gvg

What's so bad about that anyway? I'm not sure I really understand what's wrong with it as a belief, besides the fact that it cannot be easily proven, like anything related to it.

Well I'm not much of a physicist, so I don't know a whole lot about the early stuff, although as far as I know, it was just a thick soup of particles. And wouldn't it make sense that something complex would make something simpler than itself? Would a bacteria create a robot? It was less complex, and grew in complexity.

He's less complex. He started everything, he didn't sit around and create every intricate detail in seven days. He's a smart guy, enough to create the laws of physics and start a universe, but the universe, overtime, developed and is now more complex than the *indirect* creator. Fallacy avoided. That was one of the problems I had with major religions as well. =)

JarZe: Let 'em talk. Aren't we doing the same thing? And the police are fine; there isn't a major issue there IMHO.

Yeah, the creation of God is an issue. I came up with two possibilities: He appeared just before he started the big bang (kinda what the big bang was supposed to be originally (just happened)) or he was always there. I lean towards the first one.

Yes, I think a tree has free will of a sort. It can decide to absorb water, it can decide to shed it's leaves, or it can decide to do nothing. However, in the case of a tree, it will most likely do what is necessary for survival. That is why we can predict certain things, but never with 100% certainty. Now more complex life, like animals, are different. We can once again predict, but with less accuracy, as it has more free will than plants. Humans have even more, and nobody can predict with true accuracy what they will do. I also think that baby do have free will; they can decide to cry for food or to touch the stove, or to not do either. And religion has nothing to do with it, because to me, God is only a background being, the ultimate libertarian paternalist (if you don't know what that is, read the book 'Nudge.' It's a great book on the subject, and also discusses where libertarian paternalists stand on different issues). He knows what each future is based on what that person does. It's slightly predetermined, but not fully. Thus, I'm a compatibalist. (Oh, and give me more examples of philosophical topics. I'm pretty much done with the ones you listed.) But enough of this free will stuff unless we go into a new thread. This isn't the place for it. Back to politics =)

I see what you're saying, but my thinking is that all living things have free will to choose their 'future' (alive for a human = able to live on it's own). i think that there are multiple futures based on the actions of an individual; these actions then affect others. Thus, a sort of mix. I'm a compatibilist, I suppose, based on that view. I explained it better in the Evidence of God's Design thread.

Well, if the laws were the same in all states, that would include the cost of living I assume.

I'd like to know why you say that there is no free will. I think there is; for example, I can choose to study for something and do great, or not study, flunk, and become a bum. Is this what you mean by free will? If not, then please explain a little more.

OK: Everything is connected in a way, much like the connection between space-time. What one thing does affects others as well as itself. However, what it does isn't predetermined, nor is it COMPLETELY chance (although a little). There are many possibilities based on what that something does. YOU control what happens, not chance or some higher being; but based on what you do, others are affected. For example, say you're in a promotional race. The possibilities are that you get it quickly, a little slower, not at all, etc. Based on how hard you work and what you do, an outcome appears. Almost nothing is chance or luck, although some is, since you are affected by what others do as well. God fits in in this way: He started everything up, and let it go from there. He knows all of the possibilities, and what something has to do for that possibility, but He doesn't know what that something will do. He just knows the outcome and what's required. If you ask for help, he may nudge you in a certain direction, through signs and the like, but he will allow you to choose. He is the ULTIMATE libertarian paternalist. That's it. Which is what my sphere thing is trying to explain, although I think lines would represent it better. Any questions?

OK, now that that's settled (I hope), let's move on. Um... how about... Dang, I don't have anything. Anybody?

I'll expand on this later, if you care. I don't have time at the moment.

Can we move on to something productive now?

...And I think that some being is behind that.

I saw that in the same section, and might get it.

Dragon Ball Z??

I do. And I don't mean that I believe everything is predetermined there is still chance (ugh) involved. I just think that God was a sorta libertarian paternalist: he pushed things towards where he wanted, but let them take their course. To me, physics is the language is God (if you saw that thread I made you already know what I'm saying). Basically, God's a gambler of sorts, but gives help if asked... again, I'm figuring out this sphere thing. I'm trying to make it fit together. I think that it's possible that science is just a sort of... tool of God, what he uses (or used) to run the place. Instead of clashing, religion and science fit together. At one point I thought it impossible, that I would have to pick a side, but if what I'm creating works, (everything can be explained by spheres... again, it's in the works (and I don't mean made up of spheres)) it isn't impossible. However, if science overwhelmingly proves that there's no God, then there's the evidence for atheists, and I go Jedi =) 'til then, I'll work on this idea. edit: Yes. It hurts =) OK, one miracle explained by science. There are others that I've heard about and that are well documented. BTW, I recommend reading "Good Book." It's the writings of a jewish guy that actually reads the torah (that's the Jewish one, right?) cover to cover. Through that book, I've made some shocking discoveries that make me glad that as a Christian, I can fall back on the gospel.

I dunno. I just think that chance wouldn't have played such a vital role, and would hate to think that it did. There had to have been something to start up everything. Also, ever heard of the miracle at Fatima? It's well documented and not considered a hoax. In fact, there are many such miracles. That's one of the things I noticed: atheists are more OK with chance occurrences. I hate it. I don't like it, and can't except that such an orderly thing is an accident. To me, there's God the manufacturer and scientist. He started the Big Bang and let loose the laws of physics. He is indirectly the creator by starting evolution and letting it take it's course. I'm trying to develop something. I'm calling it 'sphereistic theism.' I'll let you know about it when I'm done, but it has to do with sphere of influence kind of things...

Yes, it does. And I didn't know whether it was public or private. If it's private, then I don't care. It's theirs (although I'm pretty sure so many people care because of the fact that they associate Al-Queada with Islam.)

This is for Izzy: My personal reason is a discovery by scientists that supports a God. They have found that if any universal number (strength of gravity, size/speed of electrons, etc.) were changed by .000000000000........1, there would be a completely different universe. This is either EXTREME luck or the work of a creator. I hate chance, and hate to think that things this big are the result of chance, and plus this chance is so slim that it's almost impossible to imagine. I say creator. This creator, to me, was either always there or appeared right before the big bang. He then created everything through the big bang and the laws of science, etc. etc. That's what I think.

UtF: I meant any religious center for any religion or no religious centers and just a memorial (which i agree with. Respect the dead. Some were Jewish, some Christian, some Muslim. Just a memorial) Izzy: I know that about Islam. I also know that many idiots don't believe that, which is why this is such an uproar. (And by the way, please be nice to religion. Some of us believe in the 'sky-fairy' you know=) I won't bring anything arguing for it into this forum, so check that other one by hambone for my reason.)

I'm back!!! The money thing: I partially agree with UtF. I value the product more than the money. And the less money there is, the more it's worth. However, I value a human more than 1 billion. And as izzy pointed out, having the gov. do it is cost effective. The thing with the city and the human is hard to answer. It depends on values, that's what this whole thing is. So can we leave it at that? Also, if I could go back in time and stop 'chance' occurrences from happening by killing one person, even me, I would, because I don't think lives, or wealth (I hate that lotto) should be dependent on luck. (ex: No one should get rich through the lotto unless they deserve it, and because it is impossible to determine this, no one should get rich through the lotto. Yes, I'm for getting rid of it.) Going away from the conversation now: mosque at ground zero. I say either no one has a religious center their or everyone does. Discuss. =)

Ummm.... I still stand with my idea about the army and illegal immigrants. Those who can't serve lead an average lifestyle, while those in the family that can must until they become legal. And I guess you're right....

<b>My Political Views</b><br>I am a left moderate social libertarian<br>Left: 4.88, Libertarian: 1.87<br><img src="http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/10x24.gif"><br><a href="http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html">Political Spectrum Quiz</a><br> Sounds right. I am slightly libertarian;there are some things people should be allowed to choose. <b>My Foreign Policy Views</b><br>Score: -3.92<br><img src="http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/n30.gif"><br><a href="http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html">Political Spectrum Quiz</a><br> Yep.Towards the side of peace. <b>My Culture War Stance</b><br>Score: -5.18<br><img src="http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/c24.gif"><br><a href="http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html">Political Spectrum Quiz</a><br> Cultural liberal. Again, sounds right. Any other issues we can think of? ... Maybe we should bring UtF back. At least there was a discussion =)

Yes, they have to have a political standing, but not a political party. 'Liberal' is a political standing, but not a party. Parties are unnecessary. BTW, I'll be in the Bahamas for the next week, so I won't be posting. I'll start again when I get back.