Originally Posted by drez99

Nahh, the school says it's fine. Sidewalk chalk is fine as long as it is somewhere where THE RAIN can wash it away. There will be no janitor activity going on I don't think...



PROOOOOOOObably not gonna happen.



nah... they're not free, I tried getting one... they're not free :(

Originally Posted by digger2929

Science and Big Bang Theory
I will start off with this. The existence of God can be neither demonstrably proven or disproven. Rather one must have faith in a specific belief about God or in our case the existence of the world. However, I do think I can make the argument that it takes more faith to believe in the Big Bang than in a Creator.

Stephen Hawking, a very well known scientist, once wrote "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang".

Another scientist, Francis Collins, put the Big Bang Theory in layman's terms writing

"We have this very solid conclusion that the universe had an origin, the Big Bang. Fifteen billion years ago, the universe began with an unimaginable bright flash of energy from an infinitesimally small point. That implies that before that, there was nothing. I can't imagine how nature, in this case the universe, could have created itself. And the very fact that the universe had a beginning implies that someone was able to begin it. And it seems to me that had to be outside of nature."

Everything we know in this world is "contingent" has a cause outside of itself. Therefore the universe, which is just a huge pile of such contingent entities, would itself have to be dependent on some cause outside of itself. Something had to make the Big Bang happen- but what? What could that be but something outside of nature, a supernatural, non contingent being that exists from itself.

This is just one of many reasons why I think an argument can be made that It takes more faith to believe in the Big Bang Theory than in a Creator.

Many of these reasons are outlined in a book called "The Reason for God". Please don't let the title scare you lol. It doesn't force a religion on you it simply outlines many logical ways of thinking about many of the tough questions that go along with religion.
If anyone is interested in reading the book I can lend it to you, just send me an email at [email protected]

Hope that helps

Actually, it takes exactly the same amount of belief to believe that the universe was created by a Big Bang without cause, as it does to believe it was created by a Big Bang by God. In both cases you're believing without any sort of evidence.

Physics is definitely not my strong suit, but I know that there is nothing conclusive about the cause of the Big Bang (there is a lot of evidence to suggest that it happened though). So I don't have a problem when people use God as that cause. Faith is fine, when it doesn't conflict with hard facts.

That's why evolution deniers PO me so much, they pick faith over facts.

There may be good arguments for the existence of some thing you define to be 'god' that satisfies a set of properties, but there are absolutely no good arguments to suggest the existence of your particular flavor of god. In most cases this would be the Judeo-Christian conception of God.

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

That's why evolution deniers PO me so much, they pick faith over facts.

The irony is, because there are so many holes in evolution (whether true or false) that it's possible to disregard evolution completely without completely missing the facts...instead what you're disregarding, is 'filling in the details.'

Here's a little thought experiment:

Suppose we all die out as a species and the planet becomes desolate. In zillions of years, a race of Transformers (just for fun) comes to Earth and begins to dig into its crust in search of scientific evidence.

After some digging, they come across some modern cars, like say, a Mustang. They dig even deeper and find some Model T's.

Optimus Prime then makes a hypothesis: The Mustang evolved from the Model T. (which is clearly absurd, and it completely disregards the interaction with human beings. The analogy is, more people get sick during the Christmas Holidays...do we then conclude the Christmas Holidays make people sick? No, there are other factors such as the cold weather/stress, which are being overlooked)

---------------

While I'm not saying that, beyond all doubt, I'm certain that this is an incorrect assumption (assuming we evolved based on fossils), it is a leap in the logic...we've been conditioned to say 'of course we did, there are bones.' But examining raw facts doesn't mean too much...there are no facts that give us this causal relationship between homo habillus and homo erectus (let's say). It's simply the best guess science has at the moment. Some day it may change drastically, should we ever come up with a more thorough, more complete explanation for what happened.

Personally I'm more inclined to believe that human beings are silly and are likely to have made an incorrect assumption somewhere...and that someday evolution will be refined into something completely different because science is dynamic, it's ever-changing. Besides...I don't feel like a monkey. ):

So I pitch to you: I'm technically denying evolution in this post, does it seem like I'm disregarding facts? I'm choosing logic (in essence, my personal interpretation of the facts) over other peoples' opinions/explanations of them. In essence I am choosing faith but I'm not choosing it over fact.

Originally Posted by hmmmcurious

There may be good arguments for the existence of some thing you define to be 'god' that satisfies a set of properties, but there are absolutely no good arguments to suggest the existence of your particular flavor of god. In most cases this would be the Judeo-Christian conception of God.

I'm just gonna go along as if that was directed to me (which it wasn't...:p)...

By calling it a "flavour"... I think you completely miss the point. Either God IS, or he is just an idea. IF He IS, then HE IS! And there's no flavour to Him. He is an existing being with characteristics and qualities that ARE. And he doesn't come in "flavours" or "sizes" or "colours". If he is an idea... then you can have whatever idea you want, even if it is a "flavour" .

So... if there ARE good arguments for the EXISTENCE of God, (suggesting that He IS...) then the whole thing about flavours is silly, because then there WOULD be arguments to suggest the existence of GOD (who WOULD come in that ONE flavour). That's why I don't think it's silly to think / argue "God is like this.... and does that... and is NOT like this... and is NOT like that..." If anything, it's a STRONGER argument for God then just saying "Well... God is... but he can really just be anything you wanna call god..."

Does that make sense?

Drez: What he's saying is, we have 'constructed' an impression of what God is based on certain fundamental attributes He must have.

-Omniscience
-Omnipotence
-Timelessness
-etc.

But nothing says that we are completely correct...(after all, it's about faith)...we may have mistakenly attributed something to God that He doesn't have.

Of course the bible tells us a very specific message about God...but that assumes that the bible is correct (which I'm not saying it isn't, it's a question of faith). But can we be certain this is correct?


God is not quite as 'black and white' an issue as you might think. (Of course the standard view of God is that He is perfection...in which case there is one undeniable vision of what God is. But this view may not be the correct one)

Originally Posted by Mowicz

Drez: What he's saying is, we have 'constructed' an impression of what God is based on certain fundamental attributes He must have.

-Omniscience
-Omnipotence
-Timelessness
-etc.

But nothing says that we are completely correct...(after all, it's about faith)...we may have mistakenly attributed something to God that He doesn't have.

Of course the bible tells us a very specific message about God...but that assumes that the bible is correct (which I'm not saying it isn't, it's a question of faith). But can we be certain this is correct?


God is not quite as 'black and white' an issue as you might think. (Of course the standard view of God is that He is perfection...in which case there is one undeniable vision of what God is. But this view may not be the correct one)

Ah, okay thanks. So here is a question (that coincidentally brings us back to the topic of this KGP business...:p). If a person is CONVINCED there IS a god, do you think that it is possible to know what He is like / NOT like?

im speaking from a muslim perspective, so theres 1 god and communication is done through prayer, know what he is or isnt like, is not even considered as that would be equivalent to comparing god to a human. God has no characteristics and in turn it would be impossible to know what he is like/not like. Similar viewpoint would apply for Judaism, this would be more applicable to Christians, due to the trinity and its reference to "the son", so from a Christian point of view id say the characteristics of jesus would be reflective of what god is like.

Define "Know." Beyond all doubt? Absolutely not since the nature of our minds gives us a serious hurdle before we can even be certain we exist (I can elaborate on this if you'd like). The traditional 'dramatic' interpretation is that we may all be part of the dream of some elaborate mind.

But certainly, there are things such as the microscopic, which we cannot perceive...yet we are reasonably sure things like atoms or quantum mechanics exist in our universe (but not certain beyond all possible doubt). They seem to go against what we perceive, and with good reason: the human mind is weak.

Of course half the people will say 'yes, because we're only human and God has the perfect mind...therefore God exists' (which assumes God's existence in the first place) while the other half will say 'yes, because we are merely the byproducts of evolution and far from perfect...therefore God does not exist.' (which assumes God's non-existence in the first place).

So barring some sort of divine intervention, visions or the like, which even then we would not be 100% sure they were legitimate and not just created by our imagination, we wouldn't really be able to know God on a personal level like that...at least not beyond all doubt.

Faith on the other hand, is a marvelous thing that allows us to believe beyond leaps in logic...which ultimately exist everywhere in life (not just in the supernatural).

Originally Posted by Mowicz

So barring some sort of divine intervention, visions or the like, which even then we would not be 100% sure they were legitimate and not just created by our imagination, we wouldn't really be able to know God on a personal level like that...at least not beyond all doubt.

Nice post (not just what I quoted...) but don't get me wrong... I wasn't speaking about PERSONALLY (I might get accused again of writing KGP :p).

Are we done talking about KGP (chalking... :p)? This has split into evolution and now conversations about God

Just a couple thoughts having been around for a while:

As part of a community that supports education and further learning and challenging of what we are taught, I think it's important to take a neutral stance and taking an objective stance before going headlong into one side of the debate. Also, I would challenge everyone to challenge their current knowledge, and not just accept it because it's been repeatedly told to them.

I'm sure Galileo didn't have all that much support when he told everyone that the sun didn't orbit the earth, and Christopher Columbus was thought insane when he said the earth is round and not flat. But it's people who have challenged what they've been taught and told who have discovered truth.

So if you're going to tell me that you know god personally (or can), then post something tangible and prove it. If you're going to say you can't, then post some back-up, don't just say "that's bull****".

So let's hear it, A to Z, objectively please. =)

Originally Posted by Souldier

what do you mean when you say you know God personally? Did you have a conversation with him? What does he look like?

I can't speak for everyone, but check out what Brian Welch from the band Korn thinks...http://iamsecond.com/#/seconds/Brian_Welch/

or what it means to this military guy...http://iamsecond.com/#/seconds/Chris_Plekenpol/. (I am in no way supporting war, but just thought his story offered a perspective that many of us may never have)

What are other thoughts?

"religion is the opium for the masses" - Karl Marx

Originally Posted by Mowicz

The irony is, because there are so many holes in evolution (whether true or false) that it's possible to disregard evolution completely without completely missing the facts...instead what you're disregarding, is 'filling in the details.'

Here's a little thought experiment:

Suppose we all die out as a species and the planet becomes desolate. In zillions of years, a race of Transformers (just for fun) comes to Earth and begins to dig into its crust in search of scientific evidence.

After some digging, they come across some modern cars, like say, a Mustang. They dig even deeper and find some Model T's.

Optimus Prime then makes a hypothesis: The Mustang evolved from the Model T. (which is clearly absurd, and it completely disregards the interaction with human beings. The analogy is, more people get sick during the Christmas Holidays...do we then conclude the Christmas Holidays make people sick? No, there are other factors such as the cold weather/stress, which are being overlooked)

---------------

While I'm not saying that, beyond all doubt, I'm certain that this is an incorrect assumption (assuming we evolved based on fossils), it is a leap in the logic...we've been conditioned to say 'of course we did, there are bones.' But examining raw facts doesn't mean too much...there are no facts that give us this causal relationship between homo habillus and homo erectus (let's say). It's simply the best guess science has at the moment. Some day it may change drastically, should we ever come up with a more thorough, more complete explanation for what happened.

Personally I'm more inclined to believe that human beings are silly and are likely to have made an incorrect assumption somewhere...and that someday evolution will be refined into something completely different because science is dynamic, it's ever-changing. Besides...I don't feel like a monkey. ):

So I pitch to you: I'm technically denying evolution in this post, does it seem like I'm disregarding facts? I'm choosing logic (in essence, my personal interpretation of the facts) over other peoples' opinions/explanations of them. In essence I am choosing faith but I'm not choosing it over fact.

[moderated: comment removed]



On topic: their little event will happen, and the chalking will wash away... no need to get upset about it. Its not like many controversal/interesting things happen on campus that often anyways.

Originally Posted by syan9184

"religion is the opium for the masses" - Karl Marx

Its actually less taken out of context and more meaningful if you write the rest:

Originally Posted by Marx

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

PHULEEEEZ!

I do NOT want to have to school anyone on Marx, but when we drag him into a completely illogical discussion about religion, we've stepped over the line!

Marx ACTUALLY said, in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts specifically the section entitled Alienated Labour, that

In religion, the spontaneity of human imagination, the spontaneity of the human brain and heart, acts independently of the individual as an alien, divine or devilish being. Similarly, the activity of the worker is not his own spontaneous activity. It belongs to another It is the loss of his own self.

Marx is equating religion with capitalism, the ultimate evil. Religion is centered around the unproven, the frivolous, the spiritual...it attributes all the good work man does to a supernatural being. It alienates man from his own work.

Marx advocated the abolition of religion because it separates MAN from his LABOUR. Since man's labour is an extension of his self, any attempt to divide the two is to make man a lesser being.

And since someone is probably going to tell me to get back on topic here...

KGP? Knowing God Personally? Seriously? How can anyone know god "personally"? Religion is a communal affair, so any attempt to throw the individual aspect into it is a perversion of the reason religion was created: to ensure social solidarity in man's early development.