Though I might add that considering how carefully, heck, beautiflly even, some aspects of our world are "constructed" (Fibbonazi numbers, topic at hand and above all fractals. Oh you lovely fractals <3 ) one could see world made by God/platonian demiurgi.

 

Haha. Certainly I am far more willing to accept a conception of God that simply created the RULES by which the universe is governed and gave it a start value (BIG BANG WEEE).

 

Even so, platonic conceptions of mathematics are fraught with their own problems. I believe the platonists were none too happy about Goedel's theorems.

 

I only specifically mentioned and bolded platonian because:

 

Platons Demiurgi: Kind, careful and elegant architect of universe

Gnostic Demiurgi: Nasty bastard who thinks it is real god while it isn't, responsible for trapping us in corrupted material world

 

And I was referring platonian kind of builder

 

We are here because microbacteria 14 billion years ago...yada yada yada...evolved to humans, the end.\

 

But why did all that happen?

 

for the lulz, obviously

Edited March 18, 200817 yr by Xard

I'm christian but also accept scientific theory such as dinosaurs did exist or carbon dating works. I don't believe that a universe with nonillions of planets and galaxies spawned from nothing but gas and dust particles, however. God created the framework of science to maintain the universe. From the simplest of scientific principles to processes that we'd go extinct before we understood, God made them and so evolution and climate change is part of God's plan. If the world drops 10

Edited March 18, 200817 yr by Krezack

We are here because microbacteria 14 billion years ago...yada yada yada...evolved to humans, the end.\

 

But why did all that happen?

 

for the lulz, obviously

End of thread.

Edited March 18, 200817 yr by Musopticon?

Yeah, god is a /b-tard.

 

Remember all those biblical plagues? Someone linked him to Goatse.

That was too weak, Krezak. For one thing its not my claim alone. Also, science is not at odds with god. God integrated science into creation. They're meant to go hand to hand but people either believe creation or evolution. Both, apart, are arrogant views. Both are true, together. I think science still works in expanding the universe but the theory that something came of nothing is 100% unfounded, for a lack of evidence. Science didn't create itself. God made science rather than use lordly magic for the lolz, obviously.

That was too weak, Krezak. For one thing its not my claim alone. Also, science is not at odds with god. God integrated science into creation. They're meant to go hand to hand but people either believe creation or evolution. Both, apart, are arrogant views. Both are true, together. I think science still works in expanding the universe but the theory that something came of nothing is 100% unfounded, for a lack of evidence. Science didn't create itself. God made science rather than use lordly magic for the lolz, obviously.

 

*cries*

 

You... just... don't... get... it...

I've gotta agree with the folks who argue "why" is the basis behind religion and the concept of God. Sure, given time we can explain the procedure of everything, and science is immensely important to the progress of the human race, but there just isn't any way to prove whether God exists or not. It's silly to argue it, but I'm sure there is some scientific rationale behind why we do so.

I've gotta agree with the folks who argue "why" is the basis behind religion and the concept of God. Sure, given time we can explain the procedure of everything, and science is immensely important to the progress of the human race, but there just isn't any way to prove whether God exists or not. It's silly to argue it, but I'm sure there is some scientific rationale behind why we do so.

 

faith

... you ain't making any sense

Of course, with knowledge and understanding of a divine being, the next obvious question is 'what made god'.

 

This is where the 'science/religon' fusion people really start to fall down.

who

Of course, with knowledge and understanding of a divine being, the next obvious question is 'what made god'.

 

This is where the 'science/religon' fusion people really start to fall down.

 

God has always existed. Don't ask for proof if you don't beleive it.

Hence why religion has places where science can't go and vice versa.

 

EDIT: also, 'Don't ask for proof if you don't beleive it.' is a hugely counter intuative statement and basically amounts to 'la la la, i'm not listening'.

 

Being religious isn't a stance you have to defend right up until the point where you start preaching.

Edited March 18, 200817 yr by Nick_i_am

The rules are actually fairly complex, unlike for the Conus textiles, but it basically amounts to every single stomata being linked to every other stomata (through neighbouring stomata) in a domino effect fashion. The cellular automaton quickly and easily solves the optimisation problem posed.

this is not unlike the problem of independent component analysis, which can be solved using neural nets. in such an implementation, each neuron is connected to its neighbors and the answers "adapt" to the optimal solution. the neurons adjust their individual weights until some optimal criteria is met locally, which ultimately establishes meeting the optimal criteria for the system. "optimal" only makes sense with respect to some pre-defined criteria. in communications systems, "optimal" is often stated with respect to minimum mean-square error between the result and the error-free solution, for example.*

 

neat stuff.

 

You think science is arrogant; <snip>... all of science validates the rest of science

this is actually what makes science humble. it is self-correcting and admits its own errors, always striving for the truth (or the best estimate of the truth) rather than accepting any answers it produces as undeniable fact. even the so-called "laws" are constantly being probed in an attempt to explain the how and why (such as the law of gravity).

 

taks

 

* obviously since the error-free solution is not known, there are mathematical games that must be worked through to determine what the magnitude of the error really is. it works out that the error-free solution cancels in the equations leaving nothing but the estimated results and the original data. very slick stuff.

this is actually what makes science humble. it is self-correcting and admits its own errors, always striving for the truth (or the best estimate of the truth) rather than accepting any answers it produces as undeniable fact.

 

In theory anyway, it seems that a few areas of practical science have become a bit full of themselves recently (areas surrounding electromagnetic readiation and homeopathy spring to mind). But this is no suprise since there is big money involved.

Edited March 18, 200817 yr by Nick_i_am

Response

Are you responding to me?

 

If so, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

one bummer for walkerguy:

 

Where do we need God? To explain what we need Him?

 

And above all, if really need one, why it must be conscious one?

Edited March 18, 200817 yr by Xard

In theory anyway, it seems that a few areas of practical science have become a bit full of themselves recently (areas surrounding electromagnetic readiation and homeopathy spring to mind). But this is no suprise since there is big money involved.

these aren't examples of science. they are examples of fraud, i.e. snake oil, portraying themselves as science.

 

taks

I don't understand the need to force walkerguy to question his beliefs. It's how he sees the world, it is his perception. It's also one shared by many people in the world. Again, you can't prove or disprove the existence of God. You can argue out the details all day long, but you will always return to the same place in the end.

 

No amount of raw data will make me change my perception of a spiritual higher power. That is just the way I see the world. I'm very willing to accept scientific fact for what it is, and you are right to argue against people who ignore the dinosaurs and what have you, but when you completely dismiss faith, you are just as bad as those who completely dismiss science.

Edited March 18, 200817 yr by Hurlshot

one bummer for walkerguy:

 

Where do we need God?

Your life.

To explain what we need Him?

Rephrase.

And above all, if really need one, why it must be conscious one?

W-What are you saying?

I'm not dissing his belief - I think world would be better off without religions but my reasons have nothing to do with science ec.

 

I have my own, half scientifical, half spiritual reason for that question - I am honesty curious (I'd like to hear from you too, Hurl)

Edited March 18, 200817 yr by Xard

these aren't examples of science. they are examples of fraud, i.e. snake oil, portraying themselves as science.

 

The issue with the given examples isn't in them being true or not, it's the attitudes surrounding them, as you've just proved.

 

Calling the possible health effects of electromagnetic radiation a 'fraud' is an example of this since there is such conflicting data. The same goes with homeopathy.

 

Unless, of course, I misunderstood what you meant.

Edited March 18, 200817 yr by Nick_i_am

still like re-phrased quesstion, particular the 2nd one

one bummer for walkerguy:

 

Where do we need God?

Your life.

To explain what we need Him?

Rephrase.

And above all, if really need one, why it must be conscious one?

W-What are you saying?

 

 

Now this is great time for my keyboard to act funny. It's dropping out letters ad words *sigh*

 

 

Why do your existance as biological being require God?

 

That second one should be what we need him for...

 

With second question I meaned more like what it would mean if we humans would've made god up. For what spiritual/moral/social/etc. reason we need him for? And why we can't do fine without one?

 

"W-What are you saying?"

 

Exactly what I wrote. Why god must be personal or to be even more specific, Conscious Being?

Edited March 18, 200817 yr by Xard