How does a creator imply anthropomorphism? You assume a creator has human characteristics.

By that logic...someone else just as well could say humans have creator characteristics.

What about how shit was before shit is?

What is a creator, then, @SpookyDeep

And, that's exactly what the bible states. Lol. And by the last portion, which I assume was the edit, do you mean the incredibly dense singularity from which our universe expanded, or the outlying dimensional planes beyond the foundational structure of said universe?

lol this entire post is stupid as fuck

There really isnt any deep thought behind it all, its just shallow, trivial, bullshit that you & I dont know the answer to

/thread

word...everyone go peep pULSe's thread about a video game....

---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:59 PM ----------

back then shit was how it was before this...things are just in a state of being..

Then why doesn't Mars develop conditions for human life to prosper there? Or any other planet in the universe?

@Obey there are several accounts of earth like planets billions of light years away from us, which, in theory, are capable of supporting life. The universe is infinitely expanding at exponential rates, and has been for billions and billions of years. To assume that no other planet can support life, only because we have not observed such a planet is ignorant.

creator

a person or thing that creates.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creator?s=t

lol I know what the Bible states. I was only showing there was a hole in your logic. What you said was an implication was merely an assumption. You can't make assumptions & expect someone to accept your logic.

why do you focus so much on humans?

would you consider yourself any different than any other plant or animal?

humans are one species out of countless species. A shark cant live on land, we cant live in the water, some creature from a far away galaxy cant live on Earth, and we cant live there...

we all are just were we should be because its the only place we can be..we were created and evolved by our environment

There could be tons of planets with beings living on them, you're stupid as fuck if you don't think so

The Pope himself acknowledges UFO's, which in a sense trumps the Bible.

The Pope is also reforming the church to accept homosexuality. Again, trumping his own religious book. This of course only applies if you're Catholic. Since Christians don't have a Pope.

We can't reach a lot of these planets but we can pick up images from telescopes and advanced technology that can.

& There is a creator because science itself is created. That's why EVERY scientist has to come to a dead end. They rack their brains with "this created this, so we gotta found out what created that"

Eventually they get stumped and realize divine intervention took place because for space to exist there had to be a creator. Whether you want to personify that creator (which I dont) is up to you. But to say there isn't a creator is extremely foolish. If there wasn't a creator we'd have all the answers we need through science. Science cannot answer everything

And things are incapable of showing human characteristics?

why does not knowing exactly how space was created equate to the requirement of a creator?

Because science has yet to answer your questions, it cannot answer your questions?

IMO, Science will never-ever be able to determine whether the Earth was created/naturally unfolded. I know your stance on religion @BLNK/@Godbody is it's to control the masses, correct? But what makes it so hard for me to understand is why would they make-up the Bible? So long ago.. Why would they take time to write all that shit with their fucking dipping-ink (probably developed the worst arthritis ever lmao.) Just to tell a fake story? There's something missing.. I feel like it's in front of us, but we can't grasp it. Idk it's weird to me, but this thread is interesting. I'm learning a lot.

@Obey, the bible was nothing but a collective work of literary fiction. It was written for the same reason that authors(s/o @RULE) spend countless hours writing to this day. For the interest, and entertainment of a societal structure. Also, it is not the place of religion to control the masses, it is the place of the church to control the masses through an irrational belief in a religious system. The church SPECIFICALLY chose the stories included in the bible by hand.

But what isn't hard for me to believe is that if you think about the almost infinite expanse of the universe, there was one instance (and I guarantee more) where that happened by chance. I've flipped a lot of coins, never has one landed on its edge, but if I flipped coins everyday for 100 years, eventually it would probably happen.

Can you prove things show human characteristics? Can you prove those certain characteristics originated with humans?

But there's different accounts of the Bible from different times, almost the same thing.

---------- Post added at 03:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:24 PM ----------

Yeah, but.. how many explosions to create the universe can their be lol?

It is not my place to disprove your argument. It is your place to prove it.

lol I haven't made an argument

Reread everything I've wrote

So, someone read someone else's work, and incorporated it into their own? Haven't you seen the Sherlock adaptations. Different times, same generically based story.

---------- Post added at 03:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:27 PM ----------

Let's list a few "things" a dog, for instance, is a thing. Is a dog capable of creating? A tree is a thing. Is a tree capable of creating? The act of creating in itself, inherently implies an anthropomorphism, as previously stated.

---------- Post added at 03:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:29 PM ----------

Also, as a side note, @Obey, the earth's formation has been answered by science.

@BLNK What's that answer?

Google it, bro. I'm not your cosmology professor. :S

You haven't proved the act or creating implies an anthropomorphism.

A 6 year old kid could make you look silly saying...

A bird builds a nest
Bees build honeycombs

lol

Is to build to create?


create[ kree-eyt ]LINK0LINK0


verb (used with object)


1. To cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
2. to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.

3. to perform (a role) for the first time or in the first production of a play.

Is it not an ordinary process for a bird to build a nest, as it has evolved in such a way that necessitates its building a nest?

The thing is science cant prove everything

Ok the big bang created Earth

what caused the big bang

and what/who created the thing that caused what caused the big bang

Philosophy 101

there is a creator

could it be that creation itself is a force and creation created everything?

Philosophy is rooted in the ability to logically reason, and to prove those rationales. Can you prove that there is a creator?

Are you being petty? lol Is it because I used the word build?

why is it so hard to understand that sometimes....most of the time...shit just happen?

people are nuts and have a bad day and decide to make bad decisions..when questioned about those decisions they remember the most recent thing they were doing so they blame it on GTA V

for months people hear voices in their head so they go shoot up the navy yard...

shit happens, duke...

That's what I'm saying @BLNK

But Philosophy exists because we haven't been able to answer our questions

Think of a fork in the road... philosophy is one option and science is another

but those can lead you to danger...you can rack your brain forever with philosophy and die a confused madman... You can rack your brain forever trying to prove things through science and die a confused madman

therefore you don't pick either route and you go straight to "there's a creator, period"

It is actually the most logical explanation because logic dictates that nothing logical we've tried has yielded the results that can answer all of our existential questions

Or you do what people have done for centuries, and view philosophy, and science as cooperative pursuits.

Side note: Nothing YET. Does that mean that the pursuit should be abandoned in entirety?

---------- Post added at 04:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 PM ----------

Nah, I'm schooling you, homie.

BITCH I HATE YOU!!!!! :mad:

cooperative in what sense

they haven't answered the existential questions. You said so yourself, we've been around for centuries. By now a people that have managed to create lasers, crafts that can reach outside of our own atmosphere, and create clones through stem cells surely should have the knowledge as to why we're here, what got us here, what happens after, etc


& the funny thing is we should've found out why we here before we found out how to build spaceships and lasers and create clones

I'm pretty sure people have been asking "Why are we here?" "Who put us here?" "What happens next?" waaaaay before they were like "Shit, can we build lasers, spaceships, and clones?"

lol

Cooperative in the sense that without one another there would be neither.

Philosophy will always exist as people will always ask these existential questions

Its in our nature to question how we came to inhabit this vast environment and what put us here

Maybe when we have the answer one, or both, will cease to exist. But Philosophy can exist without science.

The same way science can exist without philosophy

If Science proved everything we needed answered, we wouldnt have Philosophy

Philosophy is the question, science is the answer. Without questions, there are no answers. Without answers there are no questions. Therefore without either science, or philosophy, there would be neither.

No clue, 1 maybe. An infinite amount. We don't know how far this shit goes back, maybe eventually the universe stops expanding and collapses on itself. Maybe a new one is born from that. Maybe it's happened over and over again. Maybe it never happened and what we perceive as reality is anything but. Couldn't tell you honestly but I believe we arent the only intelligent life in the universe. The odds of that just don't add up. Read a real good article about why we will never know though, I'll try and find it.

http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview...9z68?context=3

Not an article, a Reddit post but an extremely valid one.

^This.

A Shark Can Evolve To Live On Land Over The Course Of A Million Years (Fish > Tadpoles > Frogs > Lizards > Larger Amphibians > Crawling Mammals > Legged Mammals > etc.)
Place A Human In A Water Environment And They Will Evolve To Adapt To Their Conditions.

not exactly...

being placed in water is not an environmental change to a species...it doesnt necessitate evolution...put 1 million humans in water with no air and you'll have a million dead humans..

however if the world flooded slowly and it was necessary for humans to gradually need to hold their breath longer and longer to hunt or any other basic required function to sustain life...and i think that over time, we would evolve into something like a dolphin...a mammal that can stay under water for a while...but still needs air.

You Should Know I Was Talking About The Second Situation.
HOWEVER. Humans Are One Of The Only Creatures Who Have A Conscience, Self-Awareness, Cognitive Thoughts, Reasoning, etc. There Has Been Cases With Other Animals That Have Displayed Some Of These Traits But Not Nearly As Complex Or As Complete As Our Thought Process.

This is not entirely true.

Science is a very broad term, and desires to explain the phenomena of the universe through testable means.

Philosophy helps to give meaning to science, and vice versa, but it neither requires the other. A guy stuck on a deserted island can perform some measure of science in order to understand how to build a bigger bonfire without any philosophical inclinations.

Likewise, someone can build an entire philosophical system without doing any science, ever reading a scientific textbook, or knowing a single thing about science.

They are not symbiotic.