How important is the question of God to you.

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by TheBigPayback, Dec 15, 2012.

?

how important to you is it?

  1. Very Important/ of Utmost importace

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Important

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Important but Not Essential

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. completely Unimportant/ Not very important

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,618
    in a nutshell?

    hindus believe in dieties, buddhists do not

    also buddhism is a philosophy, hinduism is a religion.
    test
  2. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    ahhh Todah, did not know that. . .

    So does the Buddhist philosophy allow the belief in deities?
    @Sir Bustalot
    test
  3. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    not true. there's nothing inevitable about this model that you've set up. step 1 could happen without the rest of the steps, or step 5 can happen without step 1 being true. you can't say "we have stars, therefore they must have formed in this specific way." this just demonstrates sloppy reasoning on your part.
    test
  4. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    I am not saying how they formed...only stating that if Geeddorah accepts the modern theory of the Big Bang she must also except by that process, by which ever thoery, it would have to account for the elements, planets and stars because they are after all here.

    Unless of course you have a new theory that the Big Bang immediately exploded these out in current form as we see them today.

    Models only exit in textbooks, computer simulations and in the imagination.
    test
  5. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    so then all you're saying with that step is "stars were formed somehow?" and all you're saying with every other step is "xyz happened somehow?" if that's what you're saying, then that isn't even a theory. a theory is supposed to explain how something works. it seems like you're suggesting that any theory which explains the formation of any part of our universe, without a god specifically creating it, falls under the banner of 'evolution.' that 'definition' of evolution renders the term scientifically meaningless.
    test
  6. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    Not what I am getting at. Go back and understand the context of me and Geedorah's conversation. Context is big here.

    //

    But when I speak of Evolution I speak of the stages that must of happened if life did evolve from rock.

    1. Cosmic
    2. Chemical
    3. Stellar
    4 Organic


    All these are a given if you believe life evolved from a primordial soup. Do you agree ? Certainly this is the mainstream theory.

    Hope that clears things up.
    test
  7. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,618
    sure does. You can be a buddhist and a christian or athesit even, because its just a philosophy, you dont pray or worship a diety. Buddha was just a man who reached enlightenment and talks about how he did it. He never says you must do what he did. You could easily pick and choose things you like from buddhisms philosophy such as the vast importance of compassion and non-injury to living things. I suppose youre not a true buddhist unless you actually study and know the rituals and whatnot, but nowhere in buddhism does it say IT IS the way, It says you must find your own way, However long that takes, which is where reincarnation comes in... anyways yes to answer in short lol

    EDIT: it does assume that if buddha did it his way so can we

    http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html
    test
  8. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    well assuming by each of these steps you're referring to a specific theory on how these things form, then no. understanding how the stars, galaxies, and universe were formed is not strictly necessary to understanding how organic compounds can lead to primitive life. thus they aren't a 'given' in dealing with that question; our understanding of star formation could be fundamentally changed without this having any necessary effect on the processes by which early life could have arisen.

    what is true is that stars, galaxies, the universe etc had to have formed somehow in order for live to arise. but this doesn't make the different theories that deal with the different stages of this process interdependent on each other. so grouping them all under one collective banner as different 'steps' of the same theory is misguided at best.
    test
  9. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    Well assuming life did originate in the primordial water, can we assume then that planets had to evolve already, that elements and chemicals too had to evolve first ? The sun was not shining above as the rocks came to life Yes or no ?

    How can you get life without these three at least ?

    It is major and essential to understanding of the full evolution theory.


    The official and state endorsed theories today all say yes.
    test
  10. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    did you read my entire post? the planets, stars, etc had to exist, yes. that doesn't mean that a theory explaining the origins of life on those planets first requires an understanding of how the planets and stars formed. causally they're related, but the different theories arise from different disciplines, and thus a theory about how life formed can still be true even if you don't know how the stars formed (just an example).
    test
  11. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    I agree and yes I did read your entire post. But what I am really stressing here that in order for life to come alive in the soup, these chemicals, planets and elements etc etc all had to of happened. You agree. Cool.

    I got what you are saying too. Great.


    To understand the theory you will know that it is no casual relationship...all these stages of evolution are inseparable.

    Got it. I understand this. Nobody has the complete answer because the other guy has it. This guy said this, quoting this guy, quoting another guy. I hope I'm qualified to say this....

    It's a shell game.

    But I do think we understand each other well enough here.
    test
  12. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    what i'm saying is that you are arbitrarily labeling each step in this cosmic process as part of the theory of evolution. this makes no more sense than labeling this entire process part of the theory of radiation since in order to understand radiation we need to understand chemicals, which requires for those chemicals to exist, which (according to mainstream science) requires stars, which requires the big bang.





    ...which would imply an inescapable causal relationship between the steps. was this a typo or something?
    test
  13. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    I am only referring to the mainstream teachings as taught in universities, on TV and held by the so called "experts"...

    And all I am saying is that the 4 stages (see above) had to of happened.

    And you say this is arbitrarily ?

    Chemicals did not evolve ?

    Elements did not evolve ?

    Planets, Stars did not evolve ?

    The evolution theory accounts for all this. This may sound new to you..but a student of the theory knows this is not arbitrary. It is avoided and overlooked however.

    It's not important the theory makes sense or has evidence. What matters is to get students to believe this nonsense.

    Certainly they must have evolved independent or they were blown in tact already in existence out of the "big bang" of which was, according to the theory, hydrogen, some helium. Assuming all the elements formed from Hydrogen, some Helium. Atoms of Hydrogen in the proto sun were fused to make Helium. This can happen. Though it is stupid to think that can form all the elements. Hydrogen fuses to Helium. But, you cannot fuse past Iron though. How did we get all the elements ? Evolutionist assume for example, say that we got Uranium from Hydrogen.
    test
  14. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    ...if you're just going to refuse to address my points then we're done here.
    test
  15. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    I think anyone reading this thread will see that I've addressed all your points.
    test
  16. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,469
    I think you made a display of addressing his point, but failed to actually respond to it - instead you ignored what he said and just repeated a previous point you were trying to make which he did respond to.
    test
  17. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    your last post had nothing to do with my assertion that enveloping all of these scientific theories under evolution is arbitrary. you did mention that i used that word, but you didn't at all address my argument. instead you went back to repeating the mantra that chemical, planets, stars etc had to exist for life to arise.
    test
  18. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    Reggie Jax up 1 to 0
    test
  19. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    Reggie what is evolution ? I think we are getting tangled here.

    To me it's the total process that must of happened for life to spring from the rock. Which includes all the stages. I made the point that 'they' are inseparable and not arbitrary.


    Evolution is more than Macro evolution of organisms. It is complex and to simplify it and avoid the totality of it and claim all the parts arbitrary is incorrect. In fact does not the theory still say the universe is evolving.

    If feel your textbook understandings limit you to the real problems of evolution. It has been reduced to simplicity so potent that men like you may read it as an antidote from the paradigm of 'knowing' what you never once studied
    test
  20. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    coup, the textbook definition is limiting for a good reason. all scientific processes are dependent on the existence of our universe, and many of them are dependent on the existence of planets, stars, etc. so it's arbitrary to say that to have a theory on one thing, you must first have a theory for everything that causally preceded it, as i argued with my radiation example. i used the word 'arbitrary' cause you happen to be going up against evolution so you labelled it the cosmic steps of evolution. you could literally replace evolution with any number of scientific ideas and the model would look largely the same.

    while you say my textbook definition is limited, science is a splintered discipline, and it's this specialization, the ability to focus on one specific area without worrying about the rest of it that has allowed scientists to give us the understanding we currently have. it's also the reason we're sitting at computers sending signals back and forth at the speed of light rather than toiling in a field or chasing down a buffalo.

    i think the problem is that you're used to getting the be-all end-all answer to everything: i.e. the bible. but that's not what a scientific theory promises you.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)