It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Whats that based on? how is that conclusion reached when we are dealing with a supreme being? You have intoduced tacit consent. As Hitch once put it "Heaven watches with folded arms."
See from 5.20 in.....
@Escalus5 No idea is beneath scrutiny and sometimes that leads the idea being belittled. There maybe believers in ghosts or aliens in flying saucers etc within the forum that feel hurt or belittled by previous threads. What are non believers meant to do?
Agreeing to disagree (whilst an easy option) is an acceptance of the status quo and, if we are to progress (thank goodness we are) we have to keep going. We did not get where we are by agreeing to disagree. Cases are argued, points are made, feelings get hurt and culture/consensus evolves and changes.
Flat Earth? Agree to disagree.
Astrology? Agree to disagree
Thor worshippers ? Agree to disagree
FGM? Agree to disagree
Sorry, cant let these things go. Nothing will change for the better if we are too busy worrying about upsetting people's feelings or causing offence.
Et tu, Ludovico.
What is supreme about watching 99.9% of the species you created die out? Thats "not supreme" in anyones book. A 0.1 success rate.
Plus, God has intervened (according to some), do you believe he has intervened at all? For many, the interventions are used as evidence. If we have no interventions, what evidence is left?
I’m not saying God is real or not. By “supreme,” I’m simply talking about a being that could do whatever it wanted, so if it didn’t care about intervention, it wouldn’t do it - even with the capability.
What would then be the difference between an existant God and an inexistant God?
Okay thanks for your intelligent contribution to the debate.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The existence of the world indicates there's a God that created it? If that's what you mean how did you go from the existence of the universe to the existence of a creator?
Sometimes you have excellent points here and elsewhere, but just as often it is just assumptuous pseudo-intellectual and hypocritical box thinking that doesn t impress or convince in the slightest.
Well tell me when I did pseudo-intellectual and hypocritical box thinking (ticking?) then. Otherwise I don't care if you're impressed or convinced or not. So far all you've been doing is parroting.
That's just the Big Bang then isn't it? And we don't worship that do we? I've got no problem if people want to say that whatever caused the Big Bang is God. But once it had banged we've been on our own ever since so why are you worshipping an explosion - and an explosion that put in place cancer in babies?
If there is an entity that could create but doesn't intervene, he still created the universe and the rules that govern it so he's just as guilty in giving babies cancer as if he could intervene but doesn't.
If you accept creation as a deliberate act then you must accept baby cancer as a deliberate act also and therefore God as a callous monster who is not worthy of love and devotion in the slightest.
Was going to address @Escalus5's points but you boys seem to have got it all covered in those two excellent posts.
Right back at you, and the examples are too numerous. Let s just give up. It s like teaching a pig algebra. It won t get it anyway.
Equating God with something else: nature, "everything", "beauty" is just changing a name for another.
Good so you got choice. I just need one example. If I've been wrong then I'd make amend. It's that simple.
And I'd be insulted about the pig analogy but then I remember that you generously said that I sometimes make relevant contributions here. Something I cannot reciprocate regarding your contribution to this thread. Not as far as I can remember anyway.
What I’m saying is all hypothetical. It’s only one possibility I’m throwing around for discussion. I do still find it hard to believe there could be just one planet in a whole galaxy full of space just right for animal/human life with all these intricate rules and laws. I find it hard to swallow everything is accdient. There could be a force that isn’t necessarily “God” that caused creation. I really don’t know; all I can do is speculate. But like I said, it seems strange Earth is accidental being the way it is among other planets.
Who is claiming that there is one planet containing life? More arrogance from the human species "we are so special". Who says they are intricate. We have no comparitive data. We may live on a really basic planet with far more comples ones out there with more complex rules and laws.
Accidents (random events) happen and many humans find it hard to accept. But that says more about our limited imagination as a species rather than the likleyhood of the "accident" happening. Once you take in the size of the universe, it would be far more unlikley for nothing to happen. That would be something that I would struggle to comprehend.
Latest estimates are around 40 billion Earth sized planets in the Milky Way. Surely, all of them being lifeless is more unlikley?
The universe being huge and not knowing all that much about particular planets in it, it's possible and I'd even say likely that there are other lives maybe even intelligent ones in it. Even if we were living on the one and only planet capable of sustaining life, given the size of the universe, the amount of stars that did not make it, died, or could simply not provide the conditions for life I'd say our existence as a species seems on the contrary very much accidental and insignificant. Why would God have bothered creating everything else and sometimes very badly if his big project was the creation of this grain of sand and the primates who evolved on it?
Even if that was the case it's a huge jump from "we don't understand X" to "therefore God".
And even if we could prove that we are the only planet that has life on it, that alone would not offer the slightest evidence that God exists at all.
Also, regarding creation being chaotic and impure: why is that so difficult to contemplate? Living species birth younger versions of themselves. The process is anything but clean. Moreover, anything can happen with and to a child. It could be born with a congenital disease for instance. That doesn't deter from the fact that it is the parents who created it. Creation is far from pure.
Creation doesn't appear to be random however. Usually there is a trigger. That's because nothing about life or the universe is still. Everything is changing and moving, even if at imperceptible rates.
Probably @Dragonpol.
And if God exists I have no problem to say he's rather mediocre as a creator if not downright incompetent. Chaotic you say? At least parents trying to conceive usually works their best so that their baby is born in the best circumstances and environment.
But in any case what is the difference between this hypothetical existing but incompetent God and one that does not exist?
I am not a God fearing man. However, I don't go out of my way to deny that there could be more to the universe than we now know. I don't have any answers, as I've said before. Just questions. Philosophers have debated and considered this for centuries. We are not the first to ask these questions. I don't believe in what organized religion has to say, but am open to abstract (and potentially random) forces having an impact on our lives. It is in our nature to want answers. That's what differentiates us from other living beings.
We tend to look at things through our structured and regimented mental lens (e.g. if there is 'a God' then why does he consciously allow mischief, and suffering, and death etc. etc.). God doesn't have to exist in the manner that we think he should. He doesn't even need to be a being. He could be an 'it'. He could be an element of nature itself. A connective tissue between all living things and beings. One has to look at these things in a more theoretical and abstract way I think.
Regarding the difference between a potential incompetent vs. a nonexistent God: I suppose there really is no difference to us minions. Or there is as much difference as pure chance.
The thing to do when you have questions is to investigate not invent answers out of thin air. And even if for argument's sake there's a mysterious force that created the universe why call it God? You say God does not have to exist as how we define it... then again why call it god and how else can you eventually establish if there is one or even that there could be one? If God can be anything and anyone then the word is completely meaningless.
Various religions have created plausible (to some anyway) constructs to explain the existence of something (or one) to make sense of our world. They've done it in ways that are consistent with their existing preconceptions (& for the most part created in their image). The fact that so many theories and perspectives exist should confirm this.
I am in line with Gandhi's thinking from earlier on this thread. Does it really matter? Not to me. Believe. Don't believe. I couldn't care less. Just don't impose any dogma on me and I'll let you be.
Sound advice.