[Derek]

1. What is your stance on vestigial organs? Many scientists claim that through evolution some organs have lost their purpose but a lot of fundamentalists would say these organs still have uses and thus are not vestigial (such as someone without tonsils is 4 times more likely to contract disease even though doctors deem it perfectly safe to remove them).

2. Through quantum physics, there's been massive support that particles can form out of nothing, somewhat showing that the universe could be uncaused. What do you think about this?

3. Do you believe that a higher entity indeed created us entirely or rather that an entity planted the seeds for our growth and we simply evolved over time? Or is it that your religion is simply a spiritual quest and does not conform to the views of a Christian God?

4. God is often depicted in a human form, explained by people's needs to make God relatable to them. Do you think this is right or is the idea of 'god' simply a force outwith our comprehension?


Coming from a non-religious background, I'm interested in gaining some perspective that's not simply a teacher talking as you could understand. This thread isn't to denounce either religion or science, but rather to observe each other's views, remember.

[Glice]

1. Christianity has never been directly opposed to the furthering of science, but acts as a conservative limit; viz, there's no reason to suggest that vestigial organs are anything other than what they are (provided, of course, that the scientific community is right - bear in mind that gangrene was treated by vivisection until relatively recently)

2. 'Could be uncaused' - it's a metaphysical point so suggest 'un-cause'; I don't really see that science has the analytical tools for metaphysics. As soon as it starts making interpretations of its finding it tends to turn things to shit (see nuclear bombs and Richard fucking Dawkins). To a blank objectivity there is no cause or need of cause; there is no blank objectivity.

3. 'Conform to the views of a Christian God' is mis-leading - there's as many different Gods to Christianity as there are Christians. Questions of arche-genetics don't interest me personally, at all.

4. Who could presuppose to know the mind of God? By which I mean, of course God is going to be anthropomorphised (Deo-anthropo-morphemic?) but that doesn't reify anything. Which possible makes me apophatic, which is science's least liked position.

[Glice]

Did you mean 'overly' or 'overtly' religious, by the way?

[Derek]

Overly, overtly works aswell though.

[space]

dear sparky,

as a subjective description, who amongst us would ever consider themselves "overly" religious?

me? I save all of my vestigial organs in a jar.

also, sub-plank length particles do not form out of nothing. they simply tunnel though holes in the fabric of spacetime.

alsoalso, life is viral.

alsoalsoalso, any spiritual being will attempt to find likeness within themself as to what they believe.

I hope this helps.

yr pal,

space


inb4suchfriends

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

1. What is your stance on vestigial organs? Many scientists claim that through evolution some organs have lost their purpose but a lot of fundamentalists would say these organs still have uses and thus are not vestigial (such as someone without tonsils is 4 times more likely to contract disease even though doctors deem it perfectly safe to remove them).

I believe in evolution, but I think a lot of things deemed vestigial can often not be quite as vestigial as we think. There's still a lot we don't understand about biology

2. Through quantum physics, there's been massive support that particles can form out of nothing, somewhat showing that the universe could be uncaused. What do you think about this?

But where did those quantum physics come from?

3. Do you believe that a higher entity indeed created us entirely or rather that an entity planted the seeds for our growth and we simply evolved over time? Or is it that your religion is simply a spiritual quest and does not conform to the views of a Christian God?

I think of God as someone who set things in motion but will also do things manually from time to time

4. God is often depicted in a human form, explained by people's needs to make God relatable to them. Do you think this is right or is the idea of 'god' simply a force outwith our comprehension?

Well the bible says humankind was created in God's image, but I'm not sure how literal that is. I think God could be a spirit beyond human comprehension

[the ikara cult]

the answer to all of the questions essentially boils down to "God"

[Derek]

Well the bible says humankind was created in God's image

This could also mean we were created in God's image spiritually.

[Jeremy]

Originally Posted by SpectralJulianIsNotDead

1. What is your stance on vestigial organs? Many scientists claim that through evolution some organs have lost their purpose but a lot of fundamentalists would say these organs still have uses and thus are not vestigial (such as someone without tonsils is 4 times more likely to contract disease even though doctors deem it perfectly safe to remove them).

I believe in evolution, but I think a lot of things deemed vestigial can often not be quite as vestigial as we think. There's still a lot we don't understand about biology

2. Through quantum physics, there's been massive support that particles can form out of nothing, somewhat showing that the universe could be uncaused. What do you think about this?

But where did those quantum physics come from?

3. Do you believe that a higher entity indeed created us entirely or rather that an entity planted the seeds for our growth and we simply evolved over time? Or is it that your religion is simply a spiritual quest and does not conform to the views of a Christian God?

I think of God as someone who set things in motion but will also do things manually from time to time

4. God is often depicted in a human form, explained by people's needs to make God relatable to them. Do you think this is right or is the idea of 'god' simply a force outwith our comprehension?

Well the bible says humankind was created in God's image, but I'm not sure how literal that is. I think God could be a spirit beyond human comprehension

Pretty much my views with only slightly different wording I'd say. I will add that I believe God allowed us to grow over the x amount of years the world has been created but would step in quite a bit early on in earliest time to kind of guide the people. Today I think He keeps a watchful eye over everything but never "steps in". Trying to avoid the inevitable argument, people say "How can God watch and not do anything when there is so much war in this world?" and so forth. God gave us life and let us create, for example, "war", to step in now I think... I don't really know how to word it. I guess I can compare it to raising a dog for ten years and then deciding one day you don't really like the dog and then deciding to throw it away and start over with a new dog even though you've allowed the dog to get comfortable over that time.

Practically the same exact answers I would have given though.

~Jeremy~

[SpaceCadetHayden]

God is love. God is life.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by Glice

Which possible makes me apophatic, which is science's least liked position.

Maybe to positivist science but apophatic theology seems Popperian to me.

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by SpaceCadetHayden

God is love. God is life.

we know, its just not that much of a revelation

[SpaceCadetHayden]

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

we know, its just not that much of a revelation

the ikara cult is cuntpaste.

[pbradley]

Therefore, love is life? Or is life love?

[knox]

many gods are evil and enjoy hatred more
other gods are nice and have a moment of revelation
mostly god is male and old
which makes it not fun to begin with

[SpaceCadetHayden]

Originally Posted by pbradley

Therefore, love is life? Or is life love?

If either statement is true, they are both true.

[pbradley]

If one is not the subset of the other, then your statement is a tautology. This also applies with the two statements made about God. As such, it's simply an assertion of a single identity.

[EVOLghost]

Originally Posted by Derek

[/b]This could also mean we were created in God's image spiritually.

No, I don't think this is true. I don't believe 'God' to have an image. In fact I don't think God is conscience. And I also don't believe that God specifically created us. more just like jizzed in outter space and got lucky.

[knox]

Originally Posted by EVOLghost

No, I don't think this is true. I don't believe 'God' to have an image. In fact I don't think God is conscience. And I also don't believe that God specifically created us. more just like jizzed in outter space and got lucky.

lol
or not.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by EVOLghost

No, I don't think this is true. I don't believe 'God' to have an image. In fact I don't think God is conscience. And I also don't believe that God specifically created us. more just like jizzed in outter space and got lucky.

I wrote down this quote from the Žižek film last night which is sort of like your point:

Originally Posted by Žižek

There is nothing, basically. I mean it quite literally. Ultimately... ultimately there are just some fragments, some vanishing things. If you look at the universe it's one big void. But then how do things emerge? Here I feel a kind of spotaneous affinity, a little bit, with quantum physics. Where, you know, the idea there is that the universe is a void but a kind of positively charged void. Then things appear when the balance of the void is disturbed. And I like this idea... spotaneously... very much.. the fact that it's not just nothing. Things are out there. It means something went terribly wrong. That what we call creation is a kind of a cosmic imbalance, cosmic catastrophe, that things exist by mistake. And I'm even ready to go to the end, to claim that the only way to counter-act it is to assume the mistake and go to the end. And we have a name for this, it's called love.