View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Who's unlikely event is more unlikely?

Discuss General Topics.

Who's unlikely event is more unlikely?

Postby Andy9000 » 09 Sep 2011, 12:28

The funniest thing about creationism is that it never explains where the creator came from. Was the creator created too? Where did the creator who created the creator come from? At some point, life/intelligence MUST have popped into existence by natural means. Evolutionists believe a very simple life form suddenly popped into existence by some rare naturally occurring phenomenon, and creationists believe a complex all knowing creator suddenly popped into existence by some magic phenomenon. I say, there had to be nothing before something, and going from nothing to a simple life form is more likely than going from nothing to complex all knowing intelligence.
User avatar
Andy9000
 
Posts: 3
Joined: 09 Sep 2011, 11:26






Re: Who's unlikely event is more unlikely?

Postby Craig Browning » 10 Sep 2011, 00:48

It actually depends on which Creation Mythos you're dealing with and that includes the two or three different views found in Genesis. . . (no, it's not one story or foundation, nor is it of Jewish origin but far older, heralding from the Indus Valley)

According to Jewish mysticism (Kabalah & Sefer Yetzerah) god was within the void and contemplating himself. A look at the book A Kabbalah For The Modern World by Migene Gonzalez-Wippler offers insight to the idea that "science has proven the existence of God" and that he is LIGHT. . . an odd conclusion on one level given that light was the first creation but, let's look at this setting from a more analytical perspective.

The theory that a dead star is a compressed darkness/void that ultimately implodes on itself creating light a.k.a. the Big Bang. It actually fits both, scientific theory as well as the expansion-compression cycles mentioned in much of mystical "science", everything from the Kabalah to the writings of Blavatsky and observations of Buddha and numerous shaman the world about.

The "consciousness" that human beings identify as God/Goddess is where the questions come into play and where the non-believer finds footing for dispelling the idea of such things. For, as St. George of Carlin explained, "Man Created God in His Own Image & Likeness. . . " which is probably the greater truth, even according to mysticism.

I realize that it seems a contrary thing but the old prophets and mystics deliberately obfuscated loads of information on purpose, so as to prevent others from abusing it. This habit seems to hint at another strange side of the Creation stories that get seriously ignored; the fact that an "earth" existed prior to the time we know -- the whole Adam & Eve cycle. Recent discoveries in Turkey & Greece even suggesting that societies of considerable advancement existed over 10,000 years ago, and idea put forth about 100 years back by James Woodward who was ridiculed and basically dis-fellowshipped from a field he was once seen as a giant in. . . simply because he was finding a plausible pattern tied to a far older society on the planet that happened to sustain the Lemuiran & Atlantian tales. Then again, David Childress seems to be furthering and up-dating a large chunk of what Woodward was trying to figure out.

My point being that things seem to be rather cyclic when it comes to life as well as human existence on this little sphere we call home. Kind of makes you wonder if the "Creation" tales are genuine or simply recollection on a new beginning for a specific group. The biblical suggestion that such could be the case lays in the lore surrounding Lilith (Adams first wife, before Eve) as well as the latter commandment to commit genocide on certain races that supposedly came as a result of Lilith's ambitions and arrogance. . . then again, it is said she was Hermaphrodite and thus, able to impregnate herself. . . go figure; a self-made god with a daughter that can go screw herself at will :roll:

I've gone down a meandering pike here, but at the same time I hope that I've dropped some breadcrumbs for you to follow when it comes to your question.

Enjoy the journey ;)
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: Who's unlikely event is more unlikely?

Postby Elhardt » 11 Sep 2011, 05:19

You seem to be putting a lot of words into people's mouths. I've never heard that Creationists believe that God just popped into existence. They say God is outside of time and space and therefore there is no beginning and so God always existed. Remember that scientists used to think our universe had no beginning and always existed too. Now we're taught by our modern science that everything magically popped into existence from nothing, defying all know laws of physics. I find it ridiculous when people can't see their own hypocrisy in their own beliefs. Living creatures that are made of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen need to get an immaterial consciousness from something that is also immaterial, and currently evolutionary theory is an epic failure at dealing with that aspect of life.
User avatar
Elhardt
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 26 Jul 2011, 10:34

Re: Who's unlikely event is more unlikely?

Postby Twain Shakespeare » 11 Sep 2011, 08:48

Elhardt wrote:You seem to be putting a lot of words into people's mouths. I've never heard that Creationists believe that God just popped into existence. They say God is outside of time and space and therefore there is no beginning and so God always existed. Remember that scientists used to think our universe had no beginning and always existed too. Now we're taught by our modern science that everything magically popped into existence from nothing, defying all know laws of physics. I find it ridiculous when people can't see their own hypocrisy in their own beliefs. Living creatures that are made of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen need to get an immaterial consciousness from something that is also immaterial, and currently evolutionary theory is an epic failure at dealing with that aspect of life.


The Chakrists of Classical India simply posited that intelligence arises from matter, and added "Weird, isn't it?"
The position of Siddharta was more subtle. He thought matter merely appeared to be aware, even to itself, but was mistaken.
Robert Anton Wilson got the subtlest explanation of awareness of all. Awareness exists in the relation between facts. Awareness and information are the same thing. The Chakrists were right, and it ain't weird at all, but observable fact.
"What's so Funny about Peace, Love, and Understanding?"
User avatar
Twain Shakespeare
 
Posts: 375
Joined: 20 Jul 2010, 05:19
Location: El Paso Del Norte on the sunny Jornada del Muerta

Re: Who's unlikely event is more unlikely?

Postby Arouet » 11 Sep 2011, 10:27

Elhardt wrote: Now we're taught by our modern science that everything magically popped into existence from nothing, defying all know laws of physics.


Hmmm. I hadn't heard that. Which modern scientists are saying that?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Who's unlikely event is more unlikely?

Postby really? » 11 Sep 2011, 11:29

Elhardt wrote: Now we're taught by our modern science that everything magically popped into existence from nothing, defying all know laws of physics.


Which modern scientists are saying that? I wanna know too ?
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Who's unlikely event is more unlikely?

Postby Twain Shakespeare » 11 Sep 2011, 13:03

Arouet wrote:
Elhardt wrote: Now we're taught by our modern science that everything magically popped into existence from nothing, defying all know laws of physics.


Hmmm. I hadn't heard that. Which modern scientists are saying that?


I think that is a verbal, prose, metaphorical attempt to describe big bang cosmology as shaved by Occam's razor in English rather than uninterpretable mathematical symbology. (Sorry 4 the Mensa Jargon)

For my verbal, prose, metaphorical attempt to describe a "little" bang cosmology that says, literally, God is nothing, see Mathematical Mysticism: A Sokratic Dialogue
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?s ... 3942014764
"What's so Funny about Peace, Love, and Understanding?"
User avatar
Twain Shakespeare
 
Posts: 375
Joined: 20 Jul 2010, 05:19
Location: El Paso Del Norte on the sunny Jornada del Muerta

Re: Who's unlikely event is more unlikely?

Postby Craig Browning » 12 Sep 2011, 00:23

:idea: I totally spaced on things yesterday :oops:

There is a Gnostic tradition (see: "Secret Book of John" -- Willis Barnstone's "The Other Bible" pgs 53-74) in which a bastard child-god named Ialdabaoth Yahweh is "born" through the Goddess Sophia who had hid him away as her "shame" attempting to conceal his existence from the "All Father" (her consort/husband).

This is important in that we have those parts of theology & myth that state that "god was in a void" which in fact, Ialdabaoth was literally concealed within. The gnostic creation tales going on to credit this bastard child as being the creator of the earth, it's populace and the galaxy known to us a.k.a. our 8-10 planets (depending on who you listen to and what time period :lol: ) and all that goes with it.

To answer your question "God" as it is implied biblically, was a discarded and quite spoiled little bastard that expected everyone to pay attention to him and no one else. ;)
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: Who's unlikely event is more unlikely?

Postby Andy9000 » 13 Sep 2011, 10:15

Elhardt wrote:You seem to be putting a lot of words into people's mouths. I've never heard that Creationists believe that God just popped into existence. They say God is outside of time and space and therefore there is no beginning and so God always existed. Remember that scientists used to think our universe had no beginning and always existed too. Now we're taught by our modern science that everything magically popped into existence from nothing, defying all know laws of physics. I find it ridiculous when people can't see their own hypocrisy in their own beliefs. Living creatures that are made of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen need to get an immaterial consciousness from something that is also immaterial, and currently evolutionary theory is an epic failure at dealing with that aspect of life.


My mistake saying creationists believe god just popped into existence. Thank you for informing me that what they believe is even more mysterious than what I thought. It’s kind of beside my point though. My point was that the existence of god is just as likely (I personally believe less likely) as the possibility of evolution.

I am making this point because I hear time and time again creationists trying to discredit evolution claiming it to be impossible. Doesn’t a true believer of one unexplainable phenomenon forfeit their right to deem another unexplainable phenomenon as impossible? That’s like a person being a firm believer of Santa Claus, but then saying the idea of the tooth fairy is just ridiculous.

Neither creationists nor evolutionists have yet to paint us the whole picture. To call one an epic failure is to say that of both.
User avatar
Andy9000
 
Posts: 3
Joined: 09 Sep 2011, 11:26

Re: Who's unlikely event is more unlikely?

Postby Jayhawker30 » 13 Sep 2011, 17:34

Andy9000 wrote:going from nothing to a simple life form is more likely than going from nothing to complex all knowing intelligence.


I'd say going from nothing to anything is absolutely impossible, but hey that's just me.
User avatar
Jayhawker30
 
Posts: 68
Joined: 14 Jul 2011, 20:04

Re: Who's unlikely event is more unlikely?

Postby Arouet » 13 Sep 2011, 22:55

Not posting this as a recommendation since I have no idea, but thought it's worth posting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07


Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests