Dying is an art, like everything else. I do it exceptionally well. I do it so it feels like hell. I do it so it feels real. I guess you could say I've a call. - Sylvia Plath
Captain Cynic Guides
Administrative Contact
Talk Talk
Philosophy Forum
Religion Forum
Psychology Forum
Science & Technology Forum
Politics & Current Events Forum
Health & Wellness Forum
Sexuality & Intimacy Forum
Product Reviews
Stories & Poetry Forum
Art Forum
Movie/TV Reviews
Jokes & Games
Photos, Videos & Music Forum


User Thread
 38yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that heyjme1 is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
Independent laws do not hold where systems interact. The whole is unknown. We may never know the whole. Scientific method is the best we have now. Dogma and cynicism will never compare to the uselfulness of criticism unless they are grounded in truth and how do they know this to be the case. The only true judge is whether what you say to be true works...like Newton's laws of physics in everyday physical circumstances.

One religion maybe right....God may exist. These questions are very much open.

I think of the universe, of the great minds that have studied it and think well we add Hubbles observations of red shifts, do some calculations, note the estimated that the Big bang occured. Divided the speed of light by thius time and we have a distance that is from that point. What is beyond that who knows? When we look at large objects we see spacetime curves under the influence of gravity. All this is from human discovery. But we still no so little. But without such great minds...the fascination, the interest, the keen eyes, we would have been stuck in the Middle Ages calling everything herecy. Some of tyhis maybe good; some maybe bad. I ask you this: if your child is dying of luekeamia do you take them to a priest, a doctor,.... or both? I think this will prove my point.

| Permalink
""No words""
 43yrs • M
A CTL of 1 means that Ironwood is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
The psychological impact of her association with her religon and its practices has been reported all over the world to produce physiological changes. But this cannot be measured by modern science, and the "experiment" isn't easily duplicated.

The first part is quite true, the second is somewhat mistaken but not totally by any means.

By this I'm refering to placebo drugs and operations that have indeed been testing just such psychosomatic responses.

Meaning also that this does not calculate relgious response in particular, though I'm guessing some such studies may have and are occuring, but attempts to measure and reproduce the related base concept.

Doctors have been testing placebo drugs for a long time now, I still wonder just how many people still don't know what a placebo is (I was somewhat shocked when I found out), but it has indeed included operations that did not take place, or did not go past a basic incision, but spontaneous and highly accelerated healings occured.

Doctors noted that a key element was confidence, both of the doctor and the patient in the doctor and their abilities.

Faith, but not religious faith.

So I wasn't trying to argue your point, for I agree, but add an important element to it.

Religious faith may very well be a distraction or factor undermining, while ironically preserving, abilities we may naturally posess and can harness.

As for the existence of God mandating there be the existence of the Creator of God: Have you considered that he is "Self-created"? Don't balk at this. It's just as enigmatic as the concept of a "beginning" of everything. Science simply cannot explain a self-contained event which is its own catalyst.

The point I made was to simply use the logic that was presented by another and applied in a quote citing a claimed obviousness that the limited logical theory does not permit, and in fact can even detract from.

As for your added point of self creation, I do not balk at it at all.

I have heard such a theory, but as you said, it is quite enigmatic and is quite hard to test or speculate on.

Just as the concepts of the beginning and end, nothing and infinity and their contradictory standings.

But I will add that the faultiness I see in this theory at first glance is that to be "self-created" implies a self existing before a created self, which as far as common sense goes, makes none.

How does a self that does not yet exist... create anything, let alone itself?

What I love and find so fascinating is that it would appear very likely that contradictions or paradoxes exist and are just as natural as the concepts that do not allow for their existance.

One reason it is so interesting is that it would mean that absolutely anything is possible, if not probable in some way, shape, or form.

That's exciting stuff.

But in terms of the question of the existance of God or its obviousness, I submit that the question is not if God exists but what God is.

From the various interpretations, which are what I tend to take issue with, existance itself could be God, and existance is the only obvious thing I know of (though its origins are not), and therefore God would be obvious, but a biblically described or defined God is not obvious to me.

| Permalink
"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"
[  Edited by Ironwood at   ]
 43yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that wizardslogic is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
A Creator has to exist simply because there is existence. If nothing ever "existed" then nothing would always be. 0 will always equal 0 unless something is 'consciously' added to it....a conscious being that is. However, I doubt very much that modern day religions have very little wisdom when it comes to a true concept of God. And modern science really knows nothing essential. It is based on faith as well in abstract concepts. I'm agnostic. Which means I don't know shit.

| Permalink
"Each conscious mind is alone in the universe!"
 43yrs • M
A CTL of 1 means that Ironwood is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
A Creator has to exist simply because there is existence. If nothing ever "existed" then nothing would always be.

Again, by this logic, because the creator exists implying a form of existance, then there is implied a creator of that existance or creator.

Making it either an innaccurate assessment or logic. And or proof of the innaccuracy of any assessment derived from this logic.

| Permalink
"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"
  1    2    3    4    5  
About Captain Cynic
Common FAQ's
Captain Cynic Guides
Contact Us
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
General Forum Rules
Cynic Trust Levels
Administrative Contact Forum
Lost Password
General Discussion
Philosophy Forums
Psychology Forums
Health Forums
Quote Submissions
Promotions & Links
 Captain Cynic on Facebook
 Captain Cynic on Twitter
 Captain Cynic RSS Feed
 Daily Tasker
Copyright © 2011 Captain Cynic All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy