"Ask My First Timbs" Q&A thread

there is some truth in what ur saying whitey, but the thing is.. not all religions behave this way!

there are many religions and belief systems and individuals who wholeheartedly believe in the concept of a god, but see no problem with accepting the facts of evolution and the facts of our cosmology. its mainly just fundies (whether xtians or islamic) that seem to have a problem on average with this .. but mainly just xtians.

but at the same time there are millions of xtians and islamic fundies who have no problem with evolution and our universe's cosmology/age and see evolution as the "tool" god used to sustain life on the planet. ( i have no problem with that)

for those lurking and watching,

what im trying to do as of recently is shw sweet sista how her concept of her god is fundamentaly logically flawed (not to say that the concept of a god is flawed!! thats a different issue).. im tryin just to illustrate that HER CONCEPT is flawed...

the last we left off she admitted that "after god completed creating the universe, his inetnion was satisfied"

thus god no longet had the intent anymore

many may wonder why i keep stressing this little issue.. i am because this little logical pitfall is at the heart of the modern concept of a god. this little logical excercise also illustrates exactly where the believer's irrational thought process "kicks in".

its impossible for a god to be labelled as "immutable" or "unchanging" and at the same time be argued to be a creator of the universe! (or creator of anything)

in order to purposefully create something, there logically has to be intent!

but once that something is created, you no longer have that intent anymore (because it was satisfied!), thus, in the process of creating something, this "god" has changed his fundamental stance! Once a god is shown to possibly change his stance, he can no longer be argued to be immutable or unchanging!

questions? comments?

CD Asked:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cd
I'll throw one out there for you Timbs.

From an evolutionary standpoint, what do you think the relationship is between advancing technology and natural survival characteristics are? There is evidence that due to technological advances in science, medicine, etc that people live longer and are bigger and stronger than previous generations. If you look at Medieval knights, who were the big warriors of their day, they didn't even measure up to 6 feet. Athletes are bigger and stronger than from a generation ago. So on the surface it may look like these advances are strengthening the species.

However if you look at it from another angle, it seems humans have grown too dependent relying on outside sources. Medicines are tremendously overused and people really keep their immune systems weak when they don't let it naturally fight off sickness. Technology has become such that people do not need or want to do as much physical activity as they used to(manual labor or just being active outside) and sit stagnated inside watching hours of images on TVs or computers. We are insulated and not exposed to most of the hardships of nature. People do not use nearly as much mental capacity as they used to. A good memory and quick cognitive abilities used to be the difference between life or death. Now people rely heavily on calculators to do simple math and are too lazy to even remember phone #'s anymore bc of speedial. This seems to be leading to the dulling of a lot of intellects.

So although it seems that on the surface extreme advances in technology would make a species stronger, is this just surperficial and actually harmful to human beings' natural survival abilities? Are we cutting ourselves off from nature and is this relying on technology rather than our minds and bodies making the species actually naturally weaker?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by My First Timbs

there is some truth in what ur saying whitey, but the thing is.. not all religions behave this way!

there are many religions and belief systems and individuals who wholeheartedly believe in the concept of a god, but see no problem with accepting the facts of evolution and the facts of our cosmology. its mainly just fundies (whether xtians or islamic) that seem to have a problem on average with this .. but mainly just xtians.

but at the same time there are millions of xtians and islamic fundies who have no problem with evolution and our universe's cosmology/age and see evolution as the "tool" god used to sustain life on the planet. ( i have no problem with that)

---

o i feel you with that. but i just get the feeling that they almost have been forced to accept that point. and they wouldnt have if it was up to them, only the proof got so overwhelming that they would just look like they were complete ignoramuses if they didnt incorporate some science into their beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by My First Timbs

for those lurking and watching,

what im trying to do as of recently is shw sweet sista how her concept of her god is fundamentaly logically flawed (not to say that the concept of a god is flawed!! thats a different issue).. im tryin just to illustrate that HER CONCEPT is flawed...

the last we left off she admitted that "after god completed creating the universe, his inetnion was satisfied"

thus god no longet had the intent anymore

many may wonder why i keep stressing this little issue.. i am because this little logical pitfall is at the heart of the modern concept of a god. this little logical excercise also illustrates exactly where the believer's irrational thought process "kicks in".

its impossible for a god to be labelled as "immutable" or "unchanging" and at the same time be argued to be a creator of the universe! (or creator of anything)

in order to purposefully create something, there logically has to be intent!

but once that something is created, you no longer have that intent anymore (because it was satisfied!), thus, in the process of creating something, this "god" has changed his fundamental stance! Once a god is shown to possibly change his stance, he can no longer be argued to be immutable or unchanging!

questions? comments?

---

This is beautiful, well put, and logical.

And, I'm glad you went outside of sweet sista's replies in your explanations
cuz, she seems to be set in her illusions.

But, I gotta give it to ya for tryin!

Quote:

---

o i feel you with that. but i just get the feeling that they almost have been forced to accept that point. and they wouldnt have if it was up to them, only the proof got so overwhelming that they would just look like they were complete ignoramuses if they didnt incorporate some science into their beliefs.

---

i agree

just look at the issue of evolution and common ancestry

until modern advances in bioinformatics and molecular genetics and the humane genome project, many religious fundamentals and others shouted at the top of their lungs that its complete rubbish to believe that humans are related to other creatures (mainly other primates)... they stood by this claim to the "death"

scientists already knew that all creatures are related via common ancestry, but once the human genome project was completed, the truth was now out there for all to see! we are related (and very close) to the african aps and chimps (this is verifiable evidence of common ancestry)

so at this point religious fundies didnt wanna look like complete lunatics, so they somehow incorporated this tidbit of knowledge into their "belief system" to somehow make them seem more rational..

its a common trend, and the reason for this is known as the "god of the gaps"

god only presides over the unknown. once things are brought into the realm of the verfiable "known", god is demoted by one rank to be the "cause" of the now new "known" thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whitey

one of my biggest objections to religion is how stupid it is in the sense that why the fuck would god create the universe then wait 30 to 40 BILLION YEARS for us to get to where we are right now.


this wasnt thought (or readily known) when religions were invented, and thats why they told some bullshit stories about the earth being only 6000 years old.


then when the truth came out that the earth is billions of years old and the univeres is billions and billions of years older than that, it didnt phase them.

like, what the fuck? how blind are some (a lot) people.

---

Yeah but 6,000 years is just how far back the whiteman can trach HIS history.....

Yet, we also know that hueman life was here on Earth before the whiteman was...so, go figure

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by APSU

Now ?

you always been blind

a blind follower of nonsense

---

aaaahahaha...yea, that Apsu!

what is said if you are privy to the possible evolution after homo sapien? for what could evolved higher than wise, yet in the world of evolution man can't be done unless he does himself in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by My First Timbs

okay, so god at one point in time had an intention to create the universe (so far so good)

after he finished creating the universe, he completed his objective (and thus satisfied his intention)..

here is where the logical problem comes in and follow me on this without responding emotionally (respond rationally!)

there is a fundamental change in idealogical stance and position for one to at one point in time "have an intention to do something", and then after they successfully do it "no longer have the intention"

do u follow me on that?

---

yea...i see whatcha tryin' ta say..go on..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galt john galt

what is said if you are privy to the possible evolution after homo sapien? for what could evolved higher than wise, yet in the world of evolution man can't be done unless he does himself in.

---

what makes us the be all end all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sweet sista

yea...i see whatcha tryin' ta say..go on..

---

well , basically thats just it!
do you concede to the point that in the act of creating something, there is a fundamental change when it comes to having an original intent, and then completing the project or objective and then no longer having that intent anymore?

if you concede to this point, then I have successfully demonstrated how your concept (along with others concepts) of a "god" as an unchanging immutable deity is incorrect !

if u dont concede u must explain how this god is still immutable


(off topic) i just got a message from my publisher, they are quite concerned about me posting on this forum... they feel that i am giving away too much info thats in my book and future book for free........

Hey that ain't proving nothing. i concede that in the act of creating, there was and still a strategy that god used/uses. i mean that he had in mind that after creating the universe,he'll create teh humans, animals, etc. and he is still on his strategy until everything dies. so, from the very begining it's obvious that he almighty intended to do it all. How can you assume that he stoped in his intention like he is a human. my sweet little fairy, Dis is irrational, isn't it?

^nice sig lol

No no the old one was coo but dis one ...:nonono: