Quote:

We don't actually create as such a divine being would. It's a bit difficult to explain, but a plane is a plane because we assemble the parts together and gather the resource needed, not because we created the parts and/or the resources of those parts... it's a different kind of 'creation'. Quite literally we are creative with what's already here in some way or another. What we do is gather resources, change them using certain methods and assemble parts, but I think it's save to say that we can't create all ingredients needed for a plane out of thin air..



That's again assuming it takes a divine level of skill or ability to create life. That's an assumption we attribute to the fact we can't do it, nor can we come close.. so we assume that it takes divine power to do it. My contingent is that it doesnt.. and that as far beyond our ability as it might be.. it still doesn't take a divine power to do it.. just an extremely superior intellect.

And also.. i really dont refer to the machine's weve'e made but.. for all we know.. the universe could be a machine. Does it not have similar characteristics to one?

We've split the atom, decoded DNA, plotted surgical procedures.. I hardly mean our constructs so much as our applications of the knowledge we uncover and hone. Our knowledge gives us power, and we use that power in our applications.
Why is it so unfeasible that creation is the result of principally similar learning, honing and applying? Certainly makes more sense than anything we've theorized fo far.


Quote:


The best thing to do would be to go with what we dó know and not too fantasize too much about what or how it *could* be. And if our knowledge is not enough to base logical or valid conclusions upon, then perhaps we should not try to do it anyways? This sounds more agnostic than it was meant.



You can't begin to solve a question if you don't form a logical hypothesis based on what you know. Scientists, CSIs, Officers all do it, and their jobs are to solve inquiries. Admittedly, scientists come closer than the religious to doing so.. but still even they are closed to all possibilities. That's the main reason they dismiss God. (Rightfully so.. all powerful beings who are thus just because.. dont make sense.. but whatever's responsible for this universe.. didnt have to be all powerful either).

You have to ask the right questions, and develop comprehensive leads to follow to get you started.. if you expect to get the right answers. So far, neither side of the debate has done that, and that's why we are stuck, one side clenching their good books, the other clenching their textbooks.

Quote:

However, if you think that somewhere a giant ball must exists and you think to know that it must have a color, but you obviously do not know which color exactly because you haven't seen this giant ball and technically can't know for sure if it exists, then why claim that it's blue anyways?? That doesn't make sense (nor is it half of the truth)



Well.. giant balls and God are.. kind of apple and oranges. One.. well i couldnt begin to equate it but a giant ball existing or not existing would have shreds of evidence that the speculating originates from.

One thing about humans is that we are not iriginal creatures. Everything we imagine is inspired by something. Some partial truth that did happen.. regardless of how we stretched it.

So.. supposing we did believe in the big giant ball. You can bet that at some point.. there may have indeed been a collosal ball. It might not have cured sickness or been shining gold, or blinded all who looked upon it.. but at some point.. there mustve been a ball. Might notve been a special one.. and it might nto exist anymore. But, like with God, the way you approach that question is 1- Dismiss the divinity and pencil erase the talltale, 2 dont hold the fact that it has many stretched truths or made up parts discount the whole thing alltogether.

Then.. you infer, and you speculate a logical.. nonspecial theory.. of what and where this giant ball might have existed. You dont know, ut this is how all investigative people form a trail. Theorizing.

Then you start digging.. going elsewhere and digging.. and forensically investigating.. until the pieces of the ball.. and the great big dent one which the ball mightve once rested.. are found.


Quote:


I do not believe in aliens before ever having seen one, but I don't think there's a good reason to assume that we are special.



You dont neccesarily have to believe something for it to be.. but you'll never know its there if you don't acknowledge the possibility.

We can.. not believe in aliens all we want.. but the only way we'll know if they exist is if we have the openmindedness to get out there and seek them out. and be willing to challenge our beliefs.

Quote:

If 'we' can happen once then there's no reason to assume it can not have happened twice elsewhere.

Our history has shown many times that inventions got lost and that people needed the same things in the same situation and eventually ended up inventing nearly the same things.



That's the very same type of inference I'm using. Taking what you know to be true..infering.. theorizing.. my next step, if I owned a warp capable private ship and some excavation equipment.. would be to investigate. I just happen to believe, based on the idea that nothing complex occurs without forthought and creation, and that our universe is exactly an infinitely more complicated manifestation of forthought and creation .

I could easily be wrong.. but it makes more sense than.. it springing forth just because.. or from natural cycles that have no specific catalyst that set off the big bang and started the whole chain. As I further substantiate my theory, it might well become the best basis for comprehensive pursuit of the question.

Quote:


Quote:

No magic.. only what we do and don't understand.



Yes, which is exactly why people shouldn't hold on to outdated beliefs, in the historical sense religion has always been both a tool of control and an 'easy answer to tough questions' whatever their nature. That's something that's not helping very much either... If people would have more knowledge about other religions and how similar they all are in terms of 'make a large group controllable', there would be a lot less religious people. Why is it easy for people to totally not believe in for example Egyptian Gods or Allah and laugh at it as if it's one big childish myth, but still believe in their own "God" as if that's less fictional?




Well.. you have religious communities who are unwilling to admit they might be wrong, and most of the scientific world is also guity of that. Nobody's willing to compromis,e much less start over.. which is why our pursuit so far has bene anything but productive.

Quote:

Is it really to easy to simply think that the whole idea of a God is ridiculous in the first place and should we therefore continue searching for something when we don't even know what to look for?

Cheers



Yes, it is too easy. Nothing in our universe has a simple answer. If it did, we wouldnt need science or math to make sense of it where the answers arent apparent.. and sometimes even when they are.

Part of the reason we're so lost on this is because one side believes in a magical, all powerful (because he's magical) God. The other half believes its totally ridiculous.. there's nothing out there capable of a universe without being magical.. and neither side is willing to challenge that basis.

My contingent is that complex things dont just spring into being.. accidentally, from thin air, as the result of originless natural process.. just as atoms dont spontaneously coaless and form compounds unless something induces it.. that something being an intelligence that wants to induce the fusion, fission, or distabilization in order to make a result.

This is just a theory, but it makes a great deal more sense than divine magic, and its much less open ended than originless natural processes. I'm willing to start over if someday I find myself wrong, but that's why it's a theory.. and I wouldnt live my life or base my career on certainty in the half-truth, like almost all modern humans are doing.

(I term religious teaching.. and modern science as halves of the truth because theyre not totally and compeltely off.. just missing alot of fact and leading people astray because they chose to embrace both as the complete truth).

I'm ICEman, and I approved this message.