", then they would need a reason to change their mind as to what god is, other than just a mental exercise in "open-mindedness".

why?

[Spademan 94]

your conversation with my broader (not necessarily correct) perspective: BP: elephants are birds. they both have two eyes, they both have legs, they both breathe air, they both reproduce, they both eat food, drink water, eat, and crap.You: no elephants are not birds.BP: hmmm. why does he say they are not the same when from my perspective they are the same? i imagine he is using the definition of "bird" and "elephant" differently than i am. he is probably basing those definitions on the arbitrary constructs of language.

Ok. I see what your problem is. Forgive me for using the word problem, but it is a problem and you have it.That is why there are different words, that is why there are sets and sub-sets.Both are animals. Both are not birds.You are doing some weird faulty semantic thing and then trying to claim that "nobody knows and it is subjective" or something. This is simple logic stuff here, birds (B) elephants (e) and the set animals (a). I mean, simple stuff.Perspective really has nothing to do with it.

[navybuttons 15]

Perspective really has nothing to do with it.

if you were living 400 years ago would people think you were brilliant if you told them that man shared a common ancestor with apes?i propose they would say you were crazy. thus the definition of "crazy," "brilliant," "man," and "ape" all differ depending on where in time (perspective) you are.

[Spademan 94]

if you were living 400 years ago would people think you were brilliant if you told them that man shared a common ancestor with apes?i propose they would say you were crazy. thus the definition of "crazy," "brilliant," "man," and "ape" all differ depending on where in time (perspective) you are.

No, crazy would have still meant the same thing, brilliant would have still meant the same thing. And even if the definition did change for something, that is irrelevant. That is why we have dictionaries, thesauruses, education and when worse comes to worse the ability to say, "hey, what exactly do you mean when you say X"?I don't know whether you're being obtuse, lazy, or just making this more complicated than what it really is or what. Finding a common definition is as simple as asking.I honestly don't know how to communicate with people who talk about "definitions" meaning anything, therefore it's all a matter of perspective kind of thing. This isn't the first time. It really isn't that hard to explain one's definition of a word, and work from there. You seem to want to make it this big mystery that nobody can ever comprehend so we are doomed to search for these grand questions of existence on our own, alone in our little world of personal definitions and understandings.For those of us who work toward common definitions in discussion, and utilize proper logical constructs to formulate and evaluate each others constructs and conclusions, it really isn't a mystery at all, and everything turns out quite clear.

[vbnautilus 48]

are you able to see that language evolves? are you able to see that societies evolve? are you able to see that business evolves? technology? science itself? fashion? food? etc., etc., etc.,

I do understand that language evolves. But language is a system of shared meaning. A word does not change its meaning when a single person begins to use it to mean something other than the rest of the population. The symbols of language are only useful insofar as you can get someone to understand you with them. Yes they are arbitrary in the sense that there is no particular reason why 'elephant' need have come to refer to that-big-trunked-thing (and around the world different sounds are used to refer to the big-trunked-thing). But they are not arbitrary in the sense that one can simply substitute what a word refers to with their own referent and still be speaking the same language.

your conversation with my broader (not necessarily correct) perspective: BP: elephants are birds. they both have two eyes, they both have legs, they both breathe air, they both reproduce, they both eat food, drink water, eat, and crap.You: no elephants are not birds.BP: hmmm. why does he say they are not the same when from my perspective they are the same? i imagine he is using the definition of "bird" and "elephant" differently than i am. he is probably basing those definitions on the arbitrary constructs of language.

In this case you are simply not speaking English. You have unilaterally assigned a different meaning to one or both of those words to the point where I don't understand what you are trying to get across at all. In other words, the consequence of using words differently then what they actually mean to people is that you will fail to communicate. The words have lost their functions. There are some concepts that have less agreement than others across the population. 'God' is probably one of the ones with a lot of disagreement (and thus it is not a particularly useful one) . 'Evolution' has a very specific meaning because in order to do work in science words have to achieve precise definitions.

[navybuttons 15]

It really isn't that hard to explain one's definition of a word, and work from there.

you and i have tried to explain each of our individual definitions of the word god and we seem to be going backwards.

[navybuttons 15]

'Evolution' has a very specific meaning because in order to do work in science words have to achieve precise definitions.

so "evolution" refers to the process by which biology evolves but it can't refer to the process by which language, society, or pop-music does?

[vbnautilus 48]

so "evolution" refers to the process by which biology evolves but it can't refer to the process by which language, society, or pop-music does?

In biology, evolution is the change in inherited traits from one generation to the next through the processes of variation, reproduction, and selection. It may or may not be a useful metaphor for other domains. What it isn't is a synonym for all of the processes of nature. For example, the changing of form from child to adult is development, not evolution. If you want it to be synonymous with 'god', how could it exclude some natural processes? The fact is that any USEFUL word distinguishes between something and something else. This, not that. Which is why 'god' is not a useful word. Any worthwhile concept of 'god' includes all and is therefore beyond concepts and words. That's why idols are bad in the bible and why god doesn't give himself a name, and why muslims won't make a picture of it. Name and form are specific, limited. 'God' is the opposite of specific.

[Spademan 94]

you and i have tried to explain each of our individual definitions of the word god and we seem to be going backwards.

No no, I provided definitions for the word god when I gave the shared, common definitions as in the dictionaries we use for the English language.You gave a vague, obscure this or that rambling about what god might possibly could be maybe you think sometimes that may sometimes change or not and stuff. =PYou've also stated you don't know what "god" is, so you didn't give a definition at all, and that's why we aren't moving forwards.

[navybuttons 15]

In biology, evolution is the change in inherited traits from one generation to the next through the processes of variation, reproduction, and selection.

i see "selection" as somewhat synonymous with "competition." although pop-music may not reproduce in the same way that a sea horse might the competition still drives it to change.i can't call the difference between britney spears and the beatles evolution (or devolution )?

What it isn't is a synonym for all of the processes of nature. For example, the changing of form from child to adult is development, not evolution.

i used the definition of evolution as "increasing order and complexity."

The fact is that any USEFUL word distinguishes between something and something else.

define useful.

'God' is the opposite of specific.

i think that's a pretty awesome definition (though it's only an antonym.)although i don't see it as such i still think it's cool.

[navybuttons 15]

No no, I provided definitions for the word god when I gave the shared, common definitions as in the dictionaries we use for the English language.You gave a vague, obscure this or that rambling about what god might possibly could be maybe you think sometimes that may sometimes change or not and stuff. =PYou've also stated you don't know what "god" is, so you didn't give a definition at all, and that's why we aren't moving forwards.

oh.

[BaseJester 1]

define useful.

Define 'define'.Useful define. Pig stock quickly porridge screw run? Square! Dog chair. Fence Chrozzo tape; can rakeback bra monster.

[Spademan 94]

oh.

Touche.Or is it douche?I always get those two mixed up.

[navybuttons 15]

Touche.Or is it douche?I always get those two mixed up.

i was conceding. :)but luckily this is only the religious forum so hopefully in time you can use that joke again.

[Spademan 94]

i was conceding.

I knoes, I wuz juz makin a jopke.

[vbnautilus 48]

i used the definition of evolution as "increasing order and complexity."

So if things decrease in order and complexity that's not god?

i think that's a pretty awesome definition (though it's only an antonym.)

I actually think for some things it is only appropriate to say what they are not. For example, in the Vedas the word for this idea is called "advaita", which literally translates to "not two". You can't just say "it's one" because then you have attached some concept to it.

[Spademan 94]

I actually think for some things it is only appropriate to say what they are not. For example, in the Vedas the concept for this is called "advaita", which literally translates to "not two". You can't just say "it's one" because then you have attached some concept to it.

The Vedas, the Upanishads, the Sutras and all the rest of it are good only for paper upon which they are written, and even then only for wiping one's ass.

[navybuttons 15]

So if things decrease in order and complexity that's not god?

i don't know.i suppose there could be a de-evolution god too.