God?

I'm not sure if you know of this, so I will just offer it FYI. There is a theory that goes by the name of the "Anthropic Principle" which implies exactly this. It is supported by analysis of universal parameters that make things "just right" for life on a universal scale, much less the fact that the conditions are "exactly right" for life here on earth.

Hi Rainman

I have read about this theory before but I must admit that I am not sure that I fully grasp it yet. I am going to take a stab at this but I think I am in over my head here, you may correct me if I'm off base though.

I believe that there are two theories here, one that everything in this universe has to be exactly the way it is for life to exist (i.e. if the charge on the electron was slightly different, then even the stars could not have formed). Therefore there must be a higher force creating this.

or

There are other unverses with different properties where life would not be possible, we are in one of the remote few where it is. The reason we are in this one is because where else would we be?

Once again there are two sides to the coin. I may have oversimplified this and perhaps totally misunderstood it, but this is what I think it is saying.

Regardless, I do not see where it suggests that all of this is for the benefit of humans, we are still only a tiny part of a larger puzzle.
 
For that you are wrong. Our future and past has already played in the hands of God...

Please quote from any version of a Bible, or religious text where it is mentioned that God has placed limitations upon humanity. I haven't seen it yet. Then everything Jesus said was a lie. Why pretend that humanity has choices if in reality there are none?

When God created the universe, he has always been in control of not only the earth and the people but all the things that happens in the universe.

More of maintenance than absolute control.
 
But strangely, the scientist's have theories that we evolved from apes, just because we look like them.

This is a common misconception. Evolution does not state that we evolved from apes, rather that we both evolved from a common root. And, yes, if you go far back enough you'll find a common ancestor with rats, too.

That said, I don't believe you that scientists have found that we have more DNA in common with rats than we do with chimpanzees. Can you provide a cite and/or tell me where you heard this?

If all this is by chance, the odds of us being here are nearly impossible. [...] For us to actually evolve and develop such an advanced physical 'calculator', which is the brain, it is by far seemingly impossible.

People seem to forget that many, many things that - on a purely statistical level - seem impossible happen every single day to every single person.

I mean, I exist, here as I am. But what are the chances of the particular sperm and egg that created me being the ones that joined? Very small. Now what are the chances of my parents meeting and ultimately creating me? Again, very small. And what are the chances of them being created as they are from the specific sperm and eggs that they were created from? Very unlikely. And what about their parents?

I'm sure I don't need to go on. But you'll note that, simply going back 2 generations I've shown my existence to be "seemingly impossible", and that's giving an almost uselessly simplified model of my life. If you were to add in all the other factors that have gone into making me who I am, up to and including the times that I've nearly died and doing the same for my parents, and thier parents and so on back for a hundred or a thousand generations..well, I'm sure you can see exactly how unlikely it all is. But does that mean that it's impossible for me to have existed "by accident"? Does it mean that either I'm not really here or that someone or something had some hand in the fact that I exist? And, if so, where's the free will?

If it's not an accident that I exist, then did some higher force get my parents together and make them have sex at that particular moment in time? I ask again, where's the free will? And if it is a very unlikely accident that I exist (which is what I believe), then why is the existence of human beings any less credible, merely because it has odds on the same kind of scale?
 
Regardless, I do not see where it suggests that all of this is for the benefit of humans, we are still only a tiny part of a larger puzzle.

I believe the idea was that we watch over the animals and tend the garden.
 
Trollface, I really do enjoy your replies. I usually need to read them a few times since you place alot of thought provoking concepts within them.

To do a little shifting here, and jump the fence, so to speak, let us assume that indeed there is no God. This still does not alter the patterns of energy and the possiblity of manipulating them. Creation or evolution has given man the ability to become aware of his environment and become an active participant.
At some point in the future, excluding blowing ourselves up, we will become like Demi-Gods. As the electronics advance and take on biological forms, eventually becoming a part of our anatomy, we will be able to communicate via links to our "home" computers. We can access the web with a thought, move objects, turn machinery on and off, etc.. the possibilites are staggering.
To those that do not know or understand what equipment is in use, would consider such equipped humans to be Gods.
How far this will take us, I can only imagine. Perhaps if the "chips" moniter our physical body, telling us exactly what nutrients are needed, we could extend our life spans considerably.
Aside from the evolution of man and machine, I believe we have the capacity to become more of an entity based upon energy and become less dependent upon a physical form as we have now. That is the ideal behind ascension, is the advancement of ourselves up the "evolutionary" ladder.
 
Please quote from any version of a Bible, or religious text where it is mentioned that God has placed limitations upon humanity. I haven't seen it yet. Then everything Jesus said was a lie. Why pretend that humanity has choices if in reality there are none?

There are no limitations. My words are merely metaphorical. We have free will. We are having free will now. Every choice we make is new to us. However, remember as God is out of time, everything we have done is already done. That means to him the future is already the end. But as we are in a dimension of time space and dimension, time can only unravel itself as each second passes. I guess, you still do not see it from my context. It's understandable, it's quite hard to grasp.

More of maintenance than absolute control.

Ah. As I've said, my words are merely metaphorical. It doesn't mean anything next to nothing.

This is a common misconception. Evolution does not state that we evolved from apes, rather that we both evolved from a common root. And, yes, if you go far back enough you'll find a common ancestor with rats, too.

That said, I don't believe you that scientists have found that we have more DNA in common with rats than we do with chimpanzees. Can you provide a cite and/or tell me where you heard this?

I've read this rat DNA thing twice from two different articles, problem is I can't remember where. It may seem like an excuse though. But it's up to you to believe it. Ah, but the common roots being apes? That's where it all begins. The major step of evolution from ape to man. Yes there are common factors, but do you think it really attributes to evolution?

People seem to forget that many, many things that - on a purely statistical level - seem impossible happen every single day to every single person.

I guess what randomly happens everyday by chance or incidence, cannot be based on statistics at all. Right now your existence, as it may be random to us, just another human being. But to God, you are not his random creation, you are something he constructed to sit here to debate on him. Rather. I have many do not quite grasp the concept of watching a DVD vs outside time. To us it may be random, but to God it his order. After all we can't predict the actual event that may happen. Right now, a mad man can come screaming through my street in the middle of the night now. I really do not know how to phrase it to understand. Sorry.
 
But it's up to you to believe it.

I'm sure you'll understand if I say tat I won't take your word for it, particularly as I can find nothing of the kind myself.

Ah, but the common roots being apes? That's where it all begins. The major step of evolution from ape to man.

No. We have ancestors in common with apes. Well, technically, we are apes. But we did not evolve from Chimpanzees. Once upon a time there was a creature which was different from Chimps and humans. From it both Chimps and humans evolved.

Look at it this way - a woman with brown hair gives birth to a boy and a girl - he with blonde hair, she with black. You wouldn't say that the girl with black hair came from the boy with blonde hair, would you? No, they both came from a common ancestor with brown hair.

Yes there are common factors, but do you think it really attributes to evolution?

I'm not really sure what you're asking here, but yes, I believe that there is evidence for evolution. Selective breeding of animals (such as the Dachshund) or plants shows that the principals outlined certainly do work. It's backed up by what we know about DNA and how it's involved with the creation of offspirng, too.

But to God, you are not his random creation, you are something he constructed to sit here to debate on him.

So are you saying that I, personally, was created as I am by God, personally? So where is the free will of my parents?
 
There are no limitations. My words are merely metaphorical. We have free will. We are having free will now. Every choice we make is new to us. However, remember as God is out of time, everything we have done is already done. That means to him the future is already the end. But as we are in a dimension of time space and dimension, time can only unravel itself as each second passes. I guess, you still do not see it from my context. It's understandable, it's quite hard to grasp.

I do understand what you are presenting as an ideal. This is your version of God and as you understand him to be. As Creedo has pointed out that we all will have different concepts of God. You are not wrong, yet, you are not right; Absolutely . God is all things to all people, even those who dont believe He exists.


The concepts of creation, the essences of creation are what I am trying to bring into focus to build a foundation for a possible time machine.
 
Yes He did. It hard to learn anything if you only made the right decisions, and that would be removing free will if there was no choice, since only the right choice would not be a choice at all.

I agree with you. But my point is that god knew what was going to happen.

What if we created robots with free will that make an even bigger mess of the world. Wouldn't we be responsible?

Roel
 
In the domain of God's existence, there is no "right" or "wrong" decision. We are the ones who label decisions as "bad" or "good", not God.

In most (traditional) religions he most certainly DOES label decisions "bad" or "good".

Time is the only true mediator of "right" or "wrong", IMHO.

I agree... but time works both ways. There are certain things I can label right or wrong in advance. Like jumping from a tall building.

Roel
 
It is rather sad to say, that scientists recently discovered that the DNA of rats are more similar to humans rather than the DNA of apes.

I'd like to see where you got that information. I know that rat dna is more similar to that of mice, than human dna is to chimpanzees. But this is new information for me. Can you point me to an article or website? Thanks.

Thus it would seem to me, that having no God seems more ridiculous than it really sounds to descend from the dust of the stars. That fact, I can not partake. Unless I have proof, which is what many want about God.

So, where did God come from?

Roel

Edit: I see trollface has alread asked the exact same question, so you can forget the first half of my post /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
and can see that Hussain and Hitler bear little comparison - certainly in terms of being a threat to the outside world.

That's an interesting viewpoint considering I happen to personally know 3 Kuwaiti nationals, and 2 people of Iranian descent who would claim you are "flat out wrong" to use one of your terms. In my last job I worked with a gentleman who used to be a pilot in the Kuwaiti Air Force. His mother was killed, while in his presence, by some of Saddam's thugs. Yes, you would certainly have a hard time convincing these people that Saddam was not a threat to the outside world. And why do you think the Saudis permitted such a large US presence on their soil to begin with if they did not think Saddam was a threat? Were they that scared of the Kuwaitis?

Meanwhile, there are people of other persuasional beliefs in the world who seem content to draw comparisions between Bush and Hitler. Given the undisputed genocidal tendencies towards his own people, and his own invasion of Kuwait, and war on Iran, I am more than satisfied that Hussein bears a greater resemblance as a dictator to Hitler than Bush does.

Once again it seems to boil down to perceptions of what is "right" from what is "wrong". If you care to tell me how what Hussein was doing was "right" for his own country, much less the larger region, then perhaps we can explore where Bush and the US were "wrong" in their approach to removing Saddam. I would agree we picked the "wrong" argument (WMD), but not that what we did was "wrong". However, you know as well as I do that if we used the "real" argument that it would be viewed as politically incorrect. Wrong excuse, right motivation, and history will tell us if we get the "right" result.

I will point out something else that I find interesting: Now that Saddam is gone from the regional scene, it is interesting to see how the sham of Palestinian "politics" is laid bare for all to see. They are now terrorizing themselves! Some might claim there is "no relationship at all" between what was done in Iraq and the crisis now before the questionable Palestinian "leader". Others know that not only is there a relationship between the two, but what we are seeing is part of the plan to exploit those relationships.

RMT
 
The concepts of creation, the essences of creation are what I am trying to bring into focus to build a foundation for a possible time machine.

I agree, OvrLrdLegion. This was the primary point I kept coming back to in the "Triplicate" thread that some kept on ignoring. The evidence I was presenting with regard to systems of systems structure and humans/DNA was relating to the functional and operational aspects of creation. Those who do not accept it as evidence remain free to do so, but their lack of belief does not detract from the universal aspects of creation that are evident everywhere...not only in those things we label as "life" (plants and animals), but also the larger aspects of creation inherent in stars, nebulae, planets, etc.

RMT
 
In most (traditional) religions he most certainly DOES label decisions "bad" or "good".

No, God does not, Roel. Once again I need to point out that what you are stating here is how some mortal man applied his interpretation to God. In essence, you are doing nothing more than spreading heresay...second hand knowledge. So it is the RELIGIONS that were labeling bad or good (such as eating pork), not God. That is a big difference. Now, if you were to personally know God, rather than believing heresay of what some human-contrived religion told you about God, you would also know that God does not label bad or good. Again...that is not intended to sound arrogant, it is only my personal experience with God. (Who is, I assure you, QUITE different from what many world relgions tell you about God)

There are certain things I can label right or wrong in advance. Like jumping from a tall building.

You really think you can label "bad" or "good" in advance and that it will positively "stick" for all time? I don't think you can escape the bounds of context. You obviously imply that jumping from a tall building would be "bad". However, what if the context for such a choice was that you would be consumed by fire if you did not jump? You could argue that this would be "bad" or "worse" rather than "bad" or "good"... but my point is that, once again, you cannot escape relativism. God is the only absolute.
Similarly, within a systems context, the higher level system is the only absolute entity for any lower-level subsystem.

RMT
 
What if we created robots with free will that make an even bigger mess of the world. Wouldn't we be responsible?

Good question. It also depends on the purpose of their creation. If they were created to experience life, and given free-will to learn from their mistakes and successes, and were provided the capacity to develope themselves as they wished, then the answer is no.

But my point is that god knew what was going to happen.

I contemplate the same idea at times. I believe that God does know the final outcome of our experiences, but allows room for variations between the beginning and the end.
 
You people have lost me in this thread.

I cant see the forest from the trees, in your defining of a religion, verses what is supposedly the real god, as sold in the book, The Andreasson Affair by Betty Andreasson Luca, with Raymond Fowler.

Once a friend of mine and I were talking and figured that if one had wanted to, that they could devise a religion based on a bottle of catsup, placed on any American table.

I was concerned in the movie, Power Rangers One, when Dulcea, the Warrior Princess from the planet Theydos, had uttered these special words, "Ivan ooze is free'ah"????!!!!

At link http://www-tech.mit.edu/V115/N29/armed.29a.html Storyline eletronically distributed to the net goes>
Armed with new zords, Power Rangers kick Ooze
Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie
Directed by Bryan Spencer.
Written by Arne Olsen.
Produced by Haim Saban.
Starring Jason David Frank, Amy Jo Johnson, David Yost, Johnny Yong Bosch, Karan Ashley, Steve Cardanas, Paul Freeman, Bob Manahan, and Gabrielle Fitzpatrick.
Sony Copley Place
By Robert Wagner
Staff Reporter

Not as bad as one might think, parts of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie are actually decent. At times reminiscent of the old Voltron cartoon series in its action and concept, the live-action Power Rangers offers some action and special effects that are entertaining. The main problem with the film is that it's about the Power Rangers. Seeing them all do tricks while skydiving and rollerblading around the city, whatever city that might be, may appeal to an audience of under five, but not to general audiences.

For those non-morphin types, the basic story is this: This guy named Zordon, played by Bob Manahan (the fat-faced low-voiced guy who tells the Power Rangers what to do), combats evil throughout the universe using six teenagers who know some sort of martial arts. He lives in another dimension, which is why he's always in that weird black-and-white cylindrical viewer. Six kickin' teenagers from one thousand years ago, obviously a different set of teens from today's Rangers, trapped Ivan Ooze (played brilliantly by Paul Freeman), the ultimate source of evil in the universe - even more evil than Rita and Lord Zed, the traditional TV series villains. Now, Ooze has escaped, and will wreak havoc on the city unless the Power Rangers can stop him.

Despite this gripping story, the film has major problems. For one thing, it lacked everything. You name it, it lacked it. Besides having no parents, the Power Rangers have no character, except for Billy the Blue Ranger as the smart one and Tommy the White Ranger as the new leader (which is odd considering that Tommy was introduced on TV as a bad guy trying to get the Rangers). The Rangers are merely faceless teens, distinguished only by color, who like to kick evil's butt.

There are, however, some good parts to the film. Bulk and Skull, played by Jason Narvy and Paul Schrier, the Rangers' bumbling schoolmates, provide comic relief with lines like "We smelled death, and death could use a mint." Ivan Ooze is humorous as the lead villain: When he first runs into the Power Rangers, he teases them by acting impressed and pretends to look for his autograph book. Goldar (Ryan O'Flannigan), the villain similar to Beast Man in Masters of the Universe, was funny, as usual.

The action, too, was particularly good. Ivan's ooze-men, analogous to the bad-guy "putties" of the TV series, fought fiercely with the Rangers, but turned into ooze when kicked hard enough instead of merely exploding like the putties do. Rather than be merely a long episode, the film changes many things about the series - a little like the Transformers movie did for that show, but not as dramatically.

The movie definitely appeals to youngsters who know the series; the crowd oohed and ahhed when the newly designed command center came on the screen. Another change is that Ivan Ooze is so powerful that he actually destroys this new command center and kills Zordon. Even worse, all of the power suits and vehicles, called zords, are destroyed along with the command center. In fact, the Power Rangers must travel to the planet of Fedor to somehow find more power. There, they meet a warrior woman, Dulcea, played by Gabrielle Fitzpatrick, who kicks their butts until they reveal that they are allies of Zordon.

Aided by Dulcea while on Fedor, the Power Rangers receive new zords to replace their old dinosaur zords, no doubt a plot to increase the sales of Power Rangers merchandise. The new zords represent the most ferocious and powerful (well, almost) animals in the wild, such as the bear, the ape, the wolf, the crane, the falcon, and the frog. They then use these zords to combat Ivan Ooze, who has in the meantime taken over the planet, which, to judge by the sets, doesn't seem to reach past city limits.

Will these zords be powerful enough to defeat the treacherous Ivan Ooze? Of course! But that inevitability does not take away from the action and the special effects. Resembling a Godzilla movie or Ultraman, Power Rangers has huge monsters for the good guys to defeat. The fights occur in the middle of the city, so there are ample amounts of cars thrown, street lights ripped out, and good old general explosions.

Don't misunderstand. Though there are good parts to this film, they are far outweighed by the vile nature of the Rangers themselves. Though the series will change as a result of this film, those changes compare neither in quality nor in magnitude with the changes in, say, the Transformers movie. Tommy, the new leader of the Power Rangers, is definitely no Optimus Prime. In fact, he's not even a Rodimus Prime.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1995, The Tech. All rights reserved.
This story was published on July 26, 1995.
Volume 115, Number 29.
This story appeared on page 7.
This article may be freely distributed electronically, provided it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice, but may not be reprinted without the express written permission of The Tech. Write to [email protected] for additional details.
 
While he'd have a point if he mentioned Soundwave's cool voice, he seems to have missed out mentioning the main attraction of the Power Rangers: Kimberly. Amy Jo Johnson. The Pink Ranger.

Also, the film doesn't have constant crappy music all the way through, like the Transformers movie does. And it's got Amy Jo Johnson in it. She turns evil in the sequel, you know.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Transformers: The Movie - it was Orson Welles' penultimate film, for one. But it simply didn't have Amy Jo Johnson and her fabulous buttocks.

Witness:

amy%20jo%20johnsonII.JPG
 
His mother was killed, while in his presence, by some of Saddam's thugs.

I did not say that he had never been, I said that he wasn't at the time of the invasion. He didn't have the means or the oppourtunity to be a threat to the outside world. He wasn't about to attack Kuwait, let alone America.

And why do you think the Saudis permitted such a large US presence on their soil to begin with if they did not think Saddam was a threat?

If US troops in Saudi Arabia were doing a good job of containing Saddam, then why was more extreme action necessary?

Meanwhile, there are people of other persuasional beliefs in the world who seem content to draw comparisions between Bush and Hitler.

Whatever other people say is none of my concern. People on both sides of this argument are reactionary, ill-informed and prone to rhetoric. That doesn't mean that I have to be.

Given the undisputed genocidal tendencies towards his own people[...]

Actually, that would be highly disputed. According to those who investigated the matter, up to the highest levels of the CIA, have publicly stated (even before the war) that all the evidence points to Saddam never having gassed the Kurds - that was the Iranians, just as he has claimed since the day it happened. And this information has been in the public doman for a long time.

Don't believe the propaganda.

[...]and war on Iran[...]

A war in which he was fully endorsed and supplied by the US, let us not forget. Sold Chemical Weapons by Donald Rumsfeld himself, no less. So you can't really use this as a point against him. In fact, as the US was also supplying the Iranians with weapons at the same time (while still claiming to be on Saddam's side), Saddam actually comes out of that particular conflict with a more rational, more compassionate and altogether more morally upstanding profile than the Americans at the time.

I'm not arguing that Saddam was anything other than a bad man, but you need to pick your examples of his wrongdoing better.

If you care to tell me how what Hussein was doing was "right" for his own country, much less the larger region, then perhaps we can explore where Bush and the US were "wrong" in their approach to removing Saddam.

The two are entirely unconnected. There's not even all that much of a legal connection between what Saddam was doing and whether the US should have ousted him, let alone the method, which the US Senete and UK Parliament have both said was wrong.

However, you know as well as I do that if we used the "real" argument that it would be viewed as politically incorrect.

It's not a question of political correctness, it's a question of international law. Without proof of WMDs, the invasion would have been illegal (actually, it was in any case, but it have a veneer of legality).

Maybe you're unaware of the legal questions floating around Saddam's trial as we speak. He is claiming that the court trying him is illegitimate, and that he is still the legal and rightful soverign ruler of Iraq. Now that both of our governments have admitted that the evidence upon which we went to war was, at best, patchy, exaggerated and unverified - if not outfight falsified in some instances - Saddam actually has a very legitimate claim to still be the soverign of Iraq and that the court in which he is being tried has no legitimacy. And he can call Tony Blair to the stand to testify on his behalf. Stephen C. Pelletiere, too. And while we're on the subject of false claims of evidence of genocide by the man, are you aware that Downing Street this week admitted that the claims of having found 400,000 bodies in mass graves are also false? The number is closer to 5,000. And that's all pretty much besides the point in any case - the law of soverign immunity means that Saddam cannot be held accountable for those crimes. While he was (is?) soverign of Iraq what he says is law is law. As such, it is impossible for him to commit a crime within his own boarders.

My point? Not that Saddam isn't guilty of many crimes against humanity. Rather, by using this false evidence and attacking in the way they did, and with the legal status that they did, the Coalition seems to have painted itself into a corner rather. From a legal standpoint, it looks entirely possible that not only will Saddam be able to walk free, but that he may be put right back in charge of his country again. And then, of course, he can sue/prosecute the US, the UK, and all the rest of us for war crimes and make us pay substantial damages. Maybe for decades to come.

That, my friend, is what the problem is with what was done and, more importantly, how it was done. It has nothing to do with being able to say what Saddam had done that was "good".

And, as for it being "right" to conquer another country and impose your own set of values on them if you disagree with what you see, regardless...well, that kind of moral absolute isn't exactly a million miles away from the way that bin Laden and his ilk think, now is it?

Maybe you can explain to me why ousting Saddam was a more pressing matter than, say, ousting Kim Chong-il? Assuming that we absolutely had to chuck a soverign ruler off their throne, that is.
 
Troll'

Thanks very much for the nice pic of Amy Joe Johnson.

She's not only very cute, but a good actress, as well as an acceptable athlete.

p.s.Sometimes, wimen smell.........
 
Back
Top