Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 16 of 35 1 2 14 15 16 17 18 34 35
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Poor Noah...though maybe it was Mrs Noah who did the cleaning up.
-------------

DA wrote:
I don't mean for this example to be prejudicial with respect to Moslems as at a different time and place it would apply equally to all.

When I wrote the post was actually thinking about the absurd situation with the burning at the stake thing, where Christian burned Christian--- and in WW1 & WW2 where chaplains blessed their sides in the name of their God, and it was one and the same diety- What on earth was going on there? It's just absurd. And now, once again, we are finding out that inflexible dogma is as dangerous as bombs.


.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
The Christian Bible tells us that God created Man. I believe that Man "created God" to fill in the gaps in his knowledge. If we can't explain, say Thunder for example, we dismiss it as "The Will of God". Or G$D. As we ourselves fill in those gaps in our knowledge, the concept of "God" or Kulkulkan or Ra or Thor or other dieties become less and less relevant. If only we can make it for another 300 years, I really think that we'll be alright.

Wolfman #18822 03/11/07 05:31 AM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Hi Blacknad.

Returning to your comments on counsciousness, this is from STEVEN PINKER, professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT; director of the McDonnell-Pew Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at MIT:

"...we are learning more and more every day about the neural basis of consciousness?what goes on in the brain when you have a conscious experience?down to itty bitty details: why one thing looks redder or tastes saltier than another, and countless other details of perception, memory and emotion. The part that remains a mystery is why the purely subjective aspect of experience should exist at all...?


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
rede--My very old mother (96) was doing well until about a year ago. One thing I have noticed recently is that what I think you mean by "subjective aspect of experience" has completely disappeared for her. It is as though someone has pressed the delete button and the whole experinence has vanished. It is most distressing to watch but she seems unaware of it unless her attention is drawn to it when she gets cross and argues it never hasppened. This is not the same as forgetting, it just wasn't there to remember. The odd part of it is that she enjoys life in the present, there seems to be participation and enjoyment---just NO recall whatsoever.



Ellis #18826 03/11/07 07:10 AM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Ellis, I can empathise regarding the distress. My father underwent a similar process. Most commonly, memory for recent events becomes very poor, whereas events from one's earlier life can be recalled in detail. For your mother, the important thing is, of course, that she is able find enjoyment in the present. If she has the faculties to do so, then evidently her "subjective aspect of experience" is intact.

By "subjective aspect of experience", I take Professor Pinker to mean "the phenomena of awareness", including our emotional status, our perceptions arising from the senses and so on, rather than the coincident physics and chemistry.

Here's a possible analogy to think about (maybe you can think of a better one):

Q. What is consciousness?
A. It's the chemistry and physics of the brain.

is similar to

Q. What is light?
A. It's the chemistry and physics of a battery, a piece of wire and a filament.

Last edited by redewenur; 03/11/07 08:46 AM.

"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 30
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 30
I personally think memory actually plays a big role in the "subjective aspect of experience". Every new experience is compared to previous experiences stored in memory. Experiences are always better and more exciting the first time. The first jump off an airplane, the first ski ride, etc... But with time, the brain adapts through memory and knows what to expect of events to come. Thus the passage from thrills to a more serene life.

Don't you think the taste of chocolate would be better if you didn't remember tasting it ever before?


What was, still is, and always will be such is the truth of the eternal now.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
So, MrBIGG, there's something to be said for amnesia after all! Seriously, though, you're right. Memory forms a major part of our subjective "here and now". The Pavlov's dog experiment was simple proof of that, and we know well enough that, for better or worse, we can "relive" experiences while either awake or asleep.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Wolfman wrote:

"The Christian Bible tells us that God created Man. I believe that Man "created God" to fill in the gaps in his knowledge."

I think I was still a teenager when I first heard the statement, "man created God in his own image." I still think it's very true. I mean what would a dog's image of its god look like?

You're right DA, this has turned into an interesting thread. I think some of us may be forgetting that all animals, espaecially mammals and birds, rely on memory for survival. If a bird forgot that a cat is dangerous it wouldn't survive long.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Originally Posted By: terrytnewzealand
After 30 pages of contributions to this thread the best evidence for God anyone has come up with is to merely point out that we are here. They consider this proves there is a God. This is not sufficient evidence to convince me.


I don?t expect people to plough through this so you may want to skip to the next poster.

The universe leads only to an agnostic position. When I say this I am actually saying, ?The scientific method simply does not have enough evidence to come to a decision one way or another?.

For our understanding and interpretation of the makeup of the universe is achieved through scientific methods. All else is philosophy, emotion and wishful thinking. It seems to me that theist and atheist alike use the last three to come to a conclusion and then view the scientific evidence in the light of that. Correct me if I am wrong, but is there an ?if a then not b? argument connected to the nature of the universe and god. ?If the speed of light = 299,792,458 m/s then God does not exist??

There appears to be nothing that would allow science to adjudicate on the question. So if the most rational process of decision making available to humanity is unable to answer the question, then what are we left with?

Subjective opinion.

The problem with subjective opinion is that it will use the facts available in any way it wants. An example being that in the UK we often see politicians arguing over a particular societal problem or incident. The Conservative will see it one way; the Labourite will see it differently. In fact, they will see the same thing and will describe it differently, attribute opposing causes and then want to apply wildly different solutions. Each supremely confident in their understanding of the issue. More than that, they will each see the issue as vindicating their political dogmas and will trace the cause of the problem back to the dogmas of their opponents.

Similar things can be said of the Global Warming debate. Both advocates and sceptics are viewing the same planet, the same effect, and have access to the same data. But in some cases their conclusions could not be further apart. An example being that I always thought there was going to be a price to pay for the rubbish we have been putting into the atmosphere ? so GW hits the scene and I grab onto it happily because it fits my preconceptions and then seems to be fairly robust when I examine it further. Others - anyone connected with Oil ? will view it differently.
Now something may come up that will make the GW position incontrovertible, but my point about subjective perception informing our view of the evidence is illustrated.

So in the end, theists will look at the universe?s fine tuning and say that it is exactly what they would expect to see in a universe resulting from design by a prior intelligence. Atheists will see the same thing and say, it could have been no other way, it simply occurred and does not need a prior intelligence to explain it, or it is explained neatly by the Multiverse, or even Peter Lynds ideas will lead us to an entirely naturalistic explanation.

The theist will say that God has revealed himself and is available for you to experience if you make yourself open to him. The atheist will say that of course I could experience God if I opened myself up to him, just as I experienced an imaginary childhood friend. The theist will say that it is a fallacious argument, because children grow out of experiencing imaginary friends but experience of God seems different, and also just because something can be explained in terms of one phenomena it does not necessarily follow that it is actually the same phenomena. The atheist will say that we don?t need to go any further than understanding the psychological mechanisms involved with producing dreams and other imaginary experiences.

And so on?

In my opinion, there can be no conclusive proof. All of the philosophical proofs such as Anselm?s and Plantinga?s ontological arguments are unconvincing. The Cosmological Arguments are better, and I find them more convincing especially the Kalam Cosmological Argument framed by William Lane Craig, but they obviously do not convince sceptics and are certainly not therefore incontrovertible proofs.

Likewise with disproofs, they will not convince the believer. Dan has posited the fact that ?this universe is exactly what we would expect to see if there was no creator? or something along those lines.
Again this is not convincing for two reasons:

1. There are no control universes to compare against that would allow us to define exactly what we should expect to see in a designed universe and an entirely naturalistic universe. The question could be asked, how do you know that a universe can actually occur at all without a first intelligent cause ? especially a universe so adept at producing consciousness from chemicals?

2. It is again a subjective belief. How can it be proved that any of the assumptions that are made to come to that conclusion are valid?

I find this particular argument interesting and would be happy to debate it further.

CONCLUSION

The reason there are no serious proofs after 30 pages is that there are no proofs that would be universally accepted ? there are no proofs for God?s existence, empirical or logical. The only proofs are experiential and have no value for anyone but the individual who experiences them for they cannot reliably be conveyed from one person to another.

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 30
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 30
I think a big part of the issue here is semantics...

Would we be talking about the existence of a God if human kind never would have used it's vast imagination to come up with concepts such as spirits, souls, fairies, ghosts, etc.... Ans all the other supernatural mombo jombo...



What was, still is, and always will be such is the truth of the eternal now.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Originally Posted By: MrBiGG78
I think a big part of the issue here is semantics...

Would we be talking about the existence of a God if human kind never would have used it's vast imagination to come up with concepts such as spirits, souls, fairies, ghosts, etc.... Ans all the other supernatural mombo jombo...


Hi there MrBiGG,

Your tautological question presupposes the non-existence of God and uses a common mistake of putting belief in God within the same subset as belief in fairies or some other equally ridiculous idea - it's a sort of strawman effect. Belief in God is clearly not the same as believing in fairies, for all sorts of reasons.

You also discount any kind of historical/comtemporary accounts of God's interaction/revelation in human affairs which far outweighs (in both amount and sophistication) any evidence for the existence of fairies or the Invisible Pink Rhino.

Blacknad.

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 30
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 30
It isn't any better to assign physical and metaphysical qualities on an hypothetical God which is likely to be outside our universe and therefore cannot be observed from within the universe.

"You also discount any kind of historical/comtemporary accounts of God's interaction/revelation in human affairs which far outweighs (in both amount and sophistication) any evidence for the existence of fairies or the Invisible Pink Rhino."

Would these interaction/revelation still had been interpreted as a manifestation of God if these people didn't already have any predisposed belief/knowledge about this hypothetical God or would they have investigated further for other posibilities?



What was, still is, and always will be such is the truth of the eternal now.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Blacknad
The reason there are no serious proofs after 30 pages is...

...the same reason there are no proofs after several millennia. The domain of science is the physical. The domain of the spiritual is the metaphysical. It's folly for either to attempt to trespass into the domain of the other. Unfortunately for scientists past and present, their domain has been constantly invaded.

Originally Posted By: Blacknad
The only proofs are experiential and have no value for anyone but the individual who experiences them for they cannot reliably be conveyed from one person to another.

I agree with that 100%. Well said.

A problem that religions tend to have is a heavy dependence on events in the physical world. There has to be concrete proof in the form of various artifacts and historical events such as a virgin birth. All this paraphernalia is likely, eventually, to be exposed as fictitious, and such exposure, as we know, has lead to the persecution of scientists. This would not occur if it were sufficient to say "I experience within me the God of Love - I should live accordingly".


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
blacknad wrote:
"Belief in God is clearly not the same as believing in fairies, for all sorts of reasons."

A challenge if I may. Point-by-point ... state your reasons. They are far from obvious.

I suspect it will be extremely difficult and that the harder you think about it ... the more difficult it will become. In the end ... what we believe based upon faith is done because we can not believe in it due to objective evidence.

blacknad wrote:
"You also discount any kind of historical/comtemporary accounts of God's interaction/revelation in human affairs which far outweighs (in both amount and sophistication) any evidence for the existence of fairies or the Invisible Pink Rhino."

I don't think there truly is any historical accounts of any god's interaction with humans. STOP! I know you are going to point to anecdotal accounts. We all know them. There was Moses and the burning bush. There was Joan d'Arc. There are thousands others. But then there are also people who have worshiped the image of the Virgin Mary on stop signs and burnt toast. How do we objectively determine which are real and which are not? We can't even, objectively, determine whether Iran wants to make enriched uranium for weapons and we have a benefit or two when it comes to verification.

The best possible way to objectively falsify there being a god is to seriously consider the following quotes:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do."
~ Stephen Roberts

"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours."
~ Stephen Roberts

"God made man in his own image and man, being a gentleman, returned the favor."
~ anonymous

Scriptures: the sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.
~ Ambrose Bierce

The planet earth has approximately ~6.7 billion inhabitants and approximately ~4,200 separate religions.

Sources:
http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop
http://www.theologicalstudies.org/classicalreligionlist.html

Of these the two with the largest number of adherents are Christianity and Islam with 2 billion and 1.3 billion believer's respectively. The remaining 3.4 billion people are divided among the other ~4,198 religions. Given that the Christians and Moslems agree on almost nothing of substance (Jesus Christ and Mohammed) ... we can conclude that either:

1. One of them is right and the other wrong
or
2. They are both wrong
because they can't both be right.

Which leaves us with a simple objective question:

If there was truly a deity that created the entire universe ... could it also be so inept as to create such staggering ambiguity with respect to its existence? Could it "design" something as complex as cellular biology and stub its toe on something as simple as a single declarative sentence? Or ... should we presume that part of that deity's plan is to be ambiguous and fuel warfare, hatred, rape, and the inevitability that the majority of mankind will be born in the wrong country, to the wrong family, with the wrong belief system, and go straight to hell.


DA Morgan
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Blacnad wrote:

"I don?t expect people to plough through this so you may want to skip to the next poster."

I'm sure you're pleased at the number of us who read the whole thing. You've inspired some interesting comments from it.

Redewenur wrote:

"Actually, I have to confess ignorance - I'd never heard of the wonderful, courageous fellow." So her's an introduction to said courageous fellow for those who don't already know him (and can't be bothered looking it up themselves). I think most of us on SAGG would be happy to be called Giordanistas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

As a touch of humour. My 7 year old nephew mentioned to his father a book at school that talks about two worlds, one that had the dinosaurs and a more recent one God created for humans. Does anyone know of such a book? My nephew wondered who had made trees because they were around with the dinosaurs. He concluded that god's mum and dad must have made them. Any ideas as whether this is likely?

Last edited by terrytnewzealand; 03/12/07 10:22 PM.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
blacknad wrote:
"Belief in God is clearly not the same as believing in fairies, for all sorts of reasons."

A challenge if I may. Point-by-point ... state your reasons. They are far from obvious.


I will present a few reasons why belief in God is different from belief in fairies. That is the only point I will address. I am not here interested in whether God exists, or even if belief in God is justified. I am simply pointing out the differences. The differences would be more pronounced if I were to compare belief in God with belief in an IPR.

1. The amount of people who say they have experienced fairies is in keeping with the amount of people that we know are suffering from one or another form of mental illness. The subset of people who claim experience of fairies fits easily into the set of those who are certified delusional.
On the other hand those who claim to have experienced God or claim to have had any experience of the divine, far exceeds the delusional set. In fact those who claim to experience God are less likely to be included in the delusional set. For instance, studies have shown that Christians are psychologically healthier than those who have no belief. See the ?Handbook of Religion and Mental Health? by Harold G. Koenig and a wealth of other studies.


This is clearly a difference that sets apart belief in God from belief in fairies.

2. The accounts of the nation of Israel?s history are steeped in the experience of God. People hundreds of years apart wrote about encounters with God and despite often not having access to other?s writings, still managed to present a remarkably consistent account of God?s character and dealings.

Regardless of whether we believe the accounts or not, people writing about their experience of God from ancient history through to contemporary writings, far exceeds any supposedly factual accounts about fairies. There is far more anecdotal evidence for God?s existence than for fairies.

This volume of evidence does not validate God, but certainly places belief in God in a different league.

3. The Kalam Cosmological Argument and other cosmological arguments including arguments from fine tuning are certainly not proofs, but would be expected in a universe that is the result of design. This still would not point to Theism, but ties in with the existence of a god of some type far better than any facts would tie in with the existence of fairies.

There is a good summary of the KCA here:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm

I would be interested to hear your thoughts.


Originally Posted By: DA Morgan

The best possible way to objectively falsify there being a god is to seriously consider the following quotes:

1. "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do."
~ Stephen Roberts

2. "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours."
~ Stephen Roberts

3. "God made man in his own image and man, being a gentleman, returned the favor."
~ anonymous

4. Scriptures: the sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.
~ Ambrose Bierce


Dan, I don?t know what has happened to the standards you would apply to objectively falsify something, but apparently we can now chuck subjective quotes at something and thereby prove it false. Obviously science isn?t quite what it used to be. Einstein would turn in his grave (well he might but we would never know unless we opened his coffin and collapsed the wave function, bum bum).

Quotes 1 and 2. Presuppose there is no god. But, if there is a god then it is entirely reasonable to believe in one god and choose the one that seems most reasonable or has revealed its existence to you. If there is a god then at least one of the 4,200 religions is right. I could go further to tell you why I would see the Christian god as being the most reasonable, but I want to get to bed tonight.

Quote 3. Seriously not worth commenting upon. Certainly doesn?t objectively falsify anything.

Quote 4. Again, only good when we presuppose that there is no god and therefore no written revelation of him. So a nice quote for atheists but far too weak to be capable of impacting a believer. It is the logical equivalent of looking at two opposing scientific theories and saying that when you understand why you reject each other?s theory you will understand why I reject all of your competing theories.

Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
The planet earth has approximately ~6.7 billion inhabitants and approximately ~4,200 separate religions.

Sources:
http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop
http://www.theologicalstudies.org/classicalreligionlist.html

Of these the two with the largest number of adherents are Christianity and Islam with 2 billion and 1.3 billion believer's respectively. The remaining 3.4 billion people are divided among the other ~4,198 religions. Given that the Christians and Moslems agree on almost nothing of substance (Jesus Christ and Mohammed) ... we can conclude that either:

1. One of them is right and the other wrong
or
2. They are both wrong
because they can't both be right.

Which leaves us with a simple objective question:

If there was truly a deity that created the entire universe ... could it also be so inept as to create such staggering ambiguity with respect to its existence? Could it "design" something as complex as cellular biology and stub its toe on something as simple as a single declarative sentence? Or ... should we presume that part of that deity's plan is to be ambiguous and fuel warfare, hatred, rape, and the inevitability that the majority of mankind will be born in the wrong country, to the wrong family, with the wrong belief system, and go straight to hell.


If we go with the Christian understanding of life?

We are here to choose whether we want to co-exist with God or whether we want to reject him. It is therefore necessary that we live in a world that presents that opportunity to us. Most people on this planet are presented with the possibility of God and choose either to reject or to explore further and then go on to accept or reject.

If that is accomplished, by whatever means, then that is what God set out to do and many theologians believe that it is essential that we experience evil in some form so that we can know what we are making a choice for and against. Now most Christians I have talked to about this believe that this choice is accomplished, throughout world history, either by people accepting what Christ did, or where they have not known about him or have had an inaccurate picture, then they make the choice by listening to their conscience however it may express itself. So Muslims are not born in the wrong place or family and will not be rejected by God simply because they believed in their prevailing worldview ? they will be judged on their willingness to do what is right by their conscience (even if their conscience is culturally conditioned). Christians on the whole believe that other religions will be fairly judged, as will those who have been persecuted by Christians and therefore see Christ in the role of persecutor ? it would be entirely unfair to judge these people for rejecting what they rightfully should reject.

I know that you will rip the above apart, but it is an indication that in Christian theology it is not essential for God to be in your face, but can accomplish what he wants through subtle as well as draconian means. In fact, Christians believe that God?s pervasive presence is simply not enough to make people choose not to reject him, because the story of God travelling through the desert with the Jews whilst presenting a physical manifestation ended with half of them building idols and rejecting him.

Penicillin.
You have asked many times why God never revealed penicillin. The above hints at the answer. Christians believe that God expects a choice while we are on this earth. He is interested in the choice we make and whilst we may expect him to behave like a cuddly teddy-bear and make sure we don?t get hurt or experience any kind of suffering, we are simply here to make a choice. We cannot hold God up to some ideal standard that we have of what it means to be loving and expect him to be constrained by it and accuse him of failure when he doesn?t meet our standard. God?s love may be justifiably framed as a concern for our eternal welfare and not particularly for our temporal welfare. Theologists believe that God is love, but also engenders many other qualities at the same time, unlike humans who can only really exist in one emotional state at any given moment. This may mean that Love does not always trump other qualities such as? ? we just don?t really know. Which goes to answer quote 3 ? God is certainly not created in the image of man, but is largely recognised to be incomprehensible. Look at the Greek Gods, very comprehensible and very human in their aspirations. Anyone who says the God of Christianity is created in man?s image has a limited understanding of theology.

Blacknad.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Originally Posted By: terrytnewzealand
I think most of us on SAGG would be happy to be called Giordanistas.


Well I certainly would as he was a man of science with a deep faith. And I am sure the church would have also put me to the stake for some of my beliefs.

Blacknad.

Last edited by Blacknad; 03/13/07 12:06 AM.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Well backnad you've written a lot so I will respond in three sections hoping to keep some semblance of sanity to this.

Response 1:

Blacknad wrote:
"I don?t expect people to plough through this so you may want to skip to the next poster."

I wouldn't miss it for the world.

You write:
"?The scientific method simply does not have enough evidence to come to a decision one way or another?."

I think you are making a classic error here. We, fallible humans, don't know it all and don't pretend to know it all. That we haven't reached some ultimate destination with respect to wisdom and knowledge does not reflect on the methodology ... the methodology, scientific, is clearly filling in the gaps and an ever increasing pace. Which, as you can clearly see, is reducing the viability of belief systems.

and asks:
"Correct me if I am wrong, but is there an ?if a then not b? argument connected to the nature of the universe and god. ?If the speed of light = 299,792,458 m/s then God does not exist??"

You are incorrect. I could easily accept that some god or goddess made an arbitrary decision with respect to the speed of light if there were evidence that (A) a decision had been made, that (B) any entity existed that might have made that decision, and/or that (C) that had the decision not been made things would be different.

There is no evidence supporting the existence of a decision maker and no evidence that a decision was made.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 30
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 30
I have yet to see any events not bound by the laws of physics and causality. And as far as I know, there is no fully recorded event where causality has been broken. Humans tend to make up stories to make life more colorfull. Same reason why so many people play phantasy role playing game. TO get out of the ordinary. There is no reason why the bible wouldn't be the same kind of fiction litterature. (can't wait till they make a big-screen adaptation of the whole bible) smile
Jesus, if he ever walked this earth, was nothing more then a good willed visionary.


What was, still is, and always will be such is the truth of the eternal now.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Response 2:

blacknad writes:
"1. The amount of people who say they have experienced fairies is in keeping with the amount of people that we know are suffering from one or another form of mental illness."

I would disagree and challenge you to point to any double-blind independent study, anywhere, that confirms the statement. I've no doubt you believe it but a bit of research on my part indicates it to not be the case. On the other hand I can find you very substantial populations that believe in astrology, UFOs, bigfoot, and crop circles. Would you cart them off the the insane asylum?

By definition everyone that is not Christian considers visions of the Virgin Mary delusional. In short the vast majority of the population of the planet. By definition everyone not a Shiite Moslem would consider a pilgrimage to Karballa to ask for blessings an act of lunacy. In short the vast majority of the population of the planet.

I think you need to seriously reconsider your statement in light of the fact that, as a Christian, the other 2/3 of the inhabitants of this planet think you are deluded in one manner or another.

But we both know the existence of a delusion is not subject to popular vote. Now if you could demonstrate your point of view using a Nikon I might be persuaded.

Your second point was:
"2. The accounts of the nation of Israel?s history are steeped in the experience of God. People hundreds of years apart wrote about encounters with God and despite often not having access to other?s writings, still managed to present a remarkably consistent account of God?s character and dealings."

And again it is extremely weak. The history of Israel, if anything, demonstrates that god's chosen people would have been better off if he had chosen someone else. And if this is the best he can do for them ... they should seriously reconsider their decision.

You need to step back from your prejudice and look at the planet from a distance of 500,000km. What does it look like? Where are you going to land? Why?

Why do we find Moses, Jesus Christ, and Mohammed all walking on the same little postage stamp? Magic?

Why not China or India or Indonesia or Finland?

If you start from the point-of-view that X, Y, and Z are true you can always marshal evidence to support it. If you start from the position that all people on the planet are equal, all languages equal, all real estate equal. Then you have to start asking yourself what toxic substance is in the water in the middle east that leads these people to murder, mayhem, and religious delusions.


DA Morgan
Page 16 of 35 1 2 14 15 16 17 18 34 35

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5