Im pagan and thanks to its freedom, I worship Ancient Egyptian, Greek, Norse and various other god's and goddess's as I believe help me in life.

Whats funny is when people try to bash Pagan people, because they have no clue that A.) their basically bashing their own religion and B.) Paganism is not a set religion meaning there is no specific god or goddess to worship oh and C.) Paganism is the oldest religion currently known to man

I have see people here talking of creationism and evolutionism but I have no see anyone to mention Intelligent Design.

There is info about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design

It's called "Theory of Evolution" and not "evolutionism". This label is just a poor attempt to drag down the theory of evolution to the same level as creationism.

And yeah, "Intelligent Design" has been discussed. It's the same as creationism anyway, just with a new name.

Im pagan and thanks to its freedom, I worship Ancient Egyptian, Greek, Norse and various other god's and goddess's as I believe help me in life.

May I ask why? And which gods specifically? You just stated a broad range of over 100 Gods.

May I ask why? And which gods specifically? You just stated a broad range of over 100 Gods.

Because you dont have to worship gods and or goddesses that you dislike, you dont have to follow a specific way to worship.
It's something different yet not crazy and the local community is small and seem more like a family to me.

As for the god's I worship, there is a few(not all):
Egyptian;
Hathor - the Goddess of love, music, dance
Thoth - God of Wisdom, Time, Writing and the Moon
Ma'at - Goddess of Justice
Greek;
Hera - Queen of the Gods and of the heavens; goddess of women, marriage, and motherhood.
Aphrodite - Goddess of love, beauty, desire, and fertility
Norse;
Baldr - God of radiance, peace, and rebirth
Eir - Goddess of healing.
Forseti - God of justice, peace and truth
Freya - Goddess of fertility, wealth, love, beauty, magic, prophecy, war, battle, and death.
Frigg - Goddess of marriage and motherhood.
Lofn - Goddess of love.
Nótt - Goddess of night.
Sjöfn - Goddess of love.

4 goddesses of love o_o Why no God of love? No Cupid? :\

(Where's gender equality when you need it?)

Real men don't love; they pillage. =D

You're hopeless.

You're hopeless.
I'm also not a real man, by the definition I just provided. ^_^
I'm failing everywhere! D:

5 Goddesses of love actually, hehe.

Also Real men do love, just not in the same way women do....their love is more uhhhh hidden?

I'm also not a real man, by the definition I just provided. ^_^
I'm failing everywhere! D:
You don't fail everywhere *pats* :/ When it comes to narcissism you're the best! No seriously, you're the master of sarcasm, be proud ;)


5 Goddesses of love actually, hehe.

Also Real men do love, just not in the same way women do....their love is more uhhhh hidden?
Oh yeah, I didn't see the love in Freya :o I'm curious though, isn't it problematic to have so many gods from all over the place? (fortunately no Aztec gods demanding human sacrifices)

Any Haruhists here? Atleast they have a common point of interest with me =)

Nope no problems that i've seen.

You've seen your gods? How outstanding.

Ah sarcasm, lol

But no I havent, I ment that there seems to be no issues, and what i ment by seen is that my life has been going well with no major issues, just minor every day issues everyone might experience.

If haruhists comes from Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuuutsu, then please, get out of here and go back to the anime forums. Seriously, get a freakin' life.

If haruhists comes from Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuuutsu, then please, get out of here and go back to the anime forums. Seriously, get a freakin' life.
Where else would they come from? And I'd tell Christians to get a life before Haruhists. Anthropomorphic gods make a hell of a lot more sense than "perfect" ones do. ;)
But I think anyone who says they're a Haruhist is joking anyway...

You don't fail everywhere *pats* :/ When it comes to narcissism you're the best! No seriously, you're the master of sarcasm, be proud
Hah, thanks thanks. Don't worry about my pride though. I have a never-ending (and ludicrous) font of it inside me somewhere. X3

Where else would they come from? And I'd tell Christians to get a life before Haruhists. Anthropomorphic gods make a hell of a lot more sense than "perfect" ones do. ;)
Actually it's the other way around. "Perfect" Gods without the obvious anthropomorphic elements (I'm talking about the kind of god Aquinas had in mind) make more sense than anthropomorphic ones, which obviously were made up by man. But anthropomorphic gods are so much more entertaining, than eternal (disembodied / transcendental) entities floating around somewhere outside the boundaries of space and time (whatever that means). D:

Actually it's the other way around. "Perfect" Gods without the obvious anthropomorphic elements (I'm talking about the kind of god Aquinas had in mind) make more sense than anthropomorphic ones, which obviously were made up by man. But anthropomorphic gods are so much more entertaining, than eternal (disembodied / transcendental) entities floating around somewhere outside the boundaries of space and time (whatever that means). D:
How so? Perfect gods should create perfect universes; the world obviously isn't perfect, so perfect gods don't make any sense. Anthropomorphic gods at least make a little sense, as you can say "well, they're only human-esque. Of course there are some problems with the world. They make mistakes and don't have unlimited power. They can only do so much!"
Most of the problems with say...the Christian god could be explained away if the Christian god wasn't supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect in general. I mean, half of the inconsistencies in the bible come about because of God's seemingly bipolar personality, where the Christian God shouldn't even have a personality. If the Christian God was just a "very powerful" being, instead of a "perfect" one, most of the problems in the bible could be explained easily. Eg, "oops, God fucked up. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist."

I mean, "God killed those people because he was having a shitty day. Evil exists because He can't handle everything. Fight for yourself once in awhile. We go to hell if we're bad because God doesn't like people who abuse the gift of life that he's given us," makes more sense than "God killed those people because he's...perfect...and merciful....and uhm....mysterious? Yes, God is mysterious, and you couldn't possibly understand why he'd murder people and then say that murder is wrong. He also...loves us...but...lets evil exist...? It's Satans fault...that's why...uh...you know..."

So what makes an anthropomorphic god less obviously fake than a "trancendental" one? The only reason I could think you'd say that is because anthropomorphic gods are out of style right now, so you've been conditioned to find the Christian type of god more acceptable. O:
So yeah. I'd root for anthropomorphics any day. Go Eros! =D

And sorry this post is so badly written and flows miserably. :heh:

All I can say is that I wish I was smart so I could understand this discussion, lol.

I think we mean the same thing Hopeless, I wasn't clear enough with my earlier post. Actually, my choice of words sucked ;) With a perfect god of course I shouldn't have referred to Aquinas' God (he may have been much closer to the original definition of god as something undefinable, but he's still the Christian god in his deeds, if not in his essence). Of course, I rather meant the concept Aristotelean God. The unmoved mover, the perfect being that exists outside of time and space and is always perfect (ie. he doesn't change, it really boils down to the deistic belief of a first cause).

Most of the problems with say...the Christian god could be explained away if the Christian god wasn't supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect in general. I mean, half of the inconsistencies in the bible come about because of God's seemingly bipolar personality, where the Christian God shouldn't even have a personality.
That's exactly what I meant, either a god is perfect in every regard or he has a personality, as soon as you mix them together you'll have all the inconsistencies that go along with it and which are easily observable in the real world (ie. problem of evil, argument from divine hiddenness, et cetera)

If the Christian God was just a "very powerful" being, instead of a "perfect" one, most of the problems in the bible could be explained easily. Eg, "oops, God fucked up. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist." I mean, "God killed those people because he was having a shitty day. Evil exists because He can't handle everything. Fight for yourself once in awhile. We go to hell if we're bad because God doesn't like people who abuse the gift of life that he's given us," makes more sense than "God killed those people because he's...perfect...and merciful....and uhm....mysterious? Yes, God is mysterious, and you couldn't possibly understand why he'd murder people and then say that murder is wrong. He also...loves us...but...lets evil exist...? It's Satans fault...that's why...uh...you know..."You're exactly right. In fact, in the early history of Yahweh, he was a normal tribal god, powerful but not perfect. It was when the anthropomorphic view of god started to mix with Hellenistic philosophy about 2300 years ago, that he was considered the supreme ruler of the universe, all powerful and all knowing (and benevolent of course). Many people don't realise what great influence Greece had on monotheistic religion... just take our notion of "heaven". It's pretty much a 1-1 copy of the Greek Elysium. D:


So what makes an anthropomorphic god less obviously fake than a "transcendental" one?
It really depends on what transcendental god we're talking about, whether he has anthropomorphic features or whether he is just an entity of some kind that got the universe going. Don't get me wrong, the deistic notion of god may be not as obviously fake as the theistic one, but it is still an unnecessary
concept (-> Ockham's razor).

The only reason I could think you'd say that is because anthropomorphic gods are out of style right now, so you've been conditioned to find the Christian type of god more acceptable. O:
So yeah. I'd root for anthropomorphics any day. Go Eros! =D
I don't find any type of god warranted :heh: Anthropomorphic ones are at least entertaining =D

And sorry this post is so badly written and flows miserably. :heh:
Not at all :3

Ehh, my last post came out sounding alot more off-topic than I wanted it to...

What I mean by that is I found Haruhi to be a parody of some sort of Christianity.
eg:

In both, the world was supposedly created in a time after there were already supposed to be living beings. (3 years ago, 6000 years ago)

Different interpretations of the bible and god~ different interpretations of Haruhi's powers.

Haruhi's certain behaviors are strikingly similar to those described of the supposed christian god. eg. punishment/reward, etc.

Anyone with similar thoughts?

Meh, if this is still off-topic then ignore me, but I find that we're starting to run out of topics for this thread...

I never thought of it that way, and besides, most religions claim the world was created at a time of which it is proven that the earth already existed at that time.

In some chinese myths, the world is form when this guy calls Pangu lies down and rest and the fleas on him become humans. Science explains that BIG BANG!, singular cell appears and super evolved to human. Since all theories are pretty ridiculous, just chose one you like. We are THETANS, I am going to Venus, wheeee.

Haruhi's certain behaviors are strikingly similar to those described of the supposed christian god. eg. punishment/reward, etc.

Anyone with similar thoughts?



Punishment / reward is found in almost every religion. It's how they get people to convert. Greed and fear, the most basic human emotions.

Big Bang is just a theory just as all religions are. It is not science's only explanation, just one of it's best.

And the Big Bang does make sense. They've gathered evidence showing the universe expanding, and that it has been expanding for a long time.

Big Bang is just a theory just as all religions are. It is not science's only explanation, just one of it's best.

And the Big Bang does make sense. They've gathered evidence showing the universe expanding, and that it has been expanding for a long time.
The Big Bang theory has nothing in common with religion. It is well a supported scientific theory backed by all the current evidence and observations (and of course, the theoretical models). I have to say this clearly: There is no alternative. Steady state theory died decades ago, no serious scientists adheres to that any more.

The fact that the universe was in a very dense and hot state 13,76 (+/- 0.12) billion years ago and rapidly expanded after that is certain and uncontested. It is t=0 (if it even exists) that theorists still have troubles to explain, which is mainly due to the fact that we don't yet have a good theory of quantum gravity.

EDIT: There was a great post about this just yesterday on the BadAstronomy-Blog -> here (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/03/05/the-universe-is-1373-12-billion-years-old/)

I find it really weird how people put their whole life in religion,
and it's like as if they rely on it in a way.
Like say, for example, my aunty...
she once told me to go church/temple often and do this and do that and be devoted in your religion and you'll get good grades and you'll become more smart...
i find that really ridiculous because it sounds like bribery to me, like you do this and that for God and you'll get what you want.
I know some people who care more about going to church/temple than caring for their family, which is stupid! Like, to them they think that by going to the church/ temple often and doing voluntary work in there would make them a good living being but it sounds more like selfishness to me...
If you want to become a good living being, be helpful and caring to the people around you, be devoted to people around you instead of to someone who you're not even sure exist..
I've tried explaining this to my aunty but she thinks what im thinking is ridiculous! What's even more ridiculous is what she said to me lately:
"Smart people who arent devoted to their religion wont get good grades and unintelligent people who are committed to their religion will get what they want and they will get good grades!" That is just really stupid!

Your aunty needs to get some common sense :|

Why doesn't God just stop Satan then?

Well then no free will would exist. If we didn't have good and bad choices, only the good, then we cannot be free. Choice determine our lives and the way we handle things, if we didn't have any then what kind of machines would we be? Satan is there to be our other choice, even though in some situations it might seem like your choosing either good or good, but evil can be disguised as good, it may be good now but later on down the road it will turn sour. Not every hardships are put in our way by Satan but by God. He puts them there to help our faith grow stronger and our hearts softer. Do you grow when your not challenged? Writing music, playing music, playing a sport, and many other things are filled with trenches and obstacles to get you to be better. Nothing can't be acheived without striving, and nothing will be achieved when doing nothing.

Well then no free will would exist. If we didn't have good and bad choices, only the good, then we cannot be free. Choice determine our lives and the way we handle things, if we didn't have any then what kind of machines would we be? Satan is there to be our other choice, even though in some situations it might seem like your choosing either good or good, but evil can be disguised as good, it may be good now but later on down the road it will turn sour. Not every hardships are put in our way by Satan but by God. He puts them there to help our faith grow stronger and our hearts softer. Do you grow when your not challenged? Writing music, playing music, playing a sport, and many other things are filled with trenches and obstacles to get you to be better. Nothing can't be acheived without striving, and nothing will be achieved when doing nothing.

I am thirsty. I have a choice between milk and water. Both are good choices.

I am thirsty. I have a choice between milk and water. Both are good choices.
I was going to say basically the same thing, but you beat me to it. :)
What I think is weird is how everyone keeps on yelling "free will!" at me, yet nobody has stopped to explain to me exactly why free will is so great. It seems to me that "satan" and "free will" just cause a lot of unnecessary suffering. What's wrong with making good choices and being happy all the time, exactly?

Also, how exactly can heaven exist with free will? Won't we all be making shitty choices and murdering each other up there, too? If that isn't the case, then why doesn't God just let us be happy to begin with, instead of making us suffer for eighty odd years before experiencing eternal bliss with him? Don't tell me our suffering here is to help us "grow" or any crap like that, either. Babies killed during sprees of genocide aren't really "growing" very much because of their suffering, figuratively or literally, so that excuse makes no sense at all.

I think it's about time to launch the human instrumentality project, lawl.
Of course, I like free will. Of course, the only reason I like my free will is because I'm an imperfect being who has an ego and a desire to remain separate from everyone else out of my own hubris, even if it causes suffering for me and those around me. I'm sure if my free will were stripped from me, and I made only the best choices for the rest of my existence, I and everyone else around me would end up much happier. It's too bad God wasn't kind enough to grant me complete happiness, instead opting to have me constantly fight and suffer for my survival. Oh well. ;)

At least he gave me an ego, so that I can derive some pleasure from being better than others. lulz.
[/introspective rant]

I believe it's time for me to bring this quote back out, it was buried back on like page 15 or so and I still think it holds true:

"We are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -S. Roberts

The free-will argument for the existence of evil fails on so many levels (as Hopeless and Cinderella rightly pointed out). So I'll just add a few point to what has already been said.
The premisses of the argument aren't established at all. Let's take a look at the argument:

(1) Humans have free will, and moral evil is a result of the exercise of free will.
(2) A world in which there is free will, even though it contains evil, is better than a world in which humans have no free will and are mere automata who always do good because they are determined to do so.
(3) Free will is seen to be of such value that it justifies the existence of moral evil.

Andrea M. Weisberger put it very well:
Two major elements are needed for the free-will defence to succeed. First, it must be agreed that free will is this highly valuable asset without which humanity would suffer a great loss. Second, it must be shown that having free will is necessarily connected to evil in the world such that there could not be free willed creatures without evil.
Regarding the value of free will, we again might ask, "Given the choice between this world and a world in which there is no evil and merely the appearance of free will, which is more valuable? The answer would strongly depend on the respondent's perspective. Suffice it to say it is an open question for many people.
It is an open question, indeed.

It also depends on your definition of free-will. In my understanding free-will is the ability of the mind to form independent conclusion and not the ability to exercise them. You could decide to become a millionaire, put you may fail to archive your goal and it wasn't the fault of an apparent lack of free will. In much the same way, god could have provided us with the ability to prevent evil from happening which does not hinder one's desire to profess evil. It's just one example. There are, of course, many ways an omnipotent god could have solved the problem without taking away our free will. The fact that he didn't and the fact that evil exists remain.

Hah, good post Matt. That was basically what I was going to say to Ryan if he ever came back to finish his argument (which he didn't lol).
Of course, I would've used a lot more capital letters and a louder vocabulary. X3

Mhh, no response! ^__^ I think we've made our point ~

This thread is so last month.

God is god. Literal or figurative, it's your choice. Next topic please! XD

Free will exists because any idiot with enough programming knowledge can create a program that will continually praise said idiot’s efforts. God can create people without free will who have no choice but to praise Him because it is in their “programming,” but in the end it means nothing. It is essentially God praising Himself. If people with free will choose to praise God, however, then that actually means something.
If you ask why I’m saying this instead of addressing the suffering that free will has caused, let me just say that free will was created for the glory of God. Heck, the entire universe was created to glorify God. If you think that’s egotistical of God, then you don’t know what God is like. God is infinitely good and therefore deserves all the praise that men can give and more, while if an ordinary person somehow created a universe for his own glory, it would be considered egotistical because this person expects the inhabitants of his universe to praise him in spite of his shortcomings. With God, it is different because we praise God because He has no shortcomings.

If you ask why I’m saying this instead of addressing the suffering that free will has caused, let me just say that free will was created for the glory of God. Heck, the entire universe was created to glorify God. If you think that’s egotistical of God, then you don’t know what God is like. God is infinitely good and therefore deserves all the praise that men can give and more, while if an ordinary person somehow created a universe for his own glory, it would be considered egotistical because this person expects the inhabitants of his universe to praise him in spite of his shortcomings. With God, it is different because we praise God because He has no shortcomings.
lmfao. An infinitely good being wouldn't need or want to create a universe to glorify himself, because he would be infinitely humble.
For some reason, creating a universe full of suffering TO GLORIFY YOURSELF SEEMS LIKE KIND OF A SHORTCOMING TO ME. Eg, only an asshole would do something like that.
Also, protip: Any idiot with enough programming knowledge can also program something will free will, so what's your point? The brain isn't magicks. It can be built by humans who have gained the knowledge to do so, just like everything else in the universe. (And beyond! Go humans, go! =D )

Also, please define "free will" for me. People keep on talking about it in this thread (and using it as an answer to every single argument against god one could imagine), but nobody has given a definition for it yet. That's not very fair. :3

but nobody has given a definition for it yet. That's not very fair. :3I did. But I guess I don't count, being on the same side of the argument as you are :(

Well, to a certain degree, our free will is partially limited beyond what we can see. Past experiences, genetic predispositions, and the environment will shape many of our decisions without our consciousness. I think the essence of free will is something like a random number generator.

Something like... Do I want rice or noodles today: Due to personal preference and past horror experiences with noodles, I may have a large preference to rice, leading to something like .2 vs .8 on noodles vs rice. And then free will kicks in, randomly generating a 0 and 1, making the decision on what I would eat today.

Well, that's my interpretation of it anyways. Free will essentially decides everything, as long as more than one option exists, but end decisions may be influenced by everything else as well.

If God made the Earth and Universe without free will, then everything would be so mono... All robotic. God, according to Christian belief, made man with free will, he made man through his glorified body, through his flesh and blood. God has free will, and thus, through his creation of us as a reflection of him... we also, have free will.

Without free will, the world would be just so... wierd... everything would be the same, no one would be different... it would be boring. There wouldn't be anyone that has certain talents, creativity... uniqueness... There would be no point of the world to exist.

But! isnt it like if you can think then you have free will?

Like say... the choice of either an apple or a chocolate bar for a snack... :heh:
sooooo.... a person chooses an apple because she/he thinks that that is good for them cos it healthy and all but then another person chooses a chocolate bar because it taste better and they prefer it... that's their free will

and if someone doesnt have free will then it doesnt matter what they like or what they prefer... because they dont have a choice anyways

I have a feeling this doesnt make sense! :sweat:

but wait, i dont get it, why are we talking about free will? :unsure:

God, according to Christian belief, made man with free will, he made man through his glorified body, through his flesh and blood. God has free will, and thus, through his creation of us as a reflection of him... we also, have free will.
God, according to Christian belief, is omniscient. So apparently he already knows how he'll decide in the future. Can he change his mind? He's omnipotent after all. So either he doesn't know everything or he his not omnipotent or he does not have free will. (But duh! He's God. It probably doesn't matter that he violates the basic tenets of logic)


Without free will, the world would be just so... wierd... everything would be the same, no one would be different... it would be boring. There wouldn't be anyone that has certain talents, creativity... uniqueness...
What makes you think that the absence of free will would make everyone the same? You can have an unlimited number of unique minds, who act based on their predispositions and because of what they've experienced in their society. Having the illusion of free will or "actual" free will (as Hopeless pointed out, no one defined what the hell he means by "free will"), would make any difference at all, because *drum roll* you probably couldn't tell the difference.

I think you should keep in mind that free will is in no way linked to "uniqueness", "talent" and frankly a lot of other stuff you seem to associate with it.

There would be no point of the world to exist.
...

When people say that "there would be no reason for us to exist", what do they mean?
1. That there is no point in life.
2. That there is no reason for the world to have come into existence.

1) The first point is based on the assumption that a life without free will would be worthless. This point is, let's say, unsubstantiated (and you seem to base it on wrong premisses, as I pointed out above). At the very best debatable (take a look at my previous posts if you want to see what I mean).

(On a side note: The topic whether we actually have a free will or only the illusion of it is discussed a lot in contemporary philosophy and neuroscience. Many lean toward the latter conclusion. If true that implicates that, evidently, we still enjoy life even though "actual" free will doesn't exist.)

2) There is no reason (other than arrogance) to believe that our planet or we humans are "special". That we have a "special" standing in the universe or to go as far as claiming that the universe was created for us. Copernicus showed us that the Earth orbits the sun. We figured out that our sun is just another star among hundreds of billions of others. We finally realised that the sun doesn't even have a special position in the galaxy and that our galaxy doesn't have a special position in the universe. Later they figured out that those ominous nebulae they saw everywhere, were in fact galaxies like our own, comprised in turn, of hundreds of billions of stars. We learned that there are billions these of galaxies. We don't even see our universe as static anymore, but as expanding and ever-changing. And lately, we discover planet after planet around distant stars. So what are the objective reasons to believe in our "dominance"? I'd say, there are non. Only egocentrism can account for such a view.

Frankly, there is no reason for our species to have come into existence some hundred thousand years ago (other than the advantages our ancestors had over other species). There is no "ultimate goal" intended for us. I can live with that view, actually, many can. And they don't see anything bad about it. They are happy that we do exist and that we can life our lives. Many inquiring minds find joy in figuring out how miraculous (and I'm not invoking the supernatural here) it is that we exist and how awesome even, that we can think about our existence.

Really, the only goals we have are the goals we set for ourselves. There's as much meaning in our lives as we give it. "Meaning" is an entirely human concept and as such we can find it for ourselves and figure out what it "means" for us. You can find joy in your family, caring for your children, relatives and friend and even - in caring for others. You can find meaning in gathering knowledge and learning about the world, the stars and the universe. Just because there is no reason for us coming into existence the way we are and not in form of some other intelligence doesn't mean we can't love and care for others and enjoy arts like music and poetry (others found the meaning of their life in writing those songs and poems).

Someone on another forum said the following, it's a pity that I don't remember who said it.

You'll die if you get too hot or cold, but not if you don't have enough meaning in your diet.

Meaning is a luxury of the bored searching for a way to feel important when, in their boredom, they have had all the time in the world to actually contemplate just how worthless they are.

@ matt, you say there is no reason for humans to feel "special" but are there substaniated proof, scientific and undeniable proof that there is another 'living planet' out there in the universe? Just because you say there are billions of galaxies, an expanding universe, until proven untrue, can you deny that Earth is the only planet that support an expansive number of species? I am not implying that the sun orbits around the earth until it was proven that it is the other way round. But having no real substantial proof, why can't humans assume they are special when there is still the possibility that the universe is built for them? Will retract argument when space aliens invade.

There is a need to define free will, is it absolute? Is it subjective?

(non-discussively please do not quote: @ crimson, not everyone understands the book of Ecclesiastes, especially 12:13-14, as simple as it is.)

@ matt, you say there is no reason for humans to feel "special" but are there substaniated proof, scientific and undeniable proof that there is another 'living planet' out there in the universe?You're asking for evidence that can't be met with today's technology, but there will be instruments powerful enough to probe for such planets in the next decades. You know, as long as there is no conclusive evidence, one has to rely on the things we already know about the cosmos and evaluate the plausibility of an idea. As I said, there are hundreds of billions of stars in a galaxies (the number varies based on the type of galaxy; elliptical galaxies being larger than spirals for example) and there are more than a hundred billion galaxies. Now, we know that it is very common for planets to form around stars (multiple planets most of the time). Around 40% of all stars systems are binary systems (two stars orbiting each others), but the other 60% have a great chance of forming planets, that potentially could harbour life. It isn't at all unlikely that some of these planets form in the habitable zone of their stars (microbial life could form in a lot more places, but I presume you're explicitly talking about intelligent life here). I think you underestimate the size of the universe. It is a TREMENDOUSLY large place, were even a probability of the tiniest of a fraction of a percent for life to arise on a planet would potentially lead to millions of occasions were abiogenesis has happened.


Just because you say there are billions of galaxies, an expanding universe, until proven untrue, can you deny that Earth is the only planet that support an expansive number of species?
Such a planet is very likely to exist, actually it is more plausible to assume that it exists than to say that our Earth is the only habitable planet in the WHOLE universe (did I mention that it's a friggin' huge place?).

(Actually your statement "The Earth is the only planet that supports life" is equivalent to "There are no other planets that support life other than earth", which is a definite claim and thus the burden of proof would be on you to show that there are no other habitable planets and that the Earth is, in fact, the only one there is. To say "until proven untrue" is always an fallacious approach.)

However, what we CAN say is that the Earth is (at least at the moment) the only planet we know to support life (without excluding the possibility that there may be others).


I am not implying that the sun orbits around the earth until it was proven that it is the other way round. But having no real substantial proof, why can't humans assume they are special when there is still the possibility that the universe is built for them?
You know, at all times in history, humans have made claims about how special they are. The Europeans thought that Europa was the centre of the world. Humans thought (and some apparently still think) that we are creation's crowning glory and that the Earth is the centre of the universe (after all, God supposedly created it for our sake). Then they thought the sun was the centre of the universe (again for the same reason). Then some clung to the idea that we have a special position in our galaxy and all believed that our galaxy is somehow special.

In much the same way white people thought they were superior to other races. Men thought they were superior to women.

The one thing they all have in common? They all have been wrong.

History teaches us that we should not assume that humans have any special standing in the universe. It was this that lead to the establishment of the mediocrity principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle) (the wiki article is highly interesting, I recommend it! ;))

The mediocrity principle is the notion in the philosophy of science that there is nothing special about humans or the Earth. It is a Copernican principle, used either as a heuristic about Earth's position or a philosophical statement about the place of humanity.
You seem to suggest that it is okay to assume that we're somehow special, until proven that we in no way are. It has been shown over and over again. I think it would be very naive (even foolish) to make the same mistake again.


There is a need to define free will, is it absolute? Is it subjective?
Free will can be defined in many ways. Just a few example:
-> The ability to think whatever you want to think.
-> The ability to act upon your thoughts (ie. Voltair's "freedom is your ability to act")
Or specified versions of the above:
-> The ability to form an opinion without the influence or the threats of others (ie. "if you don't do this, I will kill you.")
-> Or Sartre's existentialism "You always have the choice between doing something or taking your life" (that is, if you are in a position to take your life)

Free will boils down to several problems, amongst other things:
-> What is the mind?
-> What is the causal relationship involved with decision-making (what, in our brain, can change our decisions)?
-> Determinism/Indeterminism?

Well with your "until proven" statement about the earth being the only planet that supports life. I would think that would be a scientific theory, being as, in science, a theory is a statement about something that can be proven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

So it can be proven, yet, it still cannot hold ground as a solid fact.

Free Will is also a bit more expressed in the laws of Confucius

According to the Eight Fold Path,

Goodness rewards those who follow it.

Though, through Christianity, such as the Catholic Church, that if you do something wrong, you have sinned, but you can be forgiven.

Let's take Abortion for example (now before we go into madness about this certain topic)

The Catholic Church, as well as many other Christians believe abortion should be stopped. In most cases, to choose to get an abortion just to kill the "seed" of a woman just because she wishes not to have one... Then again, most woman are taken in against their own free will from what I've heard. But why get an abortion, if first of all, you don't want a baby, so why have sex? You say that you just abuse your body for pleasure and reject the circle of life of another being? Then again, the young that are killed could be used to save another being. But why kill to save another who's already had experienced life?

Free Will has its rights and wrongs according to different individuals...

It is a base and important aspect to the balance of humanity.

You still haven't said what free will is...
And you didn't answer any of Matt's well thought out arguments. = \

Well, I wasn't challenging it, but more of adding on to it.

Well with your "until proven" statement about the earth being the only planet that supports life. I would think that would be a scientific theory, being as, in science, a theory is a statement about something that can be proven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

So it can be proven, yet, it still cannot hold ground as a solid fact.
Is this a response to meim's post or to mine? And could you clarify what exactly you mean, it's very ambiguous? :think:

Anyway, the criterion for a scientific theory is not that it can be proven. The criteria that have to be met for a theory to be called scientific are:

-> The theory has to make predictions that are falsifiable. If the prediction is falsified, so is the theory. (This criterion is the most important, it is the reason why science is evolving and improving)

-> It must (in principle) be possible to tell the theory apart from other theories which explain the same phenomena (via experiments or observation).

-> It must be internally consistent.


Then again, most woman are taken in against their own free will from what I've heard. But why get an abortion, if first of all, you don't want a baby, so why have sex? You say that you just abuse your body for pleasure and reject the circle of life of another being? Then again, the young that are killed could be used to save another being. But why kill to save another who's already had experienced life?
What if the woman was raped or for some reason incapable of caring for a child?

wow, this is quite an interesting set of topics.
well,
as far as i have studied and discussed with several people(i may not agree with it all, but it was accepted within our group):
free will does exist. however (to them) god knows you so well that he pretty much knows what you will choose.
(i.e. if you were walking down a road and it forked you might take a while deciding but god knows you so well that he knows which road you will take and why. know it is always your choice but god knows how your mind works so he does indeed know what your every move will be.)
know you may be asking, "if god already knows what you will do, then it's decided right?"
well not exactly, i don't think we exactly covered this in out discussion but in my opinion, i think god doesn't exactly think of anything other than our here and now, which in my opinion is how we should live.
....well thats all i can really think of on that subject.



as for the abortion.
obviously if the mother/child were in danger the abortion should take place. i believe thats what they do nowadays even if abortion isn't allowed in the state or whatever.
however when it comes to people who just fooled around a lot and weren't prepared for taking care of a child...well, i don't believe it should be allowed. it is the responsibility of the people who had sex to be prepared for the consequences.
as for the rape victims....well i wouldn't exactly know what it's like since it hasn't happened to me but my mother was a rape victim and she still had the child. i know that she is happy she had it because know the child is fully grown and has a child of her own.
there have been many studies made that show that after abortions, even the rape victims, have A LOT of mental problems. and several of them regret having done it.
sure there are plenty of people in this world and our resources aren't all that great but i don't see why we have to kill off the ones that haven't even been born yet. i mean, with all the abortions that have happened already we could have had another Beethoven or Da'vinci for all we know.

If you think it's OK to use mousetraps, or step on a bug, or eat meat, abortion should be a-OK, cells are cells.

If you think it's OK to use mousetraps, or step on a bug, or eat meat, abortion should be a-OK, cells are cells.
lol, people are made of cells too. Is murder okay then, too? As long as we make sure to kill the person cell by cell I guess...? I don't think lil' humans can be put on the same level as rats and vermin. = \
Not that I'm against abortion, because I'm not.

lol, people are made of cells too. Is murder okay then, too? As long as we make sure to kill the person cell by cell I guess...? I don't think lil' humans can be put on the same level as rats and vermin. = \
Not that I'm against abortion, because I'm not.

You aren't ? Damnit!

Abortion is bad!
>_>
Can't stand people who talk about it like it's acceptable! Sure there are some situations where there is no choice but to abort but still its something that the mother should at least be sorry about...

Abortion is bad!
>_>
Can't stand people who talk about it like it's acceptable!
I think, within proper limits, it's acceptable. Does that mean you I'm hated now? :/

I don't mind it, again, that's where my thought free will comes in... Other people have their opinions and their decisions on certain things. It is the roads or paths that they choose to follow. I will not intefere with it for it is not my path. Unless our paths intertwine by nature or odd reason, I will not meddle with the choices of others. I will not force my path to cross. I can give my opinions and show people what I think the right thing is to do... but I cannot force... It is not my life... it is theirs. I guide can only give and show directions, he/she cannot force them to follow them.

It reminds me of a famous quote by the French philosopher named Montesquie when he was debating with another fellow gentleman on his way of opinion on things...

"I do not agree with a single thing you say, but I will defend to the death your every right to say it."

lol, people are made of cells too. Is murder okay then, too? As long as we make sure to kill the person cell by cell I guess...? I don't think lil' humans can be put on the same level as rats and vermin. = \
Not that I'm against abortion, because I'm not.

Well see, there's obviously a certain point where the embryo/zygote/whatever because less of just cells and more human. This is what the whole debate's about: is it at conception or some other time?

I don't know when that is, but I do know from after studying the human reproductive process, that for the first couple weeks it is indeed just a ball of cells, with no conscious or anything.

Yes, and it's not completely understood of the production of the embryo... Scientist still haven't really figured all of the process.

Then again, through the process of Mitosis, Meiosis, the zygote divides into different Eukaryotic cells. And the cells begin to recieve their "jobs" and start to form tissues, organs, and etc. Then the process of Mieosis divides, yet has a completely different cell than the one it parted from. Which is where individuals would get their genes from... or X and Y chromosomes.

Yes, and it's not completely understood of the production of the embryo... Scientist still haven't really figured all of the process.

Then again, through the process of Mitosis, Meiosis, the zygote divides into different Eukaryotic cells. And the cells begin to recieve their "jobs" and start to form tissues, organs, and etc. Then the process of Mieosis divides, yet has a completely different cell than the one it parted from. Which is where individuals would get their genes from... or X and Y chromosomes.

Um, no. Meiosis makes gametes: sex cells. Sperm and eggs in humans.

This thread has satisfied its purpose.