Religious Discussion Thread

[Wolfmother]

Like where for example? We have a sample size of planets visited of.... 3. And one of those we visited for grand total of about 40 mins.

If you are using the theory of probability to explain the existence of earth then it's expected that there is another earth somewhere because probability is a science where there must be at least 2 outcomes. So far there is only one earth so the whole theory flawed

 

[Wolfmother]

What????? Wolfy you’re back… Oh my gosh..I’m converted.. there is a God!!!!!! How are you? It’s been too long!!!!

It's actually so nice to see you're still active on the forum . I'm just visiting ..I'm like a bad relative not keeping in touch

 

[Mr 95%]

It's actually so nice to see you're still active on the forum . I'm just visiting ..I'm like a bad relative not keeping in touch

Im so glad that you are ok!! I was worried.. Is the family going good?

 

[Wolfmother]

Im so glad that you are ok!! I was worried.. Is the family going good?

Lol you sound just me!! I get those thoughts too .Yes I'm good ,and my other family are good too lol. I just got disheartened by the doggies it was just too painful to watch .
I hope you're well too

 

[Mr 95%]

Lol you sound just me!! I get those thoughts too .Yes I'm good ,and my other family are good too lol. I just got disheartened by the doggies it was just too painful to watch .
I hope you're well too

Excellent news. We need you here more to give as all the boost why things are down!

Im groovy.

 

[Wolfmother]

Excellent news. We need you here more to give as all the boost why things are down!

Im groovy.

Lately I've been having conversations with my youngest about religion . He's just starting to read up about all the abrahamic religions just because lol and seeing the religious thread sparked my interest .

 

[Mr 95%]

Lately I've been having conversations with my youngest about religion . He's just starting to read up about all the abrahamic religions just because lol and seeing the religious thread sparked my interest .

Yet none of my PMs sparked your interest?

Lol! Only joking.. oh that’s good he’s taking an interest!

 

[Doogie]

If you are using the theory of probability to explain the existence of earth then it's expected that there is another earth somewhere because probability is a science where there must be at least 2 outcomes. So far there is only one earth so the whole theory flawed

Keh? Well on that note, of course there are 2 outcomes. But lets not get distracted.

You said we hadn't seen the series of chemical reactions. So where else based on evolution would you have seen them? Either in another comparable time step of a couple of billion years (are you that old?). The other option is another planet, of which we have been able to assess one, maybe two of the millions identified. I assumed you would be taking the 2nd option.

Now if we want to go strictly science from a deterministic perspective, the presence of God must be tested against the null hypotheses which is that you cannot prove that God does not exist. We have a range of evidence based on an understanding of triggers, chemical building blocks and functional pathways to show that the key evidence for God (life) is based on a scientific process.

Conversely, the argument of Science must show that science was wrong. Science is always wrong to a degree, but the supporting evidence is based on a belief which differs. I believe there are something like 4000 religions around the world of which something like 2500 directly argue the presence of God.

So we have one process path where some of the details differ from scientist to scientist but the fundamental process is agreed to vs a whole range of different beliefs. Parsimony infers that the most likely answer is the most likely answer.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

With all due respect to the theory of evolution it falls short when you consider that there would be the same chemical reactions occurring over the same period yet no evidence of any other life cycle.

Good to see you back, Wolfie

 

[Bob dog]

I think he is real, the devil is using the gutless prank to tear society apart and he wanted me to see the light and help but I'm not into it but shun evil anyway despite the prejudices and no perspective.

 

[The_Chimpster]

I think he is real, the devil is using the gutless prank to tear society apart and he wanted me to see the light and help but I'm not into it but shun evil anyway despite the prejudices and no perspective.

 

[Kelpie03]

Personally I just take a stance that pure evil exists, but I blame humans for it.

Not that I take everything written in the O T or NT as Gospel, but in Genesis it says that Adam @ Eve disobeyed the almighty and thrown out, and they had to fend for themselves from then on, Hence they had to become ruthless perhaps some what evile to survive. BTW I can believe in God without believing that what happened in the Garden of Eden is true.
In todays world most people dont have to be ruthless to survive, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree why some have to hate just for the sake of it.

 

[Kelpie03]

Be it Satan or internal moral compass, we both agree that evil is people's inability to control themselves. Sometimes it's out of their control unfortunately.

It happens often and in so many ways, You start with a thought, keep following it and eventually the evil thought will leed the person to live out the fantasy.
Thats why in my Church before each Mass we have to remind ourselves of our sins in this order, Thought , Word and Deed.
Now some one will remind me of the sins of the Paedo Priests I guess,

 

[Kelpie03]

Anyways - from your definition of life - any robot with AI that is tasked with creating other robots with AI constitutes life. So does that make the dude who created the first robot a God? This is where some religious people try to argue that evolution vs creation kicks in, just at differing scales of complexity. Nice concept.

But to get back to original question about how can such complexity be created. Let me give this 2 you in simple probability theory.

So you got a coin and flip it. What are the possible outcomes? Heads (1 in 2) or tails (1 in 2). Well there are actually 3 outcomes - the coin lands on its side. That I believe is something like a 1 in 6000 chance. So we start with some random chemicals. 1000's of interactions per second. Eventually two chemicals join and form a solid compound and that is repeated. The old edge of the coin.

Eventually those compounds join with other compounds to form some kind of primitive protein. Eventually proteins interact with other compounds to form some primitive cellular structure. And we can keep going like this over some ridiculous number of chemical interactions, over billions of years, some stable and preferred, some failing. If u want to know what happens next, I refer u to the Bare Naked Ladies song from big bang theory.

Now with the right information and processing power, you could map out this probability all the way to the current day. But we don't have either. The numbers are too ridiculously large. Evolution at the end of the day is pure probability theory.

Now religion is probability theory too. What is the probability of there being a God? No idea. You and others obviously believe, without having the right information and processing power, that the probability is very very high. That is your belief. I and others don't believe there is a god. That is my belief.

You cannot prove I am wrong and I cannot prove that you are wrong - so this is all about changing someones perception of the evidence. You perceive your evidence as being stronger than mine, fair enough. But this constant you should read this or see that or I should make an argument to prove it to you is disrespecting my belief. Now in light of the new TK order, should we not respect each others beliefs? Reprinting factually incorrect that is 100% scientifically provable to justify your perception is disrespecting my beliefs.

If you want to know what science perceptions are that influence our beliefs - ask. Don't quote some random preacher who is wrong. And I'll give you the same respect by not quoting some random scientist who has a theorem that shows God doesn't exist. Think thats fair enough.

I did'nt think that if a robot can make another robot it would be regarded as a living being. As for 2 coins and the game of two up I cant see how it has much to do with creating life.
Your theories regarding compounds protiens and chemicals reations, are a bit over my pay grade, and have done little to convince that life can be created in a lab. My take is that if life just evolved from compounds protiens as result of chemical reactions and was not as a result of an act of God, science will eventuall (hopefully soon) be able to creat a new and better form of life.
If it did happen I hope it is by a Bulldog supporter. He would then make us a few powerfull FR forwards a supper HB, and our club might win a comp before I go to the other side ( its my dream these days), and I hope it will happen very soon, I'll turn 80 on March 25th.

 

[Doogie]

I did'nt think that if a robot can make another robot it would be regarded as a living being. As for 2 coins and the game of two up I cant see how it has much to do with creating life.
Your theories regarding compounds protiens and chemicals reations, are a bit over my pay grade, and have done little to convince that life can be created in a lab. My take is that if life just evolved from compounds protiens as result of chemical reactions and was not as a result of an act of God, science will eventuall (hopefully soon) be able to creat a new and better form of life.
If it did happen I hope it is by a Bulldog supporter. He would then make us a few powerfull FR forwards a supper HB, and our club might win a comp before I go to the other side ( its my dream these days), and I hope it will happen very soon, I'll turn 80 on March 25th.

DNA is a chemical structure that creates the framework to make proteins repetitively and without this, higher life forms do not exist. Shame you couldn't follow me on this, that's on me, could have done a better job explaining it.

Saw an excellent interview with a scientist about God recently. He made a very good point, scientists only quote what they observe. How evolution works as been observed from Darwin through to the good ole fruit fly experiment. A good scientist shouldn't disregard the presence of God (from an academic perspective) because it is something they cannot prove. What we can prove is what we say is a thing. There is no faith in science.

So when a scientist explains how evolution works, they are doing it from 100's of years of built upon knowledge. When a priest wants to talk about DNA, the basis of that commentary is to disprove the science. As far as I know, DNA isn't in the bible.

Think its good context really. Should really consider not trying to use science to disprove science. Not that I'm offended but if I say, used the bible to disprove God, I'm sure it would not be appreciated.

 

[The DoggFather]

What's happening with the jew tunnels? All covered up now?

 

[Kelpie03]

DNA is a chemical structure that creates the framework to make proteins repetitively and without this, higher life forms do not exist. Shame you couldn't follow me on this, that's on me, could have done a better job explaining it.

Saw an excellent interview with a scientist about God recently. He made a very good point, scientists only quote what they observe. How evolution works as been observed from Darwin through to the good ole fruit fly experiment. A good scientist shouldn't disregard the presence of God (from an academic perspective) because it is something they cannot prove. What we can prove is what we say is a thing. There is no faith in science.

So when a scientist explains how evolution works, they are doing it from 100's of years of built upon knowledge. When a priest wants to talk about DNA, the basis of that commentary is to disprove the science. As far as I know, DNA isn't in the bible.

Think its good context really. Should really consider not trying to use science to disprove science. Not that I'm offended but if I say, used the bible to disprove God, I'm sure it would not be appreciated.

I dont even remember even hearing about DNA during my studies so congratulations. What I know about DNA is limited to only what has been published by the media, and I've most probably missed most of the reports.

Research is what scientists do, and generally they have done well in improving the life of humans. Religion is more like law, I spoke to a law student some time ago he said that some laws were written centuries ago and it is recomended that students read the law books written from the begining. Thats why some of us take what was written about what Jesus said seriously, even though it was a long tine ago.

I don't remember any Priests trying to disprove science, and if they did they would be wrong, because science is discovering truth. BTW my church tells us that God is truth and we should always live the truth.

As far as science disproving science, I can only add some discoveries have been found to be modified and probably incorrect by latter scientists. Like I've said some of what is written in both OT @ NT as insignificent incidents which has and still happens in this world which is dominatd by egos.
Religion founded by JC, is about living a life which, gives glory to God, and treats all mandkind with respect. "The greatest and first coommandment". Their is nothing in the NT which says don't research into cancer eg.

I believe that the Christians values and morals taught by JC will be good for mankind in eternity, and they will have nothing to do with scietific discoveries.

 

[Doogie]

I dont even remember even hearing about DNA during my studies so congratulations. What I know about DNA is limited to only what has been published by the media, and I've most probably missed most of the reports.

Research is what scientists do, and generally they have done well in improving the life of humans. Religion is more like law, I spoke to a law student some time ago he said that some laws were written centuries ago and it is recomended that students read the law books written from the begining. Thats why some of us take what was written about what Jesus said seriously, even though it was a long tine ago.

I don't remember any Priests trying to disprove science, and if they did they would be wrong, because science is discovering truth. BTW my church tells us that God is truth and we should always live the truth.

As far as science disproving science, I can only add some discoveries have been found to be modified and probably incorrect by latter scientists. Like I've said some of what is written in both OT @ NT as insignificent incidents which has and still happens in this world which is dominatd by egos.
Religion founded by JC, is about living a life which, gives glory to God, and treats all mandkind with respect. "The greatest and first coommandment". Their is nothing in the NT which says don't research into cancer eg.

I believe that the Christians values and morals taught by JC will be good for mankind in eternity, and they will have nothing to do with scietific discoveries.

U quoted something you'd heard from a pastor commenting on DNA being evidence for god. And here is where we are at.

On a side note - very curious what anyone who is religious thinks of this. This was posted on Trumps truth channel.

 

[Memberberries]

What's happening with the jew tunnels? All covered up now?

remember under the old administration you could get banned for posting jew?
I think it was even made a *** word?
I better not give them any ideas?
do not want to risk setting this board back 20 years.
Only way I’ll risk it is if that means the password glitch coming back!

 

[The DoggFather]

remember under the old administration you could get banned for posting jew?
I think it was even made a *** word?
I better not give them any ideas?
do not want to risk setting this board back 20 years.
Only way I’ll risk it is if that means the password glitch coming back!

Yep, the good old days where we were at war with the "jewsters" lol