In my attempt to formulate my arguments against the theories of ID that I have seen (very limited as I cannot bear this dribble), and to hone my arguments that the possibility of the supernatural is not illogical, I discovered that one need only challenge the argument that "nothing can exist outside the realm of science." The silence piqued my curiosity.
I cannot find the logical scientific argument against the following:
Until science is able to prove and account for everything from 'pre big bang' to the present using scientific proof, then we cannot know that everything can eventually be explained within the realms of science. We get more degrees of plausibility and more consensus amongst scientists - the latter not without bias and peer pressure. But we simply 'don't know'.
I don't exclude the possibility that there may exist something outside of our ability to detect (outside the realms of science). If you claim that nothing outside the realm of science has any place in a scientific theory, it would be absurd to disagree, simply by definition. But if you say that nothing exists outside of our ability to detect within the realms of science, I would say, 'how do you know?' I suppose you could say that I place the bounds on the tools (science), while the Atheist places the bounds on the answer.
Which came first, the singularity or the science?
note: The singularity being the 'source' of the big bang.
No one can prove that God exists and no one can prove that God does not exist. Atheists are fundamentally irrational to the same extent that believers are, at least the believers invoke faith rather than logic. That being said what's harder to prove, a negative or a positive.
I tend to agree with Noumenon in this case.
I will add that it seems to me that the real problem with all this is that people really hate saying "I don't know".
Rather than admit that there are some things we just don't know, people make up all sorts of things. It's ok to speculate, but you have to be honest with yourself and accept that it's just baseless speculation.
Are there aliens? I don't know.
Is there a God(s)? I don't know.
The trick is to live each day based on the things that you have some reasonable basis to think that they exist.
Do atoms exist?
I have never seen one but I have some reasonable evidence that they do.
Does God exist.
I have never seen one, nor do I have any evidence that one exists. I can't prove that one doesn't exist... so I will place the question aside until some evidence does come my way. Then I will decide.
Still... I can claim absolute knowledge of neither atoms nor God. However, absolute knowledge is not where we live.
Until I am given evidence that atoms don't exist but that God(s) do... I will continue to base my actions on the idea that atoms exist and that I have no idea if God(s) do.
I will add that it seems to me that the real problem with all this is that people really hate saying "I don't know".
Rather than admit that there are some things we just don't know, people make up all sorts of things. It's ok to speculate, but you have to be honest with yourself and accept that it's just baseless speculation.
Are there aliens? I don't know.
Is there a God(s)? I don't know.
The trick is to live each day based on the things that you have some reasonable basis to think that they exist.
Do atoms exist?
I have never seen one but I have some reasonable evidence that they do.
Does God exist.
I have never seen one, nor do I have any evidence that one exists. I can't prove that one doesn't exist... so I will place the question aside until some evidence does come my way. Then I will decide.
Still... I can claim absolute knowledge of neither atoms nor God. However, absolute knowledge is not where we live.
Until I am given evidence that atoms don't exist but that God(s) do... I will continue to base my actions on the idea that atoms exist and that I have no idea if God(s) do.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Oct 4 2009, 01:09 AM)
I will add that it seems to me that the real problem with all this is that people really hate saying "I don't know".
I will continue to base my actions on the idea that atoms exist and that I have no idea if God(s) do.
YES!!
the only logical way to proceed in science.
and there is nothing illogical about it in regards to other areas.
I consider it foolish to insert the supernatural into any scientific pursuit.
The teaching of evolution that I have seen omits the "we just cannot know today". that is not an honest representation of our body of scientific knowledge.
When Dawkins states that 'there is no god' with absolute certainty in his explanation of 'how we got here', he departs from science. When he states that science explains how we came into being and god had no part in it because there is no god, he has reached well beyond the bounds of scientific methods.
dishonesty has been prevalant in the history of the development of evolution. That is not to discredit the body of knowledge we have now, but it doesn't help the case when the top evolutionist of our time is not completly honest in his representation of evolution.
i have not read his books, but I did hear him say these things in interviews.
To disallow the possibility that there are explanations beyond our grasp is absurd. To state that that which we do not understand is within the realm of science (eventually) has no logical basis.
The teaching of evolution that I have seen omits the "we just cannot know today". that is not an honest representation of our body of scientific knowledge.
When Dawkins states that 'there is no god' with absolute certainty in his explanation of 'how we got here', he departs from science. When he states that science explains how we came into being and god had no part in it because there is no god, he has reached well beyond the bounds of scientific methods.
dishonesty has been prevalant in the history of the development of evolution. That is not to discredit the body of knowledge we have now, but it doesn't help the case when the top evolutionist of our time is not completly honest in his representation of evolution.
i have not read his books, but I did hear him say these things in interviews.
To disallow the possibility that there are explanations beyond our grasp is absurd. To state that that which we do not understand is within the realm of science (eventually) has no logical basis.
QUOTE (debrajo+Oct 4 2009, 12:06 AM)
When Dawkins states that 'there is no god' with absolute certainty in his explanation of 'how we got here', he departs from science. When he states that science explains how we came into being and god had no part in it because there is no god, he has reached well beyond the bounds of scientific methods.
I believe that Dawkins likes to say "There is (probably) no god."
He is careful to avoid the absolute form of that statement, though he usually follows this up with "There is also (probably) no magical teapot in orbit around the moon."
Dawkins is also careful to keep his professional science work and his works of opinion separate.
He wrote "The Selfish Gene" as a science book, but he wrote "The God Delusion" as an explanation of his opinions.
If you want a good read on modern evolutionary theory, I definitely recommend "The Selfish Gene."
I believe that Dawkins likes to say "There is (probably) no god."
He is careful to avoid the absolute form of that statement, though he usually follows this up with "There is also (probably) no magical teapot in orbit around the moon."
Dawkins is also careful to keep his professional science work and his works of opinion separate.
He wrote "The Selfish Gene" as a science book, but he wrote "The God Delusion" as an explanation of his opinions.
If you want a good read on modern evolutionary theory, I definitely recommend "The Selfish Gene."
Does god exist ?
I would like to answer with the questions
What is "god" ? - and what is "exist" ?
If god is being defined as God of Christianity - in such case I like to think that God is purely a religious belief - based upon a fairly narrow definition according to bible - and as such cannot be related meaningfully to the full spectrum of human insight. In that case we are dealing with pure religion - and pure religion easily flame any discussion because one cannot discuss pure beliefs.
If God on the other hand is being defined according to broader terms like in pantheism or panentheism - the concept of god makes sense to me. And if anyone asked me to define god - it would be something like: - "the shape that is put in the object of sameness" - and with this definition I fully accept that we have come no nearer to an insight in the very question of Origin.
A much more delicate question is the question about the very concept of "existence"
Excerpt from Wiki says: "In common usage, existence is the world of which we are aware through our senses, but in philosophy the word has a more specialized meaning, and is often contrasted with essence. Philosophers investigate questions such as "What exists?" "How do we know?" "To what extent are the senses a reliable guide to existence?" "What is the meaning, if any, of assertions of the existence of categories, ideas, and abstractions."
In this Forum there would seem to be this favoritism toward the first meaning - awareness through our senses, and senses is not only our physical senses but must include everything which can be decoded by our senses such as physical measuring devices.
However - physical senses - they are not into existence per SE - their existence is in my mind a result of something even more fundamental to be into existence.
Put differently - in order for something to be into existence - there must be something to effect this existence - and for that to exist there must be something even more fundamental and so on - and any "proof" for existence will be circular - as I see it.
My simple thinking is satisfied by saying that existence is thanks to the mind of the beholder (Descartes) - and that science is dealing with the process of formulating and establishing consensus on how the minds of the beholders shall perceive.
I am not ready to accept the simplistic reasoning that existence is solely a question whether something can be "measured" by "physical" means - and that "science" accordingly should be restricted to such kind of activities. And I am not readily accepting that physics per SE can be expressed via math terms.
In a recent discussion in another thread I had the following comment from our moderator rpenner:
"QUOTE (bukh @ Sep 27 2009, 01:52 PM)
Formal math is not suited to express the above (mechanics of spacetime) - in its present math form - as I see it.
Anyhow I have no math skills so math is not and will never be part of the game in my world.
rpenner: "Then you aren't talking science."
I like to take the view that math-numbers in its present form is not suited to give a satisfactory description of the "mechanics of spacetime" with the paradox of existence and smoothness involved - with the paradox of motion and existence involved - [Moderator: Good. Take your view --- somewhere else, because it isn't useful and science is useful, so your view is not science]
And because math is a derived function of human mind - it is unlikely that math will ever be able to describe such paradoxes - unlikely is probably too weak a word, instead one can say that math per SE will never be able to explain such paradoxes. [Moderator: Another example of how you are not useful. What tools should be used to describe the universe which is not a product of the human mind? Also, math is very remote from human intuition, and as you describe no actual paradoxes or math, it seems you have failed to make your case.]
RobDegraves:
"I will continue to base my actions on the idea that atoms exist and that I have no idea if God(s) do."
Well - I think that atom is a nice metaphor, and most subjects (including myself) base their actions on this idea, but the mere perceiving of atom by our physical senses is not a proof for its existence - not at all.
I would like to answer with the questions
What is "god" ? - and what is "exist" ?
If god is being defined as God of Christianity - in such case I like to think that God is purely a religious belief - based upon a fairly narrow definition according to bible - and as such cannot be related meaningfully to the full spectrum of human insight. In that case we are dealing with pure religion - and pure religion easily flame any discussion because one cannot discuss pure beliefs.
If God on the other hand is being defined according to broader terms like in pantheism or panentheism - the concept of god makes sense to me. And if anyone asked me to define god - it would be something like: - "the shape that is put in the object of sameness" - and with this definition I fully accept that we have come no nearer to an insight in the very question of Origin.
A much more delicate question is the question about the very concept of "existence"
Excerpt from Wiki says: "In common usage, existence is the world of which we are aware through our senses, but in philosophy the word has a more specialized meaning, and is often contrasted with essence. Philosophers investigate questions such as "What exists?" "How do we know?" "To what extent are the senses a reliable guide to existence?" "What is the meaning, if any, of assertions of the existence of categories, ideas, and abstractions."
In this Forum there would seem to be this favoritism toward the first meaning - awareness through our senses, and senses is not only our physical senses but must include everything which can be decoded by our senses such as physical measuring devices.
However - physical senses - they are not into existence per SE - their existence is in my mind a result of something even more fundamental to be into existence.
Put differently - in order for something to be into existence - there must be something to effect this existence - and for that to exist there must be something even more fundamental and so on - and any "proof" for existence will be circular - as I see it.
My simple thinking is satisfied by saying that existence is thanks to the mind of the beholder (Descartes) - and that science is dealing with the process of formulating and establishing consensus on how the minds of the beholders shall perceive.
I am not ready to accept the simplistic reasoning that existence is solely a question whether something can be "measured" by "physical" means - and that "science" accordingly should be restricted to such kind of activities. And I am not readily accepting that physics per SE can be expressed via math terms.
In a recent discussion in another thread I had the following comment from our moderator rpenner:
"QUOTE (bukh @ Sep 27 2009, 01:52 PM)
Formal math is not suited to express the above (mechanics of spacetime) - in its present math form - as I see it.
Anyhow I have no math skills so math is not and will never be part of the game in my world.
rpenner: "Then you aren't talking science."
I like to take the view that math-numbers in its present form is not suited to give a satisfactory description of the "mechanics of spacetime" with the paradox of existence and smoothness involved - with the paradox of motion and existence involved - [Moderator: Good. Take your view --- somewhere else, because it isn't useful and science is useful, so your view is not science]
And because math is a derived function of human mind - it is unlikely that math will ever be able to describe such paradoxes - unlikely is probably too weak a word, instead one can say that math per SE will never be able to explain such paradoxes. [Moderator: Another example of how you are not useful. What tools should be used to describe the universe which is not a product of the human mind? Also, math is very remote from human intuition, and as you describe no actual paradoxes or math, it seems you have failed to make your case.]
RobDegraves:
"I will continue to base my actions on the idea that atoms exist and that I have no idea if God(s) do."
Well - I think that atom is a nice metaphor, and most subjects (including myself) base their actions on this idea, but the mere perceiving of atom by our physical senses is not a proof for its existence - not at all.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 4 2009, 04:56 AM)
I believe that Dawkins likes to say "There is (probably) no god."
He is careful to avoid the absolute form of that statement, though he usually follows this up with "There is also (probably) no magical teapot in orbit around the moon."
Dawkins is also careful to keep his professional science work and his works of opinion separate.
He wrote "The Selfish Gene" as a science book, but he wrote "The God Delusion" as an explanation of his opinions.
If you want a good read on modern evolutionary theory, I definitely recommend "The Selfish Gene."
I stand corrected. he says there is probably no god.
i have not yet received the other book i ordered. I hope he is not going to attempt to reconcile science with Genesis.
I think it rather absurd for anyone to attempt to reconcile science with, say Genesis. If for no other reason than Genesis provides nothing concerning science as far as I can tell.
I have never liked the little I saw from "creation science" simply because I thought it was ridiculous for the most part.
I was asked a question on the Dawkins forum as regarding if I am a "hypothetical creationists". My response was "I hope not". I believe God created the universe and man.
how anyone can read Genesis and come away with some of the stuff I have read..... first it does not contain science so..... second, there is simply not enough information to come away with the details many conclude. no wonder it is all over the map.
I never had a problem with the body of evidence in evolution because it would 'interfere' with my belief in God. there simply is not enough information here either. gee, I could toss out Genesis based on physics alone in 30 seconds.
my difficulty in believing the body of evidence we have can account for "pre big bang to now" has nothing to do with the Bible. my views are basically the same as they were long before I read the Bible. Evolution "from chemicals to human" just doesn't yet have enough for conclusiveness. Besides the fact that the origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution. Abiogenesis being the consensus - well, we really have a long way to go here. same conclusion I came to when i was a pagan studying physics.
I would love to see Dawkins scientifically demonstrate his conclusion of "probably".
at least provide the probability with 'science' and statistics.
I would love to see Dawkins make the clear distinction in his interviews as to which conclusions are based strictly on science, and when he takes these conclusions, adds logic, and or philosophy to come to the end conclusions. Maybe asking for too much here. Maybe he could state the estimated probability when he uses the word probable. its just a number and wouldn't' take up too much room.
then again I would like to see some rigorous honesty and less bias amongst those who purport to fit science into the narrative of the account of a supernatural event or process. Also need to include the rigorous study of the Hebrew language, style of writing, verb forms, understanding of the audience, etc..... as any of us would have to understand in order to dissect it.
personally i think the whole "debate" is rather ridiculous as it appears to me that we are arguing about something that really doesn't even exist, I think. I really don't understand what the 'debate' is.
if it is about the existence of God - that has nothing to do with science.
I don't even know what the problem is.
He is careful to avoid the absolute form of that statement, though he usually follows this up with "There is also (probably) no magical teapot in orbit around the moon."
Dawkins is also careful to keep his professional science work and his works of opinion separate.
He wrote "The Selfish Gene" as a science book, but he wrote "The God Delusion" as an explanation of his opinions.
If you want a good read on modern evolutionary theory, I definitely recommend "The Selfish Gene."
I stand corrected. he says there is probably no god.
i have not yet received the other book i ordered. I hope he is not going to attempt to reconcile science with Genesis.
I think it rather absurd for anyone to attempt to reconcile science with, say Genesis. If for no other reason than Genesis provides nothing concerning science as far as I can tell.
I have never liked the little I saw from "creation science" simply because I thought it was ridiculous for the most part.
I was asked a question on the Dawkins forum as regarding if I am a "hypothetical creationists". My response was "I hope not". I believe God created the universe and man.
how anyone can read Genesis and come away with some of the stuff I have read..... first it does not contain science so..... second, there is simply not enough information to come away with the details many conclude. no wonder it is all over the map.
I never had a problem with the body of evidence in evolution because it would 'interfere' with my belief in God. there simply is not enough information here either. gee, I could toss out Genesis based on physics alone in 30 seconds.
my difficulty in believing the body of evidence we have can account for "pre big bang to now" has nothing to do with the Bible. my views are basically the same as they were long before I read the Bible. Evolution "from chemicals to human" just doesn't yet have enough for conclusiveness. Besides the fact that the origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution. Abiogenesis being the consensus - well, we really have a long way to go here. same conclusion I came to when i was a pagan studying physics.
I would love to see Dawkins scientifically demonstrate his conclusion of "probably".
at least provide the probability with 'science' and statistics.
I would love to see Dawkins make the clear distinction in his interviews as to which conclusions are based strictly on science, and when he takes these conclusions, adds logic, and or philosophy to come to the end conclusions. Maybe asking for too much here. Maybe he could state the estimated probability when he uses the word probable. its just a number and wouldn't' take up too much room.
then again I would like to see some rigorous honesty and less bias amongst those who purport to fit science into the narrative of the account of a supernatural event or process. Also need to include the rigorous study of the Hebrew language, style of writing, verb forms, understanding of the audience, etc..... as any of us would have to understand in order to dissect it.
personally i think the whole "debate" is rather ridiculous as it appears to me that we are arguing about something that really doesn't even exist, I think. I really don't understand what the 'debate' is.
if it is about the existence of God - that has nothing to do with science.
I don't even know what the problem is.
I'm not making a book recomendation, but I have not found arguing head on with scientific evidence against religion particularly fruitfull. I mean Shakespeare only used words and he did alright in making points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Future_of_An_Illusion
I haven't read that book or even any of Dawkins stuff either
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Future_of_An_Illusion
I haven't read that book or even any of Dawkins stuff either
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Oct 6 2009, 03:33 PM)
I'm not making a book recomendation, but I have not found arguing head on with scientific evidence against religion particularly fruitfull. I mean Shakespeare only used words and he did alright in making points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Future_of_An_Illusion
I haven't read that book or even any of Dawkins stuff either
don't know about religion, but using science to argue for or against something supernatural seems rather ridiculous. to use the results of science, take the results, conclusions, hypotheses, theories, ..... then throw in logic, philosophy.... that is a horse of a different color.
but wouldn't that belong on a forum with a name other than "physics forum"???
I hastily got on here because it was one of incredibly limited forums i found when searching for "mind of god forum".
almost as ridiculous as using science to critique a narrative of a supernatural event.
gtg, I am conducting scientific experiments to determine the probability of the tooth fairy gathering 1000000000 teeth in a given 8 hour period. I am guessing she "probably" doesn't exist, but that statement will have to be backed up with my methods and data if it is to have any scientific basis. And, after all, since my audience is under the loose assumption that my conclusions are based on science, I would not want to appear to operate under less than rigorous honesty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Future_of_An_Illusion
I haven't read that book or even any of Dawkins stuff either
don't know about religion, but using science to argue for or against something supernatural seems rather ridiculous. to use the results of science, take the results, conclusions, hypotheses, theories, ..... then throw in logic, philosophy.... that is a horse of a different color.
but wouldn't that belong on a forum with a name other than "physics forum"???
I hastily got on here because it was one of incredibly limited forums i found when searching for "mind of god forum".
almost as ridiculous as using science to critique a narrative of a supernatural event.
gtg, I am conducting scientific experiments to determine the probability of the tooth fairy gathering 1000000000 teeth in a given 8 hour period. I am guessing she "probably" doesn't exist, but that statement will have to be backed up with my methods and data if it is to have any scientific basis. And, after all, since my audience is under the loose assumption that my conclusions are based on science, I would not want to appear to operate under less than rigorous honesty.
QUOTE (debrajo+Oct 6 2009, 01:14 PM)
don't know about religion, but using science to argue for or against something supernatural seems rather ridiculous. to use the results of science, take the results, conclusions, hypotheses, theories, ..... then throw in logic, philosophy.... that is a horse of a different color.
but wouldn't that belong on a forum with a name other than "physics forum"???
I hastily got on here because it was one of incredibly limited forums i found when searching for "mind of god forum".
almost as ridiculous as using science to critique a narrative of a supernatural event.
gtg, I am conducting scientific experiments to determine the probability of the tooth fairy gathering 1000000000 teeth in a given 8 hour period. I am guessing she "probably" doesn't exist, but that statement will have to be backed up with my methods and data if it is to have any scientific basis. And, after all, since my audience is under the loose assumption that my conclusions are based on science, I would not want to appear to operate under less than rigorous honesty.
There is a way that science can study the supernatural if it is viewed within the framework of psychology. No matter what your religious persuasion, most people will agree that some religious experiences are "faked" insomuch as the experience was brought on by a certain mental state. Consider it a supernatural "placebo effect." If you want to have a religious experience, you WILL have a religious experience.
but wouldn't that belong on a forum with a name other than "physics forum"???
I hastily got on here because it was one of incredibly limited forums i found when searching for "mind of god forum".
almost as ridiculous as using science to critique a narrative of a supernatural event.
gtg, I am conducting scientific experiments to determine the probability of the tooth fairy gathering 1000000000 teeth in a given 8 hour period. I am guessing she "probably" doesn't exist, but that statement will have to be backed up with my methods and data if it is to have any scientific basis. And, after all, since my audience is under the loose assumption that my conclusions are based on science, I would not want to appear to operate under less than rigorous honesty.
There is a way that science can study the supernatural if it is viewed within the framework of psychology. No matter what your religious persuasion, most people will agree that some religious experiences are "faked" insomuch as the experience was brought on by a certain mental state. Consider it a supernatural "placebo effect." If you want to have a religious experience, you WILL have a religious experience.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 6 2009, 06:02 PM)
There is a way that science can study the supernatural if it is viewed within the framework of psychology. No matter what your religious persuasion, most people will agree that some religious experiences are "faked" insomuch as the experience was brought on by a certain mental state. Consider it a supernatural "placebo effect." If you want to have a religious experience, you WILL have a religious experience.
my apologies. I was limiting the word science to be roughly "the tools we use to understand that which is in the physical realm". by this definition, using it to analyze the supernatural is not possible. that is not within the realm of science (understanding that which can be observed.... the natural world, the physical universe... )
I could provide you with more than AMPLE demonstrations of what I would consider to be 'not real' in the realm of 'supernatural experiences'. I really don't care as that is for the psychologists. great branch of study, just not my cup of tea.
i read on this forum or the other one I am on (Richard Dawkins) that someone conducted an experiment in which he applied a magnetic field to the brain and the subjects had "experiences". some 'religious'. (I hope i got that right)
BTW, i had a client who developed the vagus nerve stimulator (name correct??) this is so cool - dint' know where he is on it now but a couple of years ago they were testing the "Cadillac" version to treat depression. OMG, the subjects would change their mood/emotions DRASTICALLY in response to the changes being made on the REMOTE device thingy. that is freaking scary.
my apologies. I was limiting the word science to be roughly "the tools we use to understand that which is in the physical realm". by this definition, using it to analyze the supernatural is not possible. that is not within the realm of science (understanding that which can be observed.... the natural world, the physical universe... )
I could provide you with more than AMPLE demonstrations of what I would consider to be 'not real' in the realm of 'supernatural experiences'. I really don't care as that is for the psychologists. great branch of study, just not my cup of tea.
i read on this forum or the other one I am on (Richard Dawkins) that someone conducted an experiment in which he applied a magnetic field to the brain and the subjects had "experiences". some 'religious'. (I hope i got that right)
BTW, i had a client who developed the vagus nerve stimulator (name correct??) this is so cool - dint' know where he is on it now but a couple of years ago they were testing the "Cadillac" version to treat depression. OMG, the subjects would change their mood/emotions DRASTICALLY in response to the changes being made on the REMOTE device thingy. that is freaking scary.
QUOTE (debrajo+Oct 6 2009, 02:15 PM)
I could provide you with more than AMPLE demonstrations of what I would consider to be 'not real' in the realm of 'supernatural experiences'. I really don't care as that is for the psychologists. great branch of study, just not my cup of tea.
i read on this forum or the other one I am on (Richard Dawkins) that someone conducted an experiment in which he applied a magnetic field to the brain and the subjects had "experiences". some 'religious'. (I hope i got that right)
BTW, i had a client who developed the vagus nerve stimulator (name correct??) this is so cool - dint' know where he is on it now but a couple of years ago they were testing the "Cadillac" version to treat depression. OMG, the subjects would change their mood/emotions DRASTICALLY in response to the changes being made on the REMOTE device thingy. that is freaking scary.
When I was a teenager, I prayed for the ability to "speak in tongues." I prayed for this a lot, thinking that it would bring my relationship with god to the next level. Eventually, I got it. At first I could speak a single syllable, then I started speaking in more and more, until I was speaking in full-on gibberish.
On other occasions, I have wanted an experience with god so badly that it actually happened.
When you want something to happen really really badly, your brain can play tricks on you.
BTW, I can still "speak in tongues" and it's the same gibberish that it's always been.
i read on this forum or the other one I am on (Richard Dawkins) that someone conducted an experiment in which he applied a magnetic field to the brain and the subjects had "experiences". some 'religious'. (I hope i got that right)
BTW, i had a client who developed the vagus nerve stimulator (name correct??) this is so cool - dint' know where he is on it now but a couple of years ago they were testing the "Cadillac" version to treat depression. OMG, the subjects would change their mood/emotions DRASTICALLY in response to the changes being made on the REMOTE device thingy. that is freaking scary.
When I was a teenager, I prayed for the ability to "speak in tongues." I prayed for this a lot, thinking that it would bring my relationship with god to the next level. Eventually, I got it. At first I could speak a single syllable, then I started speaking in more and more, until I was speaking in full-on gibberish.
On other occasions, I have wanted an experience with god so badly that it actually happened.
When you want something to happen really really badly, your brain can play tricks on you.
BTW, I can still "speak in tongues" and it's the same gibberish that it's always been.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Oct 6 2009, 07:58 PM)
Debrajo
You might like this...
The physics of Santa
we need to work out the analogy for the supernatural santa, using the laws of the supernatural.... i think i have them somewhere.
actually that problem should be in a beginning physics course.
You might like this...
The physics of Santa
we need to work out the analogy for the supernatural santa, using the laws of the supernatural.... i think i have them somewhere.
actually that problem should be in a beginning physics course.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 6 2009, 06:22 PM)
When I was a teenager, I prayed for the ability to "speak in tongues." I prayed for this a lot, thinking that it would bring my relationship with god to the next level. Eventually, I got it. At first I could speak a single syllable, then I started speaking in more and more, until I was speaking in full-on gibberish.
On other occasions, I have wanted an experience with god so badly that it actually happened.
When you want something to happen really really badly, your brain can play tricks on you.
BTW, I can still "speak in tongues" and it's the same gibberish that it's always been.
here she comes on a honda. start off slowly, then run it together.... repeatedly.
hereshecomesonahonda
i have others to add variety....
seemybowtietiemybowtie....
I have also witnessed the translations of such. couldn't say one way or the other if it was legit.
i am sorry you had those experiences. I would have to assume there was some information from some people that led you to seek an experience in this manner. i have a great deal of passion in the area of 'well meaning.......that leads to .... "
If good intentions or man made constructs define God.... I'll pass. (Please don't turn this into a post on God being a man made construct.... that was not the intention to convey. I will NOT tell you He is NOT a man made construct.
PS I too have had incredibly similar experiences. That practically could have been me writing that. I have offended my share of pastors, church goers, Christians, etc... OH, I even got 'excommunicated' once. dint know what terminology was used. I think it was determined I had a demon or something. I respectfully asked them to cite the scripture that says it is agings the rules to have a demon. Got kicked out anyway. "...raised up against the leadership" was cited publicly at the pulpit.
i think i still do (offend), but that is not my goal. I suppose one reason I don't attend church is because sooner or later i will probably confront something that I just won't remain silent on....
On other occasions, I have wanted an experience with god so badly that it actually happened.
When you want something to happen really really badly, your brain can play tricks on you.
BTW, I can still "speak in tongues" and it's the same gibberish that it's always been.
here she comes on a honda. start off slowly, then run it together.... repeatedly.
hereshecomesonahonda
i have others to add variety....
seemybowtietiemybowtie....
I have also witnessed the translations of such. couldn't say one way or the other if it was legit.
i am sorry you had those experiences. I would have to assume there was some information from some people that led you to seek an experience in this manner. i have a great deal of passion in the area of 'well meaning.......that leads to .... "
If good intentions or man made constructs define God.... I'll pass. (Please don't turn this into a post on God being a man made construct.... that was not the intention to convey. I will NOT tell you He is NOT a man made construct.
PS I too have had incredibly similar experiences. That practically could have been me writing that. I have offended my share of pastors, church goers, Christians, etc... OH, I even got 'excommunicated' once. dint know what terminology was used. I think it was determined I had a demon or something. I respectfully asked them to cite the scripture that says it is agings the rules to have a demon. Got kicked out anyway. "...raised up against the leadership" was cited publicly at the pulpit.
i think i still do (offend), but that is not my goal. I suppose one reason I don't attend church is because sooner or later i will probably confront something that I just won't remain silent on....
QUOTE (debrajo+Oct 6 2009, 04:49 PM)
I have also witnessed the translations of such. couldn't say one way or the other if it was legit.
i am sorry you had those experiences. I would have to assume there was some information from some people that led you to seek an experience in this manner. i have a great deal of passion in the area of 'well meaning.......that leads to .... "
If good intentions or man made constructs define God.... I'll pass. (Please don't turn this into a post on God being a man made construct.... that was not the intention to convey. I will NOT tell you He is NOT a man made construct.
PS I too have had incredibly similar experiences. That practically could have been me writing that. I have offended my share of pastors, church goers, Christians, etc... OH, I even got 'excommunicated' once. dint know what terminology was used. I think it was determined I had a demon or something. I respectfully asked them to cite the scripture that says it is agings the rules to have a demon. Got kicked out anyway. "...raised up against the leadership" was cited publicly at the pulpit.
i think i still do (offend), but that is not my goal. I suppose one reason I don't attend church is because sooner or later i will probably confront something that I just won't remain silent on....
I guess the main difference between you and I is that I chose to abandon the concept of god altogether soon after I became disenfranchised with the church. No lie, reading "The God Delusion" helped that along quite a bit.
I wasn't kicked out as much as I felt alienated from my churchgoing friends. I was studying Astronomy at the time, and I had just discovered that my life-long assumptions about radioactive dating methods were based on anecdotes and not on reality. I was pissed that the church for perpetrating lies about science and seemingly arbitrary moral standards. None of my Christian friends were the least bit interested in the realities of science, so I had no framework with which to stay with the faith. If I had had a Christian friend who understood these things, I don't think I would have become an atheist.
But alas, here I am. I don't have any desire to go back, and I am very happy with my life sans ridiculous moral standards. Specifically, that whole "virgin till marriage" thing isn't my style.
i am sorry you had those experiences. I would have to assume there was some information from some people that led you to seek an experience in this manner. i have a great deal of passion in the area of 'well meaning.......that leads to .... "
If good intentions or man made constructs define God.... I'll pass. (Please don't turn this into a post on God being a man made construct.... that was not the intention to convey. I will NOT tell you He is NOT a man made construct.
PS I too have had incredibly similar experiences. That practically could have been me writing that. I have offended my share of pastors, church goers, Christians, etc... OH, I even got 'excommunicated' once. dint know what terminology was used. I think it was determined I had a demon or something. I respectfully asked them to cite the scripture that says it is agings the rules to have a demon. Got kicked out anyway. "...raised up against the leadership" was cited publicly at the pulpit.
i think i still do (offend), but that is not my goal. I suppose one reason I don't attend church is because sooner or later i will probably confront something that I just won't remain silent on....
I guess the main difference between you and I is that I chose to abandon the concept of god altogether soon after I became disenfranchised with the church. No lie, reading "The God Delusion" helped that along quite a bit.
I wasn't kicked out as much as I felt alienated from my churchgoing friends. I was studying Astronomy at the time, and I had just discovered that my life-long assumptions about radioactive dating methods were based on anecdotes and not on reality. I was pissed that the church for perpetrating lies about science and seemingly arbitrary moral standards. None of my Christian friends were the least bit interested in the realities of science, so I had no framework with which to stay with the faith. If I had had a Christian friend who understood these things, I don't think I would have become an atheist.
But alas, here I am. I don't have any desire to go back, and I am very happy with my life sans ridiculous moral standards. Specifically, that whole "virgin till marriage" thing isn't my style.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 6 2009, 09:14 PM)
I guess the main difference between you and I is that I chose to abandon the concept of god altogether soon after I became disenfranchised with the church. No lie, reading "The God Delusion" helped that along quite a bit.
I wasn't kicked out as much as I felt alienated from my churchgoing friends. I was studying Astronomy at the time, and I had just discovered that my life-long assumptions about radioactive dating methods were based on anecdotes and not on reality. I was pissed that the church for perpetrating lies about science and seemingly arbitrary moral standards. None of my Christian friends were the least bit interested in the realities of science, so I had no framework with which to stay with the faith. If I had had a Christian friend who understood these things, I don't think I would have become an atheist.
But alas, here I am. I don't have any desire to go back, and I am very happy with my life sans ridiculous moral standards. Specifically, that whole "virgin till marriage" thing isn't my style.
i am regularly reminded of my gratitude that i was 'unchurched' growing up. i am even more grateful that i had my "Jesus moment" a few years before i tried the modern day institution we call 'church', for lack of a better word. actually i am grateful that i had my 'moment' a few years before i picked up a bible.
it took so much effort to erase the 'blackboard of my mind' concerning that which i had learned concerning the bible, and i didn't even attend church!!
of course i taught my kids what i believe, but with a purpose i made sure their time in church was limited. (in for awhile, then have to back out before the indoctrination could 'take') when my first child, at a young age, told me, "I don't think i believe in God". I said, OK.
i was always like an outsider looking in as concerns the 'church'. finally, i quit 'looking in' as i cannot bear what i see. I try to refrain from criticism as i do not wish to be critical of The Body of Christ. But at some point it seems the distinction between that and the institution we are building needs to be made. I am just not so sure that, other than on a personal level, that distinction involves me.
it was only one from which i was 'kicked out' and that one was somewhat of a 'fringe' church. the "mainstream" institution does not do that... directly.
gee, if we lived in close proximity, and the 'no sex outside of marriage' was not my thing either......
I wasn't kicked out as much as I felt alienated from my churchgoing friends. I was studying Astronomy at the time, and I had just discovered that my life-long assumptions about radioactive dating methods were based on anecdotes and not on reality. I was pissed that the church for perpetrating lies about science and seemingly arbitrary moral standards. None of my Christian friends were the least bit interested in the realities of science, so I had no framework with which to stay with the faith. If I had had a Christian friend who understood these things, I don't think I would have become an atheist.
But alas, here I am. I don't have any desire to go back, and I am very happy with my life sans ridiculous moral standards. Specifically, that whole "virgin till marriage" thing isn't my style.
i am regularly reminded of my gratitude that i was 'unchurched' growing up. i am even more grateful that i had my "Jesus moment" a few years before i tried the modern day institution we call 'church', for lack of a better word. actually i am grateful that i had my 'moment' a few years before i picked up a bible.
it took so much effort to erase the 'blackboard of my mind' concerning that which i had learned concerning the bible, and i didn't even attend church!!
of course i taught my kids what i believe, but with a purpose i made sure their time in church was limited. (in for awhile, then have to back out before the indoctrination could 'take') when my first child, at a young age, told me, "I don't think i believe in God". I said, OK.
i was always like an outsider looking in as concerns the 'church'. finally, i quit 'looking in' as i cannot bear what i see. I try to refrain from criticism as i do not wish to be critical of The Body of Christ. But at some point it seems the distinction between that and the institution we are building needs to be made. I am just not so sure that, other than on a personal level, that distinction involves me.
it was only one from which i was 'kicked out' and that one was somewhat of a 'fringe' church. the "mainstream" institution does not do that... directly.
gee, if we lived in close proximity, and the 'no sex outside of marriage' was not my thing either......
flyingbuttressman,
btw, i make a clear distinction between moralism and Christianity. and there are other christians who do as well, believe it or not
btw, i make a clear distinction between moralism and Christianity. and there are other christians who do as well, believe it or not
QUOTE (debrajo+Oct 6 2009, 07:35 PM)
flyingbuttressman,
btw, i make a clear distinction between moralism and Christianity. and there are other christians who do as well, believe it or not
Christianity seems to have quite a few "tag along" ideas that have unclear origins, and have little basis in biblical texts.
My church was trying to promote a "courtship" style of romance, which never really appealed to me. The church leaders tried to pass it off as the ideal Christian relationship, but it's just a form of dating for those who don't like the word "dating."
Among other things, they tried to teach that Jesus wants us all to be economically successful; the so-called "prosperity gospel." I'm sorry, but if there's one thing that Jesus said about money, it's that money is bad. It is better to be poor than to be rich. Obviously, that's counter to what most people want in life, so they change their beliefs to fit their material desires.
Jesus advocated peace, yet his name is used to justify wars. And to top it all off, I give you this piece of work: Conservative Bible Project.
btw, i make a clear distinction between moralism and Christianity. and there are other christians who do as well, believe it or not
Christianity seems to have quite a few "tag along" ideas that have unclear origins, and have little basis in biblical texts.
My church was trying to promote a "courtship" style of romance, which never really appealed to me. The church leaders tried to pass it off as the ideal Christian relationship, but it's just a form of dating for those who don't like the word "dating."
Among other things, they tried to teach that Jesus wants us all to be economically successful; the so-called "prosperity gospel." I'm sorry, but if there's one thing that Jesus said about money, it's that money is bad. It is better to be poor than to be rich. Obviously, that's counter to what most people want in life, so they change their beliefs to fit their material desires.
Jesus advocated peace, yet his name is used to justify wars. And to top it all off, I give you this piece of work: Conservative Bible Project.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 6 2009, 11:45 PM)
Christianity seems to have quite a few "tag along" ideas that have unclear origins, and have little basis in biblical texts.
My church was trying to promote a "courtship" style of romance, which never really appealed to me. The church leaders tried to pass it off as the ideal Christian relationship, but it's just a form of dating for those who don't like the word "dating."
Among other things, they tried to teach that Jesus wants us all to be economically successful; the so-called "prosperity gospel." I'm sorry, but if there's one thing that Jesus said about money, it's that money is bad. It is better to be poor than to be rich. Obviously, that's counter to what most people want in life, so they change their beliefs to fit their material desires.
Jesus advocated peace, yet his name is used to justify wars. And to top it all off, I give you this piece of work: Conservative Bible Project.
i did click on the link, but.... sorry, i just couldn't stick with it long enuf to have a semblence of an idea of wth they are talking about.
I will take your word for it that it is not something to which i would subscribe. maybe go back later.
pardon being blunt, but "a few 'tag along' ideas" is being incredibly gracious.
i know a bit about the courtship dating thing. i could say one thing good for it--- i am thinking that, within those cultures who practice such things, there are probably less 'undesirable consequences'. Either way, it is still ..... don't want to go there.
money is the root of "many kinds" of evil, i think it states. According to text, Solomon was not only the wisest but also the richest. i don't think the text teaches that money in itself is evil,,,,, but there is still the "getting the camel through the eye of the needle"....
prosperity gospel.... still looking for that gospel in the text... lol
i know this is a physics forum, but it seems other stuff is ok.... so...
i suppose if a child is reared in a community where hoe's are used to maim and kill people, he will come out believing that hoe's are for maiming and killing people. when he sees someone preparing the soil in the garden..... there's no telling what his response may be.
I like this forum. sort of like I like folks who hang out in bars in contrast to folks who hang out in "the modern day institution we call church".
OH wait. i heard this thing .... major biblical teacher of today (one i listen to) ... he told of a man who's father kept hanging out at AA meetings after his wife died. Son says, "dad, I had no idea u were an alcoholic... " Dad says, "I'm not, I just love the fellowship".
My church was trying to promote a "courtship" style of romance, which never really appealed to me. The church leaders tried to pass it off as the ideal Christian relationship, but it's just a form of dating for those who don't like the word "dating."
Among other things, they tried to teach that Jesus wants us all to be economically successful; the so-called "prosperity gospel." I'm sorry, but if there's one thing that Jesus said about money, it's that money is bad. It is better to be poor than to be rich. Obviously, that's counter to what most people want in life, so they change their beliefs to fit their material desires.
Jesus advocated peace, yet his name is used to justify wars. And to top it all off, I give you this piece of work: Conservative Bible Project.
i did click on the link, but.... sorry, i just couldn't stick with it long enuf to have a semblence of an idea of wth they are talking about.
I will take your word for it that it is not something to which i would subscribe. maybe go back later.
pardon being blunt, but "a few 'tag along' ideas" is being incredibly gracious.
i know a bit about the courtship dating thing. i could say one thing good for it--- i am thinking that, within those cultures who practice such things, there are probably less 'undesirable consequences'. Either way, it is still ..... don't want to go there.
money is the root of "many kinds" of evil, i think it states. According to text, Solomon was not only the wisest but also the richest. i don't think the text teaches that money in itself is evil,,,,, but there is still the "getting the camel through the eye of the needle"....
prosperity gospel.... still looking for that gospel in the text... lol
i know this is a physics forum, but it seems other stuff is ok.... so...
i suppose if a child is reared in a community where hoe's are used to maim and kill people, he will come out believing that hoe's are for maiming and killing people. when he sees someone preparing the soil in the garden..... there's no telling what his response may be.
I like this forum. sort of like I like folks who hang out in bars in contrast to folks who hang out in "the modern day institution we call church".
OH wait. i heard this thing .... major biblical teacher of today (one i listen to) ... he told of a man who's father kept hanging out at AA meetings after his wife died. Son says, "dad, I had no idea u were an alcoholic... " Dad says, "I'm not, I just love the fellowship".
QUOTE (debrajo+Oct 6 2009, 08:14 PM)
money is the root of "many kinds" of evil, i think it states. According to text, Solomon was not only the wisest but also the richest. i don't think the text teaches that money in itself is evil,,,,, but there is still the "getting the camel through the eye of the needle"....
prosperity gospel.... still looking for that gospel in the text... lol
I think that in cases where the New and Old Testaments seem to be in conflict, the New should override. Solomon was known for his wealth, but he was also known for worshiping other gods.
This is the problem with absolute morality. Moral values coincide with values that promote social stability. That's why murder and theft are almost universally reviled.
This is the problem with absolute morality. Moral values coincide with values that promote social stability. That's why murder and theft are almost universally reviled.
OH wait. i heard this thing .... major biblical teacher of today (one i listen to) ... he told of a man who's father kept hanging out at AA meetings after his wife died. Son says, "dad, I had no idea u were an alcoholic... " Dad says, "I'm not, I just love the fellowship".
Yay internet?
Yay internet?
yay internet!!!
prosperity gospel.... still looking for that gospel in the text... lol
I think that in cases where the New and Old Testaments seem to be in conflict, the New should override. Solomon was known for his wealth, but he was also known for worshiping other gods.
QUOTE
i suppose if a child is reared in a community where hoe's are used to maim and kill people, he will come out believing that hoe's are for maiming and killing people. when he sees someone preparing the soil in the garden..... there's no telling what his response may be.
This is the problem with absolute morality. Moral values coincide with values that promote social stability. That's why murder and theft are almost universally reviled.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| i suppose if a child is reared in a community where hoe's are used to maim and kill people, he will come out believing that hoe's are for maiming and killing people. when he sees someone preparing the soil in the garden..... there's no telling what his response may be. |
This is the problem with absolute morality. Moral values coincide with values that promote social stability. That's why murder and theft are almost universally reviled.
OH wait. i heard this thing .... major biblical teacher of today (one i listen to) ... he told of a man who's father kept hanging out at AA meetings after his wife died. Son says, "dad, I had no idea u were an alcoholic... " Dad says, "I'm not, I just love the fellowship".
Yay internet?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 7 2009, 12:26 AM)
Yay internet?
yay internet!!!
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 7 2009, 12:26 AM)
I think that in cases where the New and Old Testaments seem to be in conflict, the New should override. Solomon was known for his wealth, but he was also known for worshiping other gods.
This is the problem with absolute morality. Moral values coincide with values that promote social stability. That's why murder and theft are almost universally reviled.
Yay internet?
please allow for much grace in my beliefs. I don't think they conflict (OT and NT). I once heard an elderly theologian state that the older he got the more the contradictions became more of 'lack of understanding' and less of "contradiction".
aside: I am not completely convinced that it was God's intent for the NT to be added to the scriptures (take that with a grain of salt please).
that being said, one 'overriding the other' doesn't particularly apply in my mindset... BUT.... i use the OT for the frame of reference... if not obvious, i will expand on this.
moral values.... relative according to the society and the time.... yes???. having trouble here because i believe there is an absolute truth (don't want to argue it), but, I also am having difficulty distinguishing .... moral values. I guess I don't know the definition in this context, so I would be an IDot in stating anything.
Thinking outloud... absolute Truths- i believe there is. But 'absolute morals'.. haven't thought enough to state anything.
Solomon- my understanding is that he did indeed "fall" in that he fell to the lure of 'other gods' through his many wives of other cultures. Ecclesiastes is somewhat of a '.... ' (don't know the word) to this.
my limited understanding of the text is that Solomon was blessed with wisdom (God asked him to make a request and he requested wisdom) but God also gave him riches. He did fall. Directly as a result of the riches.. couldn't conclude that, i don't think. seems the text indicates it was the 'wives of other cultures, with other gods'..... great example of erasing the blackboard of my mind, which i still allow people to write on.... " (I do listen to biblical teachers so the 'erasing' part may seem self defeating, but .... a work in progress)
don't know enuf here, but IMO (which is worth the 'ink' i place here),
If riches THEN fall... don't yet get that from the text.
but.... there is still getting that darned camel thru that needle eye!!
I think it is a VERY STRONG warning concerning riches. that I can conclude. (i think)
This is the problem with absolute morality. Moral values coincide with values that promote social stability. That's why murder and theft are almost universally reviled.
Yay internet?
please allow for much grace in my beliefs. I don't think they conflict (OT and NT). I once heard an elderly theologian state that the older he got the more the contradictions became more of 'lack of understanding' and less of "contradiction".
aside: I am not completely convinced that it was God's intent for the NT to be added to the scriptures (take that with a grain of salt please).
that being said, one 'overriding the other' doesn't particularly apply in my mindset... BUT.... i use the OT for the frame of reference... if not obvious, i will expand on this.
moral values.... relative according to the society and the time.... yes???. having trouble here because i believe there is an absolute truth (don't want to argue it), but, I also am having difficulty distinguishing .... moral values. I guess I don't know the definition in this context, so I would be an IDot in stating anything.
Thinking outloud... absolute Truths- i believe there is. But 'absolute morals'.. haven't thought enough to state anything.
Solomon- my understanding is that he did indeed "fall" in that he fell to the lure of 'other gods' through his many wives of other cultures. Ecclesiastes is somewhat of a '.... ' (don't know the word) to this.
my limited understanding of the text is that Solomon was blessed with wisdom (God asked him to make a request and he requested wisdom) but God also gave him riches. He did fall. Directly as a result of the riches.. couldn't conclude that, i don't think. seems the text indicates it was the 'wives of other cultures, with other gods'..... great example of erasing the blackboard of my mind, which i still allow people to write on.... " (I do listen to biblical teachers so the 'erasing' part may seem self defeating, but .... a work in progress)
don't know enuf here, but IMO (which is worth the 'ink' i place here),
If riches THEN fall... don't yet get that from the text.
but.... there is still getting that darned camel thru that needle eye!!
I think it is a VERY STRONG warning concerning riches. that I can conclude. (i think)
fbm,
why am i sitting at my computer discussing the riches of King Solomon in a forum entitled "physics forums" with a 'not complete stranger who called me a !@# %$@!, when I have never been on a forum prior to last week?
why am i sitting at my computer discussing the riches of King Solomon in a forum entitled "physics forums" with a 'not complete stranger who called me a !@# %$@!, when I have never been on a forum prior to last week?
QUOTE (debrajo+Oct 6 2009, 09:14 PM)
fbm,
why am i sitting at my computer discussing the riches of King Solomon in a forum entitled "physics forums" with a 'not complete stranger who called me a !@# %$@!, when I have never been on a forum prior to last week?
Again, I think this falls under "Yay Internet!"
As for the 'why' I think the answer is probably, "Because there isn't anything else to do."
why am i sitting at my computer discussing the riches of King Solomon in a forum entitled "physics forums" with a 'not complete stranger who called me a !@# %$@!, when I have never been on a forum prior to last week?
Again, I think this falls under "Yay Internet!"
As for the 'why' I think the answer is probably, "Because there isn't anything else to do."
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
Among other things, they tried to teach that Jesus wants us all to be economically successful; the so-called "prosperity gospel." I'm sorry, but if there's one thing that Jesus said about money, it's that money is bad. It is better to be poor than to be rich. Obviously, that's counter to what most people want in life, so they change their beliefs to fit their material desires.
Jesus advocated peace, yet his name is used to justify wars.
flyingbuttressman: Paul warned of those who would preach "another Jesus" and "another gospel". There is also "another spirit" (II Corinthians 11:4) to complete the trifecta...a "losing ticket", in this case. It doesn't surprise me in the least to hear about your encounter with "gibberish tongues". I've dealt with it as a demon on more than one occasion and have seen people delivered from it. Anyhow, you are correct in your rejection of both the "prosperity gospel" and killing in Jesus' name. For whatever that's worth. Take care.
Jesus advocated peace, yet his name is used to justify wars.
flyingbuttressman: Paul warned of those who would preach "another Jesus" and "another gospel". There is also "another spirit" (II Corinthians 11:4) to complete the trifecta...a "losing ticket", in this case. It doesn't surprise me in the least to hear about your encounter with "gibberish tongues". I've dealt with it as a demon on more than one occasion and have seen people delivered from it. Anyhow, you are correct in your rejection of both the "prosperity gospel" and killing in Jesus' name. For whatever that's worth. Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Oct 6 2009, 09:30 PM)
flyingbuttressman: Paul warned of those who would preach "another Jesus" and "another gospel". There is also "another spirit" (II Corinthians 11:4) to complete the trifecta...a "losing ticket", in this case. It doesn't surprise me in the least to hear about your encounter with "gibberish tongues". I've dealt with it as a demon on more than one occasion and have seen people delivered from it. Anyhow, you are correct in your rejection of both the "prosperity gospel" and killing in Jesus' name. For whatever that's worth. Take care.
newguy, your input was neither asked for nor appreciated. Aren't you a little out of your element outside of the Creation/Evolution section? No-one cares about your interpretation of the bible. At least a few Christians are able to ask themselves deep, searching questions about their faith, unlike you and your absolute devotion/fanaticism. Get lost.
newguy, your input was neither asked for nor appreciated. Aren't you a little out of your element outside of the Creation/Evolution section? No-one cares about your interpretation of the bible. At least a few Christians are able to ask themselves deep, searching questions about their faith, unlike you and your absolute devotion/fanaticism. Get lost.
QUOTE (debrajo+)
money is the root of "many kinds" of evil, i think it states.
"But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil, which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love patience, meekness." (I Timothy 6:6-11)
"But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil, which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love patience, meekness." (I Timothy 6:6-11)
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
newguy, your input was neither asked for nor appreciated.
flyingbuttressman: Haven't you heard? It's a free country. Yep, even intolerant bigots like yourself are welcome to post here freely.
flyingbuttressman: Haven't you heard? It's a free country. Yep, even intolerant bigots like yourself are welcome to post here freely.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
Aren't you a little out of your element outside of the Creation/Evolution section?
Not at all. I function quite well everywhere. You? Well, you seem a bit edgy...
Not at all. I function quite well everywhere. You? Well, you seem a bit edgy...
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
No-one cares about your interpretation of the bible.
Actually, quite a large number of people do. They're not all here, mind you, but some are.
Actually, quite a large number of people do. They're not all here, mind you, but some are.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
At least a few Christians are able to ask themselves deep, searching questions about their faith, unlike you and your absolute devotion/fanaticism.
Oh, my. Deluded, too. By the way, I'm a very happy-go-lucky type of guy...regardless of the way that you and others so desperately try to portray me. You? Like I said, you seem a bit edgy...to say the least.
Not at all. I function quite well everywhere. You? Well, you seem a bit edgy...
Oh, my. Deluded, too. By the way, I'm a very happy-go-lucky type of guy...regardless of the way that you and others so desperately try to portray me. You? Like I said, you seem a bit edgy...to say the least.
Oh, my. Deluded, too. By the way, I'm a very happy-go-lucky type of guy...regardless of the way that you and others so desperately try to portray me. You? Like I said, you seem a bit edgy...to say the least.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
Get lost.
I don't take orders from you. Go kick your dog. Take care.
I don't take orders from you. Go kick your dog. Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Oct 6 2009, 09:48 PM)
flyingbuttressman: Haven't you heard? It's a free country. Yep, even intolerant bigots like yourself are welcome to post here freely.
I'm bigoted? WOW, that's a stretch. Did you forget that you think that homosexuality is an abomination? I'm tolerant of everything but intolerance, so I guess that makes me a bigot.
Happy-go-lucky doesn't mean much. In fact, most cult members could be described as such.
I'm bigoted? WOW, that's a stretch. Did you forget that you think that homosexuality is an abomination? I'm tolerant of everything but intolerance, so I guess that makes me a bigot.
QUOTE
Oh, my. Deluded, too. By the way, I'm a very happy-go-lucky type of guy...regardless of the way that you and others so desperately try to portray me. You? Like I said, you seem a bit edgy...to say the least.
Happy-go-lucky doesn't mean much. In fact, most cult members could be described as such.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 7 2009, 01:23 AM)
Again, I think this falls under "Yay Internet!"
As for the 'why' I think the answer is probably, "Because there isn't anything else to do."
are you accusing me of 'not having a life'????
As for the 'why' I think the answer is probably, "Because there isn't anything else to do."
are you accusing me of 'not having a life'????
QUOTE (newguy+Oct 7 2009, 01:48 AM)
Not at all. I function quite well everywhere. You? Well, you seem a bit edgy...
Oh, my. Deluded, too. By the way, I'm a very happy-go-lucky type of guy...regardless of the way that you and others so desperately try to portray me. You? Like I said, you seem a bit edgy...to say the least.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
Get lost.
I don't take orders from you. Go kick your dog. Take care.
newguy,
I take it that you are either "an *** posing as a 'chrisitan' to make Christians look bad" or......
sorry, not enuf intellegence on my part to come to another conclusion. maybe in your infinite wisdom you can enlighten me.
Damn...
If you two can drive off Sata... uh.. Newguy... you are both totally invited to have meaningless dialogue in any thread I am on.
Damn...
If you two can drive off Sata... uh.. Newguy... you are both totally invited to have meaningless dialogue in any thread I am on.
i am completly lost on this one.... but i will gladly drive off santa or satan. which do you prefer?
If you would still prefer to discuss something else, feel free to suggest a topic.
fu
I like to take the view that math-numbers in its present form is not suited to give a satisfactory description of the "mechanics of spacetime" with the paradox of existence and smoothness involved - with the paradox of motion and existence involved - [Moderator: Good. Take your view --- somewhere else, because it isn't useful and science is useful, so your view is not science]
And because math is a derived function of human mind - it is unlikely that math will ever be able to describe such paradoxes - unlikely is probably too weak a word, instead one can say that math per SE will never be able to explain such paradoxes. [Moderator: Another example of how you are not useful. What tools should be used to describe the universe which is not a product of the human mind? Also, math is very remote from human intuition, and as you describe no actual paradoxes or math, it seems you have failed to make your case.]
If I get it rightly - it is not allowed to discuss "non-useful" aspects - and if I get it rightly science is (among others) defined by being useful - and if the criteria of usefulness is not being satisfied - then per definition it is not science - and if it is not science - it is not allowed to being discussed in this Forum.
I wonder how many - or perhaps better say how very few of the posts, that can live up to such criteria. Are we facing a new era ? - At least it calls for a good definition of "being useful". In order for the Forum not to be nearly empty in the future I suggest that all posts dealing exclusively with insults and belittleling per se will be seen as useful and scientific.
Perhaps I was not clear in my statement: "because math is a derived function of human mind - it is unlikely that math will ever be able to describe such paradoxes"
I referred to the problem of smoothness existence (Navier Stoke) and the paradox of motion (Zeno's arrow or the Fletcher paradox). I have not invented or described these problems / paradoxes - I am merely referring to them - and I used them in my question "What is "god" ? - and what is "exist" ?" I cannot see how it is possible to discuss the existence of god without including such questions.
I have said that math is a derived function of human mind - (our moderator may have a different opinion) - and as a consequence of this - it is not possible to describe mathematically (my opinion) the problem and the paradox of existence / smoothness and motion / existence, respectively. To me the concept (I do not know if concept is the right word) of existence is intimately connected with the concept of discreteness and math is intimately connected with the concept of discreteness. What I intend to express is that one cannot use a discrete system to explain a paradox about continuous vs discrete.
Cantor said in his doctoral thesis 1867 "In re mathematica ars propendi pluris facienda est quam solvendi." in translation: in mathematics the art of proposing a question must be held of higher value than solving it.
I think that the paradox of motion and existence is well described by Cantor: "I have never proceeded from any Genus supremum of the actual infinite. Quite the contrary, I have rigorously proved that there is absolutely no Genus supremum of the actual infinite. What surpasses all that is finite and transfinite is no Genus; it is the single, completely individual unity in which everything is included, which includes the Absolute, incomprehensible to the human understanding. This is the Actus Purissimus, which by many is called God."
So when I refer to "mechanical spacetime" and the paradox of motion - and saying that math is not suited for explaining such paradox - I am more apt to lean to Cantor than to moderator. And when moderator ask "what tools should be used to describe universe which is not a product of human mind" - I am lost - because this question has never been an issue - never put forward by me. On the other hand I do not agree with moderator that math is very far from human intuition - math is human intuition expressed in numbers and math terms, and 3D pixel universe is human intuition expressed in terms of objects and shapes in a dynamic system. Human intuition stands behind all insights, it takes skill to perform valid measurements but it is the interpretation (intuition) that makes the insight.
As I understand Cantor, it is not possible to define with absolute accuracy anything without the object in question is being looked at as belonging to something finite that it can be defined out from. "The potential infinite means nothing other than an undetermined, variable quantity, always remaining finite, which has to assume values that either become smaller than any finite limit no matter how small, or greater than any finite limit no matter how great."
I like to see physical world as an actual infinity - smallest particles - which ever they may turn out to be in a physical context (quark or smaller) - meaning accessible to physical senses - consisting of particles which can be described and defined till a certain accuracy and no more. If a higher "precision" is wanted - it is only possible by describing out from a higher infinity - and so on - and given infinitely many infinities the last step is nearly full accuracy - and at the moment that full accuracy is reached the concept of particle goes from infinitely many and turns into one entity - no motion - no physicality.
I like to see a close relationship between the concept of the 3D pixel universe - scale-wise ordered and like Russian Dolls - each Russian Doll representing an aleph - and infinitely deep and complex (fractal and holographic) but all the time with object of sameness preserved. In the event that object of sameness disappear it is the equivalent of no physicality - disappearance of physicality. But there is no problem with object of sameness disappearing into a dimensionless point from the frame of the observer, it just means that the observer cannot see any details except the point - but at a closer look the point transforms into an object with a shape - and this is the information which is put into any object of sameness, information cannot vanish - and the shape of the object of sameness is the ordering system of physical universe. But human is limited in the perceiving of universe to the scale that is the equivalence to human physical senses, the photon/electron scale. Probably what is the equivalent of aleph null.
Universe has the size universe has - and physical is intimately related to ratios of universe - and ratios can have varying accuracies - the more accurate - the more numerous - the higher cardinalities - and infinite infinities is infinitely accurate but outside the real of physicality - it is motionless - it is continuous.
I don't take orders from you. Go kick your dog. Take care.
newguy,
I take it that you are either "an *** posing as a 'chrisitan' to make Christians look bad" or......
sorry, not enuf intellegence on my part to come to another conclusion. maybe in your infinite wisdom you can enlighten me.
fbm,
i think newguy is,,,, maybe jealous??
he did, in fact, manage to completely disrupt an otherwise meaningless dialog with infinitely more meaningless meanness.
i think newguy is,,,, maybe jealous??
he did, in fact, manage to completely disrupt an otherwise meaningless dialog with infinitely more meaningless meanness.
QUOTE (debrajo+Oct 7 2009, 02:11 AM)
are you accusing me of 'not having a life'????
excuse me fbm, but we were having a dialog when, YOU were led astray by an imp of satan (I claim NO evidence, just IMO).
r u so easily distracted???
excuse me fbm, but we were having a dialog when, YOU were led astray by an imp of satan (I claim NO evidence, just IMO).
r u so easily distracted???
QUOTE (debrajo+Oct 6 2009, 10:11 PM)
are you accusing me of 'not having a life'????
I'm looking into the mirror on that one...
newguy fancies himself an authority on Christianity, when in fact he has an extremely narrow interpretation of the scriptures, and he pretty much says that every other religious group and Christian denomination is going to hell. He has a special dislike for Catholicism, and can't grasp the fact that the Catholic Church was responsible for the spread of Christianity to its current extent.
I'm looking into the mirror on that one...
QUOTE
i think newguy is,,,, maybe jealous??
he did, in fact, manage to completely disrupt an otherwise meaningless dialog with infinitely more meaningless meanness.
he did, in fact, manage to completely disrupt an otherwise meaningless dialog with infinitely more meaningless meanness.
newguy fancies himself an authority on Christianity, when in fact he has an extremely narrow interpretation of the scriptures, and he pretty much says that every other religious group and Christian denomination is going to hell. He has a special dislike for Catholicism, and can't grasp the fact that the Catholic Church was responsible for the spread of Christianity to its current extent.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 7 2009, 02:38 AM)
I'm looking into the mirror on that one...
newguy fancies himself an authority on Christianity, when in fact he has an extremely narrow interpretation of the scriptures, and he pretty much says that every other religious group and Christian denomination is going to hell. He has a special dislike for Catholicism, and can't grasp the fact that the Catholic Church was responsible for the spread of Christianity to its current extent.
and you are distracted by him because.......
newguy fancies himself an authority on Christianity, when in fact he has an extremely narrow interpretation of the scriptures, and he pretty much says that every other religious group and Christian denomination is going to hell. He has a special dislike for Catholicism, and can't grasp the fact that the Catholic Church was responsible for the spread of Christianity to its current extent.
and you are distracted by him because.......
QUOTE (debrajo+Oct 6 2009, 10:56 PM)
and you are distracted by him because.......
I had to walk the dog?
I had to walk the dog?
QUOTE (debrajo+)
newguy,
I take it that you are either "an *** posing as a 'chrisitan' to make Christians look bad" or......
sorry, not enuf intellegence on my part to come to another conclusion. maybe in your infinite wisdom you can enlighten me.
debrajo: Although I possess nothing close to "infinite wisdom", I think that I could help you out a little bit.
I basically AGREED with flyingbuttressman's assessments regarding the unbiblical premises of both "the prosperity gospel" and killing in Jesus' name.
flyingbuttressman told me that my input wasn't appreciated, suggested that I was out of my element, told me that no one cares about my interpretation of the Bible, accused me of absolute fanaticism and told me to "Get lost".
You then accused me of "meaningless meanness"?
The *** is apparently you. You can have back your "meaningless dialogue". You two were apparently made for each other. Do try to at least quote the scriptures properly. Good night.
I take it that you are either "an *** posing as a 'chrisitan' to make Christians look bad" or......
sorry, not enuf intellegence on my part to come to another conclusion. maybe in your infinite wisdom you can enlighten me.
debrajo: Although I possess nothing close to "infinite wisdom", I think that I could help you out a little bit.
I basically AGREED with flyingbuttressman's assessments regarding the unbiblical premises of both "the prosperity gospel" and killing in Jesus' name.
flyingbuttressman told me that my input wasn't appreciated, suggested that I was out of my element, told me that no one cares about my interpretation of the Bible, accused me of absolute fanaticism and told me to "Get lost".
You then accused me of "meaningless meanness"?
The *** is apparently you. You can have back your "meaningless dialogue". You two were apparently made for each other. Do try to at least quote the scriptures properly. Good night.
fmb,
i have two labs. i can use that as an excuse... btw,,, i am going to take them out.
i have two labs. i can use that as an excuse... btw,,, i am going to take them out.
debrajo,
newguy indirectly brings up the point: Do you think that the bible is THE authority on god, or do you think that it is a document created by humans trying to describe an indescribable god?
newguy indirectly brings up the point: Do you think that the bible is THE authority on god, or do you think that it is a document created by humans trying to describe an indescribable god?
QUOTE
You can have back your "meaningless dialogue
Damn...
If you two can drive off Sata... uh.. Newguy... you are both totally invited to have meaningless dialogue in any thread I am on.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Oct 7 2009, 03:16 AM)
Damn...
If you two can drive off Sata... uh.. Newguy... you are both totally invited to have meaningless dialogue in any thread I am on.
i am completly lost on this one.... but i will gladly drive off santa or satan. which do you prefer?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 7 2009, 03:08 AM)
debrajo,
newguy indirectly brings up the point: Do you think that the bible is THE authority on god, or do you think that it is a document created by humans trying to describe an indescribable god?
fbm,
do you HAVE to bring up the point thru some indirect dribble of a.....
do you HAVE to bring it up on any account.
just as i was enjoying the dialog you have to ask me such a question.
don't you know that the probability that the answer to such a question will introduce a perturbation on the order of magnatude of x? into our orbit, er, dialog, is so high..... i don't want to take the risk.
newguy indirectly brings up the point: Do you think that the bible is THE authority on god, or do you think that it is a document created by humans trying to describe an indescribable god?
fbm,
do you HAVE to bring up the point thru some indirect dribble of a.....
do you HAVE to bring it up on any account.
just as i was enjoying the dialog you have to ask me such a question.
don't you know that the probability that the answer to such a question will introduce a perturbation on the order of magnatude of x? into our orbit, er, dialog, is so high..... i don't want to take the risk.
QUOTE (debrajo+Oct 6 2009, 11:33 PM)
just as i was enjoying the dialog you have to ask me such a question.
don't you know that the probability that the answer to such a question will introduce a perturbation on the order of magnatude of x? into our orbit, er, dialog, is so high..... i don't want to take the risk.
I bring it up because this philosophical choice determines whether points of view are negotiable or are dictated by a static document. If the bible is to be taken 100% literally, then there are quite a few irreconcilable differences between scientific fact and biblical truth. If we can accept that the bible is the work of divinely inspired humans, and not a flawless document, then I think that we could have many interesting discussions about the implications. A static, literal interpretation does not allow for constructive discussion because it dictates that all the questions are answered. It puts you in an intellectual straitjacket, so-to-speak.
If you would still prefer to discuss something else, feel free to suggest a topic.
don't you know that the probability that the answer to such a question will introduce a perturbation on the order of magnatude of x? into our orbit, er, dialog, is so high..... i don't want to take the risk.
I bring it up because this philosophical choice determines whether points of view are negotiable or are dictated by a static document. If the bible is to be taken 100% literally, then there are quite a few irreconcilable differences between scientific fact and biblical truth. If we can accept that the bible is the work of divinely inspired humans, and not a flawless document, then I think that we could have many interesting discussions about the implications. A static, literal interpretation does not allow for constructive discussion because it dictates that all the questions are answered. It puts you in an intellectual straitjacket, so-to-speak.
If you would still prefer to discuss something else, feel free to suggest a topic.
ok fbm,
since you are now my official "forum buddy" or 'forum friend' or wth.... I did NOT get on here for this %##*#.
but since it is you....
ok. yes. that is the answer to your question.
I believe God is the authority on God. ( I know that is a complete cop-out)
I take the bible as the "word of God" (truth). but i do not assume that every hebrew meaning has been conveyed to us in the way that a hebrew from century x would have understood it.
I do believe that 'it' is inspired by God. I do not believe that the english words we read today are received with the same "meaning" that the hebrew or aramaic words would have been received by the readers of the time (relative to the particular book and period) DUH
that being said. I will state that i do believe that the inspired word of God was preserved. (I acknowledge that this statement is incredibly broad) I will say that I am not convinced that EXACTLY what we read in English and what is conveyed after the filters of language, culture, time, translation, ..... ad infinitum is EXACTLY what was communicated.
I will add the footnote that, IMO, the basic theme is clearly preserved, translated, and conveyed, however illogical to the human mind. That basic theme is the same that was conveyed to Abraham..... he believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness
abraham was not "righteous", neither was David, neither were any of them, except... for One.
***, how did you get me to type this into a box on the freaking internet??
since you are now my official "forum buddy" or 'forum friend' or wth.... I did NOT get on here for this %##*#.
but since it is you....
ok. yes. that is the answer to your question.
I believe God is the authority on God. ( I know that is a complete cop-out)
I take the bible as the "word of God" (truth). but i do not assume that every hebrew meaning has been conveyed to us in the way that a hebrew from century x would have understood it.
I do believe that 'it' is inspired by God. I do not believe that the english words we read today are received with the same "meaning" that the hebrew or aramaic words would have been received by the readers of the time (relative to the particular book and period) DUH
that being said. I will state that i do believe that the inspired word of God was preserved. (I acknowledge that this statement is incredibly broad) I will say that I am not convinced that EXACTLY what we read in English and what is conveyed after the filters of language, culture, time, translation, ..... ad infinitum is EXACTLY what was communicated.
I will add the footnote that, IMO, the basic theme is clearly preserved, translated, and conveyed, however illogical to the human mind. That basic theme is the same that was conveyed to Abraham..... he believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness
abraham was not "righteous", neither was David, neither were any of them, except... for One.
***, how did you get me to type this into a box on the freaking internet??
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 7 2009, 03:43 AM)
I bring it up because this philosophical choice determines whether points of view are negotiable or are dictated by a static document. If the bible is to be taken 100% literally, then there are quite a few irreconcilable differences between scientific fact and biblical truth. If we can accept that the bible is the work of divinely inspired humans, and not a flawless document, then I think that we could have many interesting discussions about the implications. A static, literal interpretation does not allow for constructive discussion because it dictates that all the questions are answered. It puts you in an intellectual straitjacket, so-to-speak.
If you would still prefer to discuss something else, feel free to suggest a topic.
well what is the probability that you just pissed me off when I was enjoying meaningless infinite meaninglessness?
oh, never mind, i think i am out of sync with the dialog....
i am still pissed at you for bringing meaning into the meaningless meaninglessness.
If you would still prefer to discuss something else, feel free to suggest a topic.
well what is the probability that you just pissed me off when I was enjoying meaningless infinite meaninglessness?
oh, never mind, i think i am out of sync with the dialog....
i am still pissed at you for bringing meaning into the meaningless meaninglessness.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 7 2009, 03:43 AM)
I bring it up because this philosophical choice determines whether points of view are negotiable or are dictated by a static document. If the bible is to be taken 100% literally, then there are quite a few irreconcilable differences between scientific fact and biblical truth. If we can accept that the bible is the work of divinely inspired humans, and not a flawless document, then I think that we could have many interesting discussions about the implications. A static, literal interpretation does not allow for constructive discussion because it dictates that all the questions are answered. It puts you in an intellectual straitjacket, so-to-speak.
If you would still prefer to discuss something else, feel free to suggest a topic.
well of course every dot and tittle is literal. that is why i am going to take a break and cut off my hand.
be back in a few...... minus one hand..
If you would still prefer to discuss something else, feel free to suggest a topic.
well of course every dot and tittle is literal. that is why i am going to take a break and cut off my hand.
be back in a few...... minus one hand..
It's addictive isn't it?
Ok, I won't pursue the point further, as we probably won't accomplish much by doing so.
Given that, What approach do you use to reconcile your faith with what you know as science? Some Christian scientists take a dualistic approach, where the choose not to reconcile the two.
Some decide that the conflicting parts of the bible are meant to be taken figuratively, and not literally.
Some think that the words of the bible are simply the writer's impression after witnessing the actual events.
As an example, I will pick the very first chapter of the bible. Thanks to science, we know for all intents and purposes that the Universe was not created in 7x24 hours.
Do you take any of these approaches, or do you have an alternative?
Ok, I won't pursue the point further, as we probably won't accomplish much by doing so.
Given that, What approach do you use to reconcile your faith with what you know as science? Some Christian scientists take a dualistic approach, where the choose not to reconcile the two.
Some decide that the conflicting parts of the bible are meant to be taken figuratively, and not literally.
Some think that the words of the bible are simply the writer's impression after witnessing the actual events.
As an example, I will pick the very first chapter of the bible. Thanks to science, we know for all intents and purposes that the Universe was not created in 7x24 hours.
Do you take any of these approaches, or do you have an alternative?
QUOTE (debrajo+Oct 7 2009, 12:03 AM)
well what is the probability that you just pissed me off when I was enjoying meaningless infinite meaninglessness?
oh, never mind, i think i am out of sync with the dialog....
i am still pissed at you for bringing meaning into the meaningless meaninglessness.
Sometimes meaning is meaningful, no?
It's been great chatting, but I'll have to catch up tomorrow. Sleepy time
oh, never mind, i think i am out of sync with the dialog....
i am still pissed at you for bringing meaning into the meaningless meaninglessness.
Sometimes meaning is meaningful, no?
It's been great chatting, but I'll have to catch up tomorrow. Sleepy time
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 7 2009, 03:43 AM)
If you would still prefer to discuss something else, feel free to suggest a topic.
fu
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 7 2009, 04:06 AM)
It's addictive isn't it?
Ok, I won't pursue the point further, as we probably won't accomplish much by doing so.
Given that, What approach do you use to reconcile your faith with what you know as science? Some Christian scientists take a dualistic approach, where the choose not to reconcile the two.
Some decide that the conflicting parts of the bible are meant to be taken figuratively, and not literally.
Some think that the words of the bible are simply the writer's impression after witnessing the actual events.
As an example, I will pick the very first chapter of the bible. Thanks to science, we know for all intents and purposes that the Universe was not created in 7x24 hours.
Do you take any of these approaches, or do you have an alternative?
I am not sure how to answer.
I don't see a conflict between scripture and the body of scientific evidence.
I read Genesis after years of being a "pagan with the mindset of science".
I came away with, "there is no science in Genesis".
seems pretty simple to me, but I tend to take things at face value until someone convinces me otherwise.
you aren't going to sleep r u??
Ok, I won't pursue the point further, as we probably won't accomplish much by doing so.
Given that, What approach do you use to reconcile your faith with what you know as science? Some Christian scientists take a dualistic approach, where the choose not to reconcile the two.
Some decide that the conflicting parts of the bible are meant to be taken figuratively, and not literally.
Some think that the words of the bible are simply the writer's impression after witnessing the actual events.
As an example, I will pick the very first chapter of the bible. Thanks to science, we know for all intents and purposes that the Universe was not created in 7x24 hours.
Do you take any of these approaches, or do you have an alternative?
I am not sure how to answer.
I don't see a conflict between scripture and the body of scientific evidence.
I read Genesis after years of being a "pagan with the mindset of science".
I came away with, "there is no science in Genesis".
seems pretty simple to me, but I tend to take things at face value until someone convinces me otherwise.
you aren't going to sleep r u??
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 7 2009, 04:06 AM)
It's addictive isn't it?
Ok, I won't pursue the point further, as we probably won't accomplish much by doing so.
Given that, What approach do you use to reconcile your faith with what you know as science? Some Christian scientists take a dualistic approach, where the choose not to reconcile the two.
Some decide that the conflicting parts of the bible are meant to be taken figuratively, and not literally.
Some think that the words of the bible are simply the writer's impression after witnessing the actual events.
As an example, I will pick the very first chapter of the bible. Thanks to science, we know for all intents and purposes that the Universe was not created in 7x24 hours.
Do you take any of these approaches, or do you have an alternative?
seriously fbm, I don't have to reconcile my faith with what I know as science. I have yet to find any contradictions. for the record, for the first roughly 30 years of my life I was a pagan, I suppose. wth knows the definitive description?
my mind leans toward hard science... fell in love with physics in college.
i had my 'jesus moment' a few years after college.
opened the bible a couple years after that
attended 'church' within the following year or two.
came away from 'church' with "wth happened to the "Church" (that which I had read about in the NT.)
seriously, my reading of the Bible is pretty much taken at 'face value'. I will qualify that with making a concerted effort to erase from my mind that which 'man' has said is in there. And have also 'added that which man has said', but with careful consideration.
Genesis? - if there is any science in there, please point it out so i can 'reconcile it' with science.
now, pool of primordial soup to ....... drum roll....... man.....
I take that at face value as well. evidence to support 'soup to man' - I have no problem with the evidence. let us not talk about the conclusions.... yet. Because that is where the "reconciliation hits the pavement".
Ok, I won't pursue the point further, as we probably won't accomplish much by doing so.
Given that, What approach do you use to reconcile your faith with what you know as science? Some Christian scientists take a dualistic approach, where the choose not to reconcile the two.
Some decide that the conflicting parts of the bible are meant to be taken figuratively, and not literally.
Some think that the words of the bible are simply the writer's impression after witnessing the actual events.
As an example, I will pick the very first chapter of the bible. Thanks to science, we know for all intents and purposes that the Universe was not created in 7x24 hours.
Do you take any of these approaches, or do you have an alternative?
seriously fbm, I don't have to reconcile my faith with what I know as science. I have yet to find any contradictions. for the record, for the first roughly 30 years of my life I was a pagan, I suppose. wth knows the definitive description?
my mind leans toward hard science... fell in love with physics in college.
i had my 'jesus moment' a few years after college.
opened the bible a couple years after that
attended 'church' within the following year or two.
came away from 'church' with "wth happened to the "Church" (that which I had read about in the NT.)
seriously, my reading of the Bible is pretty much taken at 'face value'. I will qualify that with making a concerted effort to erase from my mind that which 'man' has said is in there. And have also 'added that which man has said', but with careful consideration.
Genesis? - if there is any science in there, please point it out so i can 'reconcile it' with science.
now, pool of primordial soup to ....... drum roll....... man.....
I take that at face value as well. evidence to support 'soup to man' - I have no problem with the evidence. let us not talk about the conclusions.... yet. Because that is where the "reconciliation hits the pavement".
QUOTE (debrajo+Oct 7 2009, 12:46 AM)
seriously fbm, I don't have to reconcile my faith with what I know as science. I have yet to find any contradictions. for the record, for the first roughly 30 years of my life I was a pagan, I suppose. wth knows the definitive description?
my mind leans toward hard science... fell in love with physics in college.
i had my 'jesus moment' a few years after college.
opened the bible a couple years after that
attended 'church' within the following year or two.
came away from 'church' with "wth happened to the "Church" (that which I had read about in the NT.)
seriously, my reading of the Bible is pretty much taken at 'face value'. I will qualify that with making a concerted effort to erase from my mind that which 'man' has said is in there. And have also 'added that which man has said', but with careful consideration.
Genesis? - if there is any science in there, please point it out so i can 'reconcile it' with science.
now, pool of primordial soup to ....... drum roll....... man.....
I take that at face value as well. evidence to support 'soup to man' - I have no problem with the evidence. let us not talk about the conclusions.... yet. Because that is where the "reconciliation hits the pavement".
Ok, let's try a more literal example.
In the bible, a worldwide flood covered the entire surface of the Earth for up to a year.
Scientists are able to say without a shadow of a doubt that there was no worldwide flood in the last 10,000 years. Given the immense amount of water that would have to be involved, we can safely say that a worldwide flood is impossible.
When I was a Christian, I had come to accept that maybe the bible didn't accurately represent the scope of the flood. Perhaps it was a regional flood. This would enable Noah to bring regional species onto his ark without requiring an ark the size of Manhattan.
On the other hand, you could say it was a myth.
I don't think that the bible and science are incompatible, but in cases when science gives us a definitive 'NO' I think that the bible needs to be re-examined and re-interpreted.
my mind leans toward hard science... fell in love with physics in college.
i had my 'jesus moment' a few years after college.
opened the bible a couple years after that
attended 'church' within the following year or two.
came away from 'church' with "wth happened to the "Church" (that which I had read about in the NT.)
seriously, my reading of the Bible is pretty much taken at 'face value'. I will qualify that with making a concerted effort to erase from my mind that which 'man' has said is in there. And have also 'added that which man has said', but with careful consideration.
Genesis? - if there is any science in there, please point it out so i can 'reconcile it' with science.
now, pool of primordial soup to ....... drum roll....... man.....
I take that at face value as well. evidence to support 'soup to man' - I have no problem with the evidence. let us not talk about the conclusions.... yet. Because that is where the "reconciliation hits the pavement".
Ok, let's try a more literal example.
In the bible, a worldwide flood covered the entire surface of the Earth for up to a year.
Scientists are able to say without a shadow of a doubt that there was no worldwide flood in the last 10,000 years. Given the immense amount of water that would have to be involved, we can safely say that a worldwide flood is impossible.
When I was a Christian, I had come to accept that maybe the bible didn't accurately represent the scope of the flood. Perhaps it was a regional flood. This would enable Noah to bring regional species onto his ark without requiring an ark the size of Manhattan.
On the other hand, you could say it was a myth.
I don't think that the bible and science are incompatible, but in cases when science gives us a definitive 'NO' I think that the bible needs to be re-examined and re-interpreted.
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 4 2009, 12:36 PM)
I like to take the view that math-numbers in its present form is not suited to give a satisfactory description of the "mechanics of spacetime" with the paradox of existence and smoothness involved - with the paradox of motion and existence involved - [Moderator: Good. Take your view --- somewhere else, because it isn't useful and science is useful, so your view is not science]
And because math is a derived function of human mind - it is unlikely that math will ever be able to describe such paradoxes - unlikely is probably too weak a word, instead one can say that math per SE will never be able to explain such paradoxes. [Moderator: Another example of how you are not useful. What tools should be used to describe the universe which is not a product of the human mind? Also, math is very remote from human intuition, and as you describe no actual paradoxes or math, it seems you have failed to make your case.]
If I get it rightly - it is not allowed to discuss "non-useful" aspects - and if I get it rightly science is (among others) defined by being useful - and if the criteria of usefulness is not being satisfied - then per definition it is not science - and if it is not science - it is not allowed to being discussed in this Forum.
I wonder how many - or perhaps better say how very few of the posts, that can live up to such criteria. Are we facing a new era ? - At least it calls for a good definition of "being useful". In order for the Forum not to be nearly empty in the future I suggest that all posts dealing exclusively with insults and belittleling per se will be seen as useful and scientific.
Perhaps I was not clear in my statement: "because math is a derived function of human mind - it is unlikely that math will ever be able to describe such paradoxes"
I referred to the problem of smoothness existence (Navier Stoke) and the paradox of motion (Zeno's arrow or the Fletcher paradox). I have not invented or described these problems / paradoxes - I am merely referring to them - and I used them in my question "What is "god" ? - and what is "exist" ?" I cannot see how it is possible to discuss the existence of god without including such questions.
I have said that math is a derived function of human mind - (our moderator may have a different opinion) - and as a consequence of this - it is not possible to describe mathematically (my opinion) the problem and the paradox of existence / smoothness and motion / existence, respectively. To me the concept (I do not know if concept is the right word) of existence is intimately connected with the concept of discreteness and math is intimately connected with the concept of discreteness. What I intend to express is that one cannot use a discrete system to explain a paradox about continuous vs discrete.
Cantor said in his doctoral thesis 1867 "In re mathematica ars propendi pluris facienda est quam solvendi." in translation: in mathematics the art of proposing a question must be held of higher value than solving it.
I think that the paradox of motion and existence is well described by Cantor: "I have never proceeded from any Genus supremum of the actual infinite. Quite the contrary, I have rigorously proved that there is absolutely no Genus supremum of the actual infinite. What surpasses all that is finite and transfinite is no Genus; it is the single, completely individual unity in which everything is included, which includes the Absolute, incomprehensible to the human understanding. This is the Actus Purissimus, which by many is called God."
So when I refer to "mechanical spacetime" and the paradox of motion - and saying that math is not suited for explaining such paradox - I am more apt to lean to Cantor than to moderator. And when moderator ask "what tools should be used to describe universe which is not a product of human mind" - I am lost - because this question has never been an issue - never put forward by me. On the other hand I do not agree with moderator that math is very far from human intuition - math is human intuition expressed in numbers and math terms, and 3D pixel universe is human intuition expressed in terms of objects and shapes in a dynamic system. Human intuition stands behind all insights, it takes skill to perform valid measurements but it is the interpretation (intuition) that makes the insight.
As I understand Cantor, it is not possible to define with absolute accuracy anything without the object in question is being looked at as belonging to something finite that it can be defined out from. "The potential infinite means nothing other than an undetermined, variable quantity, always remaining finite, which has to assume values that either become smaller than any finite limit no matter how small, or greater than any finite limit no matter how great."
I like to see physical world as an actual infinity - smallest particles - which ever they may turn out to be in a physical context (quark or smaller) - meaning accessible to physical senses - consisting of particles which can be described and defined till a certain accuracy and no more. If a higher "precision" is wanted - it is only possible by describing out from a higher infinity - and so on - and given infinitely many infinities the last step is nearly full accuracy - and at the moment that full accuracy is reached the concept of particle goes from infinitely many and turns into one entity - no motion - no physicality.
I like to see a close relationship between the concept of the 3D pixel universe - scale-wise ordered and like Russian Dolls - each Russian Doll representing an aleph - and infinitely deep and complex (fractal and holographic) but all the time with object of sameness preserved. In the event that object of sameness disappear it is the equivalent of no physicality - disappearance of physicality. But there is no problem with object of sameness disappearing into a dimensionless point from the frame of the observer, it just means that the observer cannot see any details except the point - but at a closer look the point transforms into an object with a shape - and this is the information which is put into any object of sameness, information cannot vanish - and the shape of the object of sameness is the ordering system of physical universe. But human is limited in the perceiving of universe to the scale that is the equivalence to human physical senses, the photon/electron scale. Probably what is the equivalent of aleph null.
Universe has the size universe has - and physical is intimately related to ratios of universe - and ratios can have varying accuracies - the more accurate - the more numerous - the higher cardinalities - and infinite infinities is infinitely accurate but outside the real of physicality - it is motionless - it is continuous.
Why wouldn't Yahweh anticipate that the words she "inspired/dictated" that people write down in his book might be subject to translational difficulties in future languages?
She should have known that in 2000 years English would be the most marvelously useful Human language to develop and consequently she should have used ancient words which would translate easily into English? Such action by a deity would be logical.
But then again ... I can't get past the fact that she allows lowly amphibians and cephlapods to regrow detached limbs but leaves that out of the human genome?
So um ... she's an illogical biotch?
She should have known that in 2000 years English would be the most marvelously useful Human language to develop and consequently she should have used ancient words which would translate easily into English? Such action by a deity would be logical.
But then again ... I can't get past the fact that she allows lowly amphibians and cephlapods to regrow detached limbs but leaves that out of the human genome?
So um ... she's an illogical biotch?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 7 2009, 01:36 PM)
Ok, let's try a more literal example.
In the bible, a worldwide flood covered the entire surface of the Earth for up to a year.
Scientists are able to say without a shadow of a doubt that there was no worldwide flood in the last 10,000 years. Given the immense amount of water that would have to be involved, we can safely say that a worldwide flood is impossible.
When I was a Christian, I had come to accept that maybe the bible didn't accurately represent the scope of the flood. Perhaps it was a regional flood. This would enable Noah to bring regional species onto his ark without requiring an ark the size of Manhattan.
On the other hand, you could say it was a myth.
I don't think that the bible and science are incompatible, but in cases when science gives us a definitive 'NO' I think that the bible needs to be re-examined and re-interpreted.
i really don't know about a literal worldwide flood within the last x years. I don't even know that the bible provides enough to determine how long ago it was.
i really don't care - not because i don't care if the bible is true, but because without enough.... it seems pointless. I don't know ANYWHERE near enough about Hebrew constructs in literature, verbs, nuances in particular words.... like "land" being a localized geographical area and 'earth' being 'the planet'. that is another field and the folks who know the field seem to be all over the map. when i see experts dissecting even Genesis....... ugh
I just watched an interview with Richard Dawkins with my daughter. sort of took the wind out of my sails. In that it seemed that my gathering of thoughts was leading to the (taking into account the body of scientific evidence, considered with the incredible complexity...) consideration that there might some intelligent design behind it all. Well, when RD agreed that one might expect to find some ID behind it all...... well, what else is left to argue?
In the bible, a worldwide flood covered the entire surface of the Earth for up to a year.
Scientists are able to say without a shadow of a doubt that there was no worldwide flood in the last 10,000 years. Given the immense amount of water that would have to be involved, we can safely say that a worldwide flood is impossible.
When I was a Christian, I had come to accept that maybe the bible didn't accurately represent the scope of the flood. Perhaps it was a regional flood. This would enable Noah to bring regional species onto his ark without requiring an ark the size of Manhattan.
On the other hand, you could say it was a myth.
I don't think that the bible and science are incompatible, but in cases when science gives us a definitive 'NO' I think that the bible needs to be re-examined and re-interpreted.
i really don't know about a literal worldwide flood within the last x years. I don't even know that the bible provides enough to determine how long ago it was.
i really don't care - not because i don't care if the bible is true, but because without enough.... it seems pointless. I don't know ANYWHERE near enough about Hebrew constructs in literature, verbs, nuances in particular words.... like "land" being a localized geographical area and 'earth' being 'the planet'. that is another field and the folks who know the field seem to be all over the map. when i see experts dissecting even Genesis....... ugh
I just watched an interview with Richard Dawkins with my daughter. sort of took the wind out of my sails. In that it seemed that my gathering of thoughts was leading to the (taking into account the body of scientific evidence, considered with the incredible complexity...) consideration that there might some intelligent design behind it all. Well, when RD agreed that one might expect to find some ID behind it all...... well, what else is left to argue?
fbm,
I think that if we dissect the bible enough we will find many of what we would consider to be contradictions even within itself. I don't know enough about history, how one determines the validity of historical documents, how accurately we can reconstruct history, how 'literal' we can take some parts of the bible (particularly assuming a literal 24 hour day in the first chapter of Genesis) how accurately we can reconstruct the past scientifically either (particularly that one since it requires more than just demonstrations to 'prove' a theoretical framework)...
I do know that I hold science in high regard. I think we are foolish to ignore strong scientific evidence as well to make more out of it than is there.
Take the following with a grain of salt because it is really just a beginning thought - the bible indicates that God created "man" in such a manner that it would seem very close to impossible for me to reconcile this account with man evolving from a pool of chemicals through Darwinian evolution. But I found it irreconcilable long before I gave serious consideration as to whether the bible is true.
Here is the 'grain of salt' part: IF Darwinian evolution (from pool to man) is true - I am not yet convinced that this Darwinian world could not have been in existence (with God being the IDer) long before God planted the garden and placed man in it. (this thought based on the assumption that the bible is true and God did create the world) It seems to me that the first part of Genesis conveys to us two things - God created the world and placed man in it. Beyond that, I just don't see that we can get much more specifics out of it. I think God is simply telling us, using a narrative story, that "I did it". Reading along (at face value) one gets to Cain and says, "whoa, wait a minute, where did all these people enter the story???" somebody left a BIG CHUNK out of the narrative, like several thousand years maybe??. by the time the first man (from the second generation) gets kicked out to 'east of Eden', there seems to be a whole civilization out there.
disclaimer - I am NOT suggesting anything in the way of 'gee, maybe this is what happened". i am just throwing out the 'genesis' of a thought.
when it comes to 'reconciling science with God', i do not attempt this as it is foolish within the definition of science as a "tool to understand the physical world".
IF there is a god, and IF this god created the world, and IF this god is supernatural..... see my point?
how does one go about fitting a supernatural event within the framework of the laws of physics?? one does not. my car was designed to carry passengers from one place to another. It has never occurred to me to use my car to type words on my keyboard.... might as well buy gas and drive around counting how many ghosts I can run over.
in summary:
science - it is not illogical to allow for the possibility of the supernatural. but there is 'no place' to insert it into the scientific methods. leave it out. science is our tool to understand the 'physical'. within the "world of science", the supernatural does not exist within the definition of science.
intellectually - there is more than 'hard science'. there is free will - which pretty much has no place in science either, for the present time. given the system of the human mind, one cannot introduce a perturbation and in any way determine the outcome (personal choice).
IF there is 'something' "greater than us", beyond our comprehension, beyond our ability to even begin to 'take hold of with science or math', then there is not a whole lot, or anything, that science can tell us about that 'something' as far as concerns the boundaries with which it operates, the mechanisms, the constraints, the physical laws it follows, etc... we simply have no tools to study and understand that which does not even exist in the 'physical' world.
Richard Dawkins, it seems to me, IMO, etc.... seems to believe that if there is some ID behind it then we already KNOW that this ID is a Darwinian life form. it has to be.
We don't even know the origin of life, but we can know that, IF there is some super intelligent highly evolved life form out there that 'seeded' life onto this planet, THEN that intelligent life has to be a Darwinian life form. See my problem with Dawkins and others?
On another note, were i to base my belief in God, acceptance of the 'whole picture' based on what man has done with it..... don't even want to go there. Jesus' last prayer involved praying for 'The Church' and the witness of The Church to the 'world'. well, from my perspective, we have done a pretty lousy job of fulfilling this request within the modern day institution we call the church. personally, I think the foundation for the apostate church is well underway. I suppose the first chapters of Revelation could be titled "what Christ thinks about the church". then and today. but, as with the Pharisees, it is always 'them' of which He is speaking. Isn't it interesting that Christ spent SO much of His ministry talking to and about the Pharisees, when none of this applies to "us Christians" today???? it is there so we can see how "bad" they were and realize how "good" we are in comparison.
I think that if we dissect the bible enough we will find many of what we would consider to be contradictions even within itself. I don't know enough about history, how one determines the validity of historical documents, how accurately we can reconstruct history, how 'literal' we can take some parts of the bible (particularly assuming a literal 24 hour day in the first chapter of Genesis) how accurately we can reconstruct the past scientifically either (particularly that one since it requires more than just demonstrations to 'prove' a theoretical framework)...
I do know that I hold science in high regard. I think we are foolish to ignore strong scientific evidence as well to make more out of it than is there.
Take the following with a grain of salt because it is really just a beginning thought - the bible indicates that God created "man" in such a manner that it would seem very close to impossible for me to reconcile this account with man evolving from a pool of chemicals through Darwinian evolution. But I found it irreconcilable long before I gave serious consideration as to whether the bible is true.
Here is the 'grain of salt' part: IF Darwinian evolution (from pool to man) is true - I am not yet convinced that this Darwinian world could not have been in existence (with God being the IDer) long before God planted the garden and placed man in it. (this thought based on the assumption that the bible is true and God did create the world) It seems to me that the first part of Genesis conveys to us two things - God created the world and placed man in it. Beyond that, I just don't see that we can get much more specifics out of it. I think God is simply telling us, using a narrative story, that "I did it". Reading along (at face value) one gets to Cain and says, "whoa, wait a minute, where did all these people enter the story???" somebody left a BIG CHUNK out of the narrative, like several thousand years maybe??. by the time the first man (from the second generation) gets kicked out to 'east of Eden', there seems to be a whole civilization out there.
disclaimer - I am NOT suggesting anything in the way of 'gee, maybe this is what happened". i am just throwing out the 'genesis' of a thought.
when it comes to 'reconciling science with God', i do not attempt this as it is foolish within the definition of science as a "tool to understand the physical world".
IF there is a god, and IF this god created the world, and IF this god is supernatural..... see my point?
how does one go about fitting a supernatural event within the framework of the laws of physics?? one does not. my car was designed to carry passengers from one place to another. It has never occurred to me to use my car to type words on my keyboard.... might as well buy gas and drive around counting how many ghosts I can run over.
in summary:
science - it is not illogical to allow for the possibility of the supernatural. but there is 'no place' to insert it into the scientific methods. leave it out. science is our tool to understand the 'physical'. within the "world of science", the supernatural does not exist within the definition of science.
intellectually - there is more than 'hard science'. there is free will - which pretty much has no place in science either, for the present time. given the system of the human mind, one cannot introduce a perturbation and in any way determine the outcome (personal choice).
IF there is 'something' "greater than us", beyond our comprehension, beyond our ability to even begin to 'take hold of with science or math', then there is not a whole lot, or anything, that science can tell us about that 'something' as far as concerns the boundaries with which it operates, the mechanisms, the constraints, the physical laws it follows, etc... we simply have no tools to study and understand that which does not even exist in the 'physical' world.
Richard Dawkins, it seems to me, IMO, etc.... seems to believe that if there is some ID behind it then we already KNOW that this ID is a Darwinian life form. it has to be.
We don't even know the origin of life, but we can know that, IF there is some super intelligent highly evolved life form out there that 'seeded' life onto this planet, THEN that intelligent life has to be a Darwinian life form. See my problem with Dawkins and others?
On another note, were i to base my belief in God, acceptance of the 'whole picture' based on what man has done with it..... don't even want to go there. Jesus' last prayer involved praying for 'The Church' and the witness of The Church to the 'world'. well, from my perspective, we have done a pretty lousy job of fulfilling this request within the modern day institution we call the church. personally, I think the foundation for the apostate church is well underway. I suppose the first chapters of Revelation could be titled "what Christ thinks about the church". then and today. but, as with the Pharisees, it is always 'them' of which He is speaking. Isn't it interesting that Christ spent SO much of His ministry talking to and about the Pharisees, when none of this applies to "us Christians" today???? it is there so we can see how "bad" they were and realize how "good" we are in comparison.
debrajo,
I agree with you for the most part. I do not believe that science and religion are incompatible, but I do think that rejecting scientific knowledge because of its incompatibility with a specific interpretation of the bible is foolish.
As far as whether god evolved or not, it's hard to tell. The definition of god that most religions provide doesn't match any god that could realistically exist. On the other hand, I think it is silly to think that any religion could actually define the god that they worship.
I agree with you for the most part. I do not believe that science and religion are incompatible, but I do think that rejecting scientific knowledge because of its incompatibility with a specific interpretation of the bible is foolish.
As far as whether god evolved or not, it's hard to tell. The definition of god that most religions provide doesn't match any god that could realistically exist. On the other hand, I think it is silly to think that any religion could actually define the god that they worship.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 11 2009, 05:30 PM)
debrajo,
I agree with you for the most part. I do not believe that science and religion are incompatible, but I do think that rejecting scientific knowledge because of its incompatibility with a specific interpretation of the bible is foolish.
As far as whether god evolved or not, it's hard to tell. The definition of god that most religions provide doesn't match any god that could realistically exist. On the other hand, I think it is silly to think that any religion could actually define the god that they worship.
so i am not really a troll??
I agree with you for the most part. I do not believe that science and religion are incompatible, but I do think that rejecting scientific knowledge because of its incompatibility with a specific interpretation of the bible is foolish.
As far as whether god evolved or not, it's hard to tell. The definition of god that most religions provide doesn't match any god that could realistically exist. On the other hand, I think it is silly to think that any religion could actually define the god that they worship.
so i am not really a troll??
QUOTE (Noumenon+Oct 4 2009, 12:30 AM)
No one can prove that God exists and no one can prove that God does not exist. Atheists are fundamentally irrational to the same extent that believers are, at least the believers invoke faith rather than logic. That being said what's harder to prove, a negative or a positive.
I think the problem with trying to prove that God exists is this:
We view God as something in another place (space, time). Rather than the power (or energy ) that exists among us and through us (living things and nature). Yes I beleive God exists because we dream. Our minds experience sensory perceptions but our bodies are not physically there.
I think the problem with trying to prove that God exists is this:
We view God as something in another place (space, time). Rather than the power (or energy ) that exists among us and through us (living things and nature). Yes I beleive God exists because we dream. Our minds experience sensory perceptions but our bodies are not physically there.
QUOTE (justathought+Oct 11 2009, 09:04 PM)
I think the problem with trying to prove that God exists is this:
We view God as something in another place (space, time). Rather than the power (or energy ) that exists among us and through us (living things and nature). Yes I beleive God exists because we dream. Our minds experience sensory perceptions but our bodies are not physically there.
Noumenon wrote:
QUOTE (Noumenon @ Oct 4 2009, 12:30 AM)
No one can prove that God exists and no one can prove that God does not exist. Atheists are fundamentally irrational to the same extent that believers are, at least the believers invoke faith rather than logic. That being said what's harder to prove, a negative or a positive.
it seems to me that the Atheist is 'less irrational'. Why would someone 'believe' that something exists, when it does not 'exist' within the physical realm?
If I cannot see it, cannot detect it, cannot find 'it's' effect in the physical realm, it seems logical to assume it does not exist.
Even the Bible indicates that it is foolishness to the world.
I can ingest drugs that can provide me with 'sensory perception'. doesn't mean there is a god, just means I can screw up my brain beyond human comprehension.
according to the accepted understanding of psychology, if I 'see or hear something that isn't there' I have, at the very least, experienced a psychotic episode. So, if I do hear or see or directly experience God, I am not mentally stable at that particular time, according to accepted understanding. correct??
We view God as something in another place (space, time). Rather than the power (or energy ) that exists among us and through us (living things and nature). Yes I beleive God exists because we dream. Our minds experience sensory perceptions but our bodies are not physically there.
Noumenon wrote:
QUOTE (Noumenon @ Oct 4 2009, 12:30 AM)
No one can prove that God exists and no one can prove that God does not exist. Atheists are fundamentally irrational to the same extent that believers are, at least the believers invoke faith rather than logic. That being said what's harder to prove, a negative or a positive.
it seems to me that the Atheist is 'less irrational'. Why would someone 'believe' that something exists, when it does not 'exist' within the physical realm?
If I cannot see it, cannot detect it, cannot find 'it's' effect in the physical realm, it seems logical to assume it does not exist.
Even the Bible indicates that it is foolishness to the world.
I can ingest drugs that can provide me with 'sensory perception'. doesn't mean there is a god, just means I can screw up my brain beyond human comprehension.
according to the accepted understanding of psychology, if I 'see or hear something that isn't there' I have, at the very least, experienced a psychotic episode. So, if I do hear or see or directly experience God, I am not mentally stable at that particular time, according to accepted understanding. correct??
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.