Quote:
|
You see, this is the problem with allowing ones ego to become an oversized monster. You pay almost no attention to what is said by others, which usually leads false conclusions centered around the idea that others are generally not intelligent enough to pay careful or close attention to
|
Speak for yourself, sir. I haven't seen you acknowledge one thing except argue semantics because that's all you seem to have the capacity for.
Quote:
Really ? You sure ?
And so what if he wasn't/isn't ?
As usual, your galaxy sized ego made you completely miss the point.
|
You only think I have a problematic ego because I reject the possibility of God. Another influence of society. Jesus you guys are like sheeple. You can call me egotistical or arrogant, but it doesn't change the fact that I am my own God, which means I possess confidence, self-blame and ambition. I control my own life. There is no reason as to why we are here. We give ourselves the reason. I honestly can't think of a more enlightened way to live.
Quote:
|
Greater knowledge always means greater power. Thus, whether this be their intention or not, the 'knowers' in any society bequeath to their culture ever-new powers to transform its life. It is for this reason that knowers, religious or scientific, are valued as well as revered by their society, the priest's robes and the scientist's white coat signify much the same social role as the knower of significant secrets and so the doer of all-important deeds ... As religion had dominated the civilization of the medieval period, so science has dominated ours. It has determined or shaped education, molded our sense of human excellence, grounded our hopes for the future, and established itself as the queen of all other disciples of learning.
|
Laugh all you want. The joke is on you, sir. Science is much closer to our origins than religion will ever be. "
How, Skynet?" you ask. Well, I explained this before. Science is the opposite of religion. Religion's agenda (such as Christianity, which is over two-thousand years old) is to control and explain how things work in a primitive way. This makes their scriptures and teachings weak. Faith does not mean "correct". Science is about working with actual, physical properties in order to find out what is true. It's agenda is NOT to control, but to grow and change and debunk other theories. The concept of God has only recently changed with the introduction of agnosticism. However, agnosticism is still derived from religion in the sense that there could be a God, but there also there may not be. We cannot seem to shake this "God" concept in any fashion, since it has been a part of our society for so long.
Quote:
It's BS in that you make absolute statements about theoretical ideas. You even go beyond theory, you invent unknowns, state them as fact, and then attempt to create an actual "scientific" theory out of whole cloth.
How does an "infinite regression of energy" contrast the belief in God?
|
Because if you have read anything regarding deism/theism, you would know that there are some who believe in a
first efficient cause, such as St. Thomas Aquinas (Thomism). It's a concept explaining one omnipotent "thing" or being who created everything. The opposite of a finite progression is an infinite regression. Meaning, there was no one, sole creator, since everything begs for a creator in our own psyche. That leaves us an infinite amount of creators to have created it, therefore no one being existed before our universe which means there is no one God that started it all. Got it?
Secondly, I actually already stated that we can argue about what we don't know, but I firmly believe that it wasn't a God, since a God is 100% conceptual and a societal influence. Science is working toward physically proving how our universe began. We work with what we know, unlike everyone else who just states "we don't know at all". It's counter-productive. Even Feynman hated when people asked him all the time what they don't know yet, because they hardly asked him what they DO know. I am perfectly comfortable with uncertainty, but I am not comfortable with something which holds no place in science and physics.
Quote:
|
Substitute the word God, for energy, and viola! Again, how is that any less plausible, or credible then your mass speculation on a cosmic level? Pun fully intended.
|
You cannot substitute. If it's energy, it's energy!! Why bother calling it a God? That's just silly and a lame cop-out in order to keep your establishment from being dismantled. This is actually why I can't stand certain Agnostics.