Notices
Results 1 to 6 of 6
Like Tree16Likes
  • 2 Post By PhDemon
  • 2 Post By Halliday
  • 9 Post By Cogito Ergo Sum
  • 3 Post By Dywyddyr

Thread: reasoning

  1. #1 reasoning 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3
    I will start by saying I am one who believes in a god. I believe in a creator more so than a specific religion, with specific tales, and stories. My argument is that when you boil it down to the origins of life as we know it, all theories whether The big bang, primordial soup, or a creator, are all theories. I believe it is up to the individual to make a judgement on what they believe. With humans understanding of the cosmos, and ability to alter / replicate life, is it so far fetched for us to believe that their is another being, or even species that has a greater understanding, and ability than we do with replicating/creating life. I believe a "god" or being creating life, or putting it here is just as plausible an explanation as saying everything wasn't, and then it exploded into everything. Then by chance the elements mixed together, and life sprung forth. I do not give any more credit to the idea that because things are moving apart, and we see remnants of microwaves, that it shows in anyway that everything started in one particle of everything than I do to the idea of creationism. I believe they all have the same amount of valid credibility, and that amount is none. At the end of the day we simply do not know the answers, and one must make a decision on what they believe. I do not feel that my belief of our origins sound any crazier than the idea that one day we weren't, and then boom we were. There is no scientific evidence for me to present. But my thought is that things in the universe make sense. Things that react, processes, and order of things all have valid reasons for them happening. I believe life has to have more of a reasoning than just to exist briefly on the geologic time scale, and then to not exist someday. The universe does not make sense without life. Why would stars, planets, and other bodies exist if intellectual beings did not. They do not have purpose without our existence, and ability to observe and study them. So I do not believe my Idea of a creator is so out there. I believe it is equally a "hunch" as is the big bang theory. Now this is not to say I believe all "tales", and "stories" of religious texts. I do believe there may be some validity, but it is buried among allot of non facts, and will distort the truth. An example would be the great flood. It is mentioned throught numerous texts in history ( not just the bible) and may have happened, but my question is more why did so many people reference this event.It may not have occurred directly the way it was written in the bible, but there is a good chance this amazing flood did happen. To this end I do think religious text can be broken down for scientific evidence of past events. These may be fabricated, and laced with opinion, but should not be discredited anymore than any other field of science. I will end by saying I did not see many arguments for a creator. I do believe religion is widely misused, and I disagree with that part of religion highly. I do however feel the scientific community as a whole should give more credit to the idea of creationism. The idea of science is to study all possible pathways, and I feel this is one of them. I wrote this because I felt like being the first to put an intelligent argument for creationism, and "god" on here. Have fun responding all. I hope this creates a better discussion for you as this forum was originally intended.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,496
    To be honest didn't read past the third line as you showed you don't understand the difference between a scientific theory (Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) which is based on observation and evidence and unscientific theories like creation based on bronze age fairy stories and wishful thinking, any reasoning that follows this misunderstanding is liable to be flawed.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    899
    Why not use this radical innovation when composing your post? Paragraphs!
    I'm convinced this new stylish method of writing will catch on.
    John Galt and RedPanda like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Warren View Post
    I will start by saying I am one who believes in a god. I believe in a creator more so than a specific religion, with specific tales, and stories.

    Go on.

    My argument is that when you boil it down to the origins of life as we know it, all theories whether The big bang, primordial soup, or a creator, are all theories.

    It is true that abiogenesis and the Big Bang theory are scientific theories. The latter is well-established and supported by multiple lines of evidence, the former is still under construction. However, there is no scientific theory that there is (more than) one creator.

    I believe it is up to the individual to make a judgement on what they believe.

    Belief is indeed personal.

    With humans understanding of the cosmos, and ability to alter / replicate life, is it so far fetched for us to believe that their is another being, or even species that has a greater understanding, and ability than we do with replicating/creating life. I believe a "god" or being creating life, or putting it here is just as plausible an explanation as saying everything wasn't, and then it exploded into everything.

    Actually, it is not that plausible.
    It might be possible that there is a creator with greater intelligence in the universe, but it is not necessary to put such a creature in the scientific theories we have now. Furthermore, if one evokes the notion of a creator to explain things, then it is necessary to explain (and to demonstrate) the existence of such a being.

    You might want to read this (post #4): Has Science Discovered God? -Requested by Cogito Ergo Sum

    Then by chance the elements mixed together, and life sprung forth.

    It is a bit more complicated than that. See the first link I provided.

    I do not give any more credit to the idea that because things are moving apart, and we see remnants of microwaves, that it shows in anyway that everything started in one particle of everything than I do to the idea of creationism. I believe they all have the same amount of valid credibility, and that amount is none.

    As I have stated above, the Big Bang theory is based on multiple lines of evidence, collected over several decades by a multitude of scientists.
    Creationism/Intelligent Design is pointing at things and yelling "Goddidit!".

    I do not feel that my belief of our origins sound any crazier than the idea that one day we weren't, and then boom we were.

    That is a severe misunderstanding of the Big Bang theory, the formation of the Solar System and Earth, abiogenesis and biological evolution.

    There is no scientific evidence for me to present.

    I have linked to two threads. One is from member DrRocket (who summarized the Big Bang theory), the other one is from me (about the origin of life).
    Feel free to read them.

    But my thought is that things in the universe make sense. Things that react, processes, and order of things all have valid reasons for them happening. I believe life has to have more of a reasoning than just to exist briefly on the geologic time scale, and then to not exist someday. The universe does not make sense without life. Why would stars, planets, and other bodies exist if intellectual beings did not. They do not have purpose without our existence, and ability to observe and study them. So I do not believe my Idea of a creator is so out there.

    I do not agree with that, but a philosophical inquiry would take too long.

    I believe it is equally a "hunch" as is the big bang theory.

    I assume that you are not aware of the distinction between the vernacular meaning of the word "theory" and the scientific one.
    It is advisable to read the link member PhDemon provided in post #2.

    Now this is not to say I believe all "tales", and "stories" of religious texts. I do believe there may be some validity, but it is buried among allot of non facts, and will distort the truth. An example would be the great flood. It is mentioned throught numerous texts in history ( not just the bible) and may have happened, but my question is more why did so many people reference this event.It may not have occurred directly the way it was written in the bible, but there is a good chance this amazing flood did happen.

    Plagiarism might be the answer.
    Besides, if such a flood occurred, there would be geologic evidence for that.

    To this end I do think religious text can be broken down for scientific evidence of past events. These may be fabricated, and laced with opinion, but should not be discredited anymore than any other field of science. I will end by saying I did not see many arguments for a creator. I do believe religion is widely misused, and I disagree with that part of religion highly. I do however feel the scientific community as a whole should give more credit to the idea of creationism. The idea of science is to study all possible pathways, and I feel this is one of them. I wrote this because I felt like being the first to put an intelligent argument for creationism, and "god" on here. Have fun responding all. I hope this creates a better discussion for you as this forum was originally intended.

    "No one infers a god from the simple, from the known, from what is understood, but from the complex, from the unknown, and incomprehensible. Our ignorance is God; what we know is science."
    ~ Robert G. Ingersoll, "The Gods" in The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll (1909), Vol. I, p. 56


    I am looking forward to your answers.
    Last edited by Cogito Ergo Sum; February 2nd, 2014 at 06:49 PM.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    There is no scientific evidence for me to present. But my thought is that things in the universe make sense. Things that react, processes, and order of things all have valid reasons for them happening. I believe life has to have more of a reasoning than just to exist briefly on the geologic time scale, and then to not exist someday. The universe does not make sense without life. Why would stars, planets, and other bodies exist if intellectual beings did not.
    That's a bit like saying that minerals and soils make no sense to exist in their particular forms unless they were there to be powdered into dusts that can be used for face and body painting or to be used to create artworks. Maybe on the walls of caves, maybe on canvases sold for millions of $$$.

    The idea that the universe was organised just for our benefit makes no sense anyway. The universe seems to have done quite well without us for 13 billion years or so. We've only been around for a blink of geological time.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Warren View Post
    I wrote this because I felt like being the first to put an intelligent argument for creationism, and "god" on here. Have fun responding all.
    I await your "intelligent argument for creationism" with interest.
    I wasn't much impressed by the waffle you've presented so far, however, so I'm also hoping you learn to present your thoughts more coherently.
    zinjanthropos, pavlos and MrMojo1 like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 3rd, 2012, 01:02 PM
  2. Is my reasoning flawed?
    By Raziell in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: May 28th, 2011, 06:51 AM
  3. the best reasoning
    By dolphinbubble in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 26th, 2010, 02:25 AM
  4. Need help on Abstract Reasoning!!!
    By BioHazard in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 31st, 2009, 06:51 AM
  5. Conscious Reasoning
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: October 29th, 2007, 06:42 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •