Religion - Page 58 - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: [Insert Pointless Quote Here]
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > General Forums > Political Debate Forum

View Poll Results: What do you identify yourself as?
Atheist/Skeptic/Agnostic 151 70.89%
Catholic 21 9.86%
Protestant 24 11.27%
Jewish 5 2.35%
Muslim 2 0.94%
Philisophy (Such as Buddhism) 10 4.69%
Voters: 213. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 2012-06-25, 08:03 PM   [Ignore Me] #856
Deezy
Corporal
 
Deezy's Avatar
 
Re: Religion


Originally Posted by Figment View Post
Considering you believe in an intelligent off-world creator that never interacted with mankind, surely you've found some evidence that lead you to this conclusion as you are pro-observation and pro-reason?
Might sound odd, but my reasoning is scientifical because of the law of conservation of energy and how it relates to the big bang. Unfortunately, there isn't an explanation for the original source of this energy or dense mass which triggered the event but still allows for the following of the LoCE. In most debates I've had, I find that people tend to try and dismiss that inquiry as inane when it is in fact a very relevant argument. Being as science cannot explain this phenomena, I personally accept that something beyond our understanding or mental capacity initiated the event. Call it a grand architect, God, Allah, Dios, whatever you want, it's the only reasoning I have available.

Originally Posted by Xyntech View Post
At least I can respect deism as being possible, even if unlikely. Just because the existence of god can't currently be directly disproved doesn't mean that most religious definitions of god aren't fucking idiotic
I agree. Religion to faith is what politics is to governance. They're generally presented as if they go hand in hand, but they're mutually exclusive.
Deezy is offline  
Old 2012-06-25, 09:31 PM   [Ignore Me] #857
Sirisian
Colonel
 
Sirisian's Avatar
 
Re: Religion


Originally Posted by Deezy View Post
Unfortunately, there isn't an explanation for the original source of this energy or dense mass which triggered the event
How far have you researched into this topic? I mean have you talked to physicists? You might find this book interesting. It goes along those ideas that you're discussing. (Depends, I haven't read it. The reviews are rather mixed).

Originally Posted by Deezy View Post
In most debates I've had, I find that people tend to try and dismiss that inquiry as inane when it is in fact a very relevant argument.
Sometimes we have accept the fact that all of human knowledge can't yet answer a problem. The reason people make that statement that you experienced is because it would be like asking the question a thousand years ago. Sure people didn't know, but not everyone just jumped to the conclusion that it must be a higher power. Those kind of jumps are illogical and best approached when humanity comes to that point. That's how I generally view it, and would side with the "inane" comment.

You're welcome to create a hypothesis and test it. That's the general scientific way.

Last edited by Sirisian; 2012-06-25 at 09:47 PM.
Sirisian is offline  
Old 2012-06-25, 10:05 PM   [Ignore Me] #858
Deezy
Corporal
 
Deezy's Avatar
 
Re: Religion


Originally Posted by Sirisian View Post
How far have you researched into this topic? I mean have you talked to physicists? You might find this book interesting. It goes along those ideas that you're discussing. (Depends, I haven't read it. The reviews are rather mixed).


Sometimes we have accept the fact that all of human knowledge can't yet answer a problem. The reason people make that statement that you experienced is because it would be like asking the question a thousand years ago. Sure people didn't know, but not everyone just jumped to the conclusion that it must be a higher power. Those kind of jumps are illogical and best approached when humanity comes to that point. That's how I generally view it, and would side with the "inane" comment.

You're welcome to create a hypothesis and test it. That's the general scientific way.
Looks like an interesting read. I'll definitely look into it. Unfortunately, no, my own dialogue has only once involved and actual physicist, and their understanding of physics is far superior than my gamer mind. My field of study and profession isn't within the bounds of physics theory or quantum mechanics. While I do enjoy a hypothesis as much as the next one, I'm more of a follower of proven fact than theory. Seeing as I don't posses the tenure for such studies, I can only make my subjective observations based on tangible fact, rather than speculation and estimation.
Deezy is offline  
Old 2012-06-26, 05:56 AM   [Ignore Me] #859
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Religion


But if you're a "follower of proven fact", how can you be a deist?

That's a direct contradiction really, because deism is in the end based on assumptions and gut feelings rather than reason as it clinges to some sort of assumption or hypothesis that there's a higher power of sorts.

Evidence for that isn't even more than very weak circumstantial evidence being interpreted in a biased manner based on the pre-existing assumption there's a higher power. Take the assumption that there is no higher power or could be one and then that same circumstantial evidence (such as physics or other natural patterns) can be interpreted in many other ways.

(Note: not saying you can't or shouldn't be deist btw, but it's more fun to debate than the same old same old OLD religions).

Last edited by Figment; 2012-06-26 at 06:08 AM.
Figment is offline  
Old 2012-06-26, 10:41 AM   [Ignore Me] #860
Xyntech
Brigadier General
 
Xyntech's Avatar
 
Re: Religion


The biggest problem I have with deism is that even while it rejects a lot of the crazier shit from religions, it still clings to the unsubstantiated claim of a creator or powerful entity who is behind the universe that we observe.

I think my biggest problem with that is the fact that through history and religion, we can observe and figure out some pretty good explanations for where spirituality and religion came up with the ideas that led to god(s) in the first place. Not through any inherent knowledge or through testing and observation, but as a way to explain the unexplainable and as a way for religious leaders to maintain power and status.

If we somehow hadn't developed the idea of god up until today with our current scientific method and understanding, how widespread would acceptance of this idea be? Certainly it would be a novel and interesting idea, one which would be difficult or impossible to actually disprove just as it is in real life today, but there is also no real reason to believe it either. The idea of god doesn't really add much to the table. God is like a placeholder that we've grown beyond the need for. That doesn't prove that god doesn't exist, it just makes it pointless to bother with god until we find some harder evidence.

I just think that deism is religion stripped of all of it's most absurd elements, but still clinging on to the same pointless concept. If there is a god who doesn't particularly care who I have sex with or what I eat, then what's gods importance to my life? If there is no afterlife then I'll just die and cease to be, just the same as if there was no god. If there is an afterlife, than I'm sure we'll all chill and hang out and discuss the nature of existence with the caveat of finally having proof of god. It just doesn't seem like there's any major difference between a universe with a realistic god and a universe with no god at all. At that point, god seems like just an interesting little factoid.

For now, the idea of god just seems to be complicating the origin of the universe unnecessarily. Either god had to have it's own creator, etc etc infinite regression, or neither god nor a spontaneous universe had to have creator. The latter two are the only logical choices, so until we have proof that only god and not the rest of the universe could have spontaneously come into existence, it's safe to assume that the simpler explanation is the answer. As of now, quantum physics shows us that the universe absolutely could have come from "nothing." If you think that sounds weird, you obviously need to think about god a lot more, because the idea that there is something rather than nothing is a pretty bizarre concept regardless of if there is a god or not.
Xyntech is offline  
Old 2012-06-29, 02:28 AM   [Ignore Me] #861
therandomone
Sergeant
 
Re: Religion


Agnosticism and atheism are two very separate ideas,in fact atheism is different than all those belief systems, in the fact that it isnt really a belief system. Religion has never been just about god existing, its based on a group of other beliefs as well. Atheism is the same, except for it being based on science/logic. Atheism is a mix of physicalism/naturalism/ and rationalism. Its claim isnt really just about the lack of a god its also about a lack of everything outside the natural world. Finally, while I respect peoples religious belief (as long as they dont try and preach to me) I feel the only logical choice is Atheism.
therandomone is offline  
Old 2012-06-29, 02:50 PM   [Ignore Me] #862
MadPenguin
Sergeant
 
Re: Religion


Originally Posted by Deezy View Post
Might sound odd, but my reasoning is scientifical because of the law of conservation of energy and how it relates to the big bang. Unfortunately, there isn't an explanation for the original source of this energy or dense mass which triggered the event but still allows for the following of the LoCE. In most debates I've had, I find that people tend to try and dismiss that inquiry as inane when it is in fact a very relevant argument. Being as science cannot explain this phenomena, I personally accept that something beyond our understanding or mental capacity initiated the event. Call it a grand architect, God, Allah, Dios, whatever you want, it's the only reasoning I have available.
The first thing to note is that energy CAN be created and destroyed. You can create X amount of energy, as long as X amount of energy is simultaneously "destroyed" (i.e. energy removed from reality/ creation of negative energy). In other words net energy has to remain as 0.

An example of this is the virtual particles that pop into and out of reality in a vacuum. Considering a system comprised of a single particle that has just come into existence, clearly energy has been created. But this is not a problem for conservation of energy since if you expand your system you will find that, due to other particles being "destroyed" (exiting reality), the NET energy due to these particles in the overall system (the universe) is 0.

The next thing to realise is that gravitational fields have negative energy. For an explanation of this watch the following video (explanation starts 28:30 and only last 3-4 minutes)
Finally, it just so happens we live in a universe with a critical mass that means the negative gravitational energy EXACTLY counters that of the positive energy from mass and the like.

So the universe we live in has a NET ENERGY of ZERO, and hence doesn't break any laws of physics by creating itself "from nothing". The next question an inquisitive mind asks is what caused this? Unfortunately there is currently no comprehensive scientific theory on the matter, but I would be upset if someone jumped to the conclusion God at this point instead of admitting; "We just don't know, so lets reserve judgement".

But the conservation of energy isn't something you can use to infer a deity

Last edited by MadPenguin; 2012-06-30 at 07:06 AM.
MadPenguin is offline  
Old 2012-06-29, 08:36 PM   [Ignore Me] #863
Warborn
Contributor
Major General
 
Warborn's Avatar
 
Re: Religion


Originally Posted by therandomone View Post
Agnosticism and atheism are two very separate ideas,in fact atheism is different than all those belief systems, in the fact that it isnt really a belief system. Religion has never been just about god existing, its based on a group of other beliefs as well. Atheism is the same, except for it being based on science/logic. Atheism is a mix of physicalism/naturalism/ and rationalism. Its claim isnt really just about the lack of a god its also about a lack of everything outside the natural world. Finally, while I respect peoples religious belief (as long as they dont try and preach to me) I feel the only logical choice is Atheism.
We've been over this. Atheism has nothing to do with physicalism, naturalism, rationalism, or any other "ism". A loony person who believes they are psychic and can predict the future and also believes in ghosts and fairies can still be an atheist. Atheists can believe in alien abductions, that the President is a lizard-person from Mars, or believe in werewolves, vampires, unicorns, detest science, hate rational inquiry, but because they don't think there's a god, pow, atheist.
Warborn is offline  
Old 2012-06-30, 04:59 AM   [Ignore Me] #864
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Religion


Originally Posted by Warborn View Post
We've been over this. Atheism has nothing to do with physicalism, naturalism, rationalism, or any other "ism". A loony person who believes they are psychic and can predict the future and also believes in ghosts and fairies can still be an atheist. Atheists can believe in alien abductions, that the President is a lizard-person from Mars, or believe in werewolves, vampires, unicorns, detest science, hate rational inquiry, but because they don't think there's a god, pow, atheist.
It's really hard for people to understand it's just one single item rather than a whole big thing with specific believes, rites and apple pie meetings, isn't it?
Figment is offline  
Old 2012-06-30, 07:03 AM   [Ignore Me] #865
MadPenguin
Sergeant
 
Re: Religion


Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml View Post
Ya know, I felt alone in this fight and swore to never speak in this thread again. You sir are more educated than I am, I am just a simple IT geek with a military background and a strong belief, and my belief may not be yours, you believe in something.

Seeing what you've stated and after reading about it for a couple hours, this is about the most understanding thing I've read that coincides with the things I've been trying to say, but it's worded in a way that make people ignore it because they can't argue it. It's human intellect fighting itself and it's amazing.

This is again a debate I would like to participate in as long as you are here backing me up.
Except that i already explained that conservation of energy is perfectly compatible with the universe we live in 4 posts up
MadPenguin is offline  
Old 2012-06-30, 08:24 AM   [Ignore Me] #866
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Religion


Originally Posted by MadPenguin View Post
Except that i already explained that conservation of energy is perfectly compatible with the universe we live in 4 posts up
Energy is indeed like this hole in the ground:



If you dig a pit, you're not just creating a hole, you're also building a mountain. The same is true when you create energy: you're also creating a state that is the opposite of it.


This is particularly easy to relate to in terms of gravity: when you raise an object you basically go against gravity and you create potential energy which is stored in the height of the object and you will have to counter this potential energy by supporting or holding it continuously (balancing the Normal force).

When you release the object, the potential energy of gravity will turn into kinetic energy and make the object move. Meaning though you had to invest to get the gravitational energy to a certain level by for example burning matter for muscle energy (matter which was also storing energy), while the total energy in the universe was always balanced against one another. The efficiency may have been a bit lower though because some of the energy would have dissipatated entropically as heat - however, this heat was still energy and it's been passed on somewhere else.


I therefore believe more in the dynamical balance of physics, that existence only exists as long as balance is met or moving to a state that's more balanced after it's moved to an inbalanced state. But there's no believe system attached to this, as this can be ratified with everything.


Name me anything from wildlife habitats to resource availability to economics to physics to populations, to musical strings or pebbles tossed in the water, to materials, to energy (solar, combustion, metabolical or otherwise), to weather and so on and so on.

It can be shown that everything is part of some cycle of energy balance, governed by action and reaction between different states of energy (including matter) and a natural entropic flow to distribute this energy such that the total energy difference between two states moves back towards 0.

Being taught about entropic and isentropic conditions in engine calculation colleges is quite illuminating in that respect if you think about it.


The beauty is that this is stimulated both passively and actively and simply down to the state of thing in a completely physical way. Wind has no intentions. It just is a consequence of two states in different spots in space. The only ones with intentions are we as living beings originating from passive actions and reactions. We lost our connection to other matter that simply is and hence we long for meaning behind life that may not be there at all. We give meaning to life, because we can. But that doesn't mean that the universe has meaning, is intelligent or has an intelligence behind it.


The universe may therefore be a reaction between the conditions in this one point and the conditions that at the time surrounded the point: energy HAD to be distributed properly and this process automatically and chaotically created all sorts of energy along the way as it transfered its energy to the next position and states changed constantly. This changing of state is far too complex and fast and violent for humans to comprehend IMO (it's already hard enough for most to comprehend why a simple flame on a lucifer match has a specific shape and movement after all) and we don't really need to know in the end.

But we're curious beings so we want and we "have" to know to satisfy our curiosity. And if we can't have that... we're prone to speculation and imagination. That's where religion and faith comes in.

Last edited by Figment; 2012-06-30 at 08:31 AM.
Figment is offline  
Old 2012-06-30, 08:48 AM   [Ignore Me] #867
MadPenguin
Sergeant
 
Re: Religion


Are you saying im wrong because you had to invest something into the universe before you can get this balance? I'm not entirely sure of the point you're trying to make

Last edited by MadPenguin; 2012-06-30 at 08:56 AM.
MadPenguin is offline  
Old 2012-06-30, 09:04 AM   [Ignore Me] #868
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Religion


Originally Posted by MadPenguin View Post
Are you saying im wrong because you had to invest something into the universe before you can get this balance?
Not at all saying you're wrong, quite the contrary. I'm saying it's indeed possible that energy comes from what appears to be "nothing" and simply illustrating that whenever energy is created, the negative energy is created as well. And this can set off a different reaction, like a chain reaction creating different forms of energy as it goes along and interacts with itself and ever increasing energy patterns it caused itself as a response to its first state (moment of big bang and the time leading up to the big bang).




What I'm saying is that the "zero" state we perceive as being there before the Big Bang may have not been as "zero" as people think and could have been a passive, reactive consequence of the energy state of that spot in time opposed to that of the void around it.

Meaning the universe is like the wind, transporting energy from where there's more to where there's less, interacting with whatever it encounters until everything is "back to zero".


Which leaves a lot of possibilities open for what was before the big bang, but not at all requires a creator or intelligence that creates the states of energy - it is however possible for us as humans to shift some energy around, but we don't "create it", we simply create energy states out of other energy states.

Last edited by Figment; 2012-06-30 at 09:06 AM.
Figment is offline  
Old 2012-06-30, 09:16 AM   [Ignore Me] #869
MadPenguin
Sergeant
 
Re: Religion


Haha, I thought you were agreeing with me but i didn't want to say that in case you weren't and I looked like a dick

Indeed there are many possibilities other than God, even some current ideas going round the cosmologists that can fit the facts. I often think science is too modest in areas like this where we give off the impression we have no idea simply because there is nothing comprehensive on the subject yet, but there are several ideas that can fit the facts we have, we just haven't found enough positive evidence to support these ideas yet. But often things are said that give the misguided the idea that there is no naturalistic explanation, this is of course incorrect

Last edited by MadPenguin; 2012-06-30 at 09:18 AM.
MadPenguin is offline  
Old 2012-06-30, 09:35 AM   [Ignore Me] #870
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Religion




I love clock reactions in relation to this type of philosophical thinking.

Last edited by Figment; 2012-06-30 at 09:38 AM.
Figment is offline  
 
  PlanetSide Universe > General Forums > Political Debate Forum

Bookmarks

Discord


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:24 AM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.