quote:
The way i see it is because nothing can be proved either way then everyone should be allowed to believe whatever they like without argument or prejudice.
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky
Hi rosy
Compare your perception of colour compared to a group of people who are colour blind,and without science prove to them they are the ones seeing things incorrectly, Now try to prove to somebody who's whole life has been dedicated to god that god doesnt exist without any proof that what your saying is true. To them your the one that persists in believing in something which is demonstrably untrue.[:)]
Michael
quote:
Sorry Michael, but it is quite possible to demonstrate to a colour blind person that “they are the ones seeing things incorrectly “.
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky
Now go back a few hundred years to before Sir Thomas young and the modern theory of light so your in the same position as we are in now with trying to prove to a someone who passionately believes in god that god is fake with no science to back up our claims. Remember with no science to deal with colour you will have no idea how to create any tests to prove that a colourblind person is seeing things inaccurately, so how can you prove to him and expect him to accept your claims that his colour perception is not normal, as far as he is concerned your the one with screwed up vision and are mad because you you wont accept HIS colour perception as being normal.
its the same situation with god we cant prove nothing in regards to our claims that there is no god so why should he a lifelong believer in god believe what we believe when we are in the same position as him and can't actually prove anything. at least he got faith , what have we got
Michael
quote:
Originally posted by rosy
I don't want to disprove God, I think he's an irrelevance. Either he's there and gave us this world to try to figure out, or he ain't and there's a world to figure out entirely by chance... it makes no difference to my life. I would quite like to discourage people from being unpleasant to each other on the grounds of who they are and who they go to bed with, and am consequently biased against organised religion as a whole, but that has nothing at all to do with the point I was trying to make above.
quote:
The arguments against organised religion have more to do with organised humanity than with religion. Nationalism is no less dangerous that organised religion, and the vehement anti-religious perspective of mainstream communism is also no less dangerous. Religion is merely one of many ways in which you can segregate people into 'us' and 'them', and it is not the religion itself that is dangerous, but the segregation. Unfortunately, it is an innate part of human nature that we do like to feel we 'belong' to a group, which inherently requires that we distinguish between the group we belong to and those who are outside of that group.
quote:
The bigger problem in terms of the philosophical discussion of God is the lack of adequately agreed frames of reference.
quote:
The bigger problem in terms of the philosophical discussion of God is the lack of adequately agreed frames of reference
quote:
Originally posted by rosy
I'd suggest this is only partly true. I'll grant you the human tendancy to xenophobia, but would contend that where specific "outside" groups are designated, or perceived to be so, by a religion that it is more difficult to bring those people into the "inside" group if the communities are living side by side... bigotry is accompanied by a belief that it's righteous, rather than a set of unthinking assumptions which can (I would suggest) more readily be broken down in the face of real people who turn out to be much like the people on the "inside".
quote:
I would ask whether what you are talking about is religion or God? There are religions that have no notion of God (Buddhism being one that comes to mind), and I would also suggest that communism itself has many of the properties of a religion, although they would be horrified to think of it so.
quote:
Unless you accept the tenets of moral relativism, then it becomes inevitable that you have to fall back on some kind of notion of a righteousness that makes your notion of right superior to someone else's notion of right. Whether you attribute your notion of right as God given, or simply somehow 'self evident' or otherwise unarguable, by whatever mechanism, you have to either accept that there is no absolute right, or that a particular version of right that is superior is based on irrational bigotry.
quote:
Once you accept that your version of right is the superior right, then it follows that anyone who believes a different version of right must be inferior to you.
quote:
And i will not come to this conversation again because obviusly no one to date really knows the answer.
quote:
Originally posted by tony6789
And i will not come to this conversation again because obviusly no one to date really knows the answer.
quote:
Originally posted by rosy
Religion. I don't know much about Buddhism, but religions in general proscribe certain activities (and I'll go back to the sexual morality example because it's the one that comes to mind) simply because they're "wrong". I'd agree with you that communism (in some of its manifestations) has some aspects of a "religion" too... and it's those aspects, both of religion and of communism that I find objectionable. I'm not saying that I like anything else in particular just because I'm suspicious of religions.
quote:
No. I disagree. If we accept that there is only one "truth" (whether or not any of the existing religions/non-religions have any kind of handle on what that is), then moralities based on writings purporting to be "divinely inspired" by the deity of a religion which doesn't correspond to that truth is of less value than one which is based on truth.
Since we can't know who, if anyone, has the right idea then we have to reach a pragmatic balance where *provided no harm is done to other people*, we're all allowed to get on with what we believe is right. The effects of this are quite close to those you'd get by taking a relativist view *but* is philosophically very different.
quote:
No. That is exactly my problem with the whole thing. Religion requires belief without rational backup. A rational view says "this appears to be best so we'll run with it until we find something better". Essentially it's a case of approaching right as you would science.
quote:
Originally posted by daveshorts
I think that there is a difference between irrational judgements that are a product of society and therefore alterable, and those that were divinely inspired 2000 years ago and therefore, the truth, the absolute truth and nothing but the truth, and therefore one is right in doing anything to promote these truths, and they can't be tempered with new information.
quote:
Originally posted by daveshorts
a supernatural bing
quote:
Originally posted by BigBen
GOD IS REAL IDIOTS!!!!!! i AM A VRY STRONG CHRISTIAN!!!!! BESIDES WHO MADE THE BIBLE IF HE DIDNT EXISIST
quote:
Originally posted by hddd12345678910
I am a Muslim, for a change
quote:
I haven't read all the posts, but as a general response, the problem I seem to see with most of the arguments here is that everyone tries to 'fit' God into science, even though God is the one who initiated matter from nothing and began time when it didn't exist and created the very fabric of the universe from nothing. So, does it really make sense for us to try to frame the One with the capacity to create the quarks and the electrons and protons and so on from nothing into a system (science) which is directly derived from His creations?
quote:
What you forget is that science in all its glory only creates a representation/instance of the world around us and not a copy of it.
quote:
This is so since all renderings/simulation of the world around us, no matter how sophisticated, will run on a looping function with a finite delay between frames. Will you find some sort of minimum time interval between universal progressions?
quote:
Science can tell us what is, but it can’t tell us what ought to be.
quote:
If God had willed, he could have created an unstable environment in which the so called “Universal Forces” (gravity, weak force, strong force and electromagnetism) kept changing orientation or be completely replaced by some new law. If God can initiate such laws to begin with, then why would He not be able to change them?
quote:
However, it says quite a few times in the Quran that God himself promises that his laws will never change, and it is for this very reason that there is even such an occupation such as a scientist.
quote:
So, for the person apt in deductive and logical reasoning, you may find that the question to ask is not whether or not God exists. It is whether or not the universe around us exists, and as far as that is concerned; I doubt that it even deserves a passing comment.
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone
It is a fair comment that God need not fit into science, but if God does not 'fit' into science, then He cannot be real when viewed from a scientific perspective. This does not preclude His existence when viewed from other perspectives, but then one has to be careful to define the parameters of the particular perspective in which He does become a reality, and be careful to show that the perspective in which He may exist cannot overlap the scientific perspective.
quote:
Now you've lost me. I can understand that one can view the universe as discrete time intervals, it does not follow that this is an inherent property of all possible scientific models.
quote:
In this, I would slightly disagree with you. The importance of science is not that it will tell me what is (my own eyes can tell me that), but that it can tell me what will be (i.e. it can extrapolate from the present into the future, and can then demonstrate that that extrapolation correlates with the perceived reality at the time).
quote:
This does not follow.
Even if one assumed that God created all that is the universe we see, humans are notorious for creating things they are subsequently unable to control, so to assume that because God creates something thus he must be able to manipulate and control it at will is not a logical inevtability.
quote:
Aside from whether, that the Quran reports God as saying something, does it actually mean the report is true; but even if it is an accurate report, how can you demonstrate that God himself is telling the truth? Given the enormous power that God supposedly has, how could you possibly hope to be able to catch Him out on a lie? I am not saying that He was lying, I am merely asking whether you have the competence to tell whether He was lying or not.
quote:
To ask whether the universe around us exists is a perfectly valid question for a solipsist to ask, it is merely a very difficult question to answer.
quote:
I essentially stated that it makes no sense for humans to frame God around our system of understanding of the universe around us (namely science), since it is God who created the system that we analyze with the limited abilities we possess. So if God does not ‘fit’ into our system of science, then it does not mean that He does not exist, but rather it means that our system is too provincial and limited in capacity to provide for such a possibility.
quote:
Originally posted by hddd12345678910
Judging from your reply, you did not thoroughly understand my post (or maybe you’re ignoring some aspects of it because of being an atheist). I essentially stated that it makes no sense for humans to frame God around our system of understanding of the universe around us (namely science), since it is God who created the system that we analyze with the limited abilities we possess. So if God does not ‘fit’ into our system of science, then it does not mean that He does not exist, but rather it means that our system is too provincial and limited in capacity to provide for such a possibility.
quote:
I suppose the problem here is that for some wildly strange reason unknown to me, and surely will remain unknown to me, atheists and people in general have no concept of the fact that God CREATED FROM NOTHING EVERYTHING AROUND YOU!
quote:
Scientific models are not simulations, they are just, well…models. I was referring to simulations that actually actively simulate the world around us like the type you may see on a game like Grand Tourismo which if you didn’t already know is a racing simulation. Of course you could get a really sophisticated simulation to calculate the events occurring at extremely small time intervals, but ultimately, that’s what you would be doing: calculating. Basically my point was that no matter what, you cannot create a simulation that can replicate the quality of the universe, namely the infinite divisibility of time, or a physically infinite large universe either.
quote:
First of all, the only reason that you are able to know what will be is because of the stability of the universal laws. As I previously mentioned, if the universal laws kept changing with God’s will, then you and anyone else would be completely devoid of the possibility of even knowing for sure such a thing as if an apple detaches from a tree it will fall down. And Newton would never have found an apple falling from a tree of any significance since the next day the apple might just stayed there.
quote:
Secondly, you never responded to portion that stated “it cannot tell us what ought to be”, so I’m going to have to assume that you agree with that statement.
quote:
Besides the, in my opinion, extremely selfish desire to compare the intellect of humans to that of God in his infinite Wisdom and Knowledge (selfish because of the reasons already mentioned), humans don’t Create anything! The most they can do as far as creation is concerned is the creation of ideas and concepts, but even those are gifts from God, for if He had willed He could have made us like the rest of the animal kingdom; unaware of their own existence. Everything else we humans do is purely the manipulation of whatever is already created and supplied from God.
quote:
And why do you think that humans are notorious for ‘creating’ things they are subsequently unable to control? It is because humans are not even remotely aware of their ‘creations’ at a fundamental level (the subatomic or atomic level in this instance). If the chemist was able to consciously know what was occurring at the atomic level when doing his/her experiment, do you think that he/she would ever make a mistake cause some kind of undesired/uncontrollable reaction? God did not make his Creations from a macroscopic context and subsequently leave it up to chance what happens at the subatomic level. How could any living organism possibly survive for a day without constant adjustments taking place at a microscopic or further yet at an atomic level? Indeed God created everything around us from the most fundamental level of organization. And if the chemist was able to know what was occurring at the most fundamental level, would he/she not have absolute control of his experiment? (Not to draw any further comparison between God and a chemist then enough to respond to your statement)
quote:
If you read a book in which 100% of the information in it that you can UNDERSTAND is found by yourself to be accurate, then what reason would you have to assume that the things in the this book that you CURRENTLY DON’T UNDERSTAND are incorrect! Such an assumption in this situation can only come from blatant ignorance.
quote:
Following this, God promises himself that He does not lie and his laws never change among other things in the Quran.
quote:
And by the way, the Quran doesn’t ‘report’ anything, the author of the Quran is none other then God.
quote:quote:
To ask whether the universe around us exists is a perfectly valid question for a solipsist to ask, it is merely a very difficult question to answer.
If after all that some one is to make such an argument as the universe doesn’t exist, then don’t expect me to waste my time on such futile logic.
quote:
Are we not supposed to be created in god’s image and therefore wouldn't our limited abilities be his limited ability. How is one supposed to follow and worship if we haven’t been given the ability to understand what one is following.
quote:
Why would a god who wishes to be obeyed and followed through laws written down in a book of all things,(so simplistic considering the workings of the universe) give his creations the ability to investigate and question his existence through science and then fail to give them what’s required to understand and prove his existence. Wouldn’t that be classed as dumb and certainly not what you would expect from someone with the wisdom and ability to create the universe.
quote:
The problem I have with God is firstly, that he cannot fit into the scientific model
quote:
As such, I was acknowledging that since science was incomplete, it is perfectly legitimate to hypothesise that things, such as God, might exist outside science (i.e. that science was not a complete system of understanding the universe, but was a sufficient system for the purposes required of it).
quote:
Nor can the notion of God be proven by any formal logic
quote:
And if one did assume God existed, then which model of God, and why would one assume one model of God the right interpretation and another model of God to be the wrong interpretation (and I'm not merely talking about the various 'religions of the book', Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which substantially refer to the same God, but Hinduism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and many others)?
quote:
Another reason why a lot of people shy away from the idea of God is that they have seen in history that far too many people have killed each other over disagreements about which God to worship, and how He should be worshipped. I actually think this is an erroneous argument, since atheists have proven themselves just as capable of killing each other as people who believe in one God or another, but it has left religion with a bad reputation in some people's eyes.
quote:
I think most of the above is semantics. I accept that to 'create' something, one does so by manipulating what is. If by 'create' you are using the word to merely mean to make something out of nothing, then I agree humans cannot do that - in fact, it is doubtful if in any logical sense it could ever be possible to do that. The act or creation is an act of causality (i.e. one has caused something to be created), and thus one must also have a means of causality, and thus something must be created from something (even if that something is totally from outside of this universe). This is not to say that it is logically impossible for something to appear without cause, but that is not a deliberate act of creation, it is a random act without prior cause.
quote:
That humans cannot ever predict to the minutest detail, and with 100% certainty, the consequences of their actions; I would agree with, and in fact follows from what we have agreed about an inability of ever making a complete simulation of the universe.
Whether this has anything to do with God is something I suspect we shall have to agree to disagree about.
quote:
If I read a book written in Serbo-Croat, I will not understand a single word written in the book, and yet every word that I understand will be true. This will be so, even if every word in the book is untrue, because I do not understand any of the words that are untrue.
quote:
I'm sorry, but to quote Mandy Rice-Davies, “He would say that, wouldn't he”.
quote:
I am sorry if I sound ignorant on this, but I thought the Quran was supposedly written by the Prophet, and those who came before him, supposedly at the behest of God, but not by God in person.
quote:
Originally posted by hddd12345678910
Ummm…these posts are getting too long, lol…
quote:quote:
The problem I have with God is firstly, that he cannot fit into the scientific model
The core of my argument is, as I have already said, the problem shouldn’t be that God doesn’t fit into any type of human-made scientific model, it’s rather that you are even trying to fit God into a system which is directly founded/based from His creations (namely the Heavens and the Earth and please refer to my previous posts for reference). And as far as your mathematical equation example goes, please refer to your own quote:quote:
As such, I was acknowledging that since science was incomplete, it is perfectly legitimate to hypothesise that things, such as God, might exist outside science (i.e. that science was not a complete system of understanding the universe, but was a sufficient system for the purposes required of it).
quote:quote:
And if one did assume God existed, then which model of God, and why would one assume one model of God the right interpretation and another model of God to be the wrong interpretation (and I'm not merely talking about the various 'religions of the book', Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which substantially refer to the same God, but Hinduism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and many others)?
I guess my most uncontroversial response to that statement is which ever survives the test of time and is the last one standing. God states in the Quran that no matter which way humans try to govern themselves, all man made systems will continue to fail until humans ultimately realize, by way of exclusion, what system is indeed the best for the governance of humans. This is of course the most extreme case, and one undoubtedly containing the ravages of World War III, I personally would hope the humans would find another way to learn about themselves without consistently resorting to mass crises to wake them up.
quote:
However, if you want a more concrete understanding of why one is the best over others, I would have to say it’s the one that is most logical in nature. What proof do any of these other religions have of any of their claims? The proof to backup the Quran is the Sun, the Moon, the inherent stability of the universe and all the stars dressed up as ornaments in the night sky as well as any and all scientific discoveries humans may ever make. But I wouldn’t dream of being able to sum up ‘main theme’ of the Quran even if there was one. I have already directed anyone interested to http://www.ourbeacon.com/7101.html for further reference if you are in any doubt of anything I say. This is so since the Quran is capable of explaining itself better then I could ever hope to do so myself.
quote:
The point that I was trying to make was that if you could Create something from nothing and be cognizant of the creation in a most fundamental level (atomic and subatomic or even strings if we want to go that far) then I don’t see how its possible for one to argue against your ability to have full control over your creation for all time.
quote:quote:
I'm sorry, but to quote Mandy Rice-Davies, “He would say that, wouldn't he”.
Here I’m assuming that you mean that I said what I said to underhandedly promote the Quran? Correct me if I’m wrong. If not, then if you don’t believe what I had stated, then I challenge you to read it and find out for your self whether or not I had made up the statements.
quote:
Following this, God promises himself that He does not lie and his laws never change among other things in the Quran.
quote:quote:
I am sorry if I sound ignorant on this, but I thought the Quran was supposedly written by the Prophet, and those who came before him, supposedly at the behest of God, but not by God in person.
I’m not at all surprised, considering that the average muslim has no concept of what the teachings of Quran are, I could hardly expect you, a westerner, to have any better understanding. The Quran is authored by God, but since he promised that he and his angels would not physically interfere with humans outside the laws of the universe, he can’t actually send down a pre-written book because that would be breaking his promise. No offense, but this is why the Prophets were called Messengers after all, they delivered the messages of God for humans, and in the case of Mohammad, the last of the Prophets, the message was as deemed by God recorded in the form of a book by honored scribes through the recitations of the Prophet who was just a plain human.
quote:
The other consequence of the above statement is that it actually alleviates the responsibility from the individual to decide which religion is right, since your argument seems to say that we should wait and see, and in the end, only one religion will remain (which may or may not be the religion of Islam), and then we shall know by that which is the right religion.
quote:
Originally posted by hddd12345678910
I knew from the beginning that there was no way of actually convincing anyone of anything (although my hopes were admittedly high during the last few posts).
quote:
Before my initial post I had from experience, from this increasingly secular society, begun to realize how essentially we all live in a relativistic society; a society in which a person can call just about anything an argument. A society in which the source of all types of moral restraints are removed from some higher plane and place as a responsibility to the shoulders of individuals; resulting in the frequent removal of moral restraints more or less altogether. A society in which the quick gains of the immediate are taken over the investment in the long term (You have to read the Quran, the version that I have reference a couple of times, to understand some of these statements).
quote:
Before I continue, please keep in mind that I’m 19, so that I am mostly in contact with college students; maybe now you can understand where I’m coming from with my argument for relativism if you hadn’t already. They might not represent the current society, but since they aren’t too far off from becoming the backbone of this society, I think it’s fair to consider the society in their light, even if only temporarily (I find most college students to be quite annoying; yes I AM fairly weird). Also, I know full well that I am generalizing a whole lot here, and don’t presume to be a genius or something; I am simply here to learn, as are you I assume.
quote:
By now you are of course wondering what the heck this has to do with my argument. Well, basically, as a general thing, I am trying to make a case for an Absolute and do so because I feel that relativism is only slowing down humans and will in the long run fail which ever way you look at it. After writing this sentence, I felt an urge to write an entire book on how the very concept of relativism is flawed, but as you can tell from what I have already written, I am in no mood for further argument and now feel it’s time to actually critique the processes we are using to argue rather then follow the tried-and-true-and-futile method of arguing back and forth in a relativistic society in which any one can make just about anything an argument. There has to be a line drawn some where otherwise progress will be greatly slowed to a snail-pace in which humans require some type of global disaster of catastrophic proportions every time in order to implement any type of laws and legislation in a global level.
quote:
When I gave you references to the Quran (I’m assuming that you never ended up reading any of it) I hope you did not think that I was trying to get you to get in the habit of calling your self a muslim and going out to perform a bunch of rituals and take part in religious dogmas and pray five times a day and talk to completely provincial and closed-minded people just because of a couple of words that I proclaimed. It was my sincere attempt to help you understand that the Absolute does have credibility.
quote:
It is erroneous to regard relativism as equivalent to amorality.
quote:
but then were you not complaining about short termism, people looking for quick solutions?
quote:
I do agree that we live in an era where we are increasingly looking for short term gains, but this is a consequence of people being denied the benefits of long term investment, and so simply have no incentive to make long term investments.
quote:
This is true, but I would also ask is it fair even to ask others to change their beliefs unless you are willing to entertain the notion of doing likewise? Should you be asking of others that which you are not yourself willing to offer?
quote:
Clearly, assuming a context free environment is simpler and quicker to work with than having to develop conclusions that are relevant to the context you are working in
quote:quote:
but then were you not complaining about short termism, people looking for quick solutions
Who in their right mind would complain about people looking for quick solutions? I am utterly at a loss as to how a quick solution is inferior to a long dragged out one. (all other things being equal of course). I was complaining about people looking for quick GAINS, not quick solutions. And even in this, I was not necessarily referring to it in terms of time, a lack of investment in the long term could just as well come from arrogance (one would rather delve in the relative), the removal of which doesn’t have some sort of time limit (it could happen quickly, after a long time, or never).
quote:
think practically for a second, could you imagine even one person in the history of online forums who actually changed their minds online and converted religion while having a discussion with words and sentences across the globe? Or even slightly changed their spiritual orientation?
quote:
I’m sure, however, that it wouldn’t be too difficult for you to imagine the majority of people, including you and me, who only strengthen their own pre-conceived notions and biases by coming to online forums. This is referred to as selective attention in psychology; essentially to look for things that confirm our biases.
quote:
I consider atheism to be a religion since, Christians believe in Christ, Buddhists believe in Buddha and atheists believe to not believe
quote:
Originally posted by tony6789
.........wow...........lotsa qoutes.....
- Big T
quote:
But, looking in general with regard to issues of relativism and absolute moral codes. At the time the Quran was written, it was an era when both slavery and polygamy were accepted practice, and the Quran supported both concepts. Polygamy is still accepted by the proponents of Islam, although there is no doubt that it is beginning to fall out of favour, while slavery is now condemned as much by Muslims as by any other mainstream religion (all of which had supported slavery in the past).
The question is, if the values of religion are absolute, then can it be possible to support slavery in one century, and then condemn slavery in the next? On the other hand, if one accepts that morality has to function within the context of its time and its social environment, then one can say that in the era when slavery was condoned by the Quran and the Bible, it was appropriate for that era, but no longer appropriate to the changed circumstances of the modern era.
quote:
Originally posted by hddd12345678910
Have I shown you one aspect of Islam that you found disagreeable?
quote:
But you missed my whole point. I have accepted the absolute, you have not, so if the Quran is telling me that all the questions as to how to best and most efficiently live my life while taking into consideration the well being of the rest of humanity are answered within the book, then what need do I have to look for new questions?
quote:
Firstly, most of the quotes you gave relate to how Muslims should treat each other, not how it should treat the rest of humanity.
quote:
Originally posted by hddd12345678910quote:
Firstly, most of the quotes you gave relate to how Muslims should treat each other, not how it should treat the rest of humanity.
Your argument makes no sense. What do you expect them to do, go into the other society, and fight whoever is oppressing there own people? That’s like saying the United States embarking on a mission to save a homeless person in another person’s society…And keep in mind the world was not globalized as it is today. It wasn’t even as though the other societies at the time besides the Islamic society were weak in strength. But besides this, there are plenty of verses, which I don’t have time to find right now, that relate to leaving people at peace as long as they wish to remain at peace.
quote:
Originally posted by mcduke
Here's an interesting thought. In the bible God can be angry, jealous, and loving.
quote:
How about bored? Let's face it, being all powerful and able to do anything anytime you want sounds like a perfect recipe for boredom eventually.
quote:
Originally posted by mcduke
Inorder to prove if God exist or not, don't you need to know what religious version to prove or disprove? I think there's a reference in the Bible to Gods, not just God. So, if there is more then one, which one/ones would you like to prove/disprove?
I would think that a God would provide better order in the world, ya know, like just one religion, and if someone gets the idea of starting a different/wrong religion God would pay him/her a visit(or atleast send an angel) to say,"hey, that's wrong". I would think an all powerful being would be able to do that. If not, then the confusion here must be on purpose, as in, We're entertainment for a supreme being that is bored. Or, maybe just a science project. Of course there is the possibility that we're just nature at work void of any divine intentions.
quote:
Originally posted by Ultima
What I dont get is that there is neither "proof" for or against some super deity behind the scenes. So why would someone jump to the conclusion that one exists? Maybe back in the day before we had any scientific method or knowledge it was the simplest answer to the great question; Why? But now we have scientific method and a nice simple answer that the universe just is and runs on natural interactions between stuff and other stuff. So why would anyone continue with deity worship? Personally I embrace EVERYTHING as if it were God because clearly we are all part of the grand interconnected system that is life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham%27s_Razor
Assuming that there is a hidden super being running the show isn't exactly justified in my mind. Why do I need to think that there is one?? When the world merrily goes on working without me doing so in a reasonably predictable way from currently available evidence. If suddenly we find that everything we thought was true breaks down and four giant horsemen come flying about my head I might be inclined to change my mind [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by gecko
isnt the idea of all powerful-ness adressed with-
can god make a stone so big he couldnt move it?
if he can, then he is not all powerful; because he cant move the stone. if he cant, then he is not all powerful either; because he cant make a large enough stone.
thats what always killed all-powerfulness for me.
quote:
Originally posted by JimBob
God's existence is subjective and not objective. This thread is thus, logically, irrelevant.
quote:
Originally posted by another_someonequote:
Originally posted by JimBob
God's existence is subjective and not objective. This thread is thus, logically, irrelevant.
God's existence is subjective, but that does not make the debate about God's existence irrelevant.
The belief in God, as distinct from the fact of His existence or non-existence, is far from irrelevant, since it gives an important insight into the human psyche.George
quote:
Originally posted by mcduke
Do you mean God as in the most generic term. That there is just some form of intelligence out there that created/is part of everything? Even if all creation was done through trial and error? Well then, Yes!
Then again Dog spelled backwards is?
You guys really know how to over think things. lol
quote:
Well it all up to each of us to belive or not
quote:
Originally posted by daveshorts
I have heard that an artistic temperament correlates with a tendancy to see patterns where there are none - I wonder if this has anything to do with religion.
quote:
Originally posted by ZMIVI
If you are saying that god is not real then are you saying some man 2,000 years ago made the book up? Someone who that long ago somehow knew about the evolution process that was proved to be chronologicly correct? Someone who just guessed on all of the events in the bible proven to have really happened? Even if you beleave much of it was made up HOW can you explain everything that has been proven right? Or the fact that the persons writing skills were as great as William Shakespears and as smart as Albert Enstien and new more than him before electricity was known to man?
quote:
Originally posted by tony6789
SO i guess no 1 will really know till they die huh?
- Big T
quote:
Originally posted by Laith
i agree with tony, and they also offer more life after death..
Laith
quote:
Originally posted by Hadrian
Would you?
What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.
quote:
Originally posted by gecko
you are the reason people think americans are stupid(i am one, by the way). you keep asking for scientific explanations of supposed actions by your obviously pseudo-christian abrahamic god. look at the whole world man. its bigger than one silly belief system and vision of god.
quote:
Originally posted by gecko
i did not realize this person was 13, and am truly sorry. really.
i might have been taking out some vain agression where i shouldntve been.
im very embarrased
quote:
Originally posted by tony6789
So what about exercism
NEVER! underestimate youth
quote:
Originally posted by gecko
tony, i cant prove god doesnt exist anymore than you can prove he can.
when you say something exists with no evidence whatsoever, just because of faith or belief, you can never be proven wrong. i believe theres a planet in the universe ruled by a race of skyscraper sized ants who eat nothing but pancakes. if you cant prove me wrong, than is that true?
god is just about as likely, considering theres the same amount of proof for both. i always want to see evidence before i believe in something... for some reason objectivity and skepticism have taken a backseat to the whimsy and wonder of religion
quote:
No other book on earth can make 11 correct prophecies in the space of 2000 yrs
quote:
You want to see evidence? Look around you. Something you probably take for granted oxygen. Think how plants breathe in what we breathe out and produces clean air.
quote:
Think how the planet is position in such a way that one slight move to or from the sun can lead to destruction of planet earth.
quote:
It is a scientific fact that life can only come from pre-existent life, not from matter alone. Therefore to trace life back to its source we must come back to God Himself.
quote:
in the bible, it never suggests that the earth is flat, and even mentions that it is round.
quote:
Now we have people proving, in science, what the bible already tells us. There is no proof in science that God does not exist.
quote:
The universe had a beginning, and anything that has a beginning must be created.
quote:
Originally posted by ejirolove30
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html
there is your answer.
quote:
Originally posted by ejirolove30
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html
there is your answer.
quote:
According to the Bible: Dinosaurs first existed around 6,000 years ago.5–7 God made the dinosaurs, along with the other land animals, on Day Six of the Creation Week (Gen. 1:20–25, 31).8 Adam and Eve were also made on day six—so dinosaurs lived at the same time as people, not separated by eons of time. Dinosaurs could not have died out before people appeared, because dinosaurs had not previously existed, and death, bloodshed, disease and suffering are a result of Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:12,14, 1 Cor. 15:21–22).8
Representatives of all the kinds of air-breathing land animals, including the dinosaur kinds, went on board Noah’s Ark (see How did the animals fit on Noah's Ark?). All those left outside the Ark died in the cataclysmic circumstances of the Flood—many of their remains became fossils.
After the Flood (around 4,500 years ago), the remnant of the land animals, including dinosaurs, came off the Ark and lived in the present world, along with people. Because of sin, the judgments of the Curse and the Flood have greatly changed the earth. Post-Flood climatic change, lack of food, disease, and man’s activities caused many types of animals to become extinct. The dinosaurs, like many other creatures, died out. Why the big mystery about dinosaurs?. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/AnswersBook/dinosaurs19.asp
quote:
Originally posted by ejirolove30
Well here is where people make the biggest mistake. The earth was not created 6000 yrs ago. Humans were created 6000 yrs ago. There is a big gap from genesis chapter 1 and gensis chapter 2.
Remember in the bible it states that when the devil rebelled against God that he and 1/3 of the angels were cast down to the earth. That was before Genesis chapter 2. The bible does that state when the world was created, it said in the beginning. Could have been millions if not billions of years ago.
quote:
If everything has to have a beginning who created god did he just pop up from nothing.
quote:
Originally posted by science_guy
2) Old earth creationist. This is my belief. Earth is how old we believe it is, 4.6 billion years, and all scientific facts that we have found are true. The Record of Nature and the Word of God are both true, since God created them both, and he cannot lie. The only problem is human interpretation. Days, as we call them are 24 hours long, and the day metaphor is how long it seemed to God. Since God can trancend dimensions, time is irrelevent to him.
quote:
God transends dimensions, so therefore he has more than one dimension of time. Assuming that he only has even 2 dimensions of time, that is still sufficient for this. with one dimension of time, its a timeline. With two, its a "timesquare" of sorts. with the two directions, there are an infinite amount of directions of time to go, and therefore he has no creation event.
quote:
Originally posted by ariel
let me just clear things up
there is a god
FSM
visit www.venganza.org if you wish to find out more and quite possibly become a pastafarian like myself
it's sacrilicious!
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa196%2Fbariel%2Ffsm.gif&hash=116f609c0f056f254741b55db917b1e9)
quote:
Originally posted by science_guyquote:
If everything has to have a beginning who created god did he just pop up from nothing.
I dont believe anybody has answered this yet.
quote:
God transends dimensions, so therefore he has more than one dimension of time. Assuming that he only has even 2 dimensions of time, that is still sufficient for this. with one dimension of time, its a timeline. With two, its a "timesquare" of sorts. with the two directions, there are an infinite amount of directions of time to go, and therefore he has no creation event.
there are two different creationist theroys.
1) young earth creationist. They say that earth was literally created in 6 days, along with the universe and all other things, including our galaxy. That cannot be so, because our galaxy would have to be coming from a white hole, and that is obviously not true.
2) Old earth creationist. This is my belief. Earth is how old we believe it is, 4.6 billion years, and all scientific facts that we have found are true. The Record of Nature and the Word of God are both true, since God created them both, and he cannot lie. The only problem is human interpretation. Days, as we call them are 24 hours long, and the day metaphor is how long it seemed to God. Since God can trancend dimensions, time is irrelevent to him.
quote:
Originally posted by JimBob
As for WHY I believe, It is a lot of different things, but one of reasons is the singularity. As I understand it, Big Bang theory says that the universe was created from a single point of nothing. The math for it works very well going back until that instant of the bang itself. There the math falls apart. It is the absence of any reason for the big bang to occur that causes many people to find the causative effect to be God. Thus, the reasoning goes, god created the universe.
quote:
This is just one of the many reasons I believe in God. I would need to give you a life history for me to try to convey all of the reasons.
As for you, let me propose an test for you to perform. Try living without any religious or spiritual actions for 6 months, then with them for six months. Be rigorous in what you think and do. Then at the end of the year figure out which six months were the best for you.
Decide for yourself. The subject is not going to be resolved in this forum or in our collective minds. It is a personal experience and decission that everyone makes for themselves. My personal decision after 32 years was that God was real. Yours may be different.
quote:(bold is mine)
Could God actually be real i mean i am a Christian but every piece of science we have today say he is not real. That raises the big quustion is He REAL
quote:
it gives hints of "people from the sky" they say that they came in "BIg structes" or in other words aleins visting them in U.F.O.s(spaceships) soif the Bible is accurate then that means for a faCT THAT ALEINS R REAL! ha! take that u strong belivers! :)
quote:
Originally posted by science_guy
besides, Nobody has ever proven that Aliens aren't real.
quote:
Originally posted by tony6789
ok it has come to my attention that there r certain...uhhh....writings that were in the original Bible were cut out as the Church deemed them "un worthy of the bible" things that the Church wouldn't like 2 mention any1 have ideas what these writongs could be????
NEVER! underestimate youth
quote:
The Babel fish is a fictional species of fish in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams, who describes it like this:quote:
The Babel fish is small, yellow and leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
quote:
Originally posted by tony6789
ok it has come to my attention that there r certain...uhhh....writings that were in the original Bible were cut out as the Church deemed them "un worthy of the bible" things that the Church wouldn't like 2 mention any1 have ideas what these writongs could be????
quote:
The Babel fish is a fictional species of fish in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams, who describes it like this:quote:
The Babel fish is small, yellow and leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
quote:
Originally posted by tony6789
ok it has come to my attention that there r certain...uhhh....writings that were in the original Bible were cut out as the Church deemed them "un worthy of the bible" things that the Church wouldn't like 2 mention any1 have ideas what these writongs could be????
quote:
Originally posted by tony6789
they should of had left it as it waz
quote:
Originally posted by gecko
since most famous atheists are more well spoken than me- heres a neat list of quotes i found.
http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/viewquotes.php
my favorite is "if atheism is a religion, than not playing cards is a hobby"
this resonates with me, because a real atheist(rather than just a fallen-from-faith faux atheist, like so many are) doesnt walk the earth thinking about how god doesnt exist all the time, he doesnt pray to science. its not compareable to religion. he thinks about actual life, love, and other observable things instead. hes not plagued by god whatsoever- he doesnt even think about it!
what freedom!
anyway, i hope that shows some perspective for you blind-faithers.
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone
Yes, the term “Religion is the opium of the people” is a quote so well known that it has become almost cliché.
quote:
Originally posted by ejirolove30
Humans were created 6000 yrs ago.
quote:
Originally posted by tony6789
SO i guess no 1 will really know till they die huh?
quote:
Originally posted by rcoyle13
Listen: God is real.
Or do you not see and feel the Sun. I suppose this worldis simply chance? Evolution by Chance. Not a very strong argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Mjhavokquote:
Originally posted by rcoyle13
Listen: God is real.
Or do you not see and feel the Sun. I suppose this worldis simply chance? Evolution by Chance. Not a very strong argument.
I see the sun because of rods and cones in the retina of my eye which link to the optic nerve and then to the occiptal lobe which deals with the information, thus I see an image.
I feel the sun because of heat receptors in my skin which once again transmit information to the brain.
You saying evolution by chance is not a very strong argument just proves you know absolutely nothing about evolution. Read the origin of species a few times and don't just listen to intelligent design/creationist propaganda.
I am an atheist and I feel religion and to some extent believing in god can be harmful. I however don't attack people who believe in god because most are harmless and quite nice infact.
However, when people attack science because they are overly religious when they don't even have any evidence, just a contradictory book of fiction, it does bother me.
You may post your archaic and anti-scientific views somewhere else.
Here perhaps http://www.groupsrv.com/religion/
Steven
_______________________________________________________________
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
quote:
Originally posted by vetteluv
I think it's funny that when people are at their most desperate moment before death, such as a 500 m.p.h. vertical nosedive in a crashing plane, they some how abandon the scientific method for faith just long enough to to get in one "can you please save my as- Lord prayer".
quote:
Originally posted by RMorty
The bible is two thousand years old and it has never been revised.
quote:
So yes, when Jesus was walking the earth(a good guy I might add, he fed people fish and gave them alcohol) they needed people to reproduce, people weren't living to be eighty years old, we didn’t have the same medicine as today, so no wonder the bible forbids abortions and homosexuality, they wanted all able people to reproduce. Today it's different we have an overpopulated planet and it's not getting any bigger.
quote:
Steven - I'm just curious, in your last two sentences, are you addressing rcoyle13, or all Christians in general?
Carolyn
quote:
Not even sure that the bible does forbid abortion – not sure it was actually an issue that was raised in biblical times. The prohibition on homosexuality is there....
quote:
Ofcourse, you are always at liberty to start a religion that forbids procreation (there certainly has been many past religious societies that have demanded their members abstain from sexual practices, which inevitably means that their members did not have children).
quote:
Originally posted by RMorty
I understand what you mean by it dosen't directly forbid abortion because, as far as I know they didn't have it then and no where in the bible is the word abortion. However, it says you should not kill and many people interpret abortions as "Murdering babies" and then the religions look at it as a violation of religious rules.
quote:
No, I don't agree with saying that people shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, that's everyone's right. All I was saying is that there are things that could assist the issue of overpopulation and homosexuality and abortions are among them. I hope everyone understands where I am coming from with this.
All of my statements are with the assumption that religion was created to control people and I was simply trying to point out some possible explanations of why certain things in the bible are what they are.
quote:
Also to anwser one of your questions the last time I read any version of the bible is never, sorry.
quote:
Originally posted by RMortyquote:
Originally posted by vetteluv
I think it's funny that when people are at their most desperate moment before death, such as a 500 m.p.h. vertical nosedive in a crashing plane, they some how abandon the scientific method for faith just long enough to to get in one "can you please save my as- Lord prayer".
I like that, because it's true, that does seem to be how it works. Yes, it is funny. But I guess most people are raised with "Oh god" as a regular saying when something bad happens sort of like saying "oh [place four letter word here]!!"
I agree with vetteluv, this thread is awesome because of the low numbers of pointless posts.
Here's my two cents.... I respect other's religious beliefs, finding them harmless most of the time. However, it's when you get millions of people believing what is right without any reasoning, especially in politics that it becomes a problem.
The bible is two thousand years old and it has never been revised. We update everything. Our computers, textbooks, cars, electronics, clothing styles, power systems. I know this may anger a lot of religious fanatics, but perhaps it's time for a new edition. Two thousand years ago world population was around a quarter billion now it’s over 6 billion. So yes, when Jesus was walking the earth(a good guy I might add, he fed people fish and gave them alcohol) they needed people to reproduce, people weren't living to be eighty years old, we didn’t have the same medicine as today, so no wonder the bible forbids abortions and homosexuality, they wanted all able people to reproduce. Today it's different we have an overpopulated planet and it's not getting any bigger. I say again, maybe its time for a new edition. Religion was an excellent way to control people back then by making answers that can't be questioned without being executed.
As far as the possibility of god, I'd say it’s extremely possible because science hasn't figured out origins of the universe for example, the big bang theory, including the things with matter and antimatter. Whatever the theory, it raises one question... where did that big ball of matter that exploded come from? Where did the unthinkable amount of energy needed to make matter and antimatter atoms come from? We don't know.... if religious fanatics say "oh well god exists because he is necessary and never had a beginning or an end and just is because he must be" then the non-believers say "well then how do you know the universe isn't existent just because it is?"
Now let me get to my point, I said earlier I believe god is very possible.... HOWEVER... I don't imagine this god being anything like "an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do..And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! ..But He loves you"(George Carlin[Napalm and Silly Putty]) I would say this god would be an invisible man living in the sky who created the universe because he can, and not only is this god the creator of the universe but himself has a creator and that which created this god has a beginning and he dosen't give a damn about earth we're just another little ball of mold floating around a star and so on... But not some dude who's like "worship me and let your planet get cluster-****ed with 7 billion people because homosexuality and abortion are wrong and if you do you can live with me forever worshipping me with every moment of eternity.
I think religion is only making overpopulation worse. I respect the fact that every one of us, each person reading this, was at one time an embryo, but abortion on a small cluster of cells, would be no more killing a human being than if I cut the tip of my finger off with a meat slicer and tossed it in the garbage. I do however disagree with later stage abortion when there is brain activity, but before it gets advanced there is no good reason why abortion isn't okay. I personally am not for the idea of homosexuality simply because I am straight, but I really don't care. In theory, you have couples who PHYSICALLY CANNOT HAVE KIDS and they are willing to adopt children who need families. I have heard some studies say children raised by two same gendered parents grow up no differently if not better than ones with both.
I am aware of how much I contradict myself in my post but I simply do that to 1. Keep an open mind and 2. Be a step ahead of those wanting to make contradicting points... although I do try to make my personal opinion clear.
quote:
Originally posted by RMortyquote:
Originally posted by vetteluv
I think it's funny that when people are at their most desperate moment before death, such as a 500 m.p.h. vertical nosedive in a crashing plane, they some how abandon the scientific method for faith just long enough to to get in one "can you please save my as- Lord prayer".
I like that, because it's true, that does seem to be how it works. Yes, it is funny. But I guess most people are raised with "Oh god" as a regular saying when something bad happens sort of like saying "oh [place four letter word here]!!"
I agree with vetteluv, this thread is awesome because of the low numbers of pointless posts.
Here's my two cents.... I respect other's religious beliefs, finding them harmless most of the time. However, it's when you get millions of people believing what is right without any reasoning, especially in politics that it becomes a problem.
The bible is two thousand years old and it has never been revised. We update everything. Our computers, textbooks, cars, electronics, clothing styles, power systems. I know this may anger a lot of religious fanatics, but perhaps it's time for a new edition. Two thousand years ago world population was around a quarter billion now it’s over 6 billion. So yes, when Jesus was walking the earth(a good guy I might add, he fed people fish and gave them alcohol) they needed people to reproduce, people weren't living to be eighty years old, we didn’t have the same medicine as today, so no wonder the bible forbids abortions and homosexuality, they wanted all able people to reproduce. Today it's different we have an overpopulated planet and it's not getting any bigger. I say again, maybe its time for a new edition. Religion was an excellent way to control people back then by making answers that can't be questioned without being executed.
As far as the possibility of god, I'd say it’s extremely possible because science hasn't figured out origins of the universe for example, the big bang theory, including the things with matter and antimatter. Whatever the theory, it raises one question... where did that big ball of matter that exploded come from? Where did the unthinkable amount of energy needed to make matter and antimatter atoms come from? We don't know.... if religious fanatics say "oh well god exists because he is necessary and never had a beginning or an end and just is because he must be" then the non-believers say "well then how do you know the universe isn't existent just because it is?"
Now let me get to my point, I said earlier I believe god is very possible.... HOWEVER... I don't imagine this god being anything like "an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do..And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! ..But He loves you"(George Carlin[Napalm and Silly Putty]) I would say this god would be an invisible man living in the sky who created the universe because he can, and not only is this god the creator of the universe but himself has a creator and that which created this god has a beginning and he dosen't give a damn about earth we're just another little ball of mold floating around a star and so on... But not some dude who's like "worship me and let your planet get cluster-****ed with 7 billion people because homosexuality and abortion are wrong and if you do you can live with me forever worshipping me with every moment of eternity.
I think religion is only making overpopulation worse. I respect the fact that every one of us, each person reading this, was at one time an embryo, but abortion on a small cluster of cells, would be no more killing a human being than if I cut the tip of my finger off with a meat slicer and tossed it in the garbage. I do however disagree with later stage abortion when there is brain activity, but before it gets advanced there is no good reason why abortion isn't okay. I personally am not for the idea of homosexuality simply because I am straight, but I really don't care. In theory, you have couples who PHYSICALLY CANNOT HAVE KIDS and they are willing to adopt children who need families. I have heard some studies say children raised by two same gendered parents grow up no differently if not better than ones with both.
I am aware of how much I contradict myself in my post but I simply do that to 1. Keep an open mind and 2. Be a step ahead of those wanting to make contradicting points... although I do try to make my personal opinion clear.
quote:
Originally posted by Non_Believer
Don't come to me with ignorant ideas like "What if the person is: deaf, paralyzed, and blind. Life would only be to that person, non-existant." Because for one, if that were to actually happen, that person would have no reason to live, not one reason at all. They would kill the baby because of all what is apart of the baby. The person could never learn, he/she could never be able to do anything, it'd be a lifeless body. They couldn't move, respond, or anything that humans with most of their senses about them could do.
quote:
Originally posted by Non_Believer
Did I personally call you ignorant? No. I'm calling the people who say incompetant bull like that. Read, and don't misunderstand what someone is saying. It's gets you a lot further in life.
quote:
God is just an idea, to control the "stupid" ones.
quote:
There is no such thing as being too harsh on religion. Religion is pointless, you don't need some kind of cult to make sure you are living a good life, in the way God wants you too, you can do it yourself without the help of someone else.
quote:
I may not believe in God, but I live a good life, as any other teenager I do mess up, but I don't do immature things like: drinking, smoking, doing drugs, or having sex before marriage. You can call those morals all you want, but they are rules for myself. You can live a good life without the help of someone else. Makes you look stupid to have someone else tell you how to live your life. Live life to the fullest, but stay within the boundaries of the law.
Further more, religion = for the idiots.
quote:
Originally posted by Non_Believer
Faith? I laugh at faith. Faith is the utmost idiotic idea to be thought of. Let's believe in something that can't be physically proven, wether it be a mythical creature, or God (in this case).
quote:
You're still misinterpreting what I am saying. The idea of God is to control ones who are less fortunate of knowledge, ones who can't control their lives without a higher being.
To believe in God, means you are an incompetant fool, you HAVE to have someone/something to control your life, because you can't.
That is the basic idea of God.
quote:
Just so you know, life is science, and that is how we live, by science, not faith. Because faith can't be proven, as much as God can't.
quote:
I taught myself to be the way I am. I can control myself without the need of someone else. Sounds hard for teenager, doesn't it? Well for me, no. I don't need to believe in some fictional idea to make my life better, and easier.
quote:
Religion is just a counterpart to God, or whatever any other religion calls him/her/it.
And if he is so big and powerful. Why doesn't he come to EVERY human in this world and tell every single one of us, he is real. Your idea of him being so powerful is inept, you have no truth behind him, just a fictional book and an idea.
quote:
Originally posted by Non_Believer
The sun, and earth are proven. Basic science. We're on the earth this minute aren't we?
quote:
The word solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is used for two related yet distinct concepts:
- An epistemological position that one's own perceptions are the only things that can be known with certainty. The nature of the external world — that is, the source of one's perceptions — therefore cannot be conclusively known; it may not even exist. This is also called external world skepticism.
- A metaphysical belief that the universe is entirely the creation of one's own mind. Thus, in a sense, the belief that nothing 'exists' outside of one's own mind.
Is solipsism falsifiable?
According to one argument, no experiment (by a given solipsist A) can be designed to disprove solipsism (to the satisfaction of that solipsist A). Solipsism is therefore said to be unfalsifiable in the sense in which Karl Popper used the word. A solipsistic viewpoint held by a particular individual is unfalsifiable only to that individual, however. Any other person B might by introspection (cogito, ergo sum) conclude that he or she (B) does in fact exist and therefore that A is proven wrong (though B might symmetrically doubt whether A exists, and therefore would not have disproven solipsism per se, only solipsism by A). Even though B has proven A wrong, there is no way for B to validly convince A to abandon solipsism, since A doubts B's very existence, let alone B's experiences or experimental results.Brain in a vat
A thought-experiment related to solipsism, although in principle distinct (for one thing, it posits a real mad scientist, brain, and vat, which a metaphysical solipsist would dispute), is the brain in a vat. The person performing the thought-experiment considers the possibility that they are trapped within some utterly unknowable reality, much like that illustrated in the movie The Matrix. A mad scientist could be sending the same impulses to one's brain in a vat that one's brain (understood to be that of a person in the "real world") might receive, thereby creating "the world" as one knows it from the mad scientist's program. Yet, for one's brain in the vat, that "world" would obviously not be "real." This raises the possibility that everything one thinks or knows is illusion. Or, at the least, that one cannot know with any certainty whether one's brain is in the "real world" or in a vat receiving impulses that would create an equivalent consciousness— or even if there is a real world, mad scientist, brain, or vat (all experience could be simply a never-ending dream).
quote:
I do control myself, no one else does. No one is in my brain, controlling my every thought, and move. Only you can control yourself, no one else.
quote:
God is non-existant, because nothing you do, proves his existance. Main reason why I replied to this topic.
quote:
Originally posted by Non_Believer
How is it not the same? If you can't prove something, then there is a lack of existence. How ignorant are you? If you can't prove something to be real, then how is it real?
quote:
How can your sense touch/feel be fooled when you feel something you can feel it. It is unlogical to say your sense of touch/feel can be fooled when in reality it can't. Senses such as taste, smell, and hearing can be fooled, but touch/feel cannot be fooled. If you feel the rays of the sun hitting you, it is a small proof to say the sun is real. If you touch the ground of the earth, and you feel it, it's real. Don't be stupid to those senses.
quote:
After amputation of a limb, an amputee continues to have an awareness of it and to experience sensations from it. These phantom limb sensations are also present in children born without a limb, suggesting that perception of our limbs is 'hard-wired' into our brain and that sensations from the limbs become mapped onto these brain networks as we develop.
If phantom limb sensations are normal then so too, alas, is phantom limb pain. This occurs in a majority of those who lose their limbs. (1) In fact, limbs do not need to be lost; it also occurs in conditions in which the brain is disconnected from the body, such as peripheral nerve injuries and after spinal cord injury, when an area becomes insentient (and usually paralysed).
quote:
Originally posted by Non_Believer
Put it this way: If was personally talking to you in person, and I said there is a horse right beside me. Would you believe it's existance? If you can't see it, smell it, touch it, hear it, or taste it, then there is a lack of existance there.
quote:
It's the same with God, you can't see him/her/it, smell him/her/it, touch him/her/it, hear him/her/it, or taste him/her/it, there is a lack of existance because the sense touch DOES NOT come in. And if there isn't any proof of him/her/it existance, then there is a lack of existance!
quote:
Originally posted by Non_Believer
Annoyed? So you're telling me you got offended by a harmless post? Seriously. How old do you have to be to not get offended by something on the internet? Which in turn, you don't have to read, but do anyways. How mature of an adult, perhaps? That in itself is a form of ignorance. To get offended by something you don't have to read, but chose to read. Yes, emotional feelings are hard to control on your own, but you still chose to read my post even further, to make yourself even more annoyed. It's like reading a book on opinions, and then throwing it away because it annoyed you and you thought it was garbage of a book but kept on reading it when it still flustered you. It is something stupid to get annoyed over, and let your emotions fluster over something so small.
quote:
Originally posted by Non_Believer
Maybe this should be handled maturely, lets end this post with a sincere "Goodbye". We all have our opinions, and let it be at that, I don't believe in God, George is more intelligent than I am (maybe because of age and have learned more?), and Carolyn believes in God.
[:)]
quote:
And I'm not much like other people, you have proven me wrong in many places (yes, being proved wrong is good for me, lets me learn even more), but still realize, I'm just a teenager with an opinion.
quote:
My English teacher is an idiot to a major degree, and I have many people who will agree to that. But no I can have a normal discussion without being insulting. I do come off insulting because of how I feel about the ideas of God, religion, and science. Most people can't take something without getting offended. And I can much agree with you on the Florida School System, I have not fully lived this school system, but many others.
I'm pretty sure as an American yourself, you are in the same damn basket of idiots as we're all in. This whole country is full of ignorance, and it drips with it. We know nothing about respect, and I've grown up never getting respect, so I barely give any respect back to anyone who asks for it.
But as this is the internet, I have ALL rights to say what I want, and how I feel about something, wether I get nasty about it or not.
quote:
I'll mistreat the use of the internet, I'll abuse the hell out of it. For my own purpose. You and everyone else on this forum, I can give less care for. Your opinions (some great at that) don't matter to me. No one that I don't know that isn't close to me is just an itch on the arm to me. Forums of this such don't matter, you people don't matter.
quote:
Maybe this should be handled maturely, lets end this post with a sincere "Goodbye". We all have our opinions, and let it be at that, I don't believe in God, George is more intelligent than I am (maybe because of age and have learned more?), and Carolyn believes in God.
quote:
Originally posted by Carolynquote:
And I'm not much like other people, you have proven me wrong in many places (yes, being proved wrong is good for me, lets me learn even more), but still realize, I'm just a teenager with an opinion.
Steven - I sincerely apologise to you. I didn't mean to be so harsh, I was just trying to make a point. Nothing wrong with making mistakes as long as we learn from them. Saying that you are just a teenager implies that you aren't, for lack of a better word, valuable. You are valuable and your opinion matters, whether I agree with you or not.quote:
My English teacher is an idiot to a major degree, and I have many people who will agree to that. But no I can have a normal discussion without being insulting. I do come off insulting because of how I feel about the ideas of God, religion, and science. Most people can't take something without getting offended. And I can much agree with you on the Florida School System, I have not fully lived this school system, but many others.
I'm pretty sure as an American yourself, you are in the same damn basket of idiots as we're all in. This whole country is full of ignorance, and it drips with it. We know nothing about respect, and I've grown up never getting respect, so I barely give any respect back to anyone who asks for it.
But as this is the internet, I have ALL rights to say what I want, and how I feel about something, wether I get nasty about it or not.
This just made me laugh. I get the feeling you have a wonderful sense of humor, I just missed it. Sorry I didn't see it. I also live in Florida, and have one child in the FL school system, and one that's graduated and is off in college. It is a challenge making sure my kids don't get behind the 8 ball when it comes to an education in Florida. You mentioned that you went to school outside of Florida too? Have you had to take that awful FCAT yet? If so, I hope you did well. If not, good luck.
Steven - I'm sorry you haven't been shown respect. I hope that changes for you very soon.quote:
I'll mistreat the use of the internet, I'll abuse the hell out of it. For my own purpose. You and everyone else on this forum, I can give less care for. Your opinions (some great at that) don't matter to me. No one that I don't know that isn't close to me is just an itch on the arm to me. Forums of this such don't matter, you people don't matter.
Yes, these forums do matter. I've learned alot here and have made some good friends. And although I've disagreed and argued with you, you should know that you and your opinion matter. Hope you stick around and check out some other topics.quote:
Maybe this should be handled maturely, lets end this post with a sincere "Goodbye". We all have our opinions, and let it be at that, I don't believe in God, George is more intelligent than I am (maybe because of age and have learned more?), and Carolyn believes in God.
Something we can agree on. George is more intelligent than most of us.
Carolyn
quote:
Originally posted by Non_Believer
Did I personally call you ignorant? No. I'm calling the people who say incompetant bull like that. Read, and don't misunderstand what someone is saying. It's gets you a lot further in life.
quote:
God is just an idea, to control the "stupid" ones.
quote:
There is no such thing as being too harsh on religion. Religion is pointless, you don't need some kind of cult to make sure you are living a good life, in the way God wants you too, you can do it yourself without the help of someone else.
quote:
I may not believe in God, but I live a good life, as any other teenager I do mess up, but I don't do immature things like: drinking, smoking, doing drugs, or having sex before marriage. You can call those morals all you want, but they are rules for myself. You can live a good life without the help of someone else. Makes you look stupid to have someone else tell you how to live your life. Live life to the fullest, but stay within the boundaries of the law.
Further more, religion = for the idiots.
quote:
Originally posted by Non_Believer
Faith? I laugh at faith. Faith is the utmost idiotic idea to be thought of. Let's believe in something that can't be physically proven, wether it be a mythical creature, or God (in this case).
quote:
You're still misinterpreting what I am saying. The idea of God is to control ones who are less fortunate of knowledge, ones who can't control their lives without a higher being.
To believe in God, means you are an incompetant fool, you HAVE to have someone/something to control your life, because you can't.
That is the basic idea of God.
quote:
Just so you know, life is science, and that is how we live, by science, not faith. Because faith can't be proven, as much as God can't.
quote:
I taught myself to be the way I am. I can control myself without the need of someone else. Sounds hard for teenager, doesn't it? Well for me, no. I don't need to believe in some fictional idea to make my life better, and easier.
quote:
Religion is just a counterpart to God, or whatever any other religion calls him/her/it.
And if he is so big and powerful. Why doesn't he come to EVERY human in this world and tell every single one of us, he is real. Your idea of him being so powerful is inept, you have no truth behind him, just a fictional book and an idea.
quote:
Originally posted by Non_Believer
The sun, and earth are proven. Basic science. We're on the earth this minute aren't we?
quote:
The word solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is used for two related yet distinct concepts:
- An epistemological position that one's own perceptions are the only things that can be known with certainty. The nature of the external world — that is, the source of one's perceptions — therefore cannot be conclusively known; it may not even exist. This is also called external world skepticism.
- A metaphysical belief that the universe is entirely the creation of one's own mind. Thus, in a sense, the belief that nothing 'exists' outside of one's own mind.
Is solipsism falsifiable?
According to one argument, no experiment (by a given solipsist A) can be designed to disprove solipsism (to the satisfaction of that solipsist A). Solipsism is therefore said to be unfalsifiable in the sense in which Karl Popper used the word. A solipsistic viewpoint held by a particular individual is unfalsifiable only to that individual, however. Any other person B might by introspection (cogito, ergo sum) conclude that he or she (B) does in fact exist and therefore that A is proven wrong (though B might symmetrically doubt whether A exists, and therefore would not have disproven solipsism per se, only solipsism by A). Even though B has proven A wrong, there is no way for B to validly convince A to abandon solipsism, since A doubts B's very existence, let alone B's experiences or experimental results.Brain in a vat
A thought-experiment related to solipsism, although in principle distinct (for one thing, it posits a real mad scientist, brain, and vat, which a metaphysical solipsist would dispute), is the brain in a vat. The person performing the thought-experiment considers the possibility that they are trapped within some utterly unknowable reality, much like that illustrated in the movie The Matrix. A mad scientist could be sending the same impulses to one's brain in a vat that one's brain (understood to be that of a person in the "real world") might receive, thereby creating "the world" as one knows it from the mad scientist's program. Yet, for one's brain in the vat, that "world" would obviously not be "real." This raises the possibility that everything one thinks or knows is illusion. Or, at the least, that one cannot know with any certainty whether one's brain is in the "real world" or in a vat receiving impulses that would create an equivalent consciousness— or even if there is a real world, mad scientist, brain, or vat (all experience could be simply a never-ending dream).
quote:
I do control myself, no one else does. No one is in my brain, controlling my every thought, and move. Only you can control yourself, no one else.
quote:
God is non-existant, because nothing you do, proves his existance. Main reason why I replied to this topic.
quote:
Originally posted by Non_Believer
How is it not the same? If you can't prove something, then there is a lack of existence. How ignorant are you? If you can't prove something to be real, then how is it real?
quote:
How can your sense touch/feel be fooled when you feel something you can feel it. It is unlogical to say your sense of touch/feel can be fooled when in reality it can't. Senses such as taste, smell, and hearing can be fooled, but touch/feel cannot be fooled. If you feel the rays of the sun hitting you, it is a small proof to say the sun is real. If you touch the ground of the earth, and you feel it, it's real. Don't be stupid to those senses.
quote:
After amputation of a limb, an amputee continues to have an awareness of it and to experience sensations from it. These phantom limb sensations are also present in children born without a limb, suggesting that perception of our limbs is 'hard-wired' into our brain and that sensations from the limbs become mapped onto these brain networks as we develop.
If phantom limb sensations are normal then so too, alas, is phantom limb pain. This occurs in a majority of those who lose their limbs. (1) In fact, limbs do not need to be lost; it also occurs in conditions in which the brain is disconnected from the body, such as peripheral nerve injuries and after spinal cord injury, when an area becomes insentient (and usually paralysed).
quote:
Originally posted by Non_Believer
Put it this way: If was personally talking to you in person, and I said there is a horse right beside me. Would you believe it's existance? If you can't see it, smell it, touch it, hear it, or taste it, then there is a lack of existance there.
quote:
It's the same with God, you can't see him/her/it, smell him/her/it, touch him/her/it, hear him/her/it, or taste him/her/it, there is a lack of existance because the sense touch DOES NOT come in. And if there isn't any proof of him/her/it existance, then there is a lack of existance!
quote:
Originally posted by Non_Believer
Annoyed? So you're telling me you got offended by a harmless post? Seriously. How old do you have to be to not get offended by something on the internet? Which in turn, you don't have to read, but do anyways. How mature of an adult, perhaps? That in itself is a form of ignorance. To get offended by something you don't have to read, but chose to read. Yes, emotional feelings are hard to control on your own, but you still chose to read my post even further, to make yourself even more annoyed. It's like reading a book on opinions, and then throwing it away because it annoyed you and you thought it was garbage of a book but kept on reading it when it still flustered you. It is something stupid to get annoyed over, and let your emotions fluster over something so small.
quote:
Originally posted by Non_Believer
Maybe this should be handled maturely, lets end this post with a sincere "Goodbye". We all have our opinions, and let it be at that, I don't believe in God, George is more intelligent than I am (maybe because of age and have learned more?), and Carolyn believes in God.
[:)]
quote:
And I'm not much like other people, you have proven me wrong in many places (yes, being proved wrong is good for me, lets me learn even more), but still realize, I'm just a teenager with an opinion.
quote:
My English teacher is an idiot to a major degree, and I have many people who will agree to that. But no I can have a normal discussion without being insulting. I do come off insulting because of how I feel about the ideas of God, religion, and science. Most people can't take something without getting offended. And I can much agree with you on the Florida School System, I have not fully lived this school system, but many others.
I'm pretty sure as an American yourself, you are in the same damn basket of idiots as we're all in. This whole country is full of ignorance, and it drips with it. We know nothing about respect, and I've grown up never getting respect, so I barely give any respect back to anyone who asks for it.
But as this is the internet, I have ALL rights to say what I want, and how I feel about something, wether I get nasty about it or not.
quote:
I'll mistreat the use of the internet, I'll abuse the hell out of it. For my own purpose. You and everyone else on this forum, I can give less care for. Your opinions (some great at that) don't matter to me. No one that I don't know that isn't close to me is just an itch on the arm to me. Forums of this such don't matter, you people don't matter.
quote:
Maybe this should be handled maturely, lets end this post with a sincere "Goodbye". We all have our opinions, and let it be at that, I don't believe in God, George is more intelligent than I am (maybe because of age and have learned more?), and Carolyn believes in God.
quote:
Originally posted by Carolynquote:
And I'm not much like other people, you have proven me wrong in many places (yes, being proved wrong is good for me, lets me learn even more), but still realize, I'm just a teenager with an opinion.
Steven - I sincerely apologise to you. I didn't mean to be so harsh, I was just trying to make a point. Nothing wrong with making mistakes as long as we learn from them. Saying that you are just a teenager implies that you aren't, for lack of a better word, valuable. You are valuable and your opinion matters, whether I agree with you or not.quote:
My English teacher is an idiot to a major degree, and I have many people who will agree to that. But no I can have a normal discussion without being insulting. I do come off insulting because of how I feel about the ideas of God, religion, and science. Most people can't take something without getting offended. And I can much agree with you on the Florida School System, I have not fully lived this school system, but many others.
I'm pretty sure as an American yourself, you are in the same damn basket of idiots as we're all in. This whole country is full of ignorance, and it drips with it. We know nothing about respect, and I've grown up never getting respect, so I barely give any respect back to anyone who asks for it.
But as this is the internet, I have ALL rights to say what I want, and how I feel about something, wether I get nasty about it or not.
This just made me laugh. I get the feeling you have a wonderful sense of humor, I just missed it. Sorry I didn't see it. I also live in Florida, and have one child in the FL school system, and one that's graduated and is off in college. It is a challenge making sure my kids don't get behind the 8 ball when it comes to an education in Florida. You mentioned that you went to school outside of Florida too? Have you had to take that awful FCAT yet? If so, I hope you did well. If not, good luck.
Steven - I'm sorry you haven't been shown respect. I hope that changes for you very soon.quote:
I'll mistreat the use of the internet, I'll abuse the hell out of it. For my own purpose. You and everyone else on this forum, I can give less care for. Your opinions (some great at that) don't matter to me. No one that I don't know that isn't close to me is just an itch on the arm to me. Forums of this such don't matter, you people don't matter.
Yes, these forums do matter. I've learned alot here and have made some good friends. And although I've disagreed and argued with you, you should know that you and your opinion matter. Hope you stick around and check out some other topics.quote:
Maybe this should be handled maturely, lets end this post with a sincere "Goodbye". We all have our opinions, and let it be at that, I don't believe in God, George is more intelligent than I am (maybe because of age and have learned more?), and Carolyn believes in God.
Something we can agree on. George is more intelligent than most of us.
Carolyn
quote:
Originally posted by ROBERT
The center is one of a small but growing number of practices around the country
that tailor the care they provide to the religious beliefs of their doctors
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14576677/
quote:
Originally posted by Mjhavok
Solipsism is metaphysical mumbo jumbo. If you take solipsisms into account then you can prove nothing.
quote:
Originally posted by bostjan
I think solipsism is such an extreme philosophy, that it attracts a lot of attention. From a purist's standpoint, however, you must define something as reality in order to even talk about reality clearly, thus solipsism, upon it's assumption that reality cannot be seen nor sensed in any way, leaves reality undefined, and cannot speak clearly of reality, which is the very thing it intends to make us aware of. Therefore, in my opinion, by this argument, it is useless to any form of science.
quote:
God, can be argued along the same lines. If we define god such that god exists everywhere, yet cannot be sensed, thewn the very idea of god is merely a plaything with no basis on any logical or scientific process. If you define god in a way that has something to do with logic or science, then there would be some way to find god. But as long as we are uncertain in our terms of what we are looking for, there will be no means of finding. In the cases where gods have been defined as something tangible, evidence has always disproved their existence.
quote:
Originally posted by bostjan
Sorry to speak frankly, but there is very little logical about god. He is argued to be every opposing extreme in monotheistic religion as well as pantheistic religions, which cover most modern religions.
quote:
Solipsism is essentially the philosophical scepticism of science. I'm taking much liberty to paraphrase it as such, but the belief that what we measure and observe is not to be trusted is the same to me.
The extremism of infinity is absolutely different from how i mean the term to describe a philosophy or rhetoric. Perhaps 'radical' would be a more fitting term. The way it claims that we cannot claim anything about the outside world is taking a simple fact that observations are tainted by the observer- to the maximum tangible level.
quote:
Ok, back to the logical issues with debating god- a logical implication A implies B may be true if A is false or if both A and B are true - and if the truth of A actually tells you about the truth of B, yet in theological arguments, people often try to use this to prove B, which is unprovable by use of A that is simply true but has nothing to do with B. I.E.- Look at how beautiful a butterfly is! The beauty of the butterfly must mean there is a god! or The bullet just barely missed me so there must be a god!
quote:
Originally posted by bostjan
I have yet to see one logical explanation that even comes close to proving the existance of any spirit (non-material) being.
quote:
but to say there is some personified creature that rules the universe is really non sequitor, as far as I'm concerned. It just doesn't make any sense. Why does there have to be someone ruling the universe? What exactly do they do to execute this rule? What exactly does the existance of this person explain?
There does not have to be. The rules of nature govern the behaviour of the universe. Nothing. The existance of god does not explain anything. As a scientist, I have no interest in theories that raise more unanswerable questions and explain nothing observable. If I was a philosopher, I would probably be intrigued…
quote:
Originally posted by roarer
I tell you...I ONLY use the words "soul mode" and "body mode" NOT because I am religious..but because there are NO other words I can think of to distinguish between the two. I suppose I can define those "states"..is that the right word?.....like "death"...and "life"..or something similiar. But I bet that even if I used these words....they would be challenged.
Now to the defintion of death. What does medical science define the state where the heart stops and the brain is starved of oxygen..if it is NOT death? Is there a medical or scientific definition of this and if so what is it called?
quote:
Originally posted by bostjan
I always thought engineers were curious about how things worked and physicists in why they worked, but this is immaterial.
quote:
What logical model relies on the existance of god?
quote:
Originally posted by bostjan
'Act of God' is a phrase with no pure logical motives.
quote:
I don't see how we can be in disagreement as to how a word with no specified meaning has anything to do with logic. Logic is cut and dried.
Logic: "a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning," "something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason"
See my point? From what do you infer or demonstrate the existance of god? Notice the word 'science in the dictionary definition of 'logic?'
quote:
Originally posted by bostjan
Mathematics is a branch of science as much as chemistry is. Physics is also a tool used in chemistry, does that make it not a branch of science?
quote:
BTW, physics is the study of the physical environment as we percieve it. Science is merely the study of the nature of things, including life (biology), the earth (geology), chemicals (chemistry), and numbers (mathematics) and much more.
quote:
And there is nothing logical about making up a person to put blame onto for a misadventure. Just read what you said 'generic substitute for human.' There is no logic in making a wild assumption to make up for circumstances you cannot explain. Logic would require starting with something and deducing a result with a sound explaination, not just pulling something out of the blue.
quote:
Anyway, I do not see 'God' being endicted for any of these judicial decisions. Does the court get a priest to take a deposition from the Bible to get 'God's' testimony? Or do they consult a Rabbi about the Torah? Perhaps an Imam for the Koran, or get all three together and see how much agreement you get. As I said, there is no pure logical motive behind the phrase 'Act of God,' it's merely a poorly worded phrase with a vague meaning.
quote:
Originally posted by bostjan
First off, Chemists who ignore the laws of physics will never go anywhere, since a reaction is determined by entropy and energy.
quote:
Second, imaginary number have a vast logical motive behind them. They are well defined and their behaviour is completely predictable. 'God,' on the other hand, is poorly defined and is completely unpredictable.
quote:
Third, it is easy and plausible to test theories in mathematics. Simplest example: 2+2=4, take two rocks and throw them in with two more rocks and count how many rocks there are.
quote:
Gödel's first incompleteness theorem is perhaps the most celebrated result in mathematical logic. It states thatFor any consistent formal theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, it is possible to construct an arithmetical statement that is true 1 but not provable in the theory. That is, any theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.
Gödel's second incompleteness theorem can be stated as follows:For any formal theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent.
quote:
Let M be "the set of all sets that do not contain themselves as members". Formally: A is an element of M if and only if A is not an element of A.(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fmath%2F4%2F5%2Fc%2F45ce5810bc2e3d6ec39c48c4fefc7782.png&hash=2eb92a488f7580fcd342c0a3e19ff5d7)
Nothing in the system of Frege's Grundgesetze rules out M being a well-defined set. If M contains itself, M is not a member of M according to the definition. If M does not contain itself, then M has to be a member of M, again by the very definition of M. The statements "M is a member of M" and "M is not a member of M" cannot both be true, thus the contradiction
quote:Definition
Define the adjectives "autological" and "heterological" as follows:
- An adjective is autological if and only if it describes itself. For example "short" is autological, since the word "short" is short. "Sophisticated" and "pentasyllabic" are also autological.
- An adjective is heterological if and only if it does not describe itself. Hence "long" is a heterological word, as is "monosyllabic".
All adjectives, it would seem, must be either autological or heterological, for each adjective either describes itself, or it doesn't. The Grelling-Nelson paradox arises when we consider the adjective "heterological".
To test if the word 'foo' is autological you can ask: Is 'foo' a foo word? If the answer is 'yes', 'foo' is autological. If the answer is 'no', 'foo' is heterological.
Is 'heterological' a heterological word? If the answer is 'yes', 'heterological' is autological (leading to a contradiction). If the answer is 'no', 'heterological' is heterological (again leading to a contradiction).
There is no consistent answer to the question: Is the word "heterological" heterological? On the one hand, if the word "heterological" is heterological, then it does not describe itself. Since the fact of it not describing itself does, in fact, describe it, it is autological, which means it isn't heterological. On the other hand, if the word "heterological" is not heterological, then it must be autological, which means it describes itself, and therefore it must be heterological. Either case leads to the contradiction that the word "heterological" is both heterological and not heterological, which is impossible.Analysis
The Grelling-Nelson paradox can be translated into Bertrand Russell's famous paradox in the following way: identify each adjective with the set of objects to which that adjective applies. So, for example, the adjective "red" is equated with the set of all red objects. In this way, the adjective "pronounceable" is equated with the set of all pronounceable things, one of which is the word "pronounceable" itself. Thus, an autological word is understood as a set, one of whose elements is the set itself. The question of whether the word "heterological" is heterological becomes the question of whether the set of all sets not containing themselves contains itself as an element.
quote:
Originally posted by bostjan
Certainly, most of the details of string theory have not been tested at all, but it is a very new theory in comparison with theological theories such as Judaism and Christianity.
quote:
Last, I appreciate the long explainations, but have to disagree with many points you make. I fail to see how there is any reasonable ammount of logic involved in any concept of god, and I still have yet to see any logical deduction using god that makes the least ammount of sense.
quote:
Originally posted by bostjan
Whether you calculate the energy of each electron, which no one does for realistic molecules anyway, mind you, or you measure it with a calorimeter, you are measuring the energy and using thermodynamics, which is a branch of physics. Even as you use these measurements to predict whether a reaction will go or not, depends on the laws of thermodynamics. As a double major in chemistry and physics, I could tell you that nearly every branch of chemistry is concerned with the laws of physics.
quote:
Arithmetic is a branch of mathematics, I only used the example I did for simplicity. If I can show one counterexample to the assumption that there are no experimental tests for mathematics, I prove that assumption false.
quote:
Claiming to know something in the set of unknown things is, itself, a paradox, so if god is in the set of unknown things, there cannot exist such a thing as theology, as it is the knowledge of an unknown thing.
Surely these are things you cannot disagree with outright.
quote:
Explaininig set theory to a person who has taken two courses at the upper undergraduate level in set theory is going to convince them neither that mathematics is not a science nor that the notion of god is a logically based axiom.
One cannot conceive of experimental mathematics, and one does not seek to verify mathematical theory by observation of the natural world.
quote:
Originally posted by another_someonequote:
Originally posted by Mjhavok
Solipsism is metaphysical mumbo jumbo. If you take solipsisms into account then you can prove nothing.
Solipsism is far from mumbo jumbo, but it is a philosophical issue rather than a scientific one.
Ofcourse, if one takes solipsism into account, one can prove nothing beyond one's own conceptual existence (and technically, one can also argue that everything else also conceptually exists, only one cannot prove the physical existence of anything beyond oneself, and while one may reasonably assume one's own physical existence, one cannot prove anything about the nature of that existence).
You are right that taking solipsism into account highlights the limitations of what may be proven absolutely, and thus highlights that no matter what science one tries to perform, one must make some assumptions. This does not invalidate science, it merely places some limits on science, and limits upon knowledge in any form.George
quote:
Originally posted by RMorty
What I am saying is that maybe it isn't what we perceive, as not being real. Maybe you would need to look at it as reality not being real, but we still have a reality, so therefore the sun and earth are real.
quote:
Originally posted by bostjan
roman catholics were not the 'original' christian religion. that'd be the twelve disciples. the coptic christians are much closer than roman catholics to the practices of the disciples.
but yeah, that's a great point! what if only jehovah's witnesses are right?
quote:
However, you have explained you simply meant reality is only what it is toeach of us differently. kinda? It is a very confusing concept. i got cross eyes reading If what you are saying is that we need to define an arbitrary reality as being an arbitrary absolute starting point, I have no problem with this. All I was trying to say is that you cannot state any reality as being guaranteed to be the only possible reality; but that does not stop you from selecting a reality as something that you choose (out of expediency) as being real (assuming you actually exist ).
quote:
Originally posted by another_someonequote:
Originally posted by bostjan
roman catholics were not the 'original' christian religion. that'd be the twelve disciples. the coptic christians are much closer than roman catholics to the practices of the disciples.
but yeah, that's a great point! what if only jehovah's witnesses are right?
Technically, the twelve disciples were Jews, not Christians. Exactly where one draws the historic line between early Christianity and Judaism is difficult. Clearly, by the time the Roman Empire adopted Christianity (and not Judaism) they were separate, but what the Roman Empire adopted was what we now regard as the Greek Orthodox form of Christianity, but by the time that was adopted there were already many different variants of Christianity (in fact, since there was not prior to Christianity becoming the State religion of the Roman Empire and standardising body for Christianity, there would have been no standard Christianity).George
Since Einstein was a Jew - he may have believed in a Judeo-Christian type God, but not a strictly Christian type God in any narrower sense.
The ancient Greeks had quite a lot more diversity in their beliefs, and the notion that you were somehow persecuted if you did not believe – just look up Epicurus , or his later Roman counterpart, Lucretius.
It was the Jews who introduced the idea that religion was a matter of social loyalty (Judaism has always been a nationalistic religion – and while Christianity and Islam may have gone further, and become supra national, they still demanded unconditional allegiance).
One also has to bear in mind that in past centuries, the accusation of atheism had a different meaning to what it has today – and atheist was not one who did not believe in God, but rather one who was not God fearing, and thus was judged as amoral.
As for whether people who, in the Christian era, genuinely believed in God, or just found they had to use the language of God to express ideas for which they had no other widely accepted language, that is a matter that is always difficult to debate, because how can one look behind that which is said, to ideas that could not be expressed at the time. If we try and apply modern language to past ideas, we come across the problem that people of the past would have no understanding of the modern language, and would have found it as alien as we find their language.
Ofcourse, when we get to the Oppenheimers and Einsteins of this world, we are talking about substantially modern personages, who had access to much of the vocabulary we use today, so the argument that they simply could not have expressed themselves in any other way does not hold true.
I think the bigger problem when we discuss the Einstiens and Oppenheimers, is our own attitude to these people (and to great scientists in general), that we regard them in some way as great prophets of life in general – these guys were good at what they did, but it does not follow that everything they said and believed must somehow be superior to the rest of humanity – they were still, outside of their own field, just ordinary human beings.
Einsteins parents may have been jewish but I don't think they where strict. Einstein on many occasion stated he didn't believe in a god that hears & answers prays. He also didn't believe in an afterlife.
If god dose exist he/she wont let you prove he/she does. that dosnt mean you couldnt prove it, it just means god would stop you. If god dosnt exist, how could you prove he/she dosnt. I don't think you can! decartes could be right and all this is just one big dream, and nothing is real. where ever you go with or without god its a leap of faith. So I think you should go with your heart; after all your heart looks for happyness not sadness. And most people want to be happy.
If god dose exist he/she wont let you prove he/she does. that dosnt mean you couldnt prove it, it just means god would stop you. If god dosnt exist, how could you prove he/she dosnt. I don't think you can! decartes could be right and all this is just one big dream, and nothing is real. where ever you go with or without god its a leap of faith. So I think you should go with your heart; after all your heart looks for happyness not sadness. And most people want to be happy.
We have evidence, we have no proof of error, so why do some believe and others do not? Does science offer an alternative to faith? Is Jesus unbelievable?
Mice quote but book burning doesn't sit well with me. Makes me think of Nazis.
I don't have a tally. Does it matter who burnt more?
Are you religious?
Nice quote but book burning doesn't sit well with me. Makes me think of Nazis.
But look perhaps, see if you can have an experience in alertness, of your own. Some Pentecostal preachers are dry or whacky, but some have the gift of prophecy and knowledge, ask one to lay hands on you, you may hear your secret questions revealed.
paul he said both so what does that say about him, he either belived one or the other, or maybe he believed both.lol
any topic debating if god id real or not, is in my opinion not woth having. you either believe or not..no minds are changed. not too many rational ideas put forward. they just end up as im right you are wrong
I agree If God makes you free, you have to make up your own mind about whats what. The only thing I think that is concrete is that you should be good not evil. But how do you know the difference, afterall the devil could ask you to give a hungry person a cheese sandwich, and you thinking its a good thing, give that poor/hungry person a cheese sandwich, that person then dies as they were alergic to cheese, and the devil laughts at that 'good' persons stupidity. You can know the difference between good and bad; you cant know if what your doing will have a good or bad outcome untill after the fact. So a good person should always consider the concequences of their actions and stop if they see somthing bad happening.
It just occured to me, but nobody has quoted anything from south park!
The only place to truely learn about life and god, here are quotes from an episode:
Stan: “Why would God let Kenny die, Chef? Why? Kenny’s my friend. Why can’t God take someone else’s friend?”
Chef: “Stan, sometimes God takes those closest to us, because it makes him feel better about himself. He is a very vengeful God, Stan. He’s all pissed off about something we did thousands of years ago. He just can’t get over it, so he doesn’t care who he takes. Children, puppies, it don’t matter to him, so long as it makes us sad. Do you understand?”
Stan: “But then, why does God give us anything to start with?”
Chef: “Well, look at it this way: if you want to make a baby cry, first you give it a lollipop. Then you take it away. If you never give it a lollipop to begin with, then you would have nothin’ to cry about. That’s like God, who gives us life and love and help just so that he can tear it all away and make us cry, so he can drink the sweet milk of our tears. You see, it’s our tears, Stan, that give God his great power.”
Stan: “I think I understand.”
Yes. Let us proclaim the mystery of faith!!
Christ has died..
Christ is risen..
Christ will come again!!
AND HERE I AM!!
Many of you feel that Jesus is God. This clearly is not the case Jesus is Gods greatest prophet.
JOHN 1- 4.7-12
'Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves is born of God(born again) and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, BECAUSE GOD IS LOVE. This is how God showed his love among us: he sent his one and only son into the world so that we might live through him.......12 None has ever seen God; but if we love one another , God lives in us and his love is made complete in us'.
It is quite clear that Jesus was not god. It is the father God, The son- the prophets and the Holy Sprite- your soul. GOD- JESUS- PEOPLE. THE FATHER-SON-HOLY SPRITE.
Please reject hatred, and embrace LOVE.
idk but all of u had better strighten up....the myans have predicted that we would have cars, we would fly around in machines, and that we will go into space and on the moon. they were right about all those things but another prediction is yet to come...they predict that in 2015 there will be en epic event. this huge event could be the end of the world where we will find out if god is real or not...but it could also mean other things like a huge plague that kills millions or first contact with aliens or WW3 no1 knows
God is both willing and able, I think God just wants people to be good through choice not through slavery. Evil comes from Freedom but so does love- Its a choice. You are who you choose to be.
So by giving us freedom God allows people to be evil as well as good- But God loves us and wants us to be good and free.
If you use your gift of life to destroy others then- It is your funneral.
I think God wants to save as many as possible so God gives enought time to each to decided what he/she wants to be- Angel or demon.
Your choice- Your life- your death.
God does'nt kill people- people do.
You have your alotted time so use it as you want- You are in the end free.
Well if your good your free- the Devil makes you his slave.
But God loves us
God is not a reason (as there is no God).
QuoteBut God loves us
And also gives us Earthquakes, and Volcanoes, and Lightning Strikes, and Tsunamis, and Tornadoes, Flooding, Cylones, Hurricanes, disease, droughts and age-related illneses ...?
Quote from: Batroost on 19/04/2007 19:27:19
God is not a reason (as there is no God).
that is an extremely bold quote Batroost and my and i assume others probably dont appreciate that. You can express your opinion on this site but dont flat out say stuff like its a fact refer to it as your opinion. thx
Also a parting thought.. isn't the devil a "good guy." I mean think about it. If he is punishing those who "betray god" isn't he sort of like an employee? lol. Like a jailer is to the legal system?
God is not a reason (as there is no God).
yea i agrre with u there are many things that disprove god but there are also many that prove his existance
Ben6789.
Sin is a Christian concept that only applies to the Christian religion and those taught "the word of god" within it. The concept of sin does not appear until late into the bible (Romans) where Paul interpreted it differently. He had to as without sinning Christianity would mean nothing i.e. Jesus would not have died for OUR sins. God never mentions sin in Genesis, where it was supposed to happen nor did Jesus mention it. Also one reason the Jewish religion does not believe in sin.
The problem is that under the Christian religion there can be no salvation without sinning first as the whole Christian ideal depends on sin, redemption and being scared of God!
So sin is relative to what you believe, or not as it does not affect all.
Bee
God is not a reason (as there is no God).
that is an extremely bold quote Batroost and my and i assume others probably dont appreciate that. You can express your opinion on this site but dont flat out say stuff like its a fact refer to it as your opinion. thx
God uses these catastrophes to turn people to him. Sin also causes all of those. So you can't entirly blame God.
If there's a war..did God start that war? Or did people start that war?
..Or did natural sinful nature make us start that war?
yea i agrre with u there are many things that disprove god but there are also many that prove his existance
This is a contradiction. You cannot simultaneously prove and disprove. What you can say is that there is evidence for, and evidence against; but proof implies an absolute for which there can be no contrary.
There is no evidence to believe in a god.
Most people substitute god for a gap in their knowledge.
It is true that you can't disprove god. Especially if you use the word god in a way that is ambiguous and unclear. That said just because something can't be disproven doesn't mean that the chances of it being true are 50/50. I would say given my currently knowledge of the cosmos I think it is highly unlikely a god (personal deity who answers prayers etc) exists.
Clearly untrue?
Can you give me the evidence for believing in a god. I don't mean reasons why people believe. I know many reasons why people believe. I am saying when you look for evidence there is a severe lack of it.
It always ends up coming down to faith. The god hypothesis has nothing to back it up. At least string theory has some fancy maths.
Science for me answers questions that start with the word how. How did this happen? How did that come to be? for questions that start with why then I would perhaps look elsewhere. I am under the impression that the universe doesn't owe me a why. Why are we hear? Why is there something rather than nothing?
As for quantifying the sources or error in prediction the absence of a god. I would need a strict definition of the word god. With the multitude of definitions people give that word it makes the word almost meaningless. If god is what you call the wonder of nature then I am a believer. If you define god as the god of the bible then I am an atheist and not worried at all about going to hell.
Just a quick addition. Thanks for the reply George. You always make good points.
Lets bring this debate to a close:
No scientist can claim that there is no GOD.
As Feynman said- 'If it does not comply with experiment it is not science'-
WHERE SCIENTISTS IS YOUR EXPERIMENT TO PROVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST- You do not have one- you have no proff- No experiment- So that being the case any scientist that says there is no god- Is really not a scientist- Point in Fact.
Atleast Feynman realised he had been a moron and repented.
and JESUS is free- to be who he wants to be- who are any of you to say how he will act or what he will say or do or dress- You all have some deluded fantasy of Jesus- Hopefully some of you will look when the time comes with open eyes and a loving heart. and not be blinded by your illusion.
P.s No one can garentee you a place in heaven- anyone says they can is working for satan. God decides no-one else.
Paul grow up. Its not my problem if you dont understand what I have said. And to say what you just did, shows you havent understood.
has nothing to do with that I see spelling mistakes and add to comments to improve them others edit theres as well- your comment is unvalid- trying to make out im cheating or somthing- silly I do not alter my text I correct the spelling mistakes and add to the text- on occasion I swap words around as it reads better. But then if you dont bother reading it whats the difference.
I do not see the point in creating loads of new boxes it makes the forum huge- when it does not need to be and gives you a huge post count- I could careless about my post count.
Yes so you claim there is no god- prove it- its the same.
My point exactly.
Yes I added it as I felt it was needed- who the hell are you to tell me how I should relay information to people- Not just you read this- Some people will not read this stuff till next week- I will post as I see fit thank you!
You dont like it thats your problem. Tell me how to post? Who are you exactly? What gives you the right to tell me how to post?
Rather than making a whole new box I add on- to things that relate- as I think of things to say. That way its all together. not all over the place- Then I answer you complaints- and add on to them as I have new or better understood answers. DEAL WITH IT.
It is not my fault that you do not understand what I say then put up silly posts, thats your problem- not mine- Keep digging your hole- please...
YOUR NOT BETTER OR MORE INTELIGENT THAT ANYONE ELSE- YOU JUST THINK YOU ARE.
Alot of christians feel they speak with God- They know they do-.
BUT THIS HAS ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE! .
Paul grow up. Its not my problem if you dont understand what I have said. And to say what you just did, shows you havent understood.
The evidence I was refering to would be the books- as well as the religious community- Alot of christians feel they speak with God- They know they do- But how do I prove that to you- You would just say they were delusional or somthing. To love is to know- Its individual- Proff denies faith.
There is no proff to prove god does not exsist- there is some elimentary evidence to suggest that there is a God. Ergo more in favor than against.
Not evidence against- a tiny bit for. But no scientist should be claiming things they have no evidence for- So you cannot say there is no god- as a scientist- as a person you may.
"Prove he is real!" "Prove he isn't!" It all comes down to opinion in this one.
jolly! Paul fr.! please calm down!
BUT THIS HAS ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE! .
That's right. It doesn't. That's why this topic is so popular.
Science and religon never mix. Never will. They contradict. Water and oil. But that's why this has 19 pages. Everyone's chosen a side. Everyone knows their reasons. But this topic will go on forever, just as tony6789 wanted. "Prove he is real!" "Prove he isn't!" It all comes down to opinion in this one.
The evidence I was refering to would be the books- as well as the religious community- Alot of christians feel they speak with God- They know they do- But how do I prove that to you- You would just say they were delusional or somthing.
Yeah and where he found them just happens to be where the twin towers are..were...
It's just what I heard..urban legend probably.
It's just what I heard..urban legend probably.
well they were (supposed to have been) found in or around new york, in a place called palerma. not sure if that is the correct spelling but it sounds right. in western newyork
It's just what I heard..urban legend probably.
well they were (supposed to have been) found in or around new york, in a place called palerma. not sure if that is the correct spelling but it sounds right. in western newyork
Try a spell check to see if you did.
found or food?
How much is the "Church" worth?
How much is the "Church" worth?
Some say The Vatican is worth 1 billion (euros), some say 5, but the real total value sold at an auction, say, would probably be a multiple of that last number. Highest I've heard is close to 50 billion, Holy See + Vatican City.
Ofcourse, that's only the Roman Catholic Church, them poor, poor beggars. Other numbers of other faiths are much harder to obtain, because of a lack of a big central organisation like the RCC has.
Is it possible to unite the laws of physics with religion?
Answer:
Yes. It is possible.
Anyone else think socratus is smoking way too much crack?
God's truer then any science thats for sure.
No, it's not a fuzzy logic arguement.
Science is true...in some things.
But God's better at being less fuzzy in some topics.
N korea...urgh dont even get me started
Your soul comes from God, and when you die, your soul leaves your body behind to go heaven. Not that complicated.N korea...urgh dont even get me started
Why what's wrong with N Korea?
Yeah, why wouldn't it be?
Yeah, why wouldn't it be?
I think Paul was a little incredulous that there was anybody who was not aware of the rather extreme regime that runs N.Korea at present, and the current controversy regarding their development of nuclear weapons.
I think it is probably a little unfair to show such incredulity, since one should not assume everyone knows everything about everything - we all have gaps in our knowledge, and even something that one person assumes to be basic general knowledge might still be part of a gap in another persons knowledge.
Yeah, why wouldn't it be?
I think Paul was a little incredulous that there was anybody who was not aware of the rather extreme regime that runs N.Korea at present, and the current controversy regarding their development of nuclear weapons.
I think it is probably a little unfair to show such incredulity, since one should not assume everyone knows everything about everything - we all have gaps in our knowledge, and even something that one person assumes to be basic general knowledge might still be part of a gap in another persons knowledge.
Not me?
I can't contain it anymore, the hypocrisy is overwhelming.
People say, "Take "under God" out of the pledge!" and yet they have don't complain about Easter break, historically a religous holiday. The Easter bunny is some shoddy sellout to despratley hide their hypocrisy.
People who are atheists curse in God's name without second thought, even though they do not beleive in him.
Then whenever i mange to let a small curse slip, they gasp and point and say "Don't do that or you won't go to heaven." In the most ridiculing voice possible and laugh to show off to their friends.
Grrr, I can't stand anything hypocritical. I hate it. [xx(] [xx(] [:(!] [:(!] [>:(]
Mehh.. Don't you think that this is such a broad topic to discuss? Whether God is real or not.. I think that we should decide that for ourselves. Although discussions are perfectly fine, but.. Most wars are religion-based. We may just get a WW3 here. [;)]
Rational, as in society if you break the law your locked up! What are you suggesting that people should be allowed to kill each other?
The case about the oath is different. OK, maybe I should not say much about it, because it is not my country, and it is not for me to decide what another nation should choose for themselves, so I speak only as to what I might think if it were my country, rather than to suggest that I have any right to dictate to another country.
If one casually curses in the name of God, without thought, that is one thing. If one takes an oath that one is supposed to believe in, then one should take an oath that has meaning to oneself. When one stands in court, and gives an oath to the court to tell the truth, one has a choice to take a secular affirmation or a religious oath, according to one's own beliefs. The problem with the "one nation under God" is that it assumes the belief system of the nation, not of the person taking the oath; and I would consider it (if I were an American) inappropriate that anyone should regard me as a member of that nation as being under God. That a president might, on his own account, swear under God, that is for him to choose, but he should not choose for those of his nation who may not share his belief.
GOD IS AN ENERGY, NOT A PERSON.
I think there has to be a God because like in another thread, I put it plain and simple. If the universe is as we know it, then it could have very well existed for eternity as other universes, and there had to be something that created them, they didn't just come out of complete blackness, I mean, come on now!!
Worst argument ever?
Smacks of desperation.
I think there has to be a God because like in another thread, I put it plain and simple. If the universe is as we know it, then it could have very well existed for eternity as other universes, and there had to be something that created them, they didn't just come out of complete blackness, I mean, come on now!!
Worst argument ever?
Smacks of desperation.
I think there has to be a God because like in another thread, I put it plain and simple. If the universe is as we know it, then it could have very well existed for eternity as other universes, and there had to be something that created them, they didn't just come out of complete blackness, I mean, come on now!!
Worst argument ever?
Smacks of desperation.
I get this on every forum, it's so cliche to me now.
GOD IS AN ENERGY, NOT A PERSON.
In other words, deliberately raising self-awareness to monitor your thought processes in order to detect biases and preconceived notions. This habit can lead to the cleansing of the doorways of perceptions and allow for the possibility of direct insight, and eventually an appreciation of divinity, in term of your understanding.
Knowing God is connecting with and reflecting the deepest impulse of the human spirit.
Someone had to code the DNA instructions for cellular replication. To me that someone is God.
Wha?Someone had to code the DNA instructions for cellular replication. To me that someone is God.
Your presupposition is fallacious.
Someone had to code the DNA instructions for cellular replication. To me that someone is God.
The Big Bang theory, and faith are neither proof of anything. The big bang is a theory created by atheist scientists who are unable to offer an explanation for how the universe was created, or wasn't created. Faith is just a believers quick fix to the same problem.I believe those Christians are not really Christians.
Why would the bible have so much false and contradictory information anyway?
A lot of christians contradict themselves as well. I must have missed the footnotes of the 10 commandments where it said. "These commandments apply only to those not violating any of the terms and conditions within the Bible." For example, the golden rule is to treat everyone the way you want to be treated, yet homosexuality is against their religion so suddenly the golden rule does not matter.
It is okay for homos to be outcast and shunned by churches, yet all of the people within those churches are supposed to always treat everyone with kindness.
How does that work? Something that is the supposed word of God can be so back-asswards. If it is God's word truly I would expect it to contain reasoning and logic not comparable to that of a 1st grader.
Any comments?
I believe those Christians are not really Christians.
y does god change his mind tho i mean wat if i wanna be "fruitful and mutiply" with my sister i mean come on i have one HOT sister so that is wrong now that god changed his mind?
lol yea
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
-CHARLES DARWIN, Introduction, The Descent of Man (1871)
Intersecting dimensions, mind projection, parallel universe, it's all theory. God is belief. You either believe in him or you don't, got it?
Ok, smart a**, tell me who God is then.
but can someone, other than myself, reason upon "afterlife experiences" through interdimensional interaction?
Basically, can someone, like I do, relate "afterlife" experiences with hologram theory, the mind as a hologram, passing on to a higer dimension upon death and existing as just the mind in that time and space. You can say, "afterlife" or simply, "reincarnation". The mind could project to a higher dimension and then find itself another meat puppet(human body) to be born into, but of higher intelligence.It may appeal to you but, to me, that's just a bundle of unrelated buzz words.
In the Bible, God is quoted to say "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end". "The beginning and the end", eh? Could God be time? Or could he have been hinting at a mystery of science, inconceivable for us at that point in history?In the film 'Judge Dread', Stallone says "I am the Law". Does that have some significance, too?
There are scientific proofs of God's is existence, one of is the number Phi, sometimes called the divine proportion or the golden number.This is not, in any way, proof of the existence of any god. Sorry.
Phi = 1.618
According to the book "The Da Vinci Code" (and this true), if you measure the length from the tip of your head to the floor , and divide that by the length from your navel to the floor,you get Phi. If you measure the length from your hip to the floor, and divide it by the length from your knees to the floor, you get Phi. If you divide the number of female bees by the number of male bees in a bee hive,you get Phi. "Sun flower seeds grow in opposing spirals, the ratio of each rotation's diameter to the next is....PHI.
Fundamentally, Phi appears in everything; music, art, nature, architecture....everything.
This (at least for me) proves two things;
1- Divine power definitely exists.
2- Only ONE God exists, otherwise we wouldn't find such an astonishing link between everything in existence.
Believing in the existence of God is in either one or both of two ways, Faith, and scientific proof.
I suppose I got excited and when I do, my comments no longer make sense because I just throw bits of information in that in my make perfect sense, but when I later come to read it, it does not.Appreciated. There's times when I've got carried away with an idea or apparent 'evidence' before and come a cropper. However, I'm not sure it's just a problem of expressing yourself clearly in this case. There is a fundamental problem in that you will not find current evidence anywhere in science that will support the idea of a creator.
After all, a piece of 'evidence' might be a reason for an individual to believe in God, but to another, the very same evidence is the reason for him to disbelieve in GodI'm afraid this can only be a question of personal faith, not reason (so far a science is concerned).
...so a person must be open to different ideas and must respect other people's views ... If you felt that I was stressing my point too much, my apologies.No need to apologise. I respect your right to believe in these concepts, but they are not going to be accepted by science without reasoned argument, supported by irrefutable evidence (meaning more than a selection of related values). ...
By the way, Peppercorn, did you take a look at the site I mentioned above?I'm afraid my inbuilt bias (some may call it close mindedness) will not allow me to take much notice of a website under the banner of creationism.
The scientific proof that deals with the existence of God is not really proper scientific proof, but more like logical reason with a sprinkle of science, so it is open to criticism.I'm not entirely sure this is what Russell was saying, but still. Scientific proof is, or should be, applied coldly and without the bias of feeling (the same is not required of the scientists themselves though [;)]). Above, you imply that a special strain of science is needed to deal with the question of God existence - there is not. Going back to your hidden enlightenment through nature's 'hidden' number patterns theory (if I can call it that) - there is definitely no application of 'logical reason' in your support of it. Sure, there are oft reoccurring values and mathematical patterns in nature, but this in no way leads logically to a creator, higher-conciousness, Godhead - call it what you will.
So it is not fair to say that there is no proof whatsoever for the existence of GodI disagree. Plainly, "there is no [scientific] proof whatsoever for the existence of God".
[it's] not fair to say that there is proof which proves the existence of God 100%A common misconception is that good science can ever work on principles of 'Absolute Truth'. Therefore, the moment new evidence comes to light revealing a more complete understanding about the workings of some aspect of nature, there is no (or shouldn't be) idealogical battle between the old view and the new. That's not say scientists are not resistant to changing cherished beliefs, being human as they are.
The scientific proof that deals with the existence of God is not really proper scientific proof, but more like logical reason with a sprinkle of science, so it is open to criticism.Without copying out his quote again, I was saying that what Russell meant differs from you interpretation.
As I said, proof of the existence of God is not like other proofs.It is as far as science is concerned. This is a science forum. QED.
If you have visited either or both of the sites above, then perhaps we could discuss this point more, but since you just plainly state what is in your mind with out much proof, and just not accept any other view but rather criticize others', I see no outcome on this point but repetition of ideas.Not true. I said I was resistant to visiting a 'creationist' website. Life is short and the 'net is full of opinion. If there's a specific quote or argument from this website that has any relevance to scientific discussion, please post it here. Keep it short though - members are not keen on trawling through BS.
[::)] Well, enlighten me then!For a start the 'believers' would no longer need faith.No, you didn't read my previous post well.
Quoted from my first link: ...You mean your first link from a website titled 'Creationism.com' or some such? Excuse me if I am not immediately accepting of the statement that "Proteins are so hard to make that in all of nature, they never form except in already living cells."
Peppercorn, I keep on saying that what I mean by proof is not 'scientific proof', but rather like mental proof, but for some reason, you keep on saying that I say they are scientific, why?
"except in already living cells."Yeah, I got that bit. It doesn't change my opinion.
Yet you feel comfortable about neglecting those pieces of evidence which lay unread by yourself.The world & esp. the internet is full of stuff haven't read. That doesn't mean I should keep a totally open mind on it all. The fact that the is a huge body of scientifically competent biologists out there that can do the work for me (& all if us non-biologists) is what makes the idea of scientific progress so powerful.
Can a jury make a fair decision without reading every fact that is present?The key word here is 'fact'. In the case of our discussions that has to be scientific fact. Simple as. A worldwide community of respected biologists have already peer reviewed their way through reams of observation that points to evolution running the 'show' from the start.
I just keep on repeating myself but somehow it does not get to you, it seems that your ego has overtaken you a little bit.Certainly, I would never claim that I am immune to the temptations of 'ego', who isn't? But, in my defence, I would never rule out the possibility of a creator, just as I would accept the remotest possibility that aliens purposely seeded the Earth. However logic tells me that these explanations are so as close to impossible as makes no odds.
As I have seen logicality and a little bit of science in them, I decided to post them here.I have to point out that nothing you have posted so far can be claimed as scientific in nature. I'm not saying it's beyond all possibility that buried on the links you've supplied, but unless you can quote it on here (please remember that it will need to pass the 'science' test for it not to be instantly dismissed) as I've said already I'm not willing to trawl through, sorry.
He SEES you when you're sleeping.Oh, wait, that was Santa Claus....
He KNOWS when you're awake.
He KNOWS if you've been bad or good.
So be good for goodness sake.
There are scientific proofs of God's is existence, one of is the number Phi, sometimes called the divine proportion or the golden number.This is not, in any way, proof of the existence of any god. Sorry.
Phi = 1.618
According to the book "The Da Vinci Code" (and this true), if you measure the length from the tip of your head to the floor , and divide that by the length from your navel to the floor,you get Phi. If you measure the length from your hip to the floor, and divide it by the length from your knees to the floor, you get Phi. If you divide the number of female bees by the number of male bees in a bee hive,you get Phi. "Sun flower seeds grow in opposing spirals, the ratio of each rotation's diameter to the next is....PHI.
Fundamentally, Phi appears in everything; music, art, nature, architecture....everything.
This (at least for me) proves two things;
1- Divine power definitely exists.
2- Only ONE God exists, otherwise we wouldn't find such an astonishing link between everything in existence.
Phi lol, such a random word.
"hmmm what to call this astonishing connection..."
"idk how bout phi?"
"like what you pay?"
"nawww like p.h.i. that there sounds smart"
God is real
Exactly what do i mean? Who reallt knows? What is god is he man girl blakc white or evan mexican!
- Big T
this does not form a very rational or satifying explanation to sceptics and non-believers.
I might as well say "since I have not experienced him I therefore know he does not exist."
Both arguments have equal validity.
You know God is real, when you experience Him, such as secret thoughts and memories revealed by a believer after prayer. And a clear conscience after repentance. All fears subside after prayer for Jesus' blood. The heart is refreshed after drinking living water in worship.
There is no revelation in history of a flying spaghetti monster. It is nonsense, whereas a just, merciful, loving and wise God like Elohim are different. The pattern Moses wrote of creation is simple to complex life.
wooowww i made this topic years ago lmao i was like 14 amd now im 19 when this topic was started hahahahso have your views changed over time? The ususal heated forum debates about religion go round in circles; people who are opinionated enough to bother contributing seldom change their stance during such debates, no matter how logical or illogical the facts