Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

Philosophy Define your God even if It was absurb to define it, Close-minded backoff

views
     
maranello55
post Dec 30 2009, 02:42 PM

Accelera Ayrton!!
*******
Senior Member
3,385 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
From: Sao Paolo, Brazil



Cant we accept that we are just like other energy in the universe - Laws of Thermoynamics.

When we dies, the energy will be transfered and tranformed into other things. Our body will decomposed as soil and the fosil minerals will be used for fauna growth. The energy from it might be used to grow some trees and fruits. Then got eaten and tansfered as energy again.
maranello55
post Dec 30 2009, 05:27 PM

Accelera Ayrton!!
*******
Senior Member
3,385 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
From: Sao Paolo, Brazil



QUOTE(lin00b @ Dec 30 2009, 03:18 PM)
us? same with those lowly animals and plants and everything else? the very idea is unthinkable!
*
Its not an idea...its a fact. U die and get buried down under, ur body decomposed by tiny2 insects and organism that break us down into the elements for the use of nature. We are basically fertelizer when we die.

Lowly? I think if u compare the state of humans and animal today, u might see that humans do what animals couldnt even think of doing.
maranello55
post Jan 3 2010, 02:11 PM

Accelera Ayrton!!
*******
Senior Member
3,385 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
From: Sao Paolo, Brazil



QUOTE(kubing @ Dec 30 2009, 05:52 PM)
hahaha, cant imagine how it happen. recycling human like a bottle. i dont have PHD in polymer chemistry... do u believe in god?
*
U out of many ppl here dont seem to have any problem with 'imagination'. if u get what i mean. And no one here put an example of cycle of life to the likes of plastic bottles.

If u want ppl to take ur belief seriously, u got to take others the same way as well. Dont be dissapointed when others ridicule ur beliefs when they are just returning u the favour.


Added on January 3, 2010, 2:22 pm
QUOTE(kubing @ Dec 31 2009, 05:25 PM)
GOD is the creator of universe.. Sky above to deep ocean and everything in between...no doubt. And we are the special species among of his creation. only human have MIND to question the existence of our creator. smile.gif
*
I doubted God created those things. Because the same God created a perfect and logical, scientifical universe (or multiverse) can not have a split personality being so clumsy and fickle minded about updating his revelation to mankind in a span of 4000 years and with little results! Even my Norton updates faster than that? Doesnt really sound like a work of a supreme being to me. Not to mention he forgot to takeout our foreskin before sending Adam down to earth fr heaven no?

God do this, God do that, ironically he needs YOU to talk in his All powerful behalf. Very powerful of Him indeed. All u have is ur say, and few verse in a book as a prove, which can also be applied to UFOs. At least in UFOs case, ppl actually saw it!

Bolded - Im not too sure abt that...There are probability of advance civilization out there. They wouldnt have advanced to far if they stick to a shallow premise of religion now can they? Just look at ur religion now. All ure waiting is the end of the world. How do u expect to advance if such?


Added on January 3, 2010, 2:27 pm
QUOTE(kubing @ Dec 31 2009, 09:35 PM)
our car never question us who create them. even most advance robot in the world ASIMO never question that. but we are the most advance creation ever built by God.
*
Then ure just as good as ASIMO and the car. Dont question.

We? Most advance??? Without the help of oxygen tank, we can go to deep water and space. Without cables, we cant climb the rocks, without night vision we cant see thru the night. Without planes we cant fly. We are perfect if everything above is built in within us. Without that, we cant even go head to head with a group of dogs. We will lose. Remember, no weapons, just Gods creation.

This post has been edited by maranello55: Jan 3 2010, 02:27 PM
maranello55
post Jan 5 2010, 02:30 AM

Accelera Ayrton!!
*******
Senior Member
3,385 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
From: Sao Paolo, Brazil



QUOTE(kubing @ Jan 4 2010, 07:25 PM)
keep ridicule bro. no one bother you then. tongue.gif
*
Nothing to say? Dont post. This is PhD thread. No space for meaningless one-liners pls.

Ridicule? I saw u comment something abt someone's wife up there. And ridicule others post with 'recycled bottle'? Im just returning the favour. Im not here to get attention. Im here to debate, with anyone willing to do so. I dont mind if no one bother. Theres always other place to go.

Ur replies are typical of a moslem posters here. Ive seen it too many times by to many ppl. Cant counter-argue? no problem. Post a one-liner - Or a verse or two. Yeah that helps.
maranello55
post Jan 6 2010, 11:43 PM

Accelera Ayrton!!
*******
Senior Member
3,385 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
From: Sao Paolo, Brazil



QUOTE(kubing @ Jan 6 2010, 10:01 PM)
"Define your God even if It was absurb to define it" good thread but most of the poster is non believer person n very close minded.  biggrin.gif
Im sorry....ur understanding of closed mindedness is wrong.


maranello55
post Jan 7 2010, 12:21 PM

Accelera Ayrton!!
*******
Senior Member
3,385 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
From: Sao Paolo, Brazil



QUOTE(Yue @ Jan 7 2010, 11:04 AM)
Im am implying the "concept" of open minded in relation with this thread, Like i said, open minded being does not exist... because we stand in believes, open minded being does not have believe, be it themselves or in god.
*
Wrong, again u define 'open mindedness' as 'agreeing with you'.

Not everybody stand in beliefs. Its not even a necessity for some. If everything is crystal clear infront of ur eyes as evidence, theres no need for belief.

Like a belief that a plane would fly or not with u on board? U dont have to believe because u know the plane will fly (im talkign abt physics - dont give me final destinationi examples).

And Science is not a belief.
maranello55
post Jan 7 2010, 10:44 PM

Accelera Ayrton!!
*******
Senior Member
3,385 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
From: Sao Paolo, Brazil



QUOTE(Yue @ Jan 7 2010, 12:45 PM)
i don't ask for agreement in statement, there are way too many philosophy that none of it would share the same outcome. Open minded-ness is a behaviour of which a person would be able to comprehend all information and giving away satisfactory information to others. Open Minded-ness does not exist, because when you are in belief and believes, whether in yourself or other being. you are implying a mind-thinking attitude of one persona, when it was restricted. It was never open.

Science is there for a reason, its to provide truth that god is exist, not contradicting his existence. Atoms vibrate, but what make the atoms vibrate, far too many factorial including the universe movement, then come the next question... What moves the universe? people able to gave conceptual ideas of the how universe moves then come again a new question, how, where and when does the universe start to move? what trigger the movement? It come back to the basic of how Atoms vibrate... but what created the Atoms?

Human can only Question and Answer question made by their own, but they can't never question basic of basics.
*
Bolded - When I am thinking critically and open myself to all possibilities, there is no beliefs involved. I deduce using pre-existing facts. And facts does not requires beliefs.
If open-mindedness, in ur definition, is to follow a persona thus being closed minded - Then what is closed minded?
I know that I am open enough to look at both sides of the story and deduce. Biased and closing urself from the other side of the story is closed-minded. Be it taking after any free-thinkers or ur collegues who are open-minded, to me its just takign from examples and there is nothing wrong with dat. Close-mindedness and indoctrination works the same way within the same closed group. Both open and closed-minded have different goals, which separated them apart.

Your second paragraph tries to link Godship and Science. Ur last question was 'what created the Atoms?' What, does not necessarily means Who. If u are willing to take scientific method in proving Godship, then u will have to be prepared to ask scientific questions like ' What created God?'. Because science does not recognise blasphemy.
maranello55
post Jan 7 2010, 11:25 PM

Accelera Ayrton!!
*******
Senior Member
3,385 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
From: Sao Paolo, Brazil



» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «


1. Quoting back what u wrote
QUOTE
Open Minded-ness does not exist, because when you are in belief and believes, whether in yourself or other being. you are implying a mind-thinking attitude of one persona, when it was restricted. It was never open.

U can apply the same thing on ur case. In ur case, the limit that u have posed on urself is of ur own making, taking from ones persona, perhaps, a religious figure in ur religion.

2. The world is going to end. It is a premise where religion put its stock on faith, and expect submission.
A progressive deity would oversee a period of peace (within this world, not afterlife please) and advancement rather than a gloomy outlook on the future.
The signs that God gave is an encouragement for humans to do as the signs say. They will do more destruction regardless with or without knowing the date. So the prophecy of the end of the world is, useless.
Earthquakes, volcanic activities are not signs of the end of the world. The earth had endured more violent seismic activities, worldwide fire, flood, meteor bombardment, but the Earth is still here. The earth has a correcting mechanism which will correct itself. Restore the balance. Even the worst scenario of asteroid collision do not include the annihilation of the Earth. Just the living things on it. And thats the end of the life, not the world.

3. Killing the universe? How?
Science is not there to prove God. If God existed, the prove would be all around us already.

1. Science is responsible of u reading this very text thru a copper wire. And not to mention the mass production printing of ur Holy Book Koran.
Thats my claim and proof. What have God done to our surrounding all this time. Proof? be honest.
maranello55
post Jan 8 2010, 12:48 AM

Accelera Ayrton!!
*******
Senior Member
3,385 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
From: Sao Paolo, Brazil



» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «


What i do is simple. If religion does not deliver what it claim it can, eventhough with proper implementation - its a sign of a failure. And say what religion wants, it has failed.
That is a deduction from and observer, in a way i experience some of it. I do however have to understand the claim religion made and the results it supposed to give to deduce.
maranello55
post Jan 8 2010, 12:06 PM

Accelera Ayrton!!
*******
Senior Member
3,385 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
From: Sao Paolo, Brazil



QUOTE(kubing @ Jan 8 2010, 09:04 AM)
God cant be created bro. we cannot call him God if he was a creation.

The Big Bang Theory remain theory till now. smile.gif
*
Yes it can. If u want to insert science into religion, u have to allow that possibility.

Theory is not mere guess or assumption. To get to the status 'Theory', one have to go through stringent scientific filter and also must include other support from existing science. A scientist cant just say something and label it a theory.

You believe the Koran mentioned the Big Bang to support ur beliefs, but to discredit Science, u say Big Bang is just a theory. Make up ur mind.


Added on January 8, 2010, 12:15 pm
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «


2. 'Fury of nature' is a poetic way to describe the balancing act of the Earth's climate mechanics. Earth doesnot share human prejudice towards other living being. Nor can it have humanly perks like revenge or retaliation.

3. Rig Veda predates Koran by 2000 years and contains much more science, including the beginnings of the Universe. Nothing in Koran is special. One verse in Koran is being described in paragraphs in Rig Veda.

That verse u quoted is a striking example how Koran gets Science totally wrong. What happens during embryonic period is not a creation process. Its reproduction. Embryonic stages are also described in details in the Rig Veda.

Apparently u havent gone outside ur religion to consider all sources yet. Theres alot more ancient wisdom that predates the Koran. Koran is far from being a miracle.


This post has been edited by maranello55: Jan 8 2010, 12:15 PM
maranello55
post Jan 8 2010, 03:54 PM

Accelera Ayrton!!
*******
Senior Member
3,385 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
From: Sao Paolo, Brazil



» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «


2. Simple. Because we build on land far more than the last 100 years. And the population is way more. So a natural disaster of the same magnitude 100 years ago will have much worse impact if it happens today.

The earth will not just give up balancing. The more it go off balance, the more it will try to balance itself again. Until everything is back in balance. It will not end. Human civilizations will. Religion stock on that for submission.
Earth mechanics has been studied and its due to human industrial by-products. Earth balancing acts reoccuring time to time is as signal for us to look into our own wrongdoings to the environment, not as a signal that the world is gonna end.

3. 'Creation' to 'Reproduction' is not a typo. Its wrong hypothesis. And its not 'small' either. Theres big difference between 'creation' and 'reproduction', scientifically. In Koran it says 'creation' to support its own notion of a creator. While it is just an act of reproduction of a species, not only human. If Koran wants to be recognised as a book of science, it needs to be more specific.

U can provide all the verse of 'reproduction' in Koran, but the fact remains that RigVeda predates Koran. It cancel out the claim that Koran is the first to claim these scientific finds and took a status of a miracle.

I wont paste any Rig Veda verse here since u do not except Google as an answer. U adviced others to do some researche before claiming anything, why dont u do it.

Mohammed didnt have to be literate to tell others to write what he says. Someone obviously taught him something back in the cave no doubt. I go to school illiterate knowing nothing and got out knowing lots of things.....miracle indeed.

Simple explainable events in religion blown out of proportion to a different level while it is actually very simple.
maranello55
post Jan 9 2010, 01:48 AM

Accelera Ayrton!!
*******
Senior Member
3,385 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
From: Sao Paolo, Brazil



QUOTE(kubing @ Jan 8 2010, 10:48 PM)
1.  energy is not a God.energy created by god to have its own criteria in order to use by us in many ways.

2. what is your prove to say God does not exist? rclxub.gif
*
Here is a good outlook on arguing about God. It only takes 10 minutes.


maranello55
post Jan 11 2010, 12:24 AM

Accelera Ayrton!!
*******
Senior Member
3,385 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
From: Sao Paolo, Brazil



Not to ferget, closed-minded people back off.

Im was thinking God not as Energy, but Gravity. Since Gravity governs all.
maranello55
post Jan 14 2010, 04:39 PM

Accelera Ayrton!!
*******
Senior Member
3,385 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
From: Sao Paolo, Brazil



QUOTE(aurora97 @ Jan 14 2010, 02:30 PM)
Interesting thoughts from a young boy.
*
Ahaks...Come on...u fall for that too?

The boy uses the flawed reasoning of the professor and use it against him to proof the existance of God? Not good enough, try again, i would say to the vid maker.


Added on January 14, 2010, 4:41 pmIts easy to expose the flaw when someone claims that God exists. The existance claim itself is a flawed in reasoning. Dont have to go further to the real question really.


Added on January 14, 2010, 4:51 pm
QUOTE(Deadlocks @ Jan 13 2010, 10:00 PM)
If, you wanted to prove to me that, this thing called "feelings" exist, how will you do that?
*
As simple as looking at someones expression perhaps? Its all there to see.

This post has been edited by maranello55: Jan 14 2010, 04:51 PM
maranello55
post Jan 14 2010, 07:59 PM

Accelera Ayrton!!
*******
Senior Member
3,385 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
From: Sao Paolo, Brazil



QUOTE(Deadlocks @ Jan 14 2010, 07:29 PM)
But just because an expression shows a certain shape with lines here and there, and all of a sudden "feelings" exists?

Is that even logical?

What does science have to say about this?
*
Why resort to complication when theres a simple indication of something?

If u see a crying mother, what else u need as a proof that she has a sad?

If u need it to be verified scientifically, u can MRI the brain activity during that and the pattern will match those who are in mourning, OR with existing database, one can tell whether one is faking it or not.
maranello55
post Jan 15 2010, 12:42 AM

Accelera Ayrton!!
*******
Senior Member
3,385 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
From: Sao Paolo, Brazil



QUOTE(Deadlocks @ Jan 14 2010, 11:37 PM)
And epiphanies relating to God? Is that not a feeling as well?
*
Of course. But I can cry for Santa Claus wont make him real.
maranello55
post Jan 15 2010, 02:36 PM

Accelera Ayrton!!
*******
Senior Member
3,385 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
From: Sao Paolo, Brazil



QUOTE(kubing @ Jan 15 2010, 10:31 AM)
sometime people cry when they happy...
*
Apparently......im just stating one of the examples.
maranello55
post Jan 15 2010, 05:25 PM

Accelera Ayrton!!
*******
Senior Member
3,385 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
From: Sao Paolo, Brazil



QUOTE(teh tarik satu @ Jan 15 2010, 05:22 PM)
I can't define something whose power is beyond comprehension- something that's undefinable. It's like trying to divide by zero.
*
Yet u claim that it exists. Thats the flaw of reasoning.

To make ur existance claim valid, u have got to have a proof.
maranello55
post Jan 16 2010, 01:09 AM

Accelera Ayrton!!
*******
Senior Member
3,385 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
From: Sao Paolo, Brazil



QUOTE(teh tarik satu @ Jan 15 2010, 11:24 PM)
Dearest maranello55:

I am quite certain that claiming the existence or non-existence of something entails more than just merely COMPREHENDING it for the sake of defining it.

I can't define love. Nor can I define morality. Or virtue. Or beauty- can YOU define any of those for me? You cannot. No one can, because they are abstract, subjective terms. Yet we all wield our own notions of what defines it and of course, use them as freely as we wish. That means it exists, but we just are unable to fully define them because we aren't able to fully comprehend them.. yet.

That, however, does not mean that something that is undefinable cannot exist.

To ask me to prove the existence of God is a debate for another thread on another day. I can't really be bothered to go over this ridiculous, silly argument again because in short, it all boils down to faith. Truth is there if you search for it by yourself, not ask people to define what God is to prove/disprove that God exists.

That's such a silly argument tactic that I'm really tired of and I hope you are not seriously considering asking me that.
*
I am exposing the flaw in reasoning, in ur existence claim. The base of the argument is already fallacious, trying to build on it will just makes everything shakier, as what u have posted in arguments.

I believe a God that created this PHYSICAL and LOGICAL universe would have made more sense when it comes down to managing the faithful of his worshippers not to fight and ridicule each other.

Love, morality, virtue and beauty are abstract and undefinable YET you compare it to argue about the existance of a being that is supposed to be Omnipotent, All powerful and All mighty being, which is a self-proclaim and self-defining traits that need no more explaination but PROOF of the claims. Otherwise it is just claims.

LOVE is just what it is, that we feel inside when we caress our child, and when we hug our parents. What more definition u need to ensure u that the feeling exists?

Indeed you are correct. For one to believe in something that it is not there, you need faith. 100 debates will not make into 1 valid one. The existance of God, as u claim it, is more of a flaw of reasoning, more than anything else.

It is no tactics. Its a simple question to a claim that u yourself have made. If you are unable to give me the answer, I shall seek elsewhere for it, for I am seeking. Nor shall I be tired, explaining the truth, shall i have it one day.


Added on January 16, 2010, 1:19 amHere what Ive found, about reasoning and how it is that claiming the existance of God is fallacious on the base level. Remember God is the creator of the scientific, logical and physical.





This post has been edited by maranello55: Jan 16 2010, 01:31 AM

 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0288sec    0.53    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 5th December 2025 - 10:25 PM