1. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86356
    17 Feb '12 21:01
    Who do you blame for their invention, science or god?
  2. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    93415
    17 Feb '12 22:03
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Who do you blame for their invention, science or god?
    i blame man. man made the bomb not science. there is no such thing as god so i cant blame him.
  3. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86356
    17 Feb '12 22:07
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    i blame man. man made the bomb not science. there is no such thing as god so i cant blame him.
    Do you also blame man for creating god?
  4. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    93415
    17 Feb '12 22:33
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Do you also blame man for creating god?
    i dont blame man for creating god. its understandable why man created gods, but i blame certain parts of mankind that should know better for not letting go of god.
  5. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91614
    18 Feb '12 00:411 edit
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Who do you blame for their invention, science or god?
    Interesting question. The nuclear problem has been particularly unifying in terms of people realizing that they finally invented a bomb that could make a war a no-win situation for everyone.

    Anyway, I thought God was everywhere, including inside scientists, so I would need you to briefly define these terms before I could answer you here, not to mention that it seems like an extremely loaded OP. What is your agenda here?
  6. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    18 Feb '12 01:42
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Who do you blame for their invention, science or god?
    God without science would never lead to an atom bomb. Science, with or without god, eventually would.
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    18 Feb '12 05:52
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Who do you blame for their invention, science or god?
    Science invented them. Man uses them. God allowed them.
    Science is not a tool and cannot be blamed, that leaves man, and God both responsible (assuming God exists and is capable of preventing such things).
  8. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91614
    18 Feb '12 09:09
    Not to mention that "blame" is a lame game 😉
  9. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36544
    19 Feb '12 13:37
    Originally posted by rwingett
    God without science would never lead to an atom bomb. Science, with or without god, eventually would.
    I thought that the very Universe itself incorporating a meaninglessly vast no. of massive explosions involving the the birth and death of numerous stars, no less, was the creation of God. Surely the term God includes the Universe as we see it. I say God is an old hand at these explosions.
  10. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    19 Feb '12 17:58
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    i blame man. man made the bomb not science. there is no such thing as god so i cant blame him.
    For that matter, there is no being called "man" to be at blame.

    According to Wikipedia, in 1942, researchers at Harvard came up with Napalm. Are they the blameworthy, or is the net cast wider. Were their efforts funded specifically to find what they found? Were they aware of the uses to which it would be put or were they studying how to make a jellied fuel for other reasons? Who funded it? Who first used it? Etc. etc.
  11. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    19 Feb '12 18:08
    Originally posted by rwingett
    God without science would never lead to an atom bomb. Science, with or without god, eventually would.
    Sometimes I think that the reason we have not heard from beings on other planets is that the same level of technological evolution that would permit communication, permits self-annihilation. Whether via weapons, environmental destruction, whatever.

    (After all, if there are civilizations out there, some of them would have to be 100's of thousands of years more advanced than we are -- unless they self-annihilated.)
  12. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    19 Feb '12 19:29
    Originally posted by JS357
    Sometimes I think that the reason we have not heard from beings on other planets is that the same level of technological evolution that would permit communication, permits self-annihilation. Whether via weapons, environmental destruction, whatever.

    (After all, if there are civilizations out there, some of them would have to be 100's of thousands of years more advanced than we are -- unless they self-annihilated.)
    I think you are correct. Any civilization which sustainably harnesses its technological development will have no need to venture forth. Civilizations which have become slaves to their technology will always annihilate themselves one way or another before they're capable of venturing forth.
  13. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    19 Feb '12 19:37
    Originally posted by rwingett
    I think you are correct. Any civilization which sustainably harnesses its technological development will have no need to venture forth. Civilizations which have become slaves to their technology will always annihilate themselves one way or another before they're capable of venturing forth.
    There is speculation on the early TV broadcasts of I Love Lucy being received and decrypted on some distant planet. I wonder if it is a realistic possibility that, before a planet's civilization either self-annihilates or turns away from their own version of SETI, it could receive and decrypt Lucy and Ricky, and conversely, while we have SETI, we could receive some unintended signals and properly decrypt them. I think this is a likely scenario for detecting another civilization but I might be overoptimistic about signal strength and decryption capabilities.
  14. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    20 Feb '12 00:16
    Originally posted by JS357
    There is speculation on the early TV broadcasts of I Love Lucy being received and decrypted on some distant planet. I wonder if it is a realistic possibility that, before a planet's civilization either self-annihilates or turns away from their own version of SETI, it could receive and decrypt Lucy and Ricky, and conversely, while we have SETI, we could receive ...[text shortened]... r civilization but I might be overoptimistic about signal strength and decryption capabilities.
    Free reruns of 'I Love Lucy'. I wonder if that's motivation enough to venture forth into space.
  15. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91614
    20 Feb '12 02:441 edit
    Originally posted by JS357
    Sometimes I think that the reason we have not heard from beings on other planets is that the same level of technological evolution that would permit communication, permits self-annihilation. Whether via weapons, environmental destruction, whatever.

    (After all, if there are civilizations out there, some of them would have to be 100's of thousands of years more advanced than we are -- unless they self-annihilated.)
    To be sure, other civilizations have reached the same point and destroyed themselves.
    We must learn about the atom to understand the nature of the universe better, it is a neccesary lesson for evolution. But at the same time we learn of its potential destructive powers which in makes us turn back to ourselves and our world and the potential application of these discoveries.

    We can learn from other situations just as we can learn from Jesus. Even if he was purely myth , the myth still changed the world a great deal and sometimes even for the better.
    As has been pointed out before, your belief is not required for ghosts, Jesus, aliens, etc,etc. to exist.
    I really do think a lot of people are more egotistical than they are willing to admit.
    We can dismiss others stories simply because they do not fit current scientific models is silly. After all, has science not needed to correct itself several times in the past to adhere to what they think is REALLY going on?
Back to Top