For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Well aren't you lucky to know the mind of god.thedoc wrote:Lev Muishkin wrote: God gave a secret, and denied it me?
—THE RUBAIYAT OF OMAR KHAYYAM
No, you just refuse to see it.
Well if energy 'absolutely cannot be created' then that rules out a supernatural monster 'creating' it as well. In other words, we don't exist because there is no way we CAN exist. That clears that up then.reasonvemotion wrote:There are many on this forum who love rational thought and tend to despise the emotions, they prefer the experience of a kind of euphoria from the purity of intelligence and the satisfaction of rational thinking. The mind enjoys immensely the way it is logical and controlling but above all makes sense of disorder, one could say almost mathematical. So it would not be unreasonable to say by comparison that emotions are all over the place, they are not precise and they can quickly get out of control, so why would an educated person, a scientist, for example, believe in creation. It seems quite reasonable that they would gravitate and defend Darwinian evolution or even theistic evolution, a figurative (non-literal) interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. The biblical account of Genesis has been deduced to a religious myth and only those uneducated in scientific methods, would seriously entertain any validity in such a "myth", yet there are scientists who have doubts about evidence for evolution and based on the two thermodynamic laws of nature, (the two most basic laws in the entire science realm), one could rationally present as being wholly consistent with biblical creation.
The first law states that energy is conserved or constant at all times. Energy, in whichever of its many forms, absolutely can be neither created nor destroyed. This rule ensures a dependable and predictable universe, whether for stars or for human life.
The second basic law of nature also involves energy. It describes unavoidable losses in any process whatsoever which involves the transfer of energy. The energy does not disappear but some always becomes unavailable, often as unusable heat. In other words, everything deteriorates, breaks down and becomes less ordered with time. Ultimately death itself is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.
Energy conservation implies that the universe did not start up by itself. Energy decay further implies that this universe cannot last forever. Secular science has no satisfactory explanation for such laws of nature.
The Latin word religare, means “to tie, to bind”, which perhaps could explain the experience or power religion has on some.
What has anyone said that makes you think so?reasonvemotion wrote:There are many on this forum who love rational thought and tend to despise the emotions, they prefer the experience of a kind of euphoria from the purity of intelligence and the satisfaction of rational thinking.
I think it was me when i said BOOBS.uwot wrote:What has anyone said that makes you think so?reasonvemotion wrote:There are many on this forum who love rational thought and tend to despise the emotions, they prefer the experience of a kind of euphoria from the purity of intelligence and the satisfaction of rational thinking.
Genius!attofishpi wrote:I think it was me when i said BOOBS.
Take yourself for example, for you, it all comes down to the rational unbelievers v the religious "them" and your posts are full of exaltations for the critical mind.reasonvemotion wrote:
There are many on this forum who love rational thought and tend to despise the emotions, they prefer the experience of a kind of euphoria from the purity of intelligence and the satisfaction of rational thinking.
uwot wrote:
What has anyone said that makes you think so?
reasonvemotion wrote:Take yourself for example, for you, it all comes down to the rational unbelievers v the religious "them" and your posts are full of exaltations for the critical mind.reasonvemotion wrote:
There are many on this forum who love rational thought and tend to despise the emotions, they prefer the experience of a kind of euphoria from the purity of intelligence and the satisfaction of rational thinking.
uwot wrote:
What has anyone said that makes you think so?
I don't think I'm a very good example. It is true that if someone tells me that their belief is supported by evidence, I will challenge their evidence, or their interpretation of it, as I am doing now. But I have also made the point that any belief that is not contradicted by demonstrable facts could be true. Many, probably most, of the critical minds I exalt are those of people of faith.reasonvemotion wrote:Take yourself for example, for you, it all comes down to the rational unbelievers v the religious "them" and your posts are full of exaltations for the critical mind.
Not sure who this is addressed to, but yes to the first part, no to the second.thedoc wrote:Is there any room in this discussion for believers who are also rational thinkers, or do you consider that an Oxymoron?
What does God tell you?thedoc wrote: Is there any room in this discussion for believers who are also rational thinkers, or do you consider that an Oxymoron?
Lev Muishkin wrote:What does God tell you?thedoc wrote: Is there any room in this discussion for believers who are also rational thinkers, or do you consider that an Oxymoron?
WHy ask us when you have the ear of the great one at your command?
LMFBAO!!!thedoc wrote:Lev Muishkin wrote:What does God tell you?thedoc wrote: Is there any room in this discussion for believers who are also rational thinkers, or do you consider that an Oxymoron?
WHy ask us when you have the ear of the great one at your command?
Hello Brian, I didn't recognize you at first. So now you're pretending to be an Atheist?
attofishpi wrote:LMFBAO!!!thedoc wrote:Hello Brian, I didn't recognize you at first. So now you're pretending to be an Atheist?Lev Muishkin wrote: What does God tell you?
WHy ask us when you have the ear of the great one at your command?
(laugh my f'in brian ass off)
Ah. Then i should apologise as i thought you were having a laugh at Lev suggesting he was Brian (Monty's messiah)thedoc wrote:Sorry, I didn't know your name was Brian, I was referring to another Brian, (not nearly so nice), from a long time ago, in a forum far, far away.
