What is God?
What is God?God is what all intelligent people strive to be.....! http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/15/article-2262870-16F57CB0000005DC-924_964x642.jpg
What is God?God is what all intelligent people try to be.....! [Photo] Once again, please do NOT make multiple, substantially identical posts in different threads. I have deleted your other post. Thanks.
That’s actually a workable definition. One of the few things you’ve said that has some sense to it. Too bad it doesn’t fit with other things you said. God as a mythological ideal is a useful tool to hold a peaceful society together and teach children simple lessons. It works best if at some point you grow up and learn that it is mythology and learn how mythology works. We do this today with Santa Claus. We let kids figure it out for themselves and then immediately enlist them in being part of the story telling for the younger ones.
But I don’t see you doing that. Given other things you’ve said, your definition implies there is some God entity and it’s smart to try to be like it. I’m kinda hoping you’ll correct me, but I think you’ll have to backtrack on some things you said earlier.
That's actually a workable definition. One of the few things you've said that has some sense to it. Too bad it doesn't fit with other things you said. God as a mythological ideal is a useful tool to hold a peaceful society together and teach children simple lessons. It works best if at some point you grow up and learn that it is mythology and learn how mythology works. We do this today with Santa Claus. We let kids figure it out for themselves and then immediately enlist them in being part of the story telling for the younger ones. But I don't see you doing that. Given other things you've said, your definition implies there is some God entity and it's smart to try to be like it. I'm kinda hoping you'll correct me, but I think you'll have to backtrack on some things you said earlier.You want to indoctrinate children to atheism, and have them believe that they were formed from mud.....! I do not. http://i.imgur.com/0afStGc.gif
I want children to learn to think for themselves. My parent’s believed a lot of irrational things, but they forced none of it on me. They sent me to some Sunday School, we watched Cosmos together and got those “psychic” cards with the shapes and wavy lines on them. I now feel that I have made the choice to live in the real world. If an atheist is indoctrinating children into atheism, they are doing it wrong.
Hey, Lausten, unless the rules have changed, you can't use blue highlights, as they are reserved for administrators. Maybe you can change it before the big guy catches it. Back to the thread. Life, as we know it, so far, requires carbon and DNA. But that does not theoretically rule out life forms based on other formats.Absolutely, theoretical life from other places does not need to be based on Carbon and DNA, however until we either leave the Earth and find this, or less likely find other forms of life on the Earth, that are not Carbon based, then this is just a distracting thought. However I have heard others say that life has to be based on carbon, or must have Earth conditions to exist, and there is no evidence for this, other than it seems to be true on this planet. Interesting thought here, if an alien were retrieved and dissected and it's DNA did have strong ties to other Earth DNA, what would you conclude from this? Yea, it's just a theoretical and nonsensical postulation, but it makes just as much sense as billions of lines of genetic operating systems being created from muck. I was not only referring to the possibility of life, being based on, let's say, silicon instead of carbon. In the grand scale of history, if the secularists hold sway over that of the wacko fundamentalists, it may not be that long before humans can create what is essentially a new life form, of conscious machines that can mechanically reproduce and evolve. (Even without the timely reappearance of a mystical benevolent all powerful creator.)
Coral, Clearly you can post cute pictures. But they don’t seem to be particularly relevant to the points that you post with them. So they are pretty much a waste of posting space.
Hey, Lausten, unless the rules have changed, you can't use blue highlights, as they are reserved for administrators. Maybe you can change it before the big guy catches it. Back to the thread. Life, as we know it, so far, requires carbon and DNA. But that does not theoretically rule out life forms based on other formats.Absolutely, theoretical life from other places does not need to be based on Carbon and DNA, however until we either leave the Earth and find this, or less likely find other forms of life on the Earth, that are not Carbon based, then this is just a distracting thought. However I have heard others say that life has to be based on carbon, or must have Earth conditions to exist, and there is no evidence for this, other than it seems to be true on this planet. Interesting thought here, if an alien were retrieved and dissected and it's DNA did have strong ties to other Earth DNA, what would you conclude from this? Yea, it's just a theoretical and nonsensical postulation, but it makes just as much sense as billions of lines of genetic operating systems being created from muck. I was not only referring to the possibility of life, being based on, let's say, silicon instead of carbon. In the grand scale of history, if the secularists hold sway over that of the wacko fundamentalists, it may not be that long before humans can create what is essentially a new life form, of conscious machines that can mechanically reproduce and evolve. (Even without the timely reappearance of a mystical benevolent all powerful creator.) Can you produce proof that you are not a mechanical machine, that reproduces and evolves. DNA stores code, your brain and heart do not function without electricity, you need fuel, and create waste, you can go exactly as far without Oxygen as any combustion engine. So if DNA is a hard drive, all the rest is clear. It's not random, it is the DNA blueprint of life http://www.cohenvanbalen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/dna-lipase.jpg http://www.cohenvanbalen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/dna-lipase.jpg
I was not only referring to the possibility of life, being based on, let's say, silicon instead of carbon. In the grand scale of history, if the secularists hold sway over that of the wacko fundamentalists, it may not be that long before humans can create what is essentially a new life form, of conscious machines that can mechanically reproduce and evolve. (Even without the timely reappearance of a mystical benevolent all powerful creator.)Can you produce proof that you are not a mechanical machine, that reproduces and evolves. DNA stores code, your brain and heart do not function without electricity, you need fuel, and create waste, you can go exactly as far without Oxygen as any combustion engine. So if DNA is a hard drive, all the rest is clear. It's not random, it is the DNA blueprint of life ...In a sense, we CAN think of ourselves as machines that reproduce and evolve. In a sense, one can think of DNA (metaphorically speaking) as a sort of hard drive. Where you go wrong, in your obsessive perseveration on DNA, is by pairing it with your underlying insistence that DNA was created by a mystical benevolent entity. When you offer no theoretical or hypothetical underpinnings for this, you are, at the same time, consistently berating the more likely case (that does have solid theoretical underpinnings) that DNA also evolved from something more elemental (e.g., RNA). Your arguments not only suggest a deficiency of intellectual integrity, they are also, downright silly.
DNA is not a metaphorical hard drive, it is a physical hard drive, that was created in the past, by someone with millions to billions of years more skill than our own. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134672-harvard-cracks-dna-storage-crams-700-terabytes-of-data-into-a-single-gram http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/coding-decoding-dna-storage.jpgI was not only referring to the possibility of life, being based on, let's say, silicon instead of carbon. In the grand scale of history, if the secularists hold sway over that of the wacko fundamentalists, it may not be that long before humans can create what is essentially a new life form, of conscious machines that can mechanically reproduce and evolve. (Even without the timely reappearance of a mystical benevolent all powerful creator.)Can you produce proof that you are not a mechanical machine, that reproduces and evolves. DNA stores code, your brain and heart do not function without electricity, you need fuel, and create waste, you can go exactly as far without Oxygen as any combustion engine. So if DNA is a hard drive, all the rest is clear. It's not random, it is the DNA blueprint of life ...In a sense, we CAN think of ourselves as machines that reproduce and evolve. In a sense, one can think of DNA (metaphorically speaking) as a sort of hard drive. Where you go wrong, in your obsessive perseveration on DNA, is by pairing it with your underlying insistence that DNA was created by a mystical benevolent entity. When you offer no theoretical or hypothetical underpinnings for this, you are, at the same time, consistently berating the more likely case (that does have solid theoretical underpinnings) that DNA also evolved from something more elemental (e.g., RNA). Your arguments not only suggest a deficiency of intellectual integrity, they are also, downright silly.
It’s interesting that you (Coral Star) show humans trying to be “god”, but you also end up using the wrong human for that example. Jane Goodall doesn’t want to play god to our closest relative- the chimpanzees. She wants to make sure humans do not drive them to extinction, use them for medical testing (ie finding a cure for HIV/AIDS), among other things, but I don’t consider this as playing god. Rather, it maybe an example of humans playing “angels”. The same could be said for Diane with the gorillas, but it was human “demons” who killed her. Again, this wasn’t a case of “intelligent” people playing “god”, but rather so-called “intelligent” humans playing “angels” and “demons” with our relatives. The deity metaphor doesn’t quite work in the picture you showed.
It's interesting that you (Coral Star) show humans trying to be "god", but you also end up using the wrong human for that example. Jane Goodall doesn't want to play god to our closest relative- the chimpanzees. She wants to make sure humans do not drive them to extinction, use them for medical testing (ie finding a cure for HIV/AIDS), among other things, but I don't consider this as playing god. Rather, it maybe an example of humans playing "angels". The same could be said for Diane with the gorillas, but it was human "demons" who killed her. Again, this wasn't a case of "intelligent" people playing "god", but rather so-called "intelligent" humans playing "angels" and "demons" with our relatives. The deity metaphor doesn't quite work in the picture you showed.Wheewy, lets get a few things straight here. 1. I never showed anyone trying to be God, you assumed this from a photo. 2. You are highly unlikely to know what Jane Goodall wants, but there is a minuscule possibility that you are her. 3. What I did was to answer the question as to what is God, my response was that God is what all intelligent people strive to be. 4. I then included a photo of an intelligent person, using her intelligence to help make the World a better place. 5. I made no deity metaphor, I simply showed a person doing what any believer in God would clearly see as the work of God, which is caring for those lesser than they. http://www.skeptical-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/the_Jane_Goodall_Institute_of_Canada.jpg
Wheewy, lets get a few things straight here. 1. I never showed anyone trying to be God, you assumed this from a photo. 2. You are highly unlikely to know what Jane Goodall wants, but there is a minuscule possibility that you are her. 3. What I did was to answer the question as to what is God, my response was that God is what all intelligent people strive to be. 4. I then included a photo of an intelligent person, using her intelligence to help make the World a better place. 5. I made no deity metaphor, I simply showed a person doing what any believer in God would clearly see as the work of God, which is caring for those lesser than they.You didn't? Then what is this below? I don't think Jane Goodall is striving to be god and what I said still applies. As for knowing what she wants, I am one of her biggest fans and have been highly invested in her work, writings, etc. Yes, you attempted to answer "what god is" (in your opinion), which did lead to a metaphor, but in doing so, you left yourself open to responses such as mine and again, my response still stands. One doesn't have to believe in a deity to care for others (human or non-human). The work of any humanitarian, which Jane Goodall is, is to strive to better the lives of others, which includes other animals, not just the human animal. The thing is, truly intelligent people do not strive to be a god. They strive to better themselves, the lives of others, and society.
What is God?God is what all intelligent people strive to be.....! http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/15/article-2262870-16F57CB0000005DC-924_964x642.jpg
Good luck Mriana. He’s changed from having a bad argument against evolution to telling us what he DIDN’T say. If he had something say, he’d say it.
What I did was post a beautiful picture, of a beautiful woman doing a beautiful thing. That for some reason has aggravated you.....! http://www.fun2smiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Funny-Baby-Pictures-151.jpgWheewy, lets get a few things straight here. 1. I never showed anyone trying to be God, you assumed this from a photo. 2. You are highly unlikely to know what Jane Goodall wants, but there is a minuscule possibility that you are her. 3. What I did was to answer the question as to what is God, my response was that God is what all intelligent people strive to be. 4. I then included a photo of an intelligent person, using her intelligence to help make the World a better place. 5. I made no deity metaphor, I simply showed a person doing what any believer in God would clearly see as the work of God, which is caring for those lesser than they.You didn't? Then what is this below? I don't think Jane Goodall is striving to be god and what I said still applies. As for knowing what she wants, I am one of her biggest fans and have been highly invested in her work, writings, etc. Yes, you attempted to answer "what god is" (in your opinion), which did lead to a metaphor, but in doing so, you left yourself open to responses such as mine and again, my response still stands. One doesn't have to believe in a deity to care for others (human or non-human). The work of any humanitarian, which Jane Goodall is, is to strive to better the lives of others, which includes other animals, not just the human animal. The thing is, truly intelligent people do not strive to be a god. They strive to better themselves, the lives of others, and society.What is God?God is what all intelligent people strive to be.....! http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/15/article-2262870-16F57CB0000005DC-924_964x642.jpg
What I did was post a beautiful picture, of a beautiful woman doing a beautiful thing. That for some reason has aggravated you.....!No, that did not aggravate me. However, saying that god is what intelligent people strive to be is incorrect. An intelligent person strives to better themselves and society, which has nothing to do with a god.
What I did was post a beautiful picture, of a beautiful woman doing a beautiful thing. That for some reason has aggravated you.....!No, that did not aggravate me. However, saying that god is what intelligent people strive to be is incorrect. An intelligent person strives to better themselves and society, which has nothing to do with a god. That is because you believe that children are the atheistic natural procession of mud. I do not. So, u wanna look me in da eye and call me mud? http://itsdakippa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/funny_babies_faces.jpg
What I did was post a beautiful picture, of a beautiful woman doing a beautiful thing. That for some reason has aggravated you.....!No, that did not aggravate me. However, saying that god is what intelligent people strive to be is incorrect. An intelligent person strives to better themselves and society, which has nothing to do with a god. That is because you believe that children are the atheistic natural procession of mud. I do not. So, u wanna look me in da eye and call me mud? So now you're telling me what I believe? Very interesting. How is it you know what I believe (or don't believe) when I haven't even told you? Or do you prefer telling people what they believe as though you know and they don't? Be that as it may, you hardly meet the characteristics of "Mudd" in the Star Trek episode "I, Mudd", but if you want me to call you Mudd, so be it. That will be your new screen name. :lol:
What I did was post a beautiful picture, of a beautiful woman doing a beautiful thing. That for some reason has aggravated you.....!No, that did not aggravate me. However, saying that god is what intelligent people strive to be is incorrect. An intelligent person strives to better themselves and society, which has nothing to do with a god. That is because you believe that children are the atheistic natural procession of mud. I do not. So, u wanna look me in da eye and call me mud? So now you're telling me what I believe? Very interesting. How is it you know what I believe (or don't believe) when I haven't even told you? Or do you prefer telling people what they believe as though you know and they don't? Be that as it may, you hardly meet the characteristics of "Mudd" in the Star Trek episode "I, Mudd", but if you want me to call you Mudd, so be it. That will be your new screen name. :lol: Ok, so if you are not an atheist, then I do apologize, you would however be the first non atheist to respond to any of my ideas. The odd thing is that I have not even used God in my thinking of intelligent design, what the average evolutionist can not comprehend, is that physicist and genetic engineers are all intelligent, and can certainly perform the God function, by simply inventing a way to leave the Earth for another place. http://ecards-media-v3.s3.amazonaws.com/mediastore/ecards/thumbs-large/free-ecards-Sorry-Sorry_Elephant-517.jpg