• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

baseless attempt to disprove Reality

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The Darwin's Biological Evolution is being used by wrong people as part in attempt to prove, that un-natural things are needless.

Used by wrong people?!?!?!? WHO?!?!?

Needs more explanation.

Again . . .

First Biological evolution is not Darwin's it is the science of evolution. Second, It is not part any attempt to disprove that un-natural things are needless (?)' Third, the science of abiogenesis and evolution do try and 'prove' anything. Fourth, all sciences do not nor cannot falsify any theory nor hypothesis beyond the objective verifiable evidence that includes any philosophical or theological assumption and beliefs.

I assume here that you are referring to theological beliefs of the existence of God(s) and spiritual world's beyond our physical existence as 'un-natural.'.

The science of evolution has already falsified and demonstrated beyond any reasonable, and nothing here involves religious beliefs..
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Did Darwin something for Science or didn't?

Yes, Darwin was one of the first, and not the first to propose the science of Evolution, but the science of evolution is not Charles Darwin,

Again . . .

First Biological evolution is not Darwin's it is the science of evolution. Second, It is not part any attempt to disprove that un-natural things are needless (?)' Third, the science of abiogenesis and evolution do try and 'prove' anything. Fourth, all sciences do not nor cannot falsify any theory nor hypothesis beyond the objective verifiable evidence that includes any philosophical or theological assumption and beliefs.

I assume here that you are referring to theological beliefs of the existence of God(s) and spiritual world's beyond our physical existence as 'un-natural.'.

The science of evolution has already falsified and demonstrated beyond any reasonable, and nothing here involves religious beliefs.

In conclusion, the Darwin's Evolution is the infinite number of ad hoc hypothesis required "fact''. One of such ad hoc hypothesis is Valid Big Bang Theory.

There is no such relationship between the Big Bang Theory and the science of evolution. There is no such thing as an ad hoc hypothesis in science. Your misusing the word "fact". An example of a "fact" is the discovery of a stone tool.
 
Last edited:

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
The Darwin's Biological Evolution is being used by wrong people as part in attempt to prove, that un-natural things are needless. Such attempt is the misuse of the Methodological Naturalism. After its completion, the God would be Scientifically Disproven (or as Dr. Friedrich Nietzsche would joyfully say -- killed). But it is far from completion yet, and new problems do grow in exponential progression. So, currently the Darwin's Theory without working Big Bang Theory is like the completion of the Venus statue out of marble without making the first hummer stroke. So, it is Nothingness, it is Death, it is the Fact of Wishful Thinking. Also, the Fermi Paradox is the conflict between observations (the SETI has not recorded signs of life activity in Cosmos) and agenda to disprove God. In conclusion, the Darwin's Evolution is the infinite number of ad hoc hypothesises required "fact''. One of such ad hoc hypothesises is Valid Big Bang Theory.

You really need to provide evidence that anything supernatural actually exists before you can claim that evolution or anything else for that matter is attempting to prove that the supernatural doesn't exist. Can you provide any such evidence?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
baseless attempt to disprove Reality
The Darwin's Biological Evolution is being used by wrong people as part in attempt to prove, that un-natural things are needless. Such attempt is the misuse of the Methodological Naturalism. After its completion, the God would be Scientifically Disproven (or as Dr. Friedrich Nietzsche would joyfully say -- killed). But it is far from completion yet, and new problems do grow in exponential progression. So, currently the Darwin's Theory without working Big Bang Theory is like the completion of the Venus statue out of marble without making the first hummer stroke. So, it is Nothingness, it is Death, it is the Fact of Wishful Thinking. Also, the Fermi Paradox is the conflict between observations (the SETI has not recorded signs of life activity in Cosmos) and agenda to disprove God. In conclusion, the Darwin's Evolution is the infinite number of ad hoc hypothesises required "fact''. One of such ad hoc hypothesises is Valid Big Bang Theory.


Reality : the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.


The theory of evolution is shown to valid in several different ways, there is nothing ad hoc about it.

There are several BB hypothesis,. Fact is no one knows, all that can be understood is mathematics and observation of conditions in our universe. Remember that,. No one knows. But at least science says "hey, we dont know"

Now to the point, it is true that without the bb our universe would not exist so biological evolution could not occur. But there was a bb 13.7 billion years ago. From that event the laws of thermodynamics coalesced. The laws of thermodynamics, more precisely, the 2nd law and entropy predict that for a short period (universally speaking) that life will occur. It did about 10 billion years later.

Good to know, after all this time that the laws of thermodynamics are just at valid today as they were all that time ago.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The Darwin's Biological Evolution is being used by wrong people as part in attempt to prove, that un-natural things are needless. Such attempt is the misuse of the Methodological Naturalism.
I assume that by 'un-natural' here you mean 'supernatural', beings and processes that exist but not in nature ie not in reality? (If so, the only place they could exist is in imagination, no?) If you mean something else, please clarify.

Nowhere does the theory of evolution mention god, supernatural beings or supernatural causes. In fact they're mentioned nowhere in the sciences, and I'd say that was for at least two reasons: first, they have no meaningful definition, since words like 'God' don't denote anything that exists in nature; and second, since nothing found in nature suggests that anything found in nature is (somehow) not in nature.
After its completion, the God would be Scientifically Disproven (or as Dr. Friedrich Nietzsche would joyfully say -- killed).
Before that could happen, we'd have to have a satisfactory definition of a real god, such that if we found one we could tell it was a god. If such a definition exists, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what it is. There isn't even a satisfactory definition of 'godness', the real quality a real god would have and eg a superscientist would not.
currently the Darwin's Theory without working Big Bang Theory is like the completion of the Venus statue out of marble without making the first hummer stroke.
You've asserted that, but you haven't offered any reason to think it's true.
So, it is Nothingness, it is Death, it is the Fact of Wishful Thinking. Also, the Fermi Paradox is the conflict between observations (the SETI has not recorded signs of life activity in Cosmos) and agenda to disprove God. In conclusion, the Darwin's Evolution is the infinite number of ad hoc hypothesises required "fact''. One of such ad hoc hypothesises is Valid Big Bang Theory.
As I said, I have no idea what real thing 'God' is intended to denote, so I have no 'agenda to disprove God'. Nor does any branch of science that I can think of. Why would they? Without a satisfactory definition, how could they?
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
It warrants a separate thread, the Big Bang hypothesis is not the only contender for the origin of our universe. The possibility of a cyclic universe remains a possible hypothesis.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Used by wrong people?!?!?!? WHO?!?!?

Needs more explanation.

Again . . .

First Biological evolution is not Darwin's it is the science of evolution. Second, It is not part any attempt to disprove that un-natural things are needless (?)' Third, the science of abiogenesis and evolution do try and 'prove' anything. Fourth, all sciences do not nor cannot falsify any theory nor hypothesis beyond the objective verifiable evidence that includes any philosophical or theological assumption and beliefs.

I assume here that you are referring to theological beliefs of the existence of God(s) and spiritual world's beyond our physical existence as 'un-natural.'.

The science of evolution has already falsified and demonstrated beyond any reasonable, and nothing here involves religious beliefs..
thou shall not have false gods before you
 

CakeJragen

New Member
Also, here's your reality. Just got done writing it up.


The Philosophy of Religion..or whatever.


Upon introduction of Christianity one usually hears of a (or multiple) God(s). One may assume this is the basis for all religions...
In an attempt to appeal to each individual and undividual (if that's a word) one may assume agnosticism wherein a person should admit they have no philosphy on the matter as their primary religion (if that is possible.) Bleh.. So... Speaking unbiased, omnipotent, and irrelevant has taken several moments each word I've written and I won't be doing it any longer.

One might be capable of quantifying any Religion as a Philosphy. Being as the books/scriptures/lessons/etc have been passed through so many mouths/hands one would be extremely betwixt attempting to verify the accuracy of each. I'm not going to do that here. My intentions are far more scrupulous..My intentions are to unify you God-Forsaken people (if that's even a legitimate phrase.)...and animals actually, animals are fine, I have no preference who participates in communicable society.

For dramatic effect I'll start where things got complicated, for me - Solipsism, Brain-in-a-Vat, and possibly Idealism.
One might think the biggest difference between religion and philosphy is that religion is true and philosphy is a thought but my main intention here and now is to, basically explain that religion is a philosphy and that should pretty easily unify the human race. Don't you agree? It's not that simple, of course...the multiple languages spoken are also a terrible inconvenience. Okay..so...Philosphy is largely the study of existance whilst Religion is the study and practice of existance.
A key factor of religion is ancient, written texts of "true" events wherein a God or Gods of sorts actually exist. Whether or not they did exist, still exist, will exist, or if the written texts are "true" is not of any real concern...and the reason for that is that everything is changing. Take a moment and look, breath, count...everything is changing...That or Those God or Gods may have or have not definitely existed and that's fine. A descriptor of religion, one in my position often attempting to unify the world by the dismantling of improperly organized religion, often defines religion as a "belief" or a "faith" rather than an acknowledgement and awareness of factual information. That is also fine...It makes no difference at all. Read on.

If all zips are zoos and all zoos are zods... Religions are philosphies but philosphies are not neccessarily religions. A philosphy is, both basically and ultimately, the study of the universe, of reality, et cetera. Phsyics, Chemistry, Math, History...one might have you believe these topics began as a philosphy, but the truth is that they are still philosphies.
A fact..something these topics intend to deal entirely with...is actually not a fact. It's a perception..It's a statistic. Until the entire nature of "reality" is understood these "facts" such as 2+2=4, a statement if you will, is more loquatiously (semantically) spoken/defined as "If reality exists, 2+2=4. If reality does not exist, then 2+2 also does not exist and we, who also don't exist, are capable of acknowleding it's nonexistance as we are one in the same."


Complicated, right? Nonsensical?
Let's look at those unanswered questions from your religions. Who created God? The response is almost always God has always existed and always will exist. How so? Well, God is omnipotent.
Omnipotence is equivalent to everything. Omnipotence, by our current definitions (words and their definitions, also, change over the years) is equivalent to having unlimited power. This is absolutely foolish because power, by definition, is wattage...P=IxE, Power = Amps x Volts..Power is electricity. If a God has unlimited electrical charge he 1. is irrational and 2. hasn't had any rational for existing. It's like imagining God, or Gods, is, or are, a scientist in an immortal, endless sandbox with a nuclear reactor...the sandbox is Electrical Charge.
We all know what omnipotence means, so let's forget that Google has a laughably simple-minded definition of it. Omnipotence is the capacity and capability to control everything and, possibly, nothing (if nothing even is a thing.)..you are a thing, time is a thing, etc, fyi. How did a God or Gods begin existing? He/She/It/They always existed because they have total control. So...we're all slaves, or, atleast, menial. That'd suck, let's try to debunk it.

How did/do/will God or Gods exist?
According to Christianity religion, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..loosely interpretted to mean in the beginning God created everything. Who created God; God has always existed or God created "it"self. Asexual archaebacteria used to create themselves...cells create themselves when they divide...but that's with some help from the outside..some nutrients, etc..Let's start there.
God, with unlimited control, created "it"self. We can all, immediately, understand this as nonsensical. The reason for such is that a God or God(s) couldn't have unlimited control if they didn't exist! and a God or Gods couldn't create "it"self if it already existed. Even with unlimited control, yes? Not neccessarily. Read on.
God, with unlimited control, has always existed. This is also immediately understood as nonsensical unless you actively think about it...For anything to exist it has to begin existing, so where/how did reality begin? For reality, everything, to begin existing, it, logically, must have, at one point, not existed. Such and so that you can only imagine Nothingness. Interestingly enough, if nothingness is all that existed..a totally empty, black void...not even that..utter nothingness... That nothingness would be, technically, everything...and everything came to be. Quite perplexing.. We can now equate Nothingness and Everything because Nothing would have been Everything..and now nothing makes sense anymore because Everything that exists is equivalent to nothingness.

It might be fun to continue this topic, but let's skip ahead, I've made the ultimate point..I was just going to reiterate it a hundred times. God always has existed? That's cool, so god is Everything. Well, no, god created everything...right from his unlimited control. We are his control.
God created itself? Still cool; same finisher.

Get over your stupid principals and change with the rest of the whatever this is. That **** happened? Cool. It's not happening now, ****. "God said this and that for the future" Cool well God created us it's his fault whatever happens...I can do the bad **** and it's his fault - He created me how I am, he gave me my freedom, built my environment, etcetera... Nawww, man,,, in every moment when you have a decision, God is there telling you what's right..you gotta defy him to chosoe wrong and do bad man...Wtf are you saying he created me, right?. He created this. He creates the future. Naw man, God is tryna leave everything to us man, but we gotta do right man..God built me dude, in his image, yeh? If i goof up it's cuz he did. If you've got voices in your head that's your problem buddy. I'm not saying it's right to kill people; I like society..and if you don't want to co-operate I think you're outnumbered..but these "facts" about why we're all doing this and Jesus's ghost or whatever partying in the sun whatever dude that's fine go do that...and I would go..honestly I would go..but you said if I don't go you'll frkn destroy me. That's uh...an extremely aggressive personality type that I'd rather not asosciate with, eternally. or you're joking about destroying me and that's cool broh maybe I'll drop by thanks for the invite....cuz even if there are Gods and even if we are Free and even if there are no gods and this is all luck (or not luck, by the way..read back) it certainly doesn't seem like I'm omnipotent so I can't really garauntee I'll be at your party broh. Oh you're omnipotent? Then I don't really wanna go to your party...not really fun to look at things you can't get...and even if you show us all how to get it, after we die here, then I wasted all this time not having very much fun at all.
I mean..i can control my emotions, so I do tend to enjoy my time here, but it's really not..i mean again it's sort of an aggressive thing to do to someone when you could, easily, provide nothing short of perfection, anytime. What's the point in this? Fixing your mistakes? That doesn't sound good for me, sounds like I'd be better off avoiding you 'cuz you're not that great.
Idk..Long story short, none of it makes any sense, with the words that exist in the English language...not your religion, not theirs, not the math, not the science, have your heard of quarks? Wow.

Lets think about it like you do...First and foremost, love God all you can...well step one is acknowledging God, buddy..Step two is tryna find God so that you aren't throwing your love at thin-air, telepathically. How you think you love god all you can while youre pretending that 99.9% of what you see is wrong? These other people god made them broh, how you gonna try to discredit your fellow man, your fellow god-made man? Who cares how god made mankind..Who cares what he's going to do with it? Who cares what he has done with it? ...Maybe if you'd try to connect with your Gods rather than hope they hear you....LIke wtf are you doing? You love god, but you don't want to connect with him? Maybe he's shy, quit saying it's okay if he doesn't respond you know he's listening, he's all-powerful, he can make time to talk with you...If you're not willing to stand up for yourself, in an attempt to love god as instructed, wtf...You're more afraid of failure than you are interested in proving your love for your God...You're so afraid God might not respond when you say Enough is enough, please talk to me so I can love you more profoundly..what are you afraid of? Losing your inner peace? Idiots...all of you......
These "facts" in the "texts" from ancient encounters with "God" and the stories of things to come and you simply having faith is not, at all, you loving god as best you can. Not at all.

.Anyone else got anything? Yo, can we get a translater in here, too (can't trust Google after that..God has lots of electrical charge..blunder. Like what about quarks broh.) ?
 
Last edited:

CakeJragen

New Member
Indeed. They're all false unless anyone can show otherwise.

So far?

People proving otherwise: 0.


Hey Idc about your post, but your signature..about that guy from centuries ago thinking he's outwitted God with a logic puzzle...It's flawed.
^^ You're failing to account for the possibility of true omnipotence...wherein the suffering is to teach about the good, etc. Sounds cheezy, sure. but is it malevolent for a mother to send her child to it's first day of school? Kid doesn't wanna go..Schools boring the whole time...but i bet you're happy you went to school now, huh mfer? Them old ancient mfers never know **** about whats going on buddy. Get with the time..

It's not like it's 1 guy enduring centuries of suffering, haha. That'd be overtly malevolent, technically, if we could prove intent. When you think about it as a whole, like yeah slavery is bogus stuff, sure it's easy to be overwhelmed...but it's simply not so simple.

Like it is possible that our sense of right and wrong are laughable and miniscule...our idea of suffering is a joke comparatively. A kid thinks a bed time is bogus...doesn't mean it's wrong. Old mfer ancient mfer thinks he's capable of outwitting a god. HAH! I'm not even overtly religious broh...yeh it's a spectrum..


Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

~ Epicurius (341-270 BC)



FYI...ever debate? I don't have to prove myself, I just have to disprove you. A tie is better than a loss, buddy, and I didn't mock the opponents making a fool of myself.
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It warrants a separate thread, the Big Bang hypothesis is not the only contender for the origin of our universe. The possibility of a cyclic universe remains a possible hypothesis.
That's true.

Then there are the more difficult, since irrefutable, options, like Solipsism, Last Thursdayism (=inexplicable spontaneity), Dream in the Mind of Godism (and its neighbor, Element in a Tron Gameism) and no doubt more.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
My intentions are to unify you God-Forsaken people
Before we go on, would you please define what real thing you mean by 'God'? Real as in having objective existence, not being imaginary, that is? A definition that will allow me to determine whether this keyboard I'm typing on is God, or a god, or not?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Atoms, energy and the Quantum World remain part of the physical world and subject to falsification of theories and hypothesis by Methodological Naturalism.
Yes, the science of evolution is falsified and demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt. News to you? It is science.
There is no world beyond Quantum World.
Yeah, news to me. Where is it reported? House of Universal Justice communiques?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The Darwin's Biological Evolution is being used by wrong people as part in attempt to prove, that un-natural things are needless.

It's upto people who wish to claim that unnatural things ARE needed, to demonstrate it.
And evolution doesn't say that they are or aren't. Evolution only addresses the evidence. And there happens to not be any evidence for unnatural aspects. So it doesn't include such factors. Such factors will be included as soon as they can demonstrated to being factors and not a second sooner.

So if you have unnatural factors in mind that should be part of evolution theory, then you are free to present your case and the evidence in support of it.

Such attempt is the misuse of the Methodological Naturalism. After its completion, the God would be Scientifically Disproven (or as Dr. Friedrich Nietzsche would joyfully say -- killed). But it is far from completion yet, and new problems do grow in exponential progression. So, currently the Darwin's Theory without working Big Bang Theory is like the completion of the Venus statue out of marble without making the first hummer stroke.

Evolution theory is an explanatory model in the field of biology and independend of whatever theory one comes up with in the field of cosmology to explain the development of the early universe.

In context of evolution theory, it doesn't matter HOW the universe got to a point where there is a planet earth on which life exists that happens to evolve over time.

However it happened - it happened. The earth exists and there are living things on it and we can study those living things and the processes they are subject to.

It matters not if the universe has natural origins or if it was the result of an interdimensional 7-headed dragon farting a big bang. Whatever it was: it resulted in a planet earth with evolving life on it.

So, it is Nothingness, it is Death, it is the Fact of Wishful Thinking.

That makes no sense. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Also, the Fermi Paradox is the conflict between observations (the SETI has not recorded signs of life activity in Cosmos) and agenda to disprove God. In conclusion, the Darwin's Evolution is the infinite number of ad hoc hypothesises required "fact''. One of such ad hoc hypothesises is Valid Big Bang Theory.

By saying nonsense like that, you are kind of exposing the fact that you have no clue how science is done and specifically have no understanding what evolution theory is really all about.

How surprising. Another dude who wants to argue against a theory he doesn't actually comprehend....
 
Top