Zealot

If there were to be a law instituted which required that I and every other individual in the country (or more likely world!) recieve a chip which could potentially inhibit the intrinsic freedoms protected by the Constitution, (of the USA, specifically the Bill of Rights) I would regard that as ultima-facie proof that the government is no longer of the people, for the people, and by the people. And I would leave the country and go somewhere where that is not required. If no such place existed, then I would reject the system and absolutely refuse, to the point of death. Part of that is that I believe that only the Enemy would wish to have that kind of knowledge; God already has it without the need of technology. However, I am not going to go into the religious aspect of my conviction, prefering to focus on the political aspect at the moment. One of the things to remember is that more often then not, wherever there is potential for abuse it is only a matter of time before abuse itself comes about. People are just that way. Giving the government that kind of information is creating potential for abuse on a magnetude that has never been known before. That opens the door for abuse on a magnetude that has never been know before. Know how Rome treated her territories? Not well. Know how people could be treated under this? Even worse. If you want to disagree, feel free. You have a lot more faith in humankind then I do. I look at the USSR, China, Nazi Germany, Most of sub-Saharan Africa, North Koria, the Middle East, The United States, Europe, and so on, and it seems that everywhere I look I see the same thing. However the system allows abuse, and often in ways that it does not allow abuse, abuse happens. Generally abuse happens to exactly the extent to which it is possible if given enough time, and therefore I am of the belief that whenever it is possible to limit the extent to which abuse is possible it is the duty of good men and women to do so.

Meh... I ask, but it doesn't really matter to me that much usually. I have confidence that HIS plan is best. Besides, if I'm in trouble because I didn't study, why should I expect HIM to bail me out? If I'm in trouble for no particular reason, I'm a little more prone to ask for help. Don't get me wrong, I talk with HIM all the time... But HE's my friend, not my genie in a bottle, there to grant my every desire. On another note, I guess that I do pray rather regularly for others when I am aware of a need... I just don't believe that God should be my good luck charm. If HE wants to give me good things now, I'll accept them gladly. If HE wants to give me hardship and beat me with a hammer, I'm HIS, and I know that even though it hurts, HE is forming me into a tool that will be of great use to HIM. That's enough for me to know. HIS choice, not mine.

I haven't really cheated death, as you put it. However, my fiance' has once. She was over at my house about five months ago, and we had just finnished watching a movie but she was nervious about going home. The roads were very icy and slick. She said that she just got the feeling that if she left right then that she would be going home for good (as in going to heaven). So she called her parents and told them that she wasn't going to leave for a while yet. About ten minutes later the sensation subsided but she was a bit nervious about driving because she was tired. So we decided that the best course of action was that I would call her cell phone (she has a hands free head set) and keep her company. About five minutes after she left I heard her say, "Oh my God, (insert my name here), there's been a horrible accident. It looks like a car has been sandwiched between a semi and a smaller truck." The police and ambulences were just arriving as she passed it, and response time for that part of town is about three minutes. It was in the news paper, and the person in the car was pronounced dead on the scene. In honesty it would have been far, far worse for me then anything else that could possibly happen, losing her. I would be... devistated.

It should be obvious to everybody that one day you are going to die. After all, currently the mortality rate is sitting right at 100%... same place it's been for thousands of millenia. Anyway I am wondering, how do you want to be remembered when you are no longer here? How do you want to make the world a better place? And of equil importance, what steps are you taking to accomplish that? I hope to be remembered for having a passion for the Truth, and an even greater love for as many people as I can possibly touch. I have always believed that the truth need not fear investigation. Only lies and desception need fear it. And so, at the moment, I urge people, don't be content to only know your side of the argument well. Know as much as you possibly can about any controversy that matters to you--all sides of it. Mostly I do this in the arenas of this particular forum (though I fell out for a while because I got too busy with everything else), my church, and my circle of real world friends. It isn't exactly possible for me to genuinely love the people of a forum however. I can encourage and empathise... Pray and hope... Be honest and compassionate... But there is very little actually that I can do beyond that. So instead I have a vocation in which I am able to do so. I am a cook at an assisted living facility, and as time allows I am involved in hospitality sorts of programs through my church. More importantly, at least to me, I am engagued to be married next June, and hope to be a good husband, and about 12 years down the road (after my future wife and I both hold PHD's and teaching possitions at a university) I hope to be a good father and professor. I hope to live well below my means, giving about 1/3 of my income directly to charity throughout my life and saving 1/3 for the future. I don't ever want to pay a penny to a bank if I can help it. When I die, and when my wife dies, most of that money will be placed in a trust fund to support programs intended to improve the quality of life for some of the poorest people on earth. I don't really care if I am known for this. Mostly I just want to make the world better. If people see, ok. If not, well that's ok too. My audience is my King and God. What actually is going to happen, I do not know. This is what I hope will happen, and God willing, this is what will happen... or even greater things. So... How do you want to change the world?

I don't want to speculate... I look forward to it's release because I think that it will probably be an excellent read. I hope that Ron and Hermione both make it out though... I know that either Harry or Voldemort will have to die. The prophecy in the department of mysteries says as much... But beyond that I don't know. I do know however that it will be a great read and I look forward to it. :-)

Funny, because I find myself a lot of times thinking exactly the opposite. The more I know the more I recognize that I don't know. Though I suppose that I can agree that the more I know the more I know myself and what it is that I belong doing in the world... What that means at the moment is that I am realizing that something else that Aristotle wrote that I first adamently disagreed with appears to in fact reflect reality. In the first book of Metaphysics, he wrote that "All human beings by nature desire to know." From there he unpacked what he meant, that being that after all our needs and recreational desires are met, people tend to gravitate toward philosophical discourse. I didn't think that really fit reality at first, but as the idea has marinated in my brain it has become more apparent that it does at least in respect to me. At first, I was only a little interested in philosophy, mostly because I wanted to be able to talk circles around people and that seemed to be a good means to accomplish it. Over time, as I have developed a craft (that being cooking) and gained a lot of recreational knowledge, I find myself thinking more on the matters of the nature of existance, knowledge, language, thought, and so on. The more I learn about these subjects and subsets thereof, the more I realize just how much I do not know. And not knowing breeds in me a desire to know. It's a vicious cycle of sorts. That said, I wouldn't give it up for the world. I long to know and understand... everything. I'll never get there, but one thing you can be assured of is that I'm going to die trying, and hopefully I will move a little farther in some direction then anybody else has yet gone, and that knowledge will be passed on and made use of by future generations.

Eh? The big three weren't the first. They just are the best known. ;-) There were a lot of pre-socratic philosophers. It just is the case that we don't possess anything but fragments of their work, and things which were credited to them. I have never heard of Umberto Eco. I might have to look into that, so thanks. :-) My favorite Semiotician is an American philosopher by the name of Charles Sanders Pirce. He was Aristotillian in his beliefs and very, very prolific of ideas. Among them, he invented the computer several decades before it was invented (though the person he gave the idea to did nothing with it, prefering to build a mechanical computer rather then an electrical one) He talked about how it is possible in logical language to get all the operators from only one. (another guy, again later, came up with the same thing independently) But my favorite thing about Peirce is his discourse on the human brain and attempting to define it semiotically. I'm rather enjoying this conversation. Thanks everybody who has posted so far. Unfortunately I have to go so hopefully I will catch up with you all this evening.

If I were to say that everybody who has sex outside of a completely committed relationship are doomed because of it, I would only be condemning myself. My firm belief is that all have sinned and are justified freely by Christ... so long as they allow it. It is the individual's choice whether they want HIM or not. Having said that, in spite of being guilty of it I still mantain that premarital sex is not right. It is not as good as waiting until you are in a completely committed relationship. I have seen how it can drive a wedge between people. (happilly my fiance' and I were able to move beyond that though) Tigra, just for the record birth control pills are 98% effective in the sence that for every 100 women who are using them and sexually active, on average 2 get pregnant in a given year. However, I still do agree that the risk there outweighs the benefites. If you are going to have sex outside of marriage, at least be as smart about it as possible.

I have to disagree but only slightly. I think that it is necessary that some things must just be true. A thing can not possess both a quality and it's logical negation. If you have only two choices, you can not pick a middle choice (ie. a coin, when flipped is only really heads or tails, it can not be both or neither. Also, a statement of truth can only be true or false, it can not be both or neither.) In preforming logic a person makes the basic assumption that doing so will lead to truth and understanding and it is based on this sort of principle, or knowledge that is gained by: 1: unpacking what precisely these principles mean in relation to the given case. 2: applying these principles to the observation of the world we live in.

Yeah. (sorry about the long post which doesn't really reflect all that you said. I was writing it while you were discussing and didn't see your response) I think that I would have to look at knowledge in a metaphysical manner. Ie. I would have to study it's being before I could get very far in metaphysics. Interestingly enough that would probably lead almost immediately to semiotics (the study of signs, where sign is defined as absolutely anything that suggests, reminds of, points to, etc. another thing.) Then again that is what really interests me most in the discipline of philosophy so I would want to go that way.

I would refuse. First off, those thousand people will have friends and family who will needlessly miss them and in that sence innocent people are harmed. Second, terrorist implies that the group wanting to possess my knowledge are not fighting for their freedom but rather are attempting to strip freedom of some other group. I will not be a part of that. Third, the value of even a single human life is worth, in my mind, far more then all the money in the world.

Obviously to some extent you have to understand both in order to really understand either. In Metaphysics, Aristotle wrote about "the firmest principle of all". that principle is that it is not possible for a thing to possess both a quality and it's logical negation at the same time and in the same way. If it is the case that this principle, which is a principle of metaphysics is not correct then knowledge as Descartes defines it can not be possessed because there is not any reason to assume that a thing known will continue to work in the same way as it has been observed to in the past. It is important to recognize that Aristotle didn't define knowledge in exactly the same way that Descartes did. Aristotle believed that there was one layer of knowing that was deeper. There are principles that are just... true. Among them was the principle of noncontradiction (which I mentioned earlier). I forget the other two at the moment. Maybe this evening if I have time I will talk more about that. But the point that he was trying to make is that we must have a basic understanding of the nature of the world and of existance. In a sence we know that this understanding is true without possessing knowledge about it. And it is only precisely because these principles are true that it is possible to know anything else. --Metaphysics IV, ch.3 14-15 I suppose that another way to look at it is that Aristotle recognized that he isn't the only smart guy ever to live and so he wanted to build on the work of others. If epistomology is the true first philosophy, the answers to it must be gained personally, because I must know that I can know in order to accept what others have said before me, so in that sence it is not possible to build on the knowledge of those who have gone before us. If I just make the assumption, (Aristotle would glare at me for calling it that) I can go from there and if it later looks to be a bad assumption (leads to a logical contradiction, does not reflect reality, etc.) I can go back and figure out what is wrong and change that. There's no sence throwing out everything because it isn't a perfect fit. To do so is, in my mind, a highly arrogant thing to do and equivilent with saying that one is smart enough to understand and know everything by oneself.

I kinda understand what you mean... Though I don't agree. Mostly, I think that the assumption that all marriages end in failure is a bad assumption to make. I know many married couples who are quite happy together and have been so for many, many years. Yes, when a marriage is on the rocks, that is a bad thing and in a real sense sex in such a relationship is a bad thing. But I believe that it is also the case that sex in anything but a completely committed relationship (which such a marriage is not any more) is a bad thing. I think that it tends to drive a wedge between people when they aren't completely committed to one another. 'Least that's my experience with it. By the way, I would highly suggest waiting until you are married if at all possible. Sex complicates everything once you start having it. If nothing else, it complicates things.

First I need to introduce the topic somewhat more clearly. In ancient Greek philosophy, first philosophy, or where you start in examining and seeking to understand the basic principles of existance, was metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of being, ie. asking questions such as what is the nature of the soul? Does the world exist and what is it's nature? Do I exist? Do you exist? What makes me different from you? What makes me different from a cat? Aristotle said that in order to know what a thing is you have to know four things about it. You have to know what it is made of (the material cause). You have to know where it came from (the efficient cause). You have to know what paterning or form the thing takes (the formal cause). And finally you have to know what the thing is for (the final cause). His four causes apply directly to the study of metaphysics, and were the basis for most knowledge and understanding up until the late middle ages. (well, once his works were returned to Europe by Islamic scholars anyway). Then along came Descartes, who believed that epistomology was the real first philosophy. Epistomology is the study of the nature of knowledge. Specific questions that it seeks to understand include Is it possible to know anything? Are there different types of knowledge? What is the deffinition of knowledge? With that in mind, the question that I want to ask is which do you believe is more basic, the study of existence, or the study of knowledge? Personally I tend to side with Aristotle. Don't get me wrong, Descartes was a brilliant man, and quite a bit of our understanding of the world comes from him. But I believe that I have to know what I am before I can address the question can I know anything. Specifically I have to know that I am a real thing before I can trust that anything I might think is beliefworthy.

I am a Christian. Furthermore I believe in the God of the Bible because I believe that is what makes the best sence of my experience... I could name dozens of times and ways in which either random chance has fooled me into believing that there is something more going on behind the scenes, or else there really is something more going on behind the scenes... The second possibility seems to be the more likely induction, so unless I see something that is catastrophic to my belief system to an even greater extent then what I have seen in favor of belief in God, I will always believe in and serve my King. It isn't that I'm close minded so much as brainwashed... just like everybody when it comes to their personal theological and political beliefs.

No. Death is the logical consequence of life. [ I find this utter bull droppings. Anyway. Wait till your hormones begin racing through your body. The the virginity story all of a sudden becomes A LOT harder (no pun intended). If you should marry before having sex, well that only leads to more divorces. And NOT all sins are equal. There might even be a bible/koran/religous book reference of that, but I don't know any of them by heart. You need to lossen up a bit. If you want. I won't judge you for it if you don't. But it's just a LOT easier! Why is death the logical consiquence of life? Is it just because you have never observed a case where life did not end in death? If so, then your evidence isn't necessarilly good depending on the nature of existance and the true nature of reality. Just because science has no way of looking beyond the nature that we inhabit does not necessarilly mean that what is beyond it doesn't matter. A lot of the rest of what you say is quite accurate. For instance, yes, when hormones begin to flow remaining faithful will become much, much more difficult. I am engagued to be married next June. I am going to be 23 in a few days. I did not lose my virginity until about 9 months ago. I wish that I had the strength of character to wait until my wedding night, but the truth of the matter is that the flesh is far more powerful then evangelical Christians like to admit. Paul was very much correct when he said to flee from sexual temptation. So long as I did that I was ok, but the moment that I thought that I was strong enough (I've been engagued for almost 3 years now so I thought I was justified in that belief) I fell flat on my face. Also, I would like to clarify that what Christians mean by eternal life is not what you are thinking by eternal life. For a Christian, life is entailed by having a relationship with one's Creator. Death is entailed by not having a relationship with the Source of Life. What you probably think about by eternal life is existing and being self-aware in some sense forever. I hate to say it but if any religion in the world other then Atheism or Satanism is true (some sects of Buddhism too I suppose) then that is a given. The only question to be answered is how are you going to spend forever? If it is the case that the God of the Bible is the God who is real then it is also the case that all you need to do to spend forever with HIM is accept HIS gift of forgiveness. If it is not the case that the God of the Bible is the God who is real, then... well, everybody else has some form of escape clause so I'm not too worried. And it won't matter to me if I just stop existing so whatever... Actually that is too cynical. I believe the Bible because it makes the best sense. I can from that possition be pragmatic about what if I am wrong, but I want it to be clear that I don't believe because it is a good way to hedge my bets. I would also like to clarify the possition of the majority of Christian theologans regarding the hierarchy of sin. There are some sins that are in a sense worse then other sins. These are the ones which cast God in a bad light. For example, since I am a Christian, and believed to be a relatively mature Christian, the fact that I did not have the strength of character to wait to have a sexual relationship until I was married, that would be viewed by a theologan as a worse sin then if somebody who does not believe in the God of the Bible were to do the same thing. A crusaider who spreads death in the name of the God of life is guilty of a greater sin then a Muslim suicide bomber who does not follow the God of life. However, the Muslim is guilty of a greater sin then one who rejects God entirely and acts violently such as the VT shooter. I don't know that I believe that to be the case entirely. Paul said that the wages of sin is death. He didn't isolate specific sins and say "these ones give you death but this one over here will only earn you a flogging." Regardless of the specifics, the general consiquence is the same. However, in some of the apocolyptic writings it is implied that there is a gradiation of punishment based on something about the nature of the acts committed by various people. So all I can say is meh. At least I know that the One to whom I belong is faithful and promised to rescue me. So I don't have to fully understand how God deals with sin. Anyway, back to the case at hand. I think that it is good to have a clear set of moral principles to live by. And I think that every rational human being on the planet will agree with me from a purely pragmatic point of view. If I don't want somebody to kill me for no reason then I shouldn't kill somebody else for no reason. The only real question is where do you draw the line and on what grounds to you draw the line there? I draw the line where I do because I believe that is as close as possible to a "perfect" moral code. (by that I mean one which can not be improved upon) Aristotle said that for every virtue there are to vices. There is the vice of inadaquecy which would be cowardice to the virtue of courage. There is also the vice of surplus which is in this case foolhardiness. The way that Aristotle would want to draw the line is based on the outcome. The end which courage seeks to achieve is acting well in a dangerous situation. If one is too brave and gets killed because of it (ie. running into a collapsing building to save somebody) then they did not act well. On the other hand if the person knows that there is a good chance that they have a few minutes to help others to safety but they do not act because of fear then they did not act well. The end which a moral code seeks to achieve is creating a cohesive and just society. Obviously we do not have that and never have had that in the history of the world. However we have had hints at what it takes to achieve it. Go too far and instead of a society you have slavery and aristocracy. Don't go far enough and you end up with disorder and injustice. When I read Acts what I see is that to the extent that the moral code found in the Bible is implimented in a non-governmental way, the society affected is moved toward coherence and justice. Based on that I believe that were it possible to achieve a perfect application it would be possible to achieve the purpose of a moral code, making the moral code of the Bible a good moral code. Based on this, I believe that it is good to follow this moral code even when it is not what your friends are doing or what you want to do. And I am both tired and booring you so I am going to bed now.

I know that it's a little late to join the discussion, but may I put forth that perhaps the wrong question is being asked? Perhaps what needs asked is "what is God like?" The God of the Bible, who I call Lord, is both absolutely just and absolutely love. If not, then the Bible is wrong, and as a consiquence I, and everybody else who believes in HIM are "more accursed then all men" as Paul put it. So let's unpack what is meant by just and by love, shall we? A lot of people mistake justice for fairness. Fairness is a part of it, but justice is giving everybody exactly what their actions and choices warrant. No more, no less. In light of this, Paul says that "the wages of sin is death." If I sin, I die. No questions asked. "Well, I didn't know!" Doesn't matter, I'm still dead. So in light of this does God hate homosexuals? Kinda... Well, actually HE hates the choice to reject HIM that sin entails regardless of what form it takes. We'll come back to this but first let's look at love. Let's look at what John meant in his first epistle by "God is love." The Greek word for love used here is agape. What it entails is a commitment to the good of the beloved. This commitment is based not on anything that can be given in exchange for it like the natural loves, but rather this commitment is based solely on the fact that it is possible to make it. Crucify Jesus a thousand times and HE will still love you--so much that HE is willing to provide you with a place where you are safe from ever having to acknowledge that HE exists if that is what you really want. The same is true for absolutely every human being ever to exist or who will ever exist. So, what we have then if the God of the Bible is Lord is a diety who intends to give everybody exactly what they deserve, and who intends to fulfill HIS commitment to providing everybody with what is best for them. Now comes the tricky part. What if what I deserve isn't what is best for me? Those who sin will die. I have sinned. Therefor I will die. Dying is not what is best for me. God wants what is best for me. Therefor I will not die? So there is a bit of a dillama that God finds HIMSELF in. And this is how HE solves it.... HE comes down to earth, lives perfectly, makes a bunch of religious nuts grouchy so they hang HIM on a tree and kill HIM. Since HE was perfect, (ie. HE didn't sin) HE didn't deserve death. So God has a surplus death and is able to say, "you know what, I don't have to kill you now. That debt has been payed." :o :D So, God is able to give us perfect justice and perfect love. Only problem is that some people for whatever reason don't like HIM. Now, with this group of people having to spend forever and ever and ever as HIS loving subjects is obviously not what is best for them. So God has to provide them with a way to avoid that fate which is in a very real way far worse then death. Enter the dreaded "H" word. A lot of people believe that the primary purpose of hell is to punish sin. This is, I believe, an error. C.S. Lewis said that everybody gets what they really want. For some this is the greatest thing ever, and for others they realize too late that what they really wanted isn't what they really need. Hell is a place where a person who doesn't want to be under God's kingship is able to take refuge from it. Will it be a horrible place? Probably. Without the presence of God I have trouble imagining anything good. (it could be argued that a lot of good comes from secularism and empiricism, to which I will respectfully point out that God's presence is, I believe inherent in this Nature that we inhabit.) However, I believe that the real point is that it is a place that Lucifer can pretend to be god all he wants, and so can anybody who wants to join him in that dilusion. Anyway, sorry for the long ramble about God's nature. I think that it is important though. If we don't have some idea who HE is, how are we to know if HE hates [bleep]s? Or any other sinner for that matter? Anyway I believe that the answer is that no, God does not and is not capable of hating sinners. He doesn't like the actions that they take--that I take. But He doesn't like those actions because those actions are the ones which forced HIM to die in order to provide us with what is best for us.

Thats a flawed anology, the cars existence has no impact on the womans life or body. It is not a flawed argument from my logical position... Any crime is a crime, and desirves justice. A murderer and a thief are both law breakers. Granted, we humans see some crimes as "worse" then others... But from the position that my King has taken on this issue, I take this position that wrong is wrong. There are not differing degrees of evil. I am no more worthy of God's grace then Hitler, Stalin, or any other person who you would consider "evil." And they had just as much opportunity to recieve God's grace as I did... I was a murderer. I was a thief. I desirved only death. As is the case with every human who has ever lived. All have sinned. All fall short the glory of God. All desirve death. When I condemn abortion, I condemn also theft, pride, hatred, rape, and many, many other things... And to be honest, I condemn my own actions and thoughts many times. I'm not perfect, and won't be this side of eternity, so I am just as much desirving the consiquences of my selfish nature as anybody else. Therefor I can not condemn anybody. I can only condemn the actions that people take, and pray that they come to find the Hope that found me. The only ones trying to enforce their decisions are the pro-lifers. That's because pro-choice has become the negative position, based on the moral relativism that is the hallmark of our post-modern society. Before, it was only pro-choicers who complained about the status-quo. Thats why in some countries the decisions are felt up to the women, not pro-lifers who'd rather she be forced to have the child.Are you familliar with the Roe vs Wade case that made abortion "legal" in the United States? Ms. Roe shortly afterwords became adamantly pro-life, because of the psychological damage that her abortion lead to. And she isn't the only one. I have a friend who got an abortion, and litterally hates herself for it. She's the only person I know first hand who's had an abortion, but I suspect that the sentiments are pretty universal, expecailly among women who feel like they were pressured into it by a boy-friend or parents. (Her boyfriend pressured my friend into getting the abortion.) I would also point out to Killer_Stone, that we Christians are just as free to choose our religion as anybody else... (Ironic, isn't it, that it was Christain thinkers who came up with this idea? :wink: ) Just because our world-view is a complete opposite to everybody elses' does not invalidate that right. And part of following Christ is standing up for what is true in all arenas, including politics. And I for one am quite glad that perhapes the Church is waking up and realizing that if we continue to allow cultural decay then pretty soon the "land of the free" won't be free any more. Death_by_Pod, There is no potential in an egg cell, or a sperm cell to become a fully functional human in and of itself. It is only at the moment of conception that there becomes potential for a fully functional human to be born. Because you are clearly not comprehending my position, there is really nothing more to say on this matter, saddly. :( I would point out though, that there is not a single known species that could even come close to qualifying as "human" by my deffinition that reproduces asexually.

Mercifull, Yes, there is a chance that part of the violence is genetic, but not likely that all of it is. Yes, it's heartbreaking that a man would force himself on a woman... My aunt was raped and murdered when she was only 12 years old, and it's a horrible thing to think about. It's horroble that any man would do such a thing... But the solution isn't to take an innocent life. Yes, that fetus has potential for evil, but it has potential to do good as well. Who are we to decide that it doesn't desirve the chance to live out its potential because it may follow in its father's shoes? Do not condemn the child for the sins of the father... Nor the father for the sins of his son. Let each person stand or fall on their own actions. And ultimately, I suspect that there's at least equal, if not greater psychological scarring from the abortion as from carrying your attacker's child.

Oh wow how far our discussion has migrated from abortion... Lol. Oh well, hopefully nobody minds too terrebly much. This has been a fun discussion for me, and has helped me to more clearly articulate why I believe what I believe. :D And for that you have my thanks :) I look forward to your response, and hope that you are enjoying this discussion as much as I am :) HugATree, If there is a God, then in and of Himself, all the really difficult questions of life are answered... Who am I? I am a masterpiece, hand crafted by the Great Artisian. Why am I here? He wanted to make me. Where am I going? Either to be with HIM forever, or to be sepperated from HIM forever. Note, there are still a lot of little problems left to solve, but with these major ones out of the way (and with them to refer to) it's much easier to persue the littler ones. It's also less daunting to see a mountian that needs to be moved if you're looking at it from above then if you're looking at it from its base. :wink: And in response to your second quary: if there is a God, then He created us. If He created us, then we have a purpose. If we have a purpose, then it's somehow related to Him. So it only makes sence that we need to know Him to know that purpose. And interestingly enough, this knowing Him is, in and of itself, a purpose. (in fact, I believe the primary purpose of life) Hope that helps you understand more where I'm coming from :wink: Though as I said, because this is entirely off topic, I would suggest either pming me or bumping up the "do you believe in God" topic... Though I suppose I could have done so myself and didn't... :oops:

Good luck with your exams, Death_By_Pod... I know how much work studying for exams can be. I don't agree with your assessment of Miller's experiment... But since you're rather busy, I won't go into that at the moment. Dittos, I half agree with you... But because Jesus was physically raised from the dead, Ihave to believe that so will everybody else... But not to worry, because if there were no deserts, seas, and no need to feed people, earth is plenty big. In fact, you know, heaven would be kinda empty if there weren't at least a couple billion people in it... And by no means would even ten billion really be that crouded. (about 50 people per square mile, which really isn't that many when you don't have to worry about feeding them or such) If you consider height, then I'm sure that you could accomodate 100 billion people comfortably... (Revelation says that the New Jerusalem will be 12,000 stradia to a side, and 12,000 stradia tall. In miles, that's 1,400... In kilometers, 2,200... Hmmm, I think that there'll be plenty of room :wink: As for the rest of all human kind who have ever lived... Quite frankly, If creating the New Jerusalem is within God's power, and indeed creating this universe, then quite frankly, there's no problem space-wise for them either.

The last one of these had a poll, didn't change the fact it was like 100 pages long... I remember that... It's quite amazing how much people like to talk about this and politics... and even more amazing is that there is so little flaming going on; I have to say that the majority of people who use these boards are more mature then most adults

Uniformitarianism is an assumption and it works well in geology because the Earth is a small system living in 1 tiny part of the universe. Making an assumption in physics does not make it a law. However in classical physics we use symmetry to simplify things to describe what is law. Just because it works here doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean it works everywhere. If I asked you what you would weigh on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy you would use w = mg but if I were to say prove it you would cite examples within our galaxy. In order to truly prove it you would have to go to the planet in question and weigh yourself. We have not seen energy move from low values to high values is because we are living in a time when the universe is expanding. In a closed Universe eventually the universe will collapse on itself bringing energy to a higher value which is in conflict with the second law of thermodynamics. Like you said when we observe is dominant and I agree however just because it is dominant doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean we can rule it out. However it does mean that in the grand scheme of things that which is secondary is of little relivance. Why does the outside of the universe matter? Well it matters because it harbours our universe. But to science, it should be considered a moot point because we can not study it empirically... That's my point. Just like our universe harbours matter; if our universe does not exist then neither do our planets and if this place outside of our universe doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist then neither does our universe. Current thinking has it that the reason why gravity is so weak is because of the number of dimension our universe contains (10/11) and the fact that gravitons may be able to escape our universe altogether. If you want to treat this as meta-physics then you should treat the big bang as Meta physics (but you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t because it has a beginning as shown by red shifting stars) because you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t test the beginning. The big bang can be observed indirectly because of the redshifting that you mentioned, the microwave cosmic background radiation, and various other effects. what is beyond the universe is, as of this moment not something that can be emperically studdied, which I for one consider essential for something to be considered a true science. Yes you are right energy can not be created or destroyed at any time however if you create +ve energy and also create an equal amount of -ve energy, it cancels leaving no energy. What I was driving at is that observationally speaking, we're missing a lot of negative energy... which implies that either energy can be created (because before the big bang there was none) or we're missing a very large chunk of the puzzle. It is shown that particles come to and from existence through quantum fluctuations (a particle and an anti particle pair form and then quickly cancel each other out and disappear). It could be extrapolated that the stuff outside of the universe would create a universe and an anti-universe (but due to the size the universe and anti-universe pair exists for a lot longer then atom pairs would) which would collide and disappear, cancelling each other out. The problem with a continuous state multiverse scenario is that if it is eternal, and a universe can occure at any point on it, then there should be a universe for every point in this multiverse (including those points within the bounds of our universe) Why is it that we can't see any other then our own? (and equally important, why hasn't evolution perfected everything yet??? Isn't all eternity enough time for the perfect life form to be formed and take over the universe?) So basically, what you are saying is that because the laws of physics aren't necessarily universal, there's no point in studying them, because tomorrow, they may be totally different? sort of... see my next post If we understand our current physics we can take advantage of them and make things easier for ourselves. Our laws of Physics did not always exist; just like the same reason water doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exists when its over 100 degree's c; our universe didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have things such as matter, Electricity, magnetism, and the weak force (If you go far back enough all forces act as 1) due to the fact is was too hot. All that you have pointed out is that the universe itself is dynamic... not that the laws change with time. They may have a different effect with different energy levels and such, but it's still the same set of rules governing things. What I'm arguing is that if these rules can, themselves change, there's no point in studying them, because they are ultimately meaningless. If our universe is STILL cooling then it could be possible one day it gets cool enough so that the universe changes form again. The laws of physics can create itself is the total energy created = 0. This is done by +ve and -ve particle pairs, which can be extrapolated to the universe itself or if the universe is Closed the universe naturally cycles between being really big and being really small (much like a pumping heart). My understanding of this was that the distance between largest size and smallest size decreases as you extrapolate back in time... By the time you've gone back 100 cycles that distance has become zero... Please correct me if I'm wrong. The reason why things such like pi is always 3.142.... is because of geometry of the universe. If you draw a triangle on a piece of paper it's angles will add up to 180degree's but if drawn on a balloon it will add up to over 180degrees and drawn on a saddle shape will be less then 180 degree's. But this doesn't explain why pi should have a set value. What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't make sence that anything should have meaning apart from intelligence, so why is there this value that you always get when you devide a circle's circumferance by its diameter? Why should there be meaning there before it was discovered by humans? What do you call a miracle and what do you call good luck (or chance). If you give the universe long enough anything can happen. Point granted... but I've seen too many things that logically should not happen. Things like a friend instantly recovering from lukimia in such a maner that she went from her death bed to being released from the hospital in 24. I know a man who suffered a massive heart attack, and then, after a few friends prayed for him, he was instantly healed (like his heart went from heavily damaged from a previous heart attack to like new... Medically speaking, there is no explanation) I simply find it easier to believe that there is a loving, personal God who hears our prayers and answers when His children call to Him, then it would be to believe that by random chance, there is the illusion of the miraculous... but only linked to prayer. :wink: Evolution stuff (I'm not a biologist so I canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t really talk too much about it on biology aspects but I can talk about the physical aspects such as probability): Amino Acids like everything else in the universe, if given enough time the acids will appear in the right order to support reproduction (however the majority of orders that you can put amino acids in will result in nothing, there are orders that will result in something). But 100ma isn't enough time to justify this happening by random chance. Atheists are just as blind as theists. Again with the time argument about 100million years of evolution; it may take a while to get going but once it does it improves rapidly (like our technology for a modern day example). A possible reason why we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see much evolution is because evolution on a large scale has basically levelled out and there is little use for any more evolution (one day computers will be as fast as possible because they reach the theoretical limits of optics and size). Evolution is supposed to happen whenever a species is thrown out of equilibrium. The human race has caused enough meham around the globe that we should be seeing all sorts of adaptations going on... Yet from a practical position: nothing. Well, I'm exagerating a bit... there are a few strains of bacteria that have grown resistant to anti-biotics, and a few places where a dominant and recessive trait swapped... But the genes that made the bacteria capable of becoming resistant were already there... they just weren't active. And the traits swapping, well, the recessive trait still remained... It just became less common. There is no true evolution here, and from studying the fossil record, I'm a proponent of punctuated equilibrium... Right now it's punctuated, so where's the rapid adaptation to return to equilibrium? And finally Gravity DOES bring order out of chaos and because you seem to be rather stubborn about this point I will include Scanned Images of a part of a science book that describes this process. Disclaimer: The following scans are legal under Australian Copyright laws (which the reproduction has taken place). They are reproduced under the "fair use" laws which allow 10% or 1 chapter to be reproduced without authorisation for Non-commercial, educational purposes ONLY. Part Taken from Brian Greene's book, The Fabric of the Cosmos All rights reserved; Published by Penguin Group. (If mods want further information about this please PM me) Please click the thumbnails for full size, quality reduced images. Point conceeded, though this isn't highly enough ordered to debunk my argument that complex organels can not be explained by evolution in and of itself... I would also point out that if you look closely, you don't see true ordering, you see more chaos (look at the earth for example... Believe it or not, gravity is one of the driving forces in plate techtonics, which is, I would argue a chaotic system.) Edit: Missed a page. *steps up onto a soap box* Finally, one last thought: We view the universe through different lenses. Mine is something like this: "God made it." So I evaluate data through that lense. A true atheist views everything through the lense of, "There is no god." So he/she will more often then not come to radically different conclusions then I will... Not because the evidence we're looking at is different, but because our base assumptions about that evidence is different. It's absolutely impossible to ever truely get away from filtering information through some lense or another, so a truely objective look at things is not possible. The closest that we can come to true objectivity is to find which lense is true: either there is a God or there isn't. They can not both be true at the same time. If we choose the wrong lense, our view of existance will be faulty, because of a faulty base premise. And I would argue that the most likely to be false is the lense of, "who cares if there's a god or not?" because if there is a God, you're going to offend Him, (rendering the view faulty) and if there isn't a god, then you're overcomplicating things. This leaves us with only the two premises, "there is a God," and, "There is no god." The issue now is which makes best sence of the world. I'm not going to go into great detail here... sufficing to say, I used to look through the lense of, "there is no god." but that leaves too many inexplicable events. (I've named a few earlier, and am not going to waste what remaining attention-spans may remain doing so over again :wink: ) I challenge you though to take a look at all the evidence you can find, both pro and anti-theism. Until you've looked at all of it, you're arguing from ignorance. Whether or not you choose to believe in God is your choice. But I have much more respect for somebody who's seriously looked at the evidence and is arguing from a solid base of knowledge then one who argues from ignorance. :wink: I must confess that I am not as open-minded as I once was... But if you bring to me a truely new scrap of evidence, I'll still try and examine everything else in light of it, rather then vice-versa... But I have to say that the truely miraculous carries a lot of weight... And even more weight is carried by the glory of God. As He draws me nearer, His light drowns out everything else. Oh, that you could know Him, that you could love Him and be loved by Him, as He has honoured me with. But regardless, God bless all who read this (or even just little parts of it) and may He reveal to you who He is. May you ever rest in His arms, bolstered by His strength, hopeful because of His promise, Joyous because of His eternal love. To Him who was, and is, and is yet to come be all the glory, honour, and praise for ever and ever. amen. *Steps off of soap box*