Page 3 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#12794 - 09/28/03 03:18 PM Re: The Improbability of God [Re: Perndog]
DancingintheDark Offline


Registered: 08/20/02
Posts: 745
Quote:

The "laws of physics" are only invented models used to further understanding. They are riddled with assumptions, postulates, and uncertainties.




Not at all, the laws of physics are based on universal "truths", phenomena that strictly adheres to proven rules and principles under observation. They may perhaps change slightly over prolonged periods of time as the universe evolves but you would be talking millions of years. They are fundamental. If there is any uncertainty around a phenomenon then it does not become law. Anything unproven remains a theory.

Quote:

Any scientist who says there are no gods because science accounts for everything is deluding himself. There is yet no Theory of Everything.




Oh there are plenty of theories... nothing proven yet though.
_________________________
This message will self destruct

Top
#12795 - 09/28/03 03:35 PM Come,now, Mr Anderson!
Mr_Atrox Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 09/16/03
Posts: 1814
Loc: Lycopolis
Boy oh boy!, Australia must really be getting hot! and boring!
First of all, there are a few questions you must first ask yourself, and they are the very same you've directed at everyone else.
You are all but transparent in your efforts to raise anwers to the questions that have obviously been bugging you. I will not sit here and take the high (pretentious) ground by offering that I am above participating in such an easily entered debate!
I am only human after all.
Why, I ask in return, bother with any of it? Your tone suggests that you are so much above all of this ,yet there you are....posting away. Why would it matter who joins a Church, whether it be of Satan or Anderson?
The fact of the matter is this. You, sir, are a masochist and , I assure you, you have definitely come to the right place!
Life is for the living, have fun or get the Hell out of the way!

_________________________
"If you wanna hurt me, you're gonna have to earn it motherfucker."
-Mickey Rourke

Top
#12796 - 09/28/03 03:55 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: Wonka]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:

No Satanist with a thirst of knowledge and progress can be a true Athiest.

The key element, doubt, should always be present. I have no reason to think a creature fitting the Judeo-Christian concept of God exists. If something presents itself as evidence towards the theory of God, I will look into it if it interests me.

The existence of such a creature has made no visible impact in my life, so whether or not he exists is not a factor in my life. Thus, he is not worthy of my attention. Satanism is a religion of practicality, not of belief or idle thoughts of no importance (unless one gains pleasure from them). The only exception to beliefs, is in the ritual chamber, and even suspending disbelief serves a practical purpose.




Wonderfully put.

Top
#12797 - 09/28/03 03:59 PM Re: The Improbability of God [Re: DancingintheDark]
Perndog Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 09/06/03
Posts: 558
Loc: USA
"the laws of physics are based on universal "truths", phenomena that strictly adheres to proven rules and principles under observation"

Precisely. The laws and rules propounded by physicists are representations of actual processes, and those processes are seen though repeating phenomena (on a tangent, past repetition doesn't guarantee future repetition. I remember the story of the chicken who is fed every day for a year and eaten the day afterward).

The principles underlying the phenomena are never completely understood; we can describe some things quite well in certain terms, but that doesn't mean we are using the same terms that nature uses.

Science worked when the existence of atoms was proven and they were considered indivisible. Science still worked when smaller particles within atoms were proven, and that was thought to be the whole picture. Science works yet today when those smaller particles are made of still smaller particles. With such constant revisionism, it is difficult to believe that the complete explanation has been found for anything - there is always a deeper level to be reached, always something unseen that could knock an established "truth" off its pedestal.

Top
#12798 - 09/28/03 04:52 PM Re: The Improbability of God [Re: Perndog]
Blackheart Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 389
Loc: England
I agree with you mostly.

Personally, I am of the opinion that absolute scientific truths are just as mythical as absolute religious truths. Science has simply replaced God as the thing which can give us enlightenment.

Bunny

Top
#12799 - 09/28/03 06:27 PM Back to God. [Re: Perndog]
Nemo Offline
CoS Magister

Registered: 10/06/02
Posts: 12572
Loc: Point Nemo s48:52:31:748, w123...
I just wanted to suggest that if the god being described is the Judeo-Islamic-Christian "Yahweh-Allah-Jehovah" and this demented, homicidal, ego-imoverished maniac actually existed, any person of worth would be opposed to that God as a matter of principle. By comparison, Hitler and Stalin were sweethearts.

Read your Bible.

End of sermon.

Top
#12800 - 09/28/03 06:54 PM Re: The Improbability of God [Re: Perndog]
DancingintheDark Offline


Registered: 08/20/02
Posts: 745
Quote:

The laws and rules propounded by physicists are representations of actual processes, and those processes are seen though repeating phenomena




Exactly, and as such the repeatability factor removes uncertainty and assumption, to an extent whereby a phenomena may become regarded as law.

Quote:

The principles underlying the phenomena are never completely understood; we can describe some things quite well in certain terms, but that doesn't mean we are using the same terms that nature uses.




Yes however the laws of physics are simply provable observations about certain phenomena, which offer scientists a solid platform to work from. They are not philosopher's stones, nor are they meant to be. They don't allude to the secrets of life, they are just observations concerning it.

Quote:

Science worked when the existence of atoms was proven and they were considered indivisible. Science still worked when smaller particles within atoms were proven, and that was thought to be the whole picture. Science works yet today when those smaller particles are made of still smaller particles. With such constant revisionism, it is difficult to believe that the complete explanation has been found for anything - there is always a deeper level to be reached, always something unseen that could knock an established "truth" off its pedestal.




Indeed there is revisionism in science, but remember something does not become law until it is repeatably verifiable. New layers or levels may be uncovered, however laws will still apply at the level they were first observed on. Newtonian physics still fits perfectly with our view of the world, on a macroscopic level. Just because of Einstein's relativity or revelations at a microscopic level science does not discard Newton's work, because Newtonian physics is proven at a macroscopic level. What it must do is reconcile the different levels or layers you speak of, not throw one or the other out. All that is happening is the view is widening to encompass more and more things, and of course it would be conveient to have a common thread tying all those things together.

I agree that science doesn't have all the answers, in fact I would be the first to say it, however we have come a long fucking way from the Middle Ages, and an even longer way from the Stone Age. This is largely due to science. If man's fate had been left in the hands of the churches we would still be in the Dark Ages!
_________________________
This message will self destruct

Top
#12801 - 09/28/03 07:02 PM Re: Back to God. [Re: Nemo]
Perndog Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 09/06/03
Posts: 558
Loc: USA
While I'm not quite sure how that applies to the point I was trying to make, rest assured that I generally don't assign a personality to the word "god" unless I'm specifically talking about Christianity.

Top
#12802 - 09/28/03 07:10 PM Re: The Improbability of God [Re: DancingintheDark]
Perndog Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 09/06/03
Posts: 558
Loc: USA
"Science doesn't have all the answers" is the only point I was really trying to make; we're on the same page. I just wanted to point out that when a scientist says "we don't need a god because I can show you exactly how the universe evolved by physical laws alone," he is assuming that he *does* have all the answers, which I think is a little foolish. As you said, scientific laws don't allude to the secrets of life, but the Dr. Atkins that CPayne's article referred to seemed to think that he already knew all the secrets.

Top
#12803 - 09/28/03 07:25 PM Re: The Improbability of God [Re: Perndog]
DancingintheDark Offline


Registered: 08/20/02
Posts: 745
Dr Atkins...

Heh, perhaps it is the same good doctor who came up with the Atkin's diet, widely acclaimed by celebrities but now denounced by certain health organizations as dangerous! Perhaps he is now turning his hand to unravelling the mysteries of the universe... Satan help us!
_________________________
This message will self destruct

Top
#12804 - 09/28/03 07:32 PM Re: Back to God. [Re: Nemo]
Anonymous
Unregistered


And a hearty "amen" to that!

Top
#12805 - 09/28/03 08:01 PM Re: Back to God. [Re: Nemo]
TrojZyr Offline
CoS Witch

Registered: 07/25/01
Posts: 12990
Loc: The Solid State
Just a digression...

I heard right from the horse's mouth today that Hitler was placed on the throne by Yhwh. Never had a chance to ask what Yhwh's game plan was, but I'd be very interested to hear the rationalization for this.

The guy did unwittingly show that Christians are somewhat between a rock and a hard place on this matter. Unless one twists and ignores Yhwh's eagerness to meddle in affairs, one has to typically choose between an interpretation that makes the deity look impotent, and one that makes the deity look evil.
_________________________
"Gentlemen, the verdict is guilty, on all ten counts of first-degree stupidity. The penalty phase will now begin."--Divine, "Pink Flamingos."

"The strong rule the weak, and the cunning rule over all." HS!

Top
#12806 - 09/28/03 08:58 PM Re: A Caucus Race [Re: Wonka]
Anonymous
Unregistered


You're right in stating that there is no ultimate benefit to choosing a side, which is precisely why I am on neither side. Theists would say "Just because air cannot be seen doesn't mean it's not there, just because God cannot be seen...", while Atheists would say "We can prove air exists, we cannot prove God exists". Well, to them, I say "What cannot be seen may or may not exist."

I study, I search, I reason...because I like to. While evil shall dominate good, neutrality shall remain forever most powerful, and it would be wise for the satanist to acknowledge this power and put it in his weaponry...it will serve his judgement well and most unblinded.

Top
#12807 - 09/28/03 09:55 PM Critique
Citizen_Parker Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 04/15/03
Posts: 217
Quote:

I welcome criticism.




Yes...I've noticed that quite clearly. Or is it, more accurately, conflict you welcome? Or perhaps even seek out?
_________________________
Hail Satan!

Parker

Test Everything. Believe Nothing.

Top
#12808 - 09/28/03 10:51 PM Re: Critique [Re: Citizen_Parker]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Perhaps... I believe that it's on the basis of a good conflict that some of the most interesting and wise things are said and done... But I do learn from it, and take note of what happens in the conflict. I find it's one of the quickest ways to learn something new and improve one's logic, as well as to test the ground of one's philosophy.

Top
Page 3 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >


Forum Stats
12198 Members
73 Forums
43976 Topics
406016 Posts

Max Online: 197 @ 10/04/11 06:49 AM
Advertisements