If you once believed...

[doom]

Originally posted by Jenyar
You mean entropy? How does this explain why life has continued to flourish (and even "evolved") to its present state at all? If all things tend towards destruction and chaos, then it must either have originated out of some kind of order, or the universe is still young enough that we have not yet entered into a state of entropy and what you have witnessed was a fluke of nature.

Cos we are alright at the moment its later on,you dont have to worry too much about that as the sun will engulf the earth in little under 5 billion years,unless we manage to find a better place in the universe come 5 billion years we are all fucked,but the universe itself will eventially die to the point no life can even exist even after the human race.

5 billion years is a long time though,its not much concern to us,the universe is 15 billion years old and the human race in its current form is only 30,000 years old i dont think we will last,and we'll probably fuck everything up so that any new evolution will have to sift through the decay.

 

[doom]

I might add the first of the current human race was black,we are white cos we come from the people who moved into europe areas,while hot areas were all black,white man came after black man.The japanese come from red indians,and red indians come from icelandic areas.

I guess that means your god is black hahaha
not that it makes any difference.

 

[doom]

Listen its easier to destroy than to create,yes the universe was highly ordered,now its the direction of disorder.

If we reversed it im sorry to say that time will be running backwards and broken glasses will reassemble themselves,the world trade center would un-blow up and the planes would un-blow up and reassemble themselves,thats the direction of disorder turning into order,but thats too hard for physics,the easy route is disorder,to which we travel in.Sure going backwards you dont die,instead you end up going back inside your mum and get younger and younger till your a backwards ejaculation of sperm.

Disorder is the order of the day im afraid,your god sucks at this physics thing,such an almighty god could have created physics different,but nah,too much of an arsehole,he invented the second law of themodynamics to say hahahaha find your way out of this one.

But god dont exist,id rather believe god dont exist than believe an arsehole runs the show.

 

[Jenyar]

Degeneration begs regeneration. We can't get out of it ourselves, because we are subject to the laws of physics.
Degeneration = us
Regeneration = God
God gives life,
We take life (or lives)
We die by the "will" of the universe,
We will be raised (recreated) and have life by the will of God.

Just because you think the end of life under physics is the end of all forms of life, it doesn't invalidate God by default.

your god sucks at this physics thing,such an almighty god could have created physics different

Under different physics, life would not have been possible on earth, and you know it.

 

[Prince_James]

THOU

SHALT

NOT

COMMITETH

THREAD NECROMANCY!

Thus sayeth the PRINCE!

-Read the dates-!

 

[Athelwulf]

I'm interested in finding out why people who were once believers in a God (any main religion really) choose to forsake that belief. Why did you choose not to believe anymore? How have things changed in your life? Do you find yourself happier now?

When I was a little kid, the way family members talked about God assumed his existence. I inferred God's existence from this and took it for granted, in the same way that any little kid could infer Canada's existence. I wasn't exposed as a little kid to the idea that there was no supernatural being, and since I took God's existence for granted, I never thought of the possibility.

When I grew older and wiser, however, things became clearer to me. I slowly realized that there was no empirical evidence, and with that came the natural conclusion that to have faith in a supernatural entity with no evidence is foolish. Since it came slowly as I grew older and wiser, there was no epiphany.

I wasn't religious as a kid when I thought God existed, because I took it for granted in the same way I took the existence of Canada for granted: It's there, big woop. This fact, along with the lack of epiphany, meant that losing belief didn't create any kind of drastic change in my life. Losing belief didn't make me "happier" or "sadder" in the end; I've had happy times and sad times, as a kid and as an adult, which were totally unrelated to my thoughts about God.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Why did you choose not to believe anymore?

Because accepting assertions as truth based on how they make me feel has little or nothing to do with truth.

How have things changed in your life?

I have much greater cognitive adaptability.

Do you find yourself happier now?

Happier than when I was a 'believer'? Absolutely.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I agree that hte body decays and such........what I'm talking about is what happens to the 'soul' of a person after they die. There's no evidence to show us whether the soul ceases to exist or if it continues in some other way

There's no evidence that a 'soul' exists; hence, the query is kind of silly.

 

[lightgigantic]

There's no evidence that a 'soul' exists; hence, the query is kind of silly.

there is also no evidence (of the empirical reductionist type that you hold as aboslute) that your mind exists. What do you think of that?

 

[spidergoat]

Obviously there is no mind.

 

[lightgigantic]

Obviously there is no mind.

lol - then what are you doing on a debate forum?

 

[Roman]

there is also no evidence (of the empirical reductionist type that you hold as aboslute) that your mind exists. What do you think of that?

It means I'm not a dualist.

 

[lightgigantic]

It means I'm not a dualist.

Are you saying that you are a pluralist? (its not clear how reductionism works out of a monistic paradigm)

 

[Roman]

Are you saying that you are a pluralist? (its not clear how reductionism works out of a monistic paradigm)

Materialist.

 

[lightgigantic]

Materialist.

obviously - but do you say that the basis for matter is pluralistic (indicated by the numerous axioms present under current reductionist definitions) or monistic (there is some ground for einsteins unified field theory or some other similar thing)

 

[Crunchy Cat]

there is also no evidence (of the empirical reductionist type that you hold as aboslute) that your mind exists. What do you think of that?

I don't know what you consider to be 'mind'. If you're referring to thought, perception, memory, feeling, etc, clearly reality contradicts this.

 

[Cris]

lg,

there is also no evidence (of the empirical reductionist type that you hold as aboslute) that your mind exists. What do you think of that?

That you are probably using the wrong tool for the problem. The theory of emergence is probably more appropriate for this issue than the theory of reductionism. Although it is not clear what type of reductionism you are referencing.

 

[Cris]

Lg,

but do you say that the basis for matter is pluralistic

I think the intention was to contrast materialism from supernaturalism and nothing more.

(indicated by the numerous axioms present under current reductionist definitions)

Reductionism isn’t relevant here since we can adequately view the mind as an emergent property of brain function.

or monistic (there is some ground for einsteins unified field theory or some other similar thing)

Why is this relevant to the distinction of materialism versus dualism?

 

[spidergoat]

lol - then what are you doing on a debate forum?

I don't exist.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I don't exist.

I knew it! :m: