This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
A Question for All of you Climate People (Now about Other Stuff!)
Return to board index
Post by
Random0098
God is a spiritual concept, He has been proven to exist though by His very nature is unquantifiable. There is some belief involved. Saying God doesn't exist is like saying the number 4 doesn't exist.
Also, you say infinity has been proven, but if no one has ever seen what it is like, or experienced it, then wouldn't you be accepting the principal and idea of infinity of faith?
Interesting point, Queggy. In fact, I think you innadvertantly stumbled upon the only significant proof of "god". Not what you said, just what you did to Parazell's statement.
If we define "god" as the perfect being (and in this case there would be only one perfect being - because if there were two they would be identical concepts, behave the same way, occupy the same space, and therefore be the same thing) then we have a concept of the "god in our mind. God as the perfect being.
But what would be more perfect? God (the perfect being) to only exist in our minds, or to also exist in real life? Well.. He's perfect right? so he has to exist in real life too! He has to exist in all realities.
So, if the definition of god is "the perfect being", it has to exist.
HOWEVER. It's important to note: This definition of god is a GREAT DEAL different from the god in any modern religion that I know of.
I'd like to see if we can define what THIS god would be like and do, given that his definition is "the perfect being".
Post by
Queggy
Wait, I sort of get what you're trying to say, but my brain is kind of fuzzy this morning. Care to give me a simpler version?
Post by
Random0098
If the idea of a perfect being exists in our minds, the fact that it's a perfect being, it also has to exist in the real world (because that would be more perfect).
It all falls apart if you choose not to accept it as logic though... lol
Post by
Queggy
So . . . how does the Christian Trinity not fit?
Post by
Random0098
Because the christian trinity is a trinity.
edit: and for alot of other reasons that rely on the definition of what the "perfect being" would do.
Post by
Queggy
But the Trinity is 3 people that are 1 person. I don't really know how to explain the whole concept, but basically there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. They are three speperate people, yet at the same time they are the same person. Three faces of one God? If God is omnipotent, then could he occupy the same space as himself?
Post by
Random0098
No. God as "the perfect being" wouldn't manifest himself in 3 different forms that count as one. The perfect being would just be everything.
Post by
Queggy
But if we aren't perfect and God is, how do we know what the true definition of perfect is? Maybe perfection is three things that are one.
Post by
Random0098
But that's too limited to be "perfect"
That's the other thing. As you just pointed out, It's really difficult to imagine what "the perfect being" could actually be, because we don't have a clear definition of what perfect is in our head. Not having a clear definition of perfect leads to the posit that we don't have that "perfect being" concept of god in our head, and then it might not even exist in real life.
Post by
Queggy
Wait, you're starting to confuse me. You're saying that whatever I imagine in my head has to be real?
Post by
Random0098
No, not exactly.
I'll try to rehash:
I originally said that if the concept of "the perfect being" exists in your head, it has to exist in real life because that would be more perfect than if it only exists in your head.
-note: this doesn't mean that ANYTHING you think of is real. Just something that is perfect.
BUT: because it is so difficult to - and nobody seems to be able to - clearly define what the perfect being would be, it can even be argued that perfection does not exist in our head, and therefore not necessarily in real life either.
Edit:
btw, the argument for the perfect being existing because it's perfect is called the "Ontological Argument" you should look it up, it's interesting. You can find alot of discussion for and against it - I suggest reading both sides.
Post by
Queggy
Hmmm, well I think we have sort of hit a dead end here. Neither of us (or anyone else) for that matter can define perfect, so unless you want to continue discussing it I vote we move on to the next topic.
If evolution is true, then how are giraffes alive? If it takes millions of years to evolve, then giraffes would be dead. Because they have this thing in their brain that protects them from dieing when they stoop down to drink.
Post by
Random0098
They didn't always have such long necks. That thing in their brain went along with their necks getting longer.
Post by
Queggy
I know. Let's say that over time there was some horses trying to get food from a tree. Over thousands of years their necks kept getting longer with each new generation. One day they all went down to the water ole to drink, but when they stopped over they all died. The giraffes aren't going to know they need to grow something to cut off the flow of blood to their brain unless they have encountered it before, and if they encountered it they would be dead.
Post by
Random0098
You think that they only stooped down to try to get water to drink AFTER their necks got long?
As their necks grew, it got harder and harder for blood to get to their brain. It wasn't all of a sudden, it was a gradual process.
Post by
Queggy
But if it takes millions of years for the gland or whatever to grow, and during this time their necks had already gotten longer and continued to get longer, then their necks would finish growing before their gland and they would be dead.
Post by
Random0098
Not the way I understand it (but obviously I'm not an expert).
In the "survival of the fittest" view of evolution that this is, the necks are getting longer over many many generations because it is found that those giraffes which have
slightly
longer necks can get more food and therefore survive more easily.
Along this process of necks getting longer, it is also discovered that the giraffes with longer necks are having a harder time getting water. BUT a few of those giraffes seem to have a slight physiological difference that reduces the effect that their long necks have on their blood reaching their brain - This is the beginning of that gland.
The giraffes that don't have that physiological difference find it more difficult to survive, and eventually all living giraffes have that physiological property which helps them with drinking water.
This property develops the same way along with the lengthening of the necks until we have the giraffe we see today.
The gland developping isn't reactionary to the long necks, they're codependant.
Post by
Queggy
I don't really see that it would work out that way . . .
But here's another question: If evolution is about survival of the fittest and all about trying to get to be numero-uno, then first; why do we still have amoebas and other "lesser" life forms? Why isn't everything human? Second; going back to survival of the fittest, why do some fish have blowhole and others have gills? Wouldn't gills be better than blowholes? You would never have to come up for air that way.
Edit- Just found a pretty
cool
website that discuss some of what we have talked about here. Note - I haven't read it all, so I don't know if it lines up with what I believe, but so far it seems like an interesting site.
Post by
Random0098
Well, this is because human's aren't necessarily better than all the other animals in the world. We just evolved a certain way because it made it easier for us to survive.
The reason there are still amoebas and the like is because they found a way to survive and thrive in that form. Just because some of their brethren discovered that it is also possible to survive in other - more complex - forms, doesn't mean that amoebas aren't great survivors in their own right.
A good way to examplify this is that giraffes are still around, and so are deer. Both evolved from a similar subspecies, but evolved in such different fashions because they each found ways to survive with their own physiology.
The same thing goes for the blowhole vs. gill thing. It's not that ONLY the STRONGEST survive, it's that its easier for a species to survive if it has the necessary features to do so.
Post by
Sagramor
I don't really see that it would work out that way . . .
But here's another question: If evolution is about survival of the fittest and all about trying to get to be numero-uno, then first; why do we still have amoebas and other "lesser" life forms? Why isn't everything human? Second; going back to survival of the fittest, why do some fish have blowhole and others have gills? Wouldn't gills be better than blowholes? You would never have to come up for air that way.
The term survival of the fittest is usually misinterpreted. It's not about what's best period. It's about what's best for said being in said place. Example, whales have blowholes and still live because in their enviroment(spelling?) a blowhole is perfectly capable of taking care of it. Now, if the whale lived in the deepest bottoms of the ocean and still relied on blowholes, they'd die because it would take to long to get to the top.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.