Mod note: Conversation split into its own thread from this thread (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=156426) since it was going off-topic. ~M

I am an ethical relativist, so I see the need to intervene and make a small defense of it.

You see the pedophile as evil, but does the pedohpile see himself as evil? No, he thinks that what he is doing is justified.

That is the core of ethical revalitism. That it is all relative what is right and what is wrong, and it all depends on the mind. You can aruge that the pedophile's mind is messed up (and I'll agree with you), but that still does not change the fact that ACCORDING to the pedophile, what he is doing is right.

Think about it. What if everyone believes that murder is right? Everyone? Then...murder becomes right. We define ethics and beliefs, and nothing is truly objective, everything is subjective.

It is only a theory of course. In the pedophile case, most people (expect the pedophiles) see the pedophiles as wrong, but what about other...shall we say...more delicate issues? Say, War in Iraq, Abortion, Sucidice, maybe even terrorism/feedom fighting? One person's sin is another person's gateway to Heaven.

Now that this is settled...let go back to here:

Hehe, we stray into this debate as well... I would agree with you if there were no God, then one mans wrong is another mans right as ultimatly we are human and so differ in opinion thoughts and motives. And if their is no overall diety and we are just a product of the big bang then there is no right or wrong really we have just created them.

However presume for a second there is a an all powerful God who can is a perfect judge... does that not then mean moral relativism doesnt work as God can say what is right and what is wrong?

I don't mind if you dont believe there is a God, but surely you can see my argument that if there is then there is no longer moral relativism?

I don't know if I have explained myself very well here, let me know if you would like me to try. For any mods reading this don't worry, me and Silentscope won't get into an argument its just a gentle debate :)

Hehe, we stray into this debate as well... I would agree with you if there were no God, then one mans wrong is another mans right as ultimatly we are human and so differ in opinion thoughts and motives. And if their is no overall diety and we are just a product of the big bang then there is no right or wrong really we have just created them.

However presume for a second there is a an all powerful God who can is a perfect judge... does that not then mean moral relativism doesnt work as God can say what is right and what is wrong?

I don't mind if you dont believe there is a God, but surely you can see my argument that if there is then there is no longer moral relativism?

Well, I could see heritical people argue God is evil. Of course, I would most likely see those people chanting that God is evil when they start getting escorted to Hell for their crimes, but yes, it can be possible. After all, why did God make human beings? Wouldn't it be better if God didn't make the human race, or given the human race a better life? God gave us free will, and look at the terrible pains we caused. If God did not give us free will, and let us live like angels, everything would be fine. Since God gave us free will, he caused us pain, and therefore God is evil.

Even in this case of an omipresecent omibevenolant being, ethical revaltisim can still apply, if a group of human beings call God evil, and is not swayed by any arguments that would explain away their fears and beliefs. Of course, this can be side-stepped by stating that this group of humans are being arrogant and stupid. This is God we're dealing with here, you're better off following his orders and not commenting if they are good or bad. :)

Remember, George Lucas is the "God" of Star Wars here, and I guess we got ourselves a little rapport in agreeing that the people of Star Wars still suffer becasue George Lucas wants cash.

EDIT: Prehaps the only way to avoid the above situation is to basically have God mindcontorl or convince everyone to admit that he is a good person. However, that may defeat the purpose of free will and all of that stuff.

Well, I could see heritical people argue God is evil. Of course, I would most likely see those people chanting that God is evil when they start getting escorted to Hell for their crimes, but yes, it can be possible. After all, why did God make human beings? Wouldn't it be better if God didn't make the human race, or given the human race a better life? God gave us free will, and look at the terrible pains we caused. If God did not give us free will, and let us live like angels, everything would be fine. Since God gave us free will, he caused us pain, and therefore God is evil.

Even in this case of an omipresecent omibevenolant being, ethical revaltisim can still apply, if a group of human beings call God evil, and is not swayed by any arguments that would explain away their fears and beliefs. Of course, this can be side-stepped by stating that this group of humans are being arrogant and stupid. This is God we're dealing with here, you're better off following his orders and not commenting if they are good or bad. :)

Remember, George Lucas is the "God" of Star Wars here, and I guess we got ourselves a little rapport in agreeing that the people of Star Wars still suffer becasue George Lucas wants cash.

EDIT: Prehaps the only way to avoid the above situation is to basically have God mindcontorl or convince everyone to admit that he is a good person. However, that may defeat the purpose of free will and all of that stuff.

Hehe, well the problem is (and now I'm bringing my personal biased Christian opinion into this now :P) as you have stated its the free will problem God wants people to love him and choose that, but if he is in control then they cannot. Paradoxically I believe that God is both completley in control of the world but people also have complete free will. My argument against ethical relativism if there is a God is surely he is beyond our scope so can say what right and wrong are, if that makes sense? I can see the God is evil argument, but then surely God can decide what is evil due to the fact he created it. Also being a Christian I would also argue that God so loved us that he sent his only Son to die for us so we could get into heaven ;)

However while on this topic I pose you a little question that I have never found a sufficient answer for off all my Christians brothers and sisters who I have asked. The Bible states that Satan fell before hummanity so why didnt God just kill Satan before he had caused the fall of mankind?

Yeh we have a lil rapport because we think GL now just wants money, but while I disagree with what your saying I still repsect the intellectual debate and the difference in opinion as well :)

Yeh we have a lil rapport because we think GL now just wants money, but while I disagree with what your saying I still repsect the intellectual debate and the difference in opinion as well

So do I. :)

My argument against ethical relativism if there is a God is surely he is beyond our scope so can say what right and wrong are, if that makes sense? I can see the God is evil argument, but then surely God can decide what is evil due to the fact he created it.

Then it can only be an argument that human beings cannot question God, since he is beyond our understanding and beyond our world.

Of course, that can't necersically dissude the "God is evil" crowd since these humans may believe (possibly arrogantly) that they can review God's actions and pass judgment on him. But as long as most people accept your viewpoint, then the "God is evil" crowd can become isolated and forgotten. (Can't get rid of it fully though, which is a big shame.)

However while on this topic I pose you a little question that I have never found a sufficient answer for off all my Christians brothers and sisters who I have asked. The Bible states that Satan fell before hummanity so why didnt God just kill Satan before he had caused the fall of mankind?

Hm. Since I don't believe in original sin, my two hypothesis won't exactly settle that question (sorry!). Yet, here they are for reading pleasure:

1) God wants Satan to suffer for his evil. Death is too kind for the betrayer, so he decides to spare Satan and let him fight and wage a war against God. Satan fights, believing that he will win, believing that he will defeat God and finally take revenge. And then, Satan will watch his huge army be annilhated and destroyed, and Satan will finally be broken and defeated. Watching all his work, all his effort, being wiped out effortsley by the will of God...that would finally get Satan to admit that God is superior. Satan will then surrender to God.

2) God wants Satan to get mankind to fall from his "grace". Since I believe (and of course, belief proves nothing...) that God put us on Earth as a test of our will and beliefs, God decided to test us by having us "fall" and then trying to redeem ourselves. Heaven was presented and actually seen by the first humans to sway them to obey, and then later, when they are cast down, the first humans actually begin to strive, to return back to Heaven. God watches the Humans and monitor them, and see if they deserve to be admitted (permenatly and actually) this time back to Heaven.

Then it can only be an argument that human beings cannot question God, since he is beyond our understanding and beyond our world.

Of course, that can't necersically dissude the "God is evil" crowd since these humans may believe (possibly arrogantly) that they can review God's actions and pass judgment on him. But as long as most people accept your viewpoint, then the "God is evil" crowd can become isolated and forgotten. (Can't get rid of it fully though, which is a big shame.)

Indeed I do struggle with such people, I find they often try to force (via strength of arms etc) their own opinions on to other, and ultimatly I look at the world and think an awful lot of its problems are created by people who can't accept that another can disagree with them. I don't mind people disagreeing or debating but do get narked when people try to force things on other as we all have slightly different thoughts. I tread a fine line here though as ultimatly I am a Christian, so have to take the Gospel out to people, but I dont want to ram it down their throats. But if I am correct then I think they need to take notice as it has profound implications for them. Does that make sense?



Hm. Since I don't believe in original sin, my two hypothesis won't exactly settle that question (sorry!). Yet, here they are for reading pleasure:

No worries I wasnt expecting you too, was just intrested to see what you would think.


1) God wants Satan to suffer for his evil. Death is too kind for the betrayer, so he decides to spare Satan and let him fight and wage a war against God. Satan fights, believing that he will win, believing that he will defeat God and finally take revenge. And then, Satan will watch his huge army be annilhated and destroyed, and Satan will finally be broken and defeated. Watching all his work, all his effort, being wiped out effortsley by the will of God...that would finally get Satan to admit that God is superior. Satan will then surrender to God.

2) God wants Satan to get mankind to fall from his "grace". Since I believe (and of course, belief proves nothing...) that God put us on Earth as a test of our will and beliefs, God decided to test us by having us "fall" and then trying to redeem ourselves. Heaven was presented and actually seen by the first humans to sway them to obey, and then later, when they are cast down, the first humans actually begin to strive, to return back to Heaven. God watches the Humans and monitor them, and see if they deserve to be admitted (permenatly and actually) this time back to Heaven.

Interesting, as for the first one, the vicar at my church argued that the way the world is was the best way to reveal Gods glory, but as humans we would find this hard to accept as we live in a world which is full of injustice and we like to put ourselves at the centre of our own worlds but ultimatly God would settle this and the way the world is was the best way for him to demonstrate justice and his glory.

Out of interest how do you think it is people get into heaven then?

Nice debate
Mind if i join in?


Ok first i assume you're talking about the Christian god (there are supposed to be so many of them so you better make such things clear in the future)

So okay
Lets assume the christian god exists
So what gives him the right to decide whats good and whats evil when there are so many other gods with equal rights to his?
And whats good to one god is evil to another god just like it is with humans
There we have 'moral relativism' as you call it again

Now go ahead and prove me wrong :D

Oh and don't try to tell me that the christian god is the only god
Thats so arrogant
He's not even the first god to have followers
Egyptian gods predated him by soo long
The greek gods did as well
Many other gods that now have no followers also predated the christian god

I always found the christian god to be the worst
I mean i haven't really read any religious books but afaik only the bible has "I'm the only God" and other such rubbish

Nice debate
Mind if i join in?

Of course you can :)


Ok first i assume you're talking about the Christian god (there are supposed to be so many of them so you better make such things clear in the future)

We are currently...


So okay
Lets assume the christian god exists
So what gives him the right to decide whats good and whats evil when there are so many other gods with equal rights to his?
And whats good to one god is evil to another god just like it is with humans
There we have 'moral relativism' as you call it again

Now go ahead and prove me wrong :D

Well why do they have equal rights? The reason God challenges that there are soo many Gods is that from a Christian point of view they are all fake. In the bible a number of times prophets challenge the believers of false Gods to get their Gods to perform miracles which they don't... The prophets then proceed to perform mircales. I don't really want to get into a debate over the reliability of the bible but will do if you soo wish, ultimatly I would say its for you to decide, but I would say research the bibles sources before you knock it. Lots of the NT is confirmed by Roman and Jewish sources.


Oh and don't try to tell me that the christian god is the only god
Thats so arrogant
He's not even the first god to have followers
Egyptian gods predated him by soo long
The greek gods did as well
Many other gods that now have no followers also predated the christian god

I always found the christian god to be the worst
I mean i haven't really read any religious books but afaik only the bible has "I'm the only God" and other such rubbish

Well if God is the only real God then it doesnt matter how long any God predated him in human history as they are nothing but 'fake Gods'. If you havent read any other religious books, or the bible how can you know what they say? I have read the Koran as well as the bible. But imagine you are God and people are worshipinh a diety that isnt even real would you not be annoyed? I do not have issues with people disagreeing but what I believe is very different to alot of other religions. Christianity teaches no matter how could a life you lead you cannot get to heaven as no person is perfect hence the need for Gods Son to die in our place as a sacrifice. All other religions in there various forms teach that you have to do X, Y and Z to get to heaven, in other words live a good life. This is abit simplified but for example; the Koran would say Allah would compare all the good and bad you have done in your life and if you believed in him and you would go to heaven. Buddhists would believe that you have to reach enlighenment to get out of the reincarnation cycle, not soo much heaven but getting out of the continual life cycle... etc etc

Well in the bible it says that the christian god is the only god, that he created the world and everything in it
If thats so then how come ppl didn't believe in him but believed in other gods at first?
He supposedly created Adam and Eva and they knew about him but during the time of egyptian gods ppl didn't even know they're supposed to believe in the christian god cuz there was no bible to claim there is a christian god at the time
Its so obvious that god doesn't exist or if he does that he's just an arrogant fool with megalomania that refuses to admit the existence of other gods
If there are such entities as gods then i'd imagine they're like the gods from Terry Pratchet's Discworld :D

Sorry if you find this offending but facts speak for themselves and i am just stating them

Well in the bible it says that the christian god is the only god, that he created the world and everything in it
If thats so then how come ppl didn't believe in him but believed in other gods at first?
He supposedly created Adam and Eva and they knew about him but during the time of egyptian gods ppl didn't even know they're supposed to believe in the christian god cuz there was no bible to claim there is a christian god at the time
Its so obvious that god doesn't exist or if he does that he's just an arrogant fool with megalomania that refuses to admit the existence of other gods
If there are such entities as gods then i'd imagine they're like the gods from Terry Pratchet's Discworld :D

Sorry if you find this offending but facts speak for themselves and i am just stating them

I'm not offended I am however somewhat amused that these so called 'facts' speak for themselves. Albert Einstein probably the best scientist and most intelligent human of the 20th Century believed there was a God. He however believed there was only an intelligent God and not a moral God. Einstein once said something along the lines of; The odds of all the universe coming togeather and life being complete random chance are so astronaumical that there there are more zero's on the end of that equation than there are stars in the sky.

Further to this the big bang theory goes against proven scientific law, in that energy is always needed to start a reaction... what started the big bang? Further to this Evolution is severely flawed as organisms cannot gain genetic information, they can only loose it, so when one of Darwins birds beak's changed there was a loss of genetic information. No organism can gain genetic information, so if we all started from single celled organisms how can we be a mutli cellualr organism given that by science own laws you cannot gain genetic information. Further more to this is the whole free radical debate within science, physicists cannot predict free radical's movement (they are very very very small) and if scientists cannot predict their movements caos theory should rain in a much larger world yet it doesnt....

Where are your so called facts?

Why must there be multiple Gods? And if there is a God do you really think our tiny human brains would be able to comprehend God? I very much doubt it, and I would say it would be arrogance in the extreme to try and judge God.

Humans had all kinds gods ever since they started to exist
Then suddenly some guy barged into the room and claimed his god is the only god and all other gods are fake
Now thats arrogance
There either are no gods at all or there are many gods
Can't be certain which one is true though i'm inclined to believe there are no gods at all
Whats certain is that if such entities exist they are much more then one

Also Einstein made mistakes like all humans
Building the nuke is one such mistake and he knew it
So not everything Einstein said is definately truth

Maybe the big bang started after antimatter came in contact with some kind of matter (rock for example)
And one celled organisms started to divide and yet remain whole due to weather anomalies for example (dunno if i am making myself clear... its rather hard to say it in english considering thats not my native language)
We can speculate on such things for years
At the moment they can't be proven

Humans had all kinds gods ever since they started to exist

Perhaps there is a reason for this, in that presume there is a God for a second and he created a spiritual side to us, therefore man will seek to fill this spiritual side

Then suddenly some guy barged into the room and claimed his god is the only god and all other gods are fake
Now thats arrogance
There either are no gods at all or there are many gods
Can't be certain which one is true though i'm inclined to believe there are no gods at all
Whats certain is that if such entities exist they are much more then one

Why are there either lots of Gods or no Gods? I personally don't think you could have lots of Gods as they would all be fighting each other for supremacy I do not understand your logic or argument with why there have to be lots of Gods... Ronaldinho could say he was the best footballer (soccer player) on the planet its arrogant but currently it is also true. Pele or Maradonna could say they were the best players of all time, that would be arrogant and also true. Arrogance doesnt mean something isnt true.



Also Einstein made mistakes like all humans
Building the nuke is one such mistake and he knew it
So not everything Einstein said is definately truth

Maybe the big bang started after antimatter came in contact with some kind of matter (rock for example)
And one celled organisms started to divide and yet remain whole due to weather anomalies for example (dunno if i am making myself clear... its rather hard to say it in english considering thats not my native language)
We can speculate on such things for years
At the moment they can't be proven

Where did the first Matter and Anti-Matter come from? The whole point of the big bang is that it started from nothing. As for the cellular debate I dont think you understand, our DNA is an awful lot more complex than an single celled organism, it doesnt matter if it divides it cant gain informaiton it either loses information or changes it is a scientific imposibility to gain genetic informaiton.

I'm affraid I'm now going to have to show scientific reading and knowledge as this debate is beggining to frustrate me;

I will now quote Einstein on this; “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”
Albert Einstein (Nobel Prize 1921) This in itself you may argue could be a mistake on his behalf but there are a great many brilliant scientisits who believe that God must exsist.

Einstein also said; ““Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”. Which is why when debating with atheists and scientists i dont use biblical referances I just hit them with scientific facts. I would also argue that Science can never explain why we are here, it can explain how but never why. “ “Science cannot answer the question that philosophers- or children - ask; why are we here, what is the point of being alive, how ought we to behave? Genetics has almost nothing to say about what makes us more than just machines driven by biology, about what makes us human. These questions may be interesting, but scientists are no more qualified to comment on them than is anyone else.” Steve Jones (Professor of Genetics at University College). If I run a scientific experiment to either proove or disproove God exsists it will fail - so again where are the facts that God doesnt exsist? But if there is no God we will never know as no-one will ever return from death, also if there is no God life is utterly pointless as we are nothing but specs sand on a beach and whatever we do will ultimatly have no effect.


Moving onto the Evolution debate... People often say we are designed from the big bang and then a product of chance however; “ “Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopaedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopaedia were to arrive in computer code from
outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces.” George Sim Johnson (Wall Street Journal, 15/10/99) How can random forces be attributed to sheer luck and chance? With the argument for intelligent design coming in I will quote this “ “This new realm of molecular genetics is where we see the most compelling evidence of design on the earth” Dean Kenyon – Chemical Evolutionist. How can organisms so complex have evolved? But ultimatly I will quote the most troubling source for those who cling to the Big Band and Evolution...

““There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter, was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible: spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”

Professor George Wald (a Harvard biologist)

Combat that... those who argue for spontaneous generation.

Onto the cosmological arguments, further to my above Einstein quote (earlier post) is another along the same lines... ““For planets to exist the relevant initial conditions had to be fine tuned to a precision of one point in 10 followed by a thousand billion zeroes” Paul Davies. He also said; ““Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact. I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama.” Paul Davies (former professor of theoretical physics at the University of Adelaide). So are we really the product of chance given the odds?

Feel free to debate, and counter with those scientists who are Athiests, please note however Richard Dawkins is clueless and is not a scientist so dont treat him as such.

Perhaps there is a reason for this, in that presume there is a God for a second and he created a spiritual side to us, therefore man will seek to fill this spiritual side

Of course there is a reason.
Most people need something to believe in to endure the life.
Its simple as that.

Why are there either lots of Gods or no Gods? I personally don't think you could have lots of Gods as they would all be fighting each other for supremacy I do not understand your logic or argument with why there have to be lots of Gods... Ronaldinho could say he was the best footballer (soccer player) on the planet its arrogant but currently it is also true. Pele or Maradonna could say they were the best players of all time, that would be arrogant and also true. Arrogance doesnt mean something isnt true.


Of course they'll fight for supremacy.
And they do.
All religions try to gather more followers.
Thats fighting for supremacy isn't it?

To use your own analogy:
Claiming the christian god is the only god is like Ronaldinho claiming he's the only footballer (btw i disagree about him being the best) and all other footballers do not exist.
Which is just blind arrogance and madness.


Where did the first Matter and Anti-Matter come from? The whole point of the big bang is that it started from nothing. As for the cellular debate I dont think you understand, our DNA is an awful lot more complex than an single celled organism, it doesnt matter if it divides it cant gain informaiton it either loses information or changes it is a scientific imposibility to gain genetic informaiton.

Anti matter is nothing.
How can you ask where nothing came from? Nothing was always there.
Anyway I used that just as an example.
I'm not claiming thats what happened.
Same with one celled organisms.

I will now quote Einstein on this; This in itself you may argue could be a mistake on his behalf but there are a great many brilliant scientisits who believe that God must exsist.

So? There are even more that don't believe in the christian god.

Einstein also said; Which is why when debating with atheists and scientists i dont use biblical referances I just hit them with scientific facts.

Personal beliefs of scientists are hardly scientific facts.

I would also argue that Science can never explain why we are here, it can explain how but never why.

No one can explain that.
Not science and certenly not religion.
Every person has his own purpose to exist.
There is no some greater purpose or mission or whatever.
Things are like they are.
Just accept it.


If I run a scientific experiment to either proove or disproove God exsists it will fail - so again where are the facts that God doesnt exsist? But if there is no God we will never know as no-one will ever return from death, also if there is no God life is utterly pointless as we are nothing but specs sand on a beach and whatever we do will ultimatly have no effect.

I'm not saying gods don't exist.
They exist just not in the manner thats percieved.
Gods exist as long as people believe in them.
If ppl stop believing in gods they'll cease to exist.
Its that simple.

Moving onto the Evolution debate... People often say we are designed from the big bang and then a product of chance however; How can random forces be attributed to sheer luck and chance? With the argument for intelligent design coming in I will quote this How can organisms so complex have evolved? But ultimatly I will quote the most troubling source for those who cling to the Big Band and Evolution...

Why shouldn't it be just chance? Humans aren't perfect.
In fact we're as imperfect as one can get.
In a manner even one celled organisms are more of a perfect being then the human.


And please stop trying to drive the discussion away from the subject just to avoid admitting you're wrong.

Mod note: Everyone, please keep the discussion friendly. Respond to the arguments, do not attack the person presenting them if you disagree with their views.

Further, please make an effort to use proper words and punctuation. This is not a chat room, words like "people" and "no one" don't need to be abbreviated. That just makes your posts harder to read.

Thank you. :)

Of course there is a reason
Most ppl need something to believe in to endure the life
Its simple as that

I would call that a comfort blanket




Of course they'll fight for supremecy
And they do
All religions try to gather more followers
Thats fighting for supremecy isn't it?

Thats individual people... where are the Gods involved? You have yet to supply me with any evidence that there are multiple Gods or to disprove that God exsists...

To use your own analogy
Claiming the christian god is the only god is like Ronaldinho claiming he's the only footballer (btw i disagree about him being the best) and all other footballers do not exist
Which is just blind arrogancy and madness

That wasnt the analogy, the anology was that just because something is arrogant doesnt mean it isnt true. (who do you believe to be the best footballer currently in the world?)


Anti matter is nothing
How can you ask where nothing came from? Nothing was always there
Anyway i used that just as an example
I'm not claiming thats what happened
Same with one celled organisms

Its clear my point as gone utterly over your head, and I'm not going to attempt to argue it again




So? There are even more that don't believe in the christian god

Personal beliefs of scientists are hardly scientific facts

No1 can explain that
Not science and certenly not religion
Every person has his own purpose to exist
There is no some greater purpose or mission or whatever
Things are like they are
Just accept it

Spontaneos Evolution was disproved over 100 years ago thats a scientific fact. I do differentiate between fact and scientific opinion, but I've sourced my arguments, why is your opinion more important or more logicalal than a whole load of well respected scintists? I'm affraid I really think you have missed the general point of the discussion.



I'm not saying gods don't exist
They exist just not in the manner thats percieved
Gods exist as long as ppl believe in them
If ppl stop believing in gods they'll cease to exist
Its that simple

Why shouldn't it be just chance? Humans aren't perfect
Infact we're as imperfect as one can get
In a manner even one celled organisms are more of a perfect being then the human

And pls stop trying to drive the discussion away from the subject just to avoid admitting you're wrong

It is utterly clear to me that you really havent understood alot of what this discussion was about. It was a theoretical discussion, you can believe what you want to believe although ultimatly I dont understand any logic or coherance in your argument. You have not researched your arguments, you havent read the bible yet you see fit to argue about its content. I'm not going into the realm of trying to prove the bible true. Or if there is more than one God as you havent even set out why you believe there to be many Gods, lots of religions is not proof of lots of Gods. You will ultimatly believe what you want to believe without even considering what the other is saying. Which was the beauty of mine and SilentScopes discussion in that I disagree with moral relativism, but if I'm wrong and there is no God then moral relativism exsists. What I had basically done above was set out my argument of why there is a God, I had not directed it as to which was the correct God... For the record in Islam and Judaism Allah and Jehovah say they are the only God.

Admitting I'm wrong about what? Its arrogance in the exteme to tell me I'm wrong about religion, you are taking this discussion to a dangerous place. I believe I am right and there is a God, but I understand people will disagree and will have to choose for themselves. Hence the fact I love debating and discussing issues, because I like to see anothers perspecitve, I really don't see your perspective. This is an ethics and religious debate which will move all over the place, people have different opinions. You have neither considered my points or even really understood them. You havent even set out what you believe, if you even believe anything...If you were going to rebuke my argument for there being intelligent design and a creator God then you should of sourced scientists who argue against the theory yet you have not done that. Offhand I can source several scientists who dont believe in intelligent design and believe the big bang theory and evolution are the way things happened. Which I would then of argued against.

Imoras none of the above is meant as offence by the way, its more make clear what you think. There is also no real right or wrong answer to this discussion as it a debate and people will come from all sorts of different angles. Well at least we won't know the right or wrong answer untill we die... I'm unsure about the fact that too me at the moment you seem to have missed my point and then said I'm not admiting that I'm wrong about what exactly?

@question of god being necessarily good:

"Truth itself speaks truly, or there's nothing true." - Thomas Aquinas, trans. Gerard Manley Hopkins.

FHL, everyone.

I would call that a comfort blanket

You can call it whatever you wish
It remains true however

Thats individual people... where are the Gods involved? You have yet to supply me with any evidence that there are multiple Gods or to disprove that God exsists...

Its not individual people
Its the churches and they are representing their gods on Earth like a lawyer represents his client
Therefore if they fight for supremecy then the gods fight for supremecy

That wasnt the analogy, the anology was that just because something is arrogant doesnt mean it isnt true. (who do you believe to be the best footballer currently in the world?)

Your analogy wasn't the correct one
I pointed to you what the correct analogy should look like
Claiming christian god is the only god is like claiming Ronaldinho is the only footballer
If you claimed christian god is the best god THEN your analogy would be correct
(I don't think there can be a best footballer considering the difference in the positions... there can be best goalkeeper, best defender, best midfielder, best striker but not best footballer overall... atleast thats my opinion)

Its clear my point as gone utterly over your head, and I'm not going to attempt to argue it again

Spontaneos Evolution was disproved over 100 years ago thats a scientific fact. I do differentiate between fact and scientific opinion, but I've sourced my arguments, why is your opinion more important or more logicalal than a whole load of well respected scintists? I'm affraid I really think you have missed the general point of the discussion.

It is utterly clear to me that you really havent understood alot of what this discussion was about. It was a theoretical discussion, you can believe what you want to believe although ultimatly I dont understand any logic or coherance in your argument. You have not researched your arguments, you havent read the bible yet you see fit to argue about its content. I'm not going into the realm of trying to prove the bible true. Or if there is more than one God as you havent even set out why you believe there to be many Gods, lots of religions is not proof of lots of Gods. You will ultimatly believe what you want to believe without even considering what the other is saying. Which was the beauty of mine and SilentScopes discussion in that I disagree with moral relativism, but if I'm wrong and there is no God then moral relativism exsists. What I had basically done above was set out my argument of why there is a God, I had not directed it as to which was the correct God... For the record in Islam and Judaism Allah and Jehovah say they are the only God.

Admitting I'm wrong about what? Its arrogance in the exteme to tell me I'm wrong about religion, you are taking this discussion to a dangerous place. I believe I am right and there is a God, but I understand people will disagree and will have to choose for themselves. Hence the fact I love debating and discussing issues, because I like to see anothers perspecitve, I really don't see your perspective. This is an ethics and religious debate which will move all over the place, people have different opinions. You have neither considered my points or even really understood them. You havent even set out what you believe, if you even believe anything...If you were going to rebuke my argument for there being intelligent design and a creator God then you should of sourced scientists who argue against the theory yet you have not done that. Offhand I can source several scientists who dont believe in intelligent design and believe the big bang theory and evolution are the way things happened. Which I would then of argued against.

Imoras none of the above is meant as offence by the way, its more make clear what you think. There is also no real right or wrong answer to this discussion as it a debate and people will come from all sorts of different angles. Well at least we won't know the right or wrong answer untill we die... I'm unsure about the fact that too me at the moment you seem to have missed my point and then said I'm not admiting that I'm wrong about what exactly?

No, i haven't read the bible but its a famous book and there are quotes from it all over the net, the movies and everywhere really and i can comment on those quotes

No, i got the point of the discussion though you went into the bing bang stuff in an attempt to prove that a god created the world which was entirely offtopic

Its agreed that if gods doesn't exist then there is moral relativism

And your point is that if god exists then moral relativism can't exist because god is the only entity that can decide whats good and what isn't
Thats however your biased christian opinion
Your church teaches you that the christian god is the only god
I as an atheist can be unbiased in this situation and its only logical that if greater powers exist then they're more then one
One or more for each religion actually
And since each religion fights for supremecy and more followers most of the religions deny the existence of other gods then their own
Which is logical for them to do but to a person thats unbiased its obvious that if greater powers exist they are more then one
I hope i made myself clear enough this time

Perhaps now you see my point?

Oh and don't worry
I took no offence and i meant none in case you took one :)

Therefore if they fight for supremecy then the gods fight for supremecy
You cannot know that "the gods" fight for supremacy when you do not even know there are any gods at all.

Claiming christian god is the only god is like claiming Ronaldinho is the only footballer
If you claimed christian god is the best god THEN your analogy would be correct
No, actually jonathan7's analogy was more fitting. Christians (just for the record, I am one) claim that God is the only god. There is no proof that there are any gods at all, so any talk about gods is all speculation. Now of course, we all know there are countless footballers (I call them Soccer players, but I'll go along with it:)), so claiming that Ronaldinho is the only footballer is would be utter lunacy.

I can't claim the Christian God is the "best god" because I believe He is the only God. Arrogance it may be, but it's what I believe and I stand by it.

You cannot know that "the gods" fight for supremacy when you do not even know there are any gods at all.

We accept the the churches represent the gods
And we KNOW churches attempt to gather more followers (fight for supremecy)
Therefore we know the gods fight for supremecy


No, actually jonathan7's analogy was more fitting. Christians (just for the record, I am one) claim that God is the only god. There is no proof that there are any gods at all, so any talk about gods is all speculation. Now of course, we all know there are countless footballers (I call them Soccer players, but I'll go along with it:)), so claiming that Ronaldinho is the only footballer is would be utter lunacy.

Well its utter lunacy to claim one's god is the only god
So jonathan's analogy isn't more fitting

I can't claim the Christian God is the "best god" because I believe He is the only God. Arrogance it may be, but it's what I believe and I stand by it.

Exactly
I already said that to view the things better you must be unbiased

The above argument is an excellent example of why I believe in ethical relativism and that it is very useful when applied to this circumstance. You can't change someone's opinon here. ;)

I don't think that other Gods exist, there is only one God, who calls himself God. At least, that what I think my God said to me, and I don't think my God may lie, even though he could. There is no proof that a diety exist, but there is also no proof that a diety does not exist, and no proof that there can only be one diety.

If there are other Gods, does God know of these other gods? If not, then he shows himself as not exactly omiprescent...and if he does, then he is seen as a liar for stating that he is the only God, and unless he got some good reason, he could easily be perceived as evil, giving credence to the "God is Evil!" camp.

As for the creation of other religions, prehaps they all either are false cults...or all worship the same thing (God) in a differnet manner. Usually, most religions claim to be the "correct" religion, the correct interpertion of the truth, so it is unlikely multiple different Gods (each represented by a different religion) may be competiting. Then again, it is unlikely that the Earth would rotate around the Sun (satirizing pre-Scientific Revolution "science" here, with people aruging that the Earth has to be in the center of the universe otherwise we would be constantly falling, and that we could be rotating would be more absurd, when in fact, it was the truth. :xp: ). And if there are other Gods, then each God will be able to view the world in a different manner, and ethical relatvisim may result.

Basically, I do not find Imaros' argument that there are mulitple Gods convicing, but the fact is that there could be multiple Gods is something that interests me.

Even if there could be other Gods, it could still be best to worship at least one of these Gods, so that you could prosper in the ongoing conflict, if it exist.

Indeed I do struggle with such people, I find they often try to force (via strength of arms etc) their own opinions on to other, and ultimatly I look at the world and think an awful lot of its problems are created by people who can't accept that another can disagree with them. I don't mind people disagreeing or debating but do get narked when people try to force things on other as we all have slightly different thoughts. I tread a fine line here though as ultimatly I am a Christian, so have to take the Gospel out to people, but I dont want to ram it down their throats. But if I am correct then I think they need to take notice as it has profound implications for them. Does that make sense?

Somewhat. Just keep an open mind, they could (not likely, and hopefully not, though) very well be right. :)

And as for countering the "God is evil!" argument, you can't really convice them by using the Gospel. They could claim that since God is evil, God would resort to lying, and therefore, one should not trust God's word.

Out of interest how do you think it is people get into heaven then?

I don't even know if Heaven really is what everyone claims it is. I'm quite worried that it may become a place of eternal bliss, where we lose all meaning of what it is to be human, since there will be nothing to strive for once we get there. I'll still want to go there (I rather be bored to death than be burnt to death).

Hm. It may be just because God wants them to go to Heaven. Provide people a reason to worship him other than "Well, I made you. Can't you show some gratidue for that?" I guess that the truly devoted people of God would dismiss Heaven as a small trifle and rather just worship God, because they owe their life to him, that they are nothing...and it may be that these people are the ones that go to Heaven.

Maybe the ones who worship God just because they want to go Heaven may go to a lower rank in Heaven, or may even be sent to Hell, because they were serving God not because they love God, but because they love Heaven, and were greedy for it, like how people are greedy for cash and power because of it, they do good deeds. [An example would be in K2, how my evil Male Exile would work with the Ithorians on Telos to repair my Force connection, as well as to gain some credits...but mostly for the Force. This evil person did a good deed, but for evil intentions.]

EDIT: As for why this test is being done, since we are not God (or maybe we are, Descartes did ponder on this thought of him actually being God, creating the world around him for his enjoyment, but dismissed it because he is not perfect and he doubts, so he can't be God, who is perfect and does not doubt)...we won't know (one of the many mysteries surronding God). But maybe it is some sort of experiment, to see if a person, with the ability to freely choose, is able to choose God or to choose evil. Of course, I don't even know if free will exist, and if it doesn't, God's will and plan becomes more muddy.

It could be good to dismiss the question by stating, "God did this...because he can."

/offtopic

silent, why do you consider selfish and evil to be the same thing?

/offtopic

silent, why do you consider selfish and evil to be the same thing?

Well, selfish people usually are evil. Have you ever seen a good or pleasent selfish person?

And I don't see God really being egoistic, at least when talking to us. He's an omipresecent (or, if there are mutliple Gods, at least half-way prescent) being, and he really doesn't care that much if we all unite to form a coaltion to wipe God off the face of the Earth. He'll just throw a lighting bolt and kill us all. He really doesn't need our help, we need his help. So, yeah, good and evil makes sense as an axis here.

Hm...on second thought, I could see an selifish god really be existing.

Oh well, if the Gods doesn't exist, this topic becomes moot.

Well, selfish people usually are evil. Have you ever seen a good or pleasent selfish person?

Every single person is selfish more or less
Does that mean all the people are evil?

Every single person is selfish more or less
Does that mean all the people are evil?

In a way, yes. :)

It would be best that we return back to topic.

I am of the belief that there is a God or Gods. I say God or Gods because I don’t know if there is more than one God or not, nor do I know if any God/s exists at all, nor do I know if a God or Gods still exist to this day. Who says God/s have to be immortal because it/they are God/s? Who says this/these God/s have to be either a male or a female?

Assuming there is a God/s like I do, I haven’t even attempted to understand in what form, how this God/s exists. Whether it/they exist in all living things, it/they is in nature itself, whether it/they is some physical entity looking down upon the Universe, I don’t know. If there is a God/s, it/they may exist on a completely different plain to ours, something more than the Universe, I don’t know.

Has anyone ever heard of Astral projection and the possibility of there being seven different plains of existence? Something along those lines anyway. God/s could exist on some other plain that the human eye cannot see. Or God/s could exist on a mental plain of some sorts, assuming there is more than just the physical plain of existence (what we live in).

Now, why do I think that God/s exist/s? Because the only possibility that life arose has to be because of some supernatural occurrence beyond our comprehension! There cannot be more than two possibilities as to how life arose.

The one that non-believing scientologists and atheists tend to favour is the disproven (which they mustn’t realise or not understand) theory of spontaneous generation, which is that life, arose from non-living matter.

Since when can you create life from non-living entitles? You can’t! It’s impossible! There never has been, and never will be, an authentic story or proven, witnessed event about the creation of a living thing from non-living matter.

Since spontaneous generation is scientifically impossible, then there is only one possibility. That God/s created life by paranormal means that us imperfect humans couldn’t even begin to understand. What this/these God/s are, I do not know, but some super being/s beyond us humans surely must exist, since I’ll repeat it again, you cannot create life from non-living matter.

The one that non-believing scientologists and atheists tend to favour is the disproven (which they mustn’t realise or not understand) theory of spontaneous generation, which is that life, arose from non-living matter.

Since when can you create life from non-living entitles? You can’t! It’s impossible! There never has been, and never will be, an authentic story or proven, witnessed event about the creation of a living thing from non-living matter.

Since spontaneous generation is scientifically impossible, then there is only one possibility. That God/s created life by paranormal means that us imperfect humans couldn’t even begin to understand. What this/these God/s are, I do not know, but some super being/s beyond us humans surely must exist, since I’ll repeat it again, you cannot create life from non-living matter.Spontaneous generation cannot be proven impossible for the same reason that Gods can't be proven nonexistant, so to speak of something being "scientifically" proven impossible is a misuse or misunderstanding of how science works. Science works by showing things to be TRUE, not false - never false, because we have no way of determining the reality of a false conjecture.

It is quite easy to show something is true, however. If you have a row of ducks, most of them black but one white, can you say that white ducks exist? Yes, of course - one's right in front of you. Now, if you have a row of only black ducks, can you say that ONLY black ducks exist? No, because the available information is limited to the set you're examining and doesn't include ALL information (knowing everything is generally declared the domain of an omniscient God).

Hopefully I've cleared that up for you guys. By the way, spontaneous generation is not the same as abiogenesis, which is far more plausible but still has some problems.



Since I've already bothered with this thread, I might as well post some thoughts on the Christian God issue. Basically, everything's good until omnipotence, omniscience and creation get put together. To show you what I mean:

God knows everything, past and future. He knows actions, beliefs, what direction a quark will be facing at AD 1395, Jan 5, 12:25:23.38884443. Anything, everything.

God knows exactly what will happen when anything changes in the universe.

God creates man.

Problem? Yes? Christianity proclaims "free will" as it had something to do with it. It doesn't appear to; there is no room for any sort of free will, free motivation, even the Calvinist's free determination doesn't avoid the unescapeable conclusion: God chose what would happen, when it would happen, and he made things in such a way as that it would occur.

Can people be held morally responsible for something that God forced them to do? That does seem to be the question. Many people are afraid of Hell and think that belief or works will save them. I wonder if what they think even matters.

Actually, science is not in the business of proving truths...because there is no way to prove a truth. It is generally accepted that Gravity is a solid theory, because we have never managed to falsify it, but we must accept the fact that it is POSSIBLE at some point we will find evidence to falsify it, and once we do we reject the theory as incorrect.

Science works on the premise that if something can withstand a myriad of tests and analysis and still not be falsified, then that becomes a new working paradigm, but if it does become falsified we either refine the theory or move on.

Actually, science is not in the business of proving truths...because there is no way to prove a truth. It is generally accepted that Gravity is a solid theory, because we have never managed to falsify it, but we must accept the fact that it is POSSIBLE at some point we will find evidence to falsify it, and once we do we reject the theory as incorrect.

Science works on the premise that if something can withstand a myriad of tests and analysis and still not be falsified, then that becomes a new working paradigm, but if it does become falsified we either refine the theory or move on.Good point, sorry I missed it. I never think of physical knowledge truths in "absolute" terms, so I guess I got a bit lax there (I said much the same thing the other day but got everything in that time -_-). Like you say, proving something "true" is simply making that statement more likely than various others, not showing it is ALWAYS true.

The one that non-believing scientologists and atheists tend to favour is the disproven (which they mustn’t realise or not understand) theory of spontaneous generation, which is that life, arose from non-living matter.

Since when can you create life from non-living entitles? You can’t! It’s impossible! There never has been, and never will be, an authentic story or proven, witnessed event about the creation of a living thing from non-living matter.

Um, they did. According to my biology textbook, scientists realized that the first proto-cells were made by chemical compounds in the air, that soon manage to combine together to create the proto-cells. These proto-cells evovled into real cells, and real cells evolve into animals like we have today. They reproduced it in a lab, so therefore, they believe it to be true.

But of course, who made those chemical compounds? :D

Regardless, I don't like science, only because many scientists proclaim that their method will help figure out the truth. It is replacing one dictatorship (of religion) with the dictatorship of...science. The indivudal theories can be proven and disproven, but all that remains is observations which they trust...Which I dislike. Observations can be falisfied. We could all be brain in vats and we wouldn't know, no?

Problem? Yes? Christianity proclaims "free will" as it had something to do with it. It doesn't appear to; there is no room for any sort of free will, free motivation, even the Calvinist's free determination doesn't avoid the unescapeable conclusion: God chose what would happen, when it would happen, and he made things in such a way as that it would occur.

Well, I do sympathize with that sort of view. But God could artifically limit his power, if he wanted to. He's God, after all.

Um, they did. According to my biology textbook, scientists realized that the first proto-cells were made by chemical compounds in the air, that soon manage to combine together to create the proto-cells. These proto-cells evovled into real cells, and real cells evolve into animals like we have today. They reproduced it in a lab, so therefore, they believe it to be true.I remember an experiment that produced organic molecules, yes. However, none that I know of to date have produced life from those compounds.

Regardless, I don't like science, only because many scientists proclaim that their method will help figure out the truth. It is replacing one dictatorship (of religion) with the dictatorship of...science. The indivudal theories can be proven and disproven, but all that remains is observations which they trust...Which I dislike.Tell me something: how do you know the computer you're typing on is there? How can you tell there's someone on the other end, responding? How do you know you have a body? You simply percieve it to be true. That's hardly a definite proof that your computer exists, that your body exists. Yet, you believe it does. Why? Your experiences lead you to trust in that model, that idea. How is science doing the same thing any different? If you dislike just the idea of trusting in anything, well, I can't help you; I can't show you that your body exists. No one can, not even you. Have "faith" is all I can say about that.

Observations can be falisfied. We could all be brain in vats and we wouldn't know, no?No, you wouldn't know if you were a brain in a vat. I'm curious why you think it would matter? Since there would be no effective difference, what's the point of the speculation?

Well, I do sympathize with that sort of view. But God could artifically limit his power, if he wanted to. He's God, after all.I have trouble imagining the ways God could limit his omniscience and omnipotence and still be God. Doubtless he could choose to avoid interfering with some section of space or whatever, but how could he avoid being himself? Saying God does not know something when the very definition of God is a being that knows everything doesn't make sense to me.

I remember an experiment that produced organic molecules, yes. However, none that I know of to date have produced life from those compounds.

Hm...I think they said that those organic molecules could theortically be the building blocks of life, forming those proto-cells. That would explain the scientist experience above.

Tell me something: how do you know the computer you're typing on is there? How can you tell there's someone on the other end, responding? How do you know you have a body? You simply percieve it to be true. That's hardly a definite proof that your computer exists, that your body exists. Yet, you believe it does. Why? Your experiences lead you to trust in that model, that idea. How is science doing the same thing any different?

Actually, I don't believe that I am sitting here typing, but I can reasonably assume that. Still, it can be wrong, since I have no actual proof that I am typing. I am willing to accept the possiblity that my senses are wrong that I am not really typing. :)

I do devel into skepticism, yes...

No, you wouldn't know if you were a brain in a vat. I'm curious why you think it would matter? Since there would be no effective difference, what's the point of the speculation?

I think it prehaps would matter due to the fact that...if this is true, then everything is a lie. USA doesn't exist, democracy doesn't exist, gravity doesn't exist, the computer I'm typing at doesn't exist, even God doesn't exist...Everything that I have taken for granted is a big lie. The point of the speculation is to throw everything into doubt, to wonder that it may be impossible to gain real knowledge into what really is true...there will always be doubt.

I have trouble imagining the ways God could limit his omniscience and omnipotence and still be God. Doubtless he could choose to avoid interfering with some section of space or whatever, but how could he avoid being himself? Saying God does not know something when the very definition of God is a being that knows everything doesn't make sense to me.

That is what I mean by limiting his omiprescence, by avoiding to interfere with some section of space (which happens to be our section of space). But yeah, I can understand that.

But if there is no free will, there is the problem of why Hell is made. I wonder if Hell is made not to punish humans per se, but rather evil human "thoughts" that has convinced humans to do the bad deeds...which could sastify the free will clause. That, or people can just claim "God is evil". :)

Actually, I don't believe that I am sitting here typing, but I can reasonably assume that. Still, it can be wrong, since I have no actual proof that I am typing. I am willing to accept the possiblity that my senses are wrong that I am not really typing. :)

I do devel into skepticism, yes...Heh. Quite.

I think it prehaps would matter due to the fact that...if this is true, then everything is a lie. USA doesn't exist, democracy doesn't exist, gravity doesn't exist, the computer I'm typing at doesn't exist, even God doesn't exist...Everything that I have taken for granted is a big lie. The point of the speculation is to throw everything into doubt, to wonder that it may be impossible to gain real knowledge into what really is true...there will always be doubt.Depends on what knowledge you're after. If you're going after some sort of transcendant truth, then you will not find it - at least you won't be sure that you've found it. If you're going after the best model for what you experience, then you can find it. The reason I ask why the brain-in-bowl scenario would matter is because... it wouldn't. How are you supposed to find the transcendant truth, see outside of your vat? You can't. Little point to speculation that lies outside of our possible reach because of our limited nature.

That is what I mean by limiting his omiprescence, by avoiding to interfere with some section of space (which happens to be our section of space). But yeah, I can understand that.Even if he did limit his actions with regard to us, there would still be no free will. The problem is with creation... since he created us, he knew what would happen in the future and even went so far as to plan on leaving us alone. This line of thought still gives no avenue for self-determination. By creating us, he already interfered.

But if there is no free will, there is the problem of why Hell is made. I wonder if Hell is made not to punish humans per se, but rather evil human "thoughts" that has convinced humans to do the bad deeds...which could sastify the free will clause. That, or people can just claim "God is evil". :)In the scenario, there are no thoughts but God's, and God is an amoral concept at that point. It's meaningless to say something is good or bad when there is only one free entity in the universe. The rest are puppets on strings. They have no life other than that which the puppeteer gives them - they are simply extensions of his will, to be discarded or used however he sees fit.

So you see, determinism is pretty bleak. :p It's difficult to understand why people would want this sort of situation, but I suppose it takes all kinds...

No one has ever observed life arising from non living matter. If life can be created from non-living matter, then why hasn’t anyone ever seen humans being created out of thin air?

Why would it happen to the first generation of humans only, and then stop, when those same chemical compounds in the air that existed so long ago exist to this day? If spontaneous generation was true, then what is to stop Dinosaurs from returning? Because life can’t arise from non-living matter, that’s why.

No one has ever observed life arising from non living matter. If life can be created from non-living matter, then why hasn’t anyone ever seen humans being created out of thin air? Like I said, abiogenesis and "spontaneous generation" are two different things. I can't think of anyone that believes in spontaneous generation. The only people I know of that even think that people believe in it are usually some type of fundamentalist. Louis Pasteur is usually given credit for "disproving" the fact that life can't arise from the non-living, but he did no such thing. He just showed it was extremely unlikely for modern life to have arose from non-living organic material.

Abiogenesis (aka chemical origin of life) simply states that primitive self-replicating molecules could have formed and went on to form the life there is today. I suggest you read up on both to see why they're different.

Why would it happen to the first generation of humans only, and then stop, when those same chemical compounds in the air that existed so long ago exist to this day?The starting conditions are different, of course. Besides the differing atmospheric and oceanic states, there's LIFE now, advanced life, with millions of years of evolution under it's belt. How could a more primitive form of self-replicating molecules even begin to compete when it'd be so out of date? It's components would probably be broken up and assimilated by something that already lives even if it did manage to form.

If spontaneous generation was true, then what is to stop Dinosaurs from returning? Because life can’t arise from non-living matter, that’s why.Nothing stops dinosaurs from returning (albeit in a slightly different form) except evolutionary pressure, time and probably us. We wouldn't want T-Rex in the backyard and would probably kill anything that looked like it was becoming a threat. Think of the children, man! :p

Thank you to ET Warrior and Samuel Dravis for clearing things up on what science does and what science does not. It always amazes how little people know about it.

There was an argument earlier saying that scientists cannot prove the unexistence of a god or the existence of one either.

If I run a scientific experiment to either prove or disprove God exists it will fail - so again where are the facts that God doesn't exist? But if there is no God we will never know as no-one will ever return from death, also if there is no God life is utterly pointless as we are nothing but specs sand on a beach and whatever we do will ultimately have no effect.

The problem is that an actual scientist won't try to disprove god. A philosopher might, but not the scientist. By the way, philosophers are not scientists but scientists can be philosophers. Some people in European universities will try to kill me, but generally, it's accepted in North America that philosophers are necessary but not exactly scientists.

Anyway, back on the issue. The scientists never can claim that a god does not exist nor can he disprove the existence of unicorns and fairies. That's not the point. There is always a chance of a god existing and not existing. However, the religious folks make the claim that their god does exist. The scientist then asks for proof, which no one can provide. As such, science generally doesn't believe in the various incarnations of gods simply because no one has ever managed to gather conclusive evidence of his/her/its existence. Burden of proving that there is a or many gods is not on the shoulder of the scientists who ask for evidence, it's on those making the claim.




As for ethical relativism, as I work in social sciences, I have to take the context into consideration. I don't doubt that there are many Christians, Muslims, Jews and everything else also working in this branch of science, but you often have to "forget" that there is a right and a wrong so that your research won't be biased. You must never judge your subject because it's just unethical.

Thank you to ET Warrior and Samuel Dravis for clearing things up on what science does and what science does not. It always amazes how little people know about it.

There was an argument earlier saying that scientists cannot prove the unexistence of a god or the existence of one either.

Indeed, it has been an extremley interesting read, lots of interesting and varying views :)

The problem is that an actual scientist won't try to disprove god. A philosopher might, but not the scientist. By the way, philosophers are not scientists but scientists can be philosophers. Some people in European universities will try to kill me, but generally, it's accepted in North America that philosophers are necessary but not exactly scientists.

Well personally I would argue that both are vital seeing as scientists tend to find cure's for disease or invent stuff which would now be considered vital for today. While philosophers pose questions that cannot be answered and can expand peoples comprehention of the world.

Anyway, back on the issue. The scientists never can claim that a god does not exist nor can he disprove the existence of unicorns and fairies. That's not the point. There is always a chance of a god existing and not existing. However, the religious folks make the claim that their god does exist. The scientist then asks for proof, which no one can provide. As such, science generally doesn't believe in the various incarnations of gods simply because no one has ever managed to gather conclusive evidence of his/her/its existence. Burden of proving that there is a or many gods is not on the shoulder of the scientists who ask for evidence, it's on those making the claim.

Well, see if an athiest ask's me to proove God exsists I ask why must I proove he exsists and challenge them to proove he doesnt exsist. Essentially its the same argument as I would challenge a scientist who doesnt believe in God to proove that God doesn't exsist. As I and the Architect have stated above Spontaneous Generation was disproved over 100 years ago, and from the quotes I posted above many scientist believe that there is only one other theory to explain what happened... Therefore I would argue that was enough proof to infer God's exsistance, but I'm sure people will argue against that ;)

As for ethical relativism, as I work in social sciences, I have to take the context into consideration. I don't doubt that there are many Christians, Muslims, Jews and everything else also working in this branch of science, but you often have to "forget" that there is a right and a wrong so that your research won't be biased. You must never judge your subject because it's just unethical.

Amen to that (forgive the pun ;)) I would however argue if there is no God then ethical relativism comes into being as who says what is right and wrong?

No, i haven't read the bible but its a famous book and there are quotes from it all over the net, the movies and everywhere really and i can comment on those quotes

No, i got the point of the discussion though you went into the bing bang stuff in an attempt to prove that a god created the world which was entirely offtopic

Its agreed that if gods doesn't exist then there is moral relativism

And your point is that if god exists then moral relativism can't exist because god is the only entity that can decide whats good and what isn't
Thats however your biased christian opinion
Your church teaches you that the christian god is the only god
I as an atheist can be unbiased in this situation and its only logical that if greater powers exist then they're more then one
One or more for each religion actually
And since each religion fights for supremecy and more followers most of the religions deny the existence of other gods then their own
Which is logical for them to do but to a person thats unbiased its obvious that if greater powers exist they are more then one
I hope i made myself clear enough this time

Perhaps now you see my point?

Oh and don't worry
I took no offence and i meant none in case you took one

I see where your coming from a bit better now, but as for you being unbiased your biased to disprooving God :-p We are all human so we will automatically bias to our expierance and understanding of the world. So I'm a psychology student but it is argued that all psychology studies are automatically biased as the person behind the study has their own baises, if that make sense.

Personally speaking I still only believe in one God as I believe the way you get to heaven is by believing in Jesus Christ. Now perhaps you could argue say the devil is a lesser God but ultimatly I believe God will defeat him. I still believe there is just one God :-p. Also just because there are many religions doesn't mean there are many Gods... e.g. if I invent a new religion that follows the Potatoe God, does that actually mean that there is a potatoe God? Lets assume for a second however there are multiple Gods, I would expect that if they were warring for supremacy that you would see many miracles of this war yet we don't. I would argue that other religions are cults (please don't be offended by that if anyone is of another religion) and only people are drawing them in. Feel free to disagree, but this isn't a winnable argument its only theoretics and ultimatly comes down to what people believe and there experiances of the world.

I'm not offended by anything you have said, I'm used to having such debates with lots of friends from all diferent backgrounds, from Athiests to Muslims, so they can get heated sometimes, but at the end of the day its just a discussion :)

I remember an experiment that produced organic molecules, yes. However, none that I know of to date have produced life from those compounds.


The Miller-Urey experiements where they try to recreate the 'primordial soup' part of the planet's history to see if they can make any of the building blocks for life. They've been able to make some amino acids, but only the most simplest ones (glycine and alanine) of the 20 needed for life were made in any kind of amount greater than a parts-per-million ratio, and it was a mix of the right and left-handed versions of these, and only the left-handed version works in human life. They have also been unable to create any nucleotides or nucleosides, which are the building blocks for DNA and RNA, and obviously no DNA or RNA itself. The RNA/DNA bases were formed but without combining with the sugar backbone to turn them into nucelotides/nucleosides, they're useless. No proteins (chains of amino acids longer than polypeptides), polysaccharides (chains of sugar molecutes, needed for life), lipids (a fatty molecule needed for cell walls, among other things), or nucleic acids (needed to form DNA and RNA) have ever been formed in these experiments.

You knew you were all dying for a biochemistry lecture today, right? :D

Yes Jae. You brought me right back to BIO 101 and 102 and 11th grade biology. :D

From my understanding this topic, based on the heading was about religion and ethics. I have read some arguments and again the science comes back in with any topic remotely related to this. I have said it before and I'll say it again, science does not prove, it disproves. Using for example evolution and natural selection, nothing has been shown to disprove it therefore we have it called as a theory which has more explaining power than facts and Laws. Jae's example with the primordial soup mix is a good example of possibly disproving the idea seeing as they didn't get nucleotides and the like to create RNA and DNA.

With regards to religion, I wrote out a definition in another thread where I defined religion that was written by Geertz in that religion is a set of beliefs and belief systems that are described through symbols. There is no mention of the word gods or goddesses but the word symbol. Symbols could mean anything from a god, to a plant, to an animal, etc. That's just to clear things up.

With morals, yeah we have morals. As to where those come from, as an anthropologist, I could argue that it comes from learned behavior of a group, hence saying that it is a part of culture. Of course there could be other arguments maybe philosophically and the like. The point is, there probably is no definitive answer to that. The interesting thing is that what guides most of our laws today are based upon what we in general say is moral and immoral.

I see where your coming from a bit better now, but as for you being unbiased your biased to disprooving God :-p We are all human so we will automatically bias to our expierance and understanding of the world.
That I agree with. There is no truly unbiased person, no true objectivity. In anthropology, we talk alot about cultural relativism because one of the things we study is culture and we have to be able to put aside the ethnocentrisim to study the group that is in the focus of study. In the field most of the time is strictly observation. We try to minimize the damage we do in contacting a society. We do get faced with issues of ethics in whether or not to do something but we accept that it is largely a judgement call. Often that judgement is influenced by our own morals and definition of what is riht and wrong but also it is based upon the forseeable consequences of the action should we take it.
I admit that some people, mainly my family, have questioned my decision into studying anthropology because they are traditionally Catholic and they have their own ideas about things. They ask me if I believe that we descend from monkeys. To be honest I weave my way around that kind of thing and explain what the subject is so in the end they forget what they ask me and come out learnign something new. I accept that as part of the ethnocentrism that accompanies alot of people when they meet a new group. I know I have biases because I find it gross and wierd that people like to eat chocolate covered grasshoppers yet I find it fascinating. Call me liberal I guess but that is just me. I like learning what makes one person different from the next. I may not agree with them but I respect them.
As to disproving or proving the existence of God, there is no exact science that prove faith. We all have to some at some point. It doesn't matter whether you are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, aethiest, Agnostic, etc., you use it. Whether it is to believe that you'll pass your qualifications for whatever or you'll get a new job, you are placing faith in yourself and your talents. It is no different from placing it in a diety of some sort. Faith is not defined by science. There are things that science can't prove.

Well, see if an athiest ask's me to proove God exsists I ask why must I proove he exsists and challenge them to proove he doesnt exsist. Essentially its the same argument as I would challenge a scientist who doesnt believe in God to proove that God doesn't exsist.Just a quick comment on this. A person who is honestly seeking greater understanding wouldn't ask you to "prove" beyond doubt that a God exists. They might ask for some reason that makes your statement more likely than others, but not for proof. It would be reasonable for them to ask this of you; most people don't just go around believing everything someone says. If you can't honestly provide a viable answer, then you should begin to wonder why you believe it in the first place.

The problem being, of course, that there are many religions and each differ. Is there truly something that makes yours more reliable than any given other? Or do you believe something just because that's what you've always done, or perhaps because it makes you feel better, etc.?

I've thought about this sometimes and I've come to the conclusion that only things that relate in a real world context would be useful in determining that reliability. In particular, things that you yourself observe and can later use. For example, if a person of X religion (and only X religion) was able to predict the outcome of any given series of events 90% of the time, wherever they were and without any possible previous knowledge of the circumstances, that would be interesting. Very interesting. Unfortunately, no one has ever demonstrated this sort of thing, or even close to it. People have good reason to be skeptical of religion's claims (really, this applies to any other circumstance which involves no reason given to believe it). There's a thread on this topic (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=108764) in the Senate.

Oops, guess it wasn't all that short. :p

Well personally I would argue that both are vital seeing as scientists tend to find cure's for disease or invent stuff which would now be considered vital for today. While philosophers pose questions that cannot be answered and can expand peoples comprehention of the world.

Yes, both are linked, as without philosophers, social scientists don't have any definitions to work with but at the same time, definitions are always easily debatable and because of the inability to find one that all would agree on makes them unscientific. A weird thing to understand, but that's the way things are.



Well, see if an athiest ask's me to proove God exsists I ask why must I proove he exsists and challenge them to proove he doesnt exsist. Essentially its the same argument as I would challenge a scientist who doesnt believe in God to proove that God doesn't exsist. As I and the Architect have stated above Spontaneous Generation was disproved over 100 years ago, and from the quotes I posted above many scientist believe that there is only one other theory to explain what happened... Therefore I would argue that was enough proof to infer God's exsistance, but I'm sure people will argue against that ;)

The problem is that burden of proof is not on the scientist's shoulders. Generally, we never try to prove a negative (i.e. "God does not exist"). So considering that, you make the statement that God exists, it's your job to prove it to the rest of community. It's not the scientific community that has to disprove you. Only when you come up with a big reasoning, then it can be refuted but since you have admitted the inability of man to prove something like that, in the eyes of the scientific community, there is no evidence of God's existence.




Amen to that (forgive the pun ;)) I would however argue if there is no God then ethical relativism comes into being as who says what is right and wrong?


I really like Йmile Durkheim's definition of education as a set of teachings given to a person to properly live in his society (translating from French and quoting from memory, not exactly that, but it's the main idea). Basically, ethical relativism is a necessity for every individual to be comfortable in his society. That's why gladiatorial fights are wrong now, but a cool thing back in the Antiquity.

Honestly though, I could care less. I try to forget my own values when I analyze some event or anything else, so I have no choice but to apply ethical relativism to avoid a normative judgment. And philosophy has never been my favorite subject of debate, since again, there is no definite answer that might come out of such a debate.

I really like Йmile Durkheim's definition of education as a set of teachings given to a person to properly live in his society (translating from French and quoting from memory, not exactly that, but it's the main idea).
That is a working definition of culture, at least how anthropologists do. Culture is learned and is not static. It does change through time with innovation and invention. Then we have cultural relativism. I can't help but wonder if ethical relativism and cultural relativism are the on the same plane.

The problem being, of course, that there are many religions and each differ. Is there truly something that makes yours more reliable than any given other? Or do you believe something just because that's what you've always done, or perhaps because it makes you feel better, etc.?
Yes there are many religions each saying that theirs is the supreme one. Hence we've got ethnocentrisim. It is the way how one views the world we live in. Often it is equated with narrowmindedness. As to your last question again I defer to culture, that it is a learned thing. You aren't born with culture. Why do believe in what you do? You have your reasons and they are influenced by your view of the world as you see it. Again it is one of those things that says truth is relative. Truth is truth from your point of view.

For example, if a person of X religion (and only X religion) was able to predict the outcome of any given series of events 90% of the time, wherever they were and without any possible previous knowledge of the circumstances, that would be interesting. Very interesting. Unfortunately, no one has ever demonstrated this sort of thing, or even close to it. People have good reason to be skeptical of religion's claims (really, this applies to any other circumstance which involves no reason given to believe it).

Answer: Discordianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism) (religion disguised as satire disguised as religion), and the Law of Fives.

The Law of Fives is summarized on page 00016 of the Principia Discordia:

The Law of Fives states simply that: ALL THINGS HAPPEN IN FIVES, OR ARE DIVISIBLE BY OR ARE MULTIPLES OF FIVE, OR ARE SOMEHOW DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY APPROPRIATE TO 5.
The Law of Fives is never wrong.
The Law of Fives includes the word "Five" five times.

Like most of Discordianism, the Law of Fives appears on the surface to be either some sort of weird joke, or bizarre supernaturalism; but under this, it may help clarify the Discordian view of how the human mind works; Lord Omar is quoted later on the same page as having written, "I find the Law of Fives to be more and more manifest the harder I look."

Appendix Beth of Robert Shea's and Robert Anton Wilson's The Illuminatus! Trilogy considers some of the numerology of Discordianism, and the question of what would happen to the Law of Fives if everyone had six fingers on each hand. The authors suggest that the real Law of Fives may be that everything can be related to the number five if you try hard enough. Sometimes the steps required may be highly convoluted.

Another way of looking at the Law of Fives is as a symbol for the observation of reality changing that which is being observed in the observer's mind. Just as how when one looks for fives in reality, one finds them, so will one find conspiracies, ways to determine when the apocalypse will come, and so on and so forth when one decides to look for them. It cannot be wrong, because it proves itself reflexively when looked at through this lens.

So, in some cases, I doubt your test of 90% accuracy would work. I mean, if it does, I would follow Discordianism and start saying "Fnord" wherever I want. I mean, how come every car has 5 tires (4 for driving, one as a spare)? Has to be the Rule of Fives, and because of that, Discordianism (or any other religion with rules that people believe in and justify a lot) is correct. :D
===
As for the "Proof of God" (tm) that Scientists wants, here is one taken from St. Augustine (I think). This is a Totally Scientific proof (according to those days):

1. I move.
2. Something must have made me move.
3. Something must have made that thing made me move.
4. Something must have made that thing which made that thing made me move.
5. This is an infitie cycle that repeat endlessly.
6. Surely, there can't be something that continues endleesly. There must be a Prime Mover that is not moved by anything else, but what causes everything else to move.
7. That Prime Mover is God.

Problem: We already found the Prime Mover...the Big Bang. But what causes that? Why, if you believe in string theory...strings. So that theory (of God existing since I move) goes pretty awry. And what if there is an inifinte chain of events, each thing moving something else, and it is a chain that will never end?

Another proof...from Descartes (the inventor of the "evil demon" argument, the predecssor of the infamous "Brain In Vat" experiment):


Medidation 5 ontological argument
1. God's prefection entails existence (existence is a perfection).
2. So someone who thinks of God without also thinking that God exists contradicts himself.
Therefore, God exist.

This is an argument also used by a person named Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury in the late 11th and early 12th centuries.
A being that is all powerful and all knowing and perfectly exists exists.
A being wo is all powerful and all knowing and perfetly good and exists does not exist.

Problem: The argument would seem to be apply to anything.
A golden mountain that exits does not exist. This is contradictory but that doesn't prove that a golden mountain exist. It just shows that if you say it exists and then deny it exists you have contradicted yourself.

Rebuttal: We didn't say that a perfect being exists, adding the notion of existance to the notion of a perfect being. But it wasn't added on--the notion of aboslute perefection already including the notion of existing. To deny it exists is more like denying that a triangle has three angles euqal two right angles.

Mathematical concepts express "true and immutable essences" and they are not fictions. WHen we prove something about a true and immutable essence it is true indepedents of our thoughts.

Another Objection: Perfect island-Suppose we imagine a perfect island that does not exist. A more perfect island would be one that is just like that island but also exist. (Gaunilo's objection) That couldn't be a way to prove a way to prove the existance of perfect island.

That above proof also uses philopshy, but Descartes felt that it was quite easy to see that God exist thanks to that proof, and to deny it would be like denying a triangle has 180 degrees.

Descartes also said 'I think therefore I am.'

So, in some cases, I doubt your test of 90% accuracy would work. I mean, if it does, I would follow Discordianism and start saying "Fnord" wherever I want. I mean, how come every car has 5 tires (4 for driving, one as a spare)? Has to be the Rule of Fives, and because of that, Discordianism (or any other religion with rules that people believe in and justify a lot) is correct.
Five is considered one of the most powerful numbers. It is often associated with the divine feminine. Seven is another number and that is used in the Bible citing the perfection of heaven. Then there is three which is associated with the Holy Trinity and the Triple Goddess. Another number that is found even in science is the Golden Ratio or the Divine Proportion. Don't tell me I got it from the DaVinci Code. I actually have a mathematician for a friend and I never met anyone who loves math more than she. The reason I say it exists everywhere well take the length from your shoulder to your elbow and divide by the length from your shoulder to your fingertips. You get 1.618, the Divine Proportion. Because this number occurred so frequently, early scientists believed that it was a divine number. Your Laws of Five are very intereesting but haveyou considered why people like things in threes, fives and sevens. They are all odd numbers but yet they are prevalent in many religious cultures ranging from the pagans to the Western world.

Five is considered one of the most powerful numbers. It is often associated with the divine feminine. Seven is another number and that is used in the Bible citing the perfection of heaven. Then there is three which is associated with the Holy Trinity and the Triple Goddess. Another number that is found even in science is the Golden Ratio or the Divine Proportion. Don't tell me I got it from the DaVinci Code. I actually have a mathematician for a friend and I never met anyone who loves math more than she. The reason I say it exists everywhere well take the length from your shoulder to your elbow and divide by the length from your shoulder to your fingertips. You get 1.618, the Divine Proportion. Because this number occurred so frequently, early scientists believed that it was a divine number. Your Laws of Five are very intereesting but haveyou considered why people like things in threes, fives and sevens. They are all odd numbers but yet they are prevalent in many religious cultures ranging from the pagans to the Western world.

Reread again. The Rule of Fives is supposed to be a joke to satrize how people can see things (like conspiracy theories) if they just look for them. That was the reason I posted it here, to prove that just because a religion "predicts" something 90% of the time...it doesn't really mean that it is right.

I saw the satire. I was being serious :D

I am well aware that there is truth but truth is not always what it appears.

I am a Wiccan. This makes me "evil" in the eyes of certain "Followers of the Books," as well as a throwback for worshipping ancient Gods. It is not a conclusion I came to lightly. For years, I thought there was something wrong with me because I put a lot of effort into trying to follow the Christian faith, but kept coming up with too many questions.

I stumbled into the wrong room when looking for a writers' worskshop and ended up meeting a Gardnerian priestess. After a few hours of talking, I found there was a name for what I believed in my heart. Just to be sure, I read the King James cover to cover before putting that book down and declaring myself Pagan.

The fundamental of the faith is the Rede. "If it harms none, do as thou wilt." However, "harm none" is the BIG key. It includes harming yourself, and it expands to include all creatures and the Earth. And if you do something stupid, you pay for it in one form or another. There's no "devil made me do it" here. It's all about consequences and if you can live with them.

Works pretty well with the 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.' :)

Ah, religion. I prefer to avoid it altogether, except to occasionally point it with a pointy stick :P

The fundamental of the faith is the Rede. "If it harms none, do as thou wilt." However, "harm none" is the BIG key. It includes harming yourself, and it expands to include all creatures and the Earth. And if you do something stupid, you pay for it in one form or another. There's no "devil made me do it" here. It's all about consequences and if you can live with them.

...But I want to harm myself or harm others, to punish myself or to punish others. I think this sort of "harming", punishment, is excluded from your definition (since it prevents 'greater harm'), but still...:D

Question:

A definition of religion can be 'a set of beliefs based around an unprovable central belief or beliefs.' - If anyone objects to this, feel free to say so :)

So...What is science?

Science - the belief that reason can help us to understand the nature of everything around us completely.

But can we?

Let's take a hypothetical situation. In this situation, the universe is created in one instant by a deity or deities who will henceforth be known as The Omnipotent Triskaidekatheos. The Omnipotent Triskaidekatheos creates something very similar to Earth, but instantly. And then The Omnipotent Triskaidekatheos leaves the universe to its own problems and solutions, never to return.

Now in this universe, on this not-quite-Earth, which we shall call Tellurius, there is a single island-colony of humans. There is one main difference between them and humans in our universe - these humans are all blind from birth. They have no concept of sight, as they have never had it, never perceived using it, they don't know of its existence.

They build their society on a similar model to ours, fighting their wars, learning their knowledge, and building their understanding of the universe. But. They can't see.

And so, how do they learn things only learnt by sight? They can't. Or, they learn in a more inefficient manner.

And somewhere along the line, a fundamental mistake is made. So fundamental that it is completely ignored as being impossible to be wrong.

So how do they know that their perception of the universe is flawed if they have no concept of what they are missing?

Let me put it another way: We perceive the world through five senses, it is generally agreed. Others may or may not exist -that I'm not going to delve into here.

But is the world as we perceive it the world as it really is? What if our perceptions are coloured, or flawed, because of something we are incapable, and have no concept of exists as a further method of perception?

In the words of Kant, what if phenomenon and noumenon are not equal?

It may not be a constructive argument, necessarily, but it is an interesting one, I think, and so on to the point of this post: Isn't science, by the definition I put above, a religion?

Isn't science, by the definition I put above, a religion?
Absolutely. Complete with its own zealots. :)