Social Chat: Does God Exist?

Originally Posted by huyogi

Nothing amusing, people are arguing here on the basis of a first probable cause when Heisenberg's theory has provem that it is not possible to exactly measure natural phenomenon so as to trace it back to it's first cause. The link above postulates much more convincingly that the argument for a central order is a philosophical one necessitated by the dogmatism of positivism, and if one believed in it for the sake of argument, i.e. a soul/God/central order of things, one could very well go about seeking the light through reason and science and logic, and would still be unencumbered by the fanaticism, for eg. of the evolutionists who come up with as absurd explanations for the existence of the platypus, as the theists for the existence of God in terms of science.

well actually, heisenberg's principle completely breaks down at "the first probable cause" moment, just as it does inside blackholes.

Originally Posted by SyGeek

^If only I could understand any of it..Either you are pouring out the words from complexity of your mind exactly right making it hard for me to interpret it just because I'm not you or well..your vocabulary is HUGE!

Might have missed it, please re-quote it. You see, the next day I wake up, I see tonnes of new posts (and pages). I can't keep track on all of them just to see the ones referring to me.

You had quoted about why pork is bad for human health and why its banned. To that my question was " then how come so many people are eating pork on a daily basis throughout the world and they are healthy"

What i mean is that in view of the uncertainty in measuring and predicting natural phenomenon, the Big Bang Theorists and the evolutionists look as silly with their absolute insistence on black holes and primal matter, and their dinosaur fossils, the reasons for their extinction ranging from giant meteorites to ice ages, their missing links and their explanations, as do the theists with their usurping and incorporating all of that into their God theory.

well, there are holes is all these theories, and absurd, yes much more than theology at times, but it seems these come but big bangers and evolutionists have evidence and good reason.

---------- Post added at 02:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:53 AM ----------

been watching/listening to Hitchhiker's Guide lately??

Originally Posted by huyogi

What i mean is that in view of the uncertainty in measuring and predicting natural phenomenon, the Big Bang Theorists and the evolutionists look as silly with their absolute insistence on black holes and primal matter, and their dinosaur fossils, the reasons for their extinction ranging from giant meteorites to ice ages, their missing links and their explanations, as do the theists with their usurping and incorporating all of that into their God theory.

Protest detected. To be honest, you are posting it in the wrong section.

Apparently there is no section for wisdom in this forum so yeah, you know what I mean.

But, your opinion pretty much generalizes different views and opinion that people pursue, bother to share why you feel it's justified?

Of course I am not talking about militant theists or dogmatists.

In short it is incumbent upon humanity to reach as far as it can into the mystery of creation using reason and perception and measurement of phenomenon, and inductive and deductive logic, but not to embrace the methods and conclusions as infallible, not to bring a religiosity in their belief in them, so also should the theists not try to rationalize their faith on these. Let their faith be born out of a heightened awareness of themselves and all things around them, let their fear of God be born out of a literal trembling of the knees when on the verge of going astray, how will these incorporations of science and logic reinforce or establish your faith in any way, if it is indeed faith that you are talking about.

Originally Posted by huyogi

In short it is incumbent upon humanity to reach as far as it can into the mystery of creation using reason and perception and measurement of phenomenon, and inductive and deductive logic, but not to embrace the methods and conclusions as infallible, not to bring a religiosity in their belief in them, so also should the theists not try to rationalize their faith on these. Let their faith be born out of a heightened awareness of themselves and all things around them, let their fear of God be born out of a literal trembling of the knees when on the verge of going astray, how will these incorporations of science and logic reinforce or establish your faith in any way, if it is indeed faith that you are talking about.

Exactly.

so is there a god or not?