Do you believe in God?

nozzferrahhtoo

railer201 wrote: »

Read your posts ffs.

After you! Cite where I said what you claimed I did. You will not find it, which is likely why you have not already done so.

AGAIN I said nothing whatsoever about the mental health of Lorna. I spoke wholly, solely and entirely about that of the viewer. Go read it again. I will even add "FFS" if that helps you in some way.

Seanachai wrote: »

That's fair enough, have you ever visited a psychic out of curiousity?, even just for scientific purposes.

Very very often. Both alone and with another user of boards. I am very interested in their technique and processes and the user of boards is actively studying things like mentalism, close up magic, mind reading illusion and more.

So he goes to study all the cold reading techniques too. He is actually very impressive to watch in employing what he has learned when doing street magic. He is better than the psychics themselves. He would do well at it if he were that kind of...... person.

I would defer to his expertise but I would also consider myself well versed in the techniques used by such charlatans.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

As a tourist, I've visited very many churches and cathedrals throughout Europe and beyond. Universally, the decoration in those churches depicts torture and murder.

Depictions of torture and murder that, for reasons unknown to me, people are happy to bring their children in to sit in front of and observe from a young age. Meanwhile certain animated movies come with things like a 12s rating.

Never managed to explain that one to myself yet.

uck51js9zml2yt

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So "no" is your answer then? Because that link..... the problems that most people know with Josephus aside and the historical authenticity of that testimony..... is not evidence or citations for what I asked.

You can evidence all you want that a MAN was crucified at some point. I have no issue with that. Your specific claim that a GOD was however.... is what I want a citation for and you offered none.

By all means evidence that some guy was killed. But if you want to claim that guy was anything more than entirely and wholly human like the rest of us..... then that is not the evidence you have offered.

Can you prove oxygen exists or the wind? Show me the evidence.

nozzferrahhtoo

Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »

Can you prove oxygen exists or the wind? Show me the evidence.

As before I would be VERY wary about what you think the word "prove" means, especially when you are asking me to do science.

That said though I can recount for you the evidence for it. For example I can close a jar right now, weigh it, then suck out everything inside it and weight it again. I can show you that despite not being able to SEE a change in the jar, the weight changed. Thus evidencing something in the jar has weight/mass.

I can then show you that whatever that something is, it has properties. I can put in another gas for example, hydrogen, and suddenly we will get water. I can also show you that in the Absence of that invisible something, a candle will cease to burn.

I can then seal two chemicals into an air tight chamber, and know exactly how much those chemicals weighed going in. I can bring the chemicals together and weigh the result. The weight of the result is HIGHER than the sum of its parts. Thus also showing something was added. Because the chemical process consumed oxygen and thus increased the mass of the result.

So now I have evidenced that SOMETHING is there and it has weight and specific properties and specific effects.

And so on. Step by step you evidence the existence of any given element, derive it's properties, and make predictions about what it will do and then test those predictions. It is quite an elegant process.

railer201

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I referred to her just above in my post to Mousewar. I just could not remember her name.

To be honest I think the Late Late Show and The Bible are both very inconsiderate in their content in this regard.

There are genuinely people in our society, mentally unwell, who "hear voices". Some such people are led by those voices to carry out horrific acts up to and including murder. These people are sick and need help.

So the RTE, like the Bible, rather than sending out a message to such people that they might need help..... gives precedence to a story legitimising the hearing of voices. Giving them divine angelic origin. An origin many of these sick people may already suspect they have anyway.

So we have RTE showing this woman claiming the voices she hears are angelic and godly.

We have a presenting as godly a man who was happy to murder his own son at the behest of voices he was hearing.

Some of the blood resulting from the actions of people hearing such voices HAS to be on their hands.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

After you! Cite where I said what you claimed I did. You will not find it, which is likely why you have not already done so.

AGAIN I said nothing whatsoever about the mental health of Lorna. I spoke wholly, solely and entirely about that of the viewer. Go read it again. I will even add "FFS" if that helps you in some way.

There you go, now please stop wasting my time. I do not like being accused of misrepresenting any poster.

nozzferrahhtoo

railer201 wrote: »

There you go, now please stop wasting my time.

There you go indeed. The bits you bolden prove my point, and show your error. The bits you bolded were NOT talking about the Late Late Show guest, but the viewers.

AGAIN my point was, and it is there in black and white from you above, that some people watching that show may have mental illnesses and part of that may include hearing voices.

So by putting on a woman that legitimises those experiences.... entirely regardless of whether the voices she is hearing are genuine or not..... is an irresponsible act. That was my point, my only point, and you are misrepresenting it openly and consistently.

My concern is that someone hearing voices due to an illness could watch a Late Late Show segment like that one, and reach erroneous and potentially dangerous and damaging conclusions about why THEY are hearing those voices. Why the person on the Late Late show is hearing them.... is irrelevant to that concern and I never mentioned it at all.

railer201 wrote: »

I do not like being accused of misrepresenting any poster.

Then stop doing it! At no point did I make ANY comment on the woman on the Late Late having a mental illness. Your claims I did, are lies and misrepresentations.

Oh sorry I nearly forget: "FFS!"

railer201

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There you go indeed. The bits you bolden prove my point, and show your error. The bits you bolded were NOT talking about the Late Late Show guest, but the viewers.

AGAIN my point was, and it is there in black and white from you above, that some people watching that show may have mental illnesses and part of that may include hearing voices.

So by putting on a woman that legitimises those experiences.... entirely regardless of whether the voices she is hearing are genuine or not..... is an irresponsible act. That was my point, my only point, and you are misrepresenting it openly and consistently.

My concern is that someone hearing voices due to an illness could watch a Late Late Show segment like that one, and reach erroneous and potentially dangerous and damaging conclusions about why THEY are hearing those voices. Why the person on the Late Late show is hearing them.... is irrelevant to that concern and I never mentioned it at all.



Then stop doing it! At no point did I make ANY comment on the woman on the Late Late having a mental illness. Your claims I did, are lies and misrepresentations.

Oh sorry I nearly forget: "FFS!"

You should really take a break from your keyboard, go have a cup of coffee or something - chill :cool:

Rx713B

negative

nozzferrahhtoo

railer201 wrote: »

You should really take a break from your keyboard, go have a cup of coffee or something - chill :cool:

Since you were the one concerned with your time being wasted, perhaps less time offering unsolicited advice to others and more taking your own would be in order?

If you want to come back and respond to the points I actually made now, rather than the ones you invented however, I will be here for you.

railer201

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Since you were the one concerned with your time being wasted, perhaps less time offering unsolicited advice to others and more taking your own would be in order?

If you want to come back and respond to the points I actually made now, rather than the ones you invented however, I will be here for you.

Apologies - on reading the posts again I realise now I didn't make the necessary differentiation between the viewers and LB, but then again your post could have been clearer, as it appeared to conflate the two with respect to mental illness.

nozzferrahhtoo

railer201 wrote: »

Apologies - on reading the posts again I realise now I didn't make the necessary differentiation between the viewers and LB

Big of you. After having dug in for so long, not many people would own up to the error. I am genuinely impressed. Few would be big enough to make that move.

I think it a genuine point of concern. When our society does have people who hear voices due to illness, people who might be confused and scared by this.... we have books like the Bible and shows like the late late, basically telling people that basically not only is this ok... but it might even be divine and angelic.

Is that the message we want to send to people... about voices in the head that might even be urging them to do awful and horrific things? I fear the RTE were wantonly irresponsible in this regard.

zimmermania

Once in a debate someone said "This mega big universe could not have just happened
there must have been a creator" I then asked who created the creator?

Marhay70

zimmermania wrote: »

Once in a debate someone said "This mega big universe could not have just happened
there must have been a creator" I then asked who created the creator?

As I said earlier, with our limited brainpower, asking that question could drive you insane. Particularly if you expect an answer.

Jmsg

zimmermania wrote: »

Once in a debate someone said "This mega big universe could not have just happened
there must have been a creator" I then asked who created the creator?

What an original thought you then had.

uck51js9zml2yt

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As before I would be VERY wary about what you think the word "prove" means, especially when you are asking me to do science.

That said though I can recount for you the evidence for it. For example I can close a jar right now, weigh it, then suck out everything inside it and weight it again. I can show you that despite not being able to SEE a change in the jar, the weight changed. Thus evidencing something in the jar has weight/mass.

I can then show you that whatever that something is, it has properties. I can put in another gas for example, hydrogen, and suddenly we will get water. I can also show you that in the Absence of that invisible something, a candle will cease to burn.

I can then seal two chemicals into an air tight chamber, and know exactly how much those chemicals weighed going in. I can bring the chemicals together and weigh the result. The weight of the result is HIGHER than the sum of its parts. Thus also showing something was added. Because the chemical process consumed oxygen and thus increased the mass of the result.

So now I have evidenced that SOMETHING is there and it has weight and specific properties and specific effects.

And so on. Step by step you evidence the existence of any given element, derive it's properties, and make predictions about what it will do and then test those predictions. It is quite an elegant process.

Not sure what you mean by showing wind exists though. Wind is not really a thing in and of itself. It is the movement of other things. It is a bit like asking me to prove holes exist. Holes are not actually a thing in and of themselves, they are defined by other things. So you might want to be clearer about what you are asking me to show here.

So you can't prove their existence,only their effect... thought so!

Canis Lupus

Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »

So you can't prove their existence,only their effect... thought so!

bahahahahahaha

gctest50

Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »

So you can't prove their existence,only their effect... thought so!

.

Pherekydes

Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »

So you can't prove their existence,only their effect... thought so!

It's just basic high school chemistry. We've known about it for 200 years plus.

What's the point of your posts?

uck51js9zml2yt

gctest50 wrote: »

.

A picture of something with O2 printed on it isn't evidence or proof..just a picture with some writing.

gctest50

Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »

A picture of something with O2 printed on it isn't evidence or proof..just a picture with some writing.

Ah ! here's the thing :

If you go out and buy the same sort of microscope and set the whole setup the same way, you will get a picture like Cornell did


You know : repeatable


Yer average imaginary sky-fairy isn't big on that though
.

Canis Lupus

Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »

A picture of something with O2 printed on it isn't evidence or proof..just a picture with some writing.

lol you accept the same level of proof that god exists.

gctest50

Canis Lupus wrote: »

lol you accept the same level of proof that god exists.

Must be hard to get a picture of an imaginary sky-fairy though - anyone have any ?

Bobblehats

gctest50 wrote: »

Must be hard to get a picture of an imaginary sky-fairy though - anyone have any ?

That’d be your con-science.

realitykeeper

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

How is giving a 5 year old child cancer and a painful death considered good?

If people understood this world, they could cure cancer. They don`t so they can`t. If you cannot understand the mysteries of this life, how can you expect to understand the next. In any event, death is only the beginning.

Wanderer78

realitykeeper wrote:

If people understood this world, they could cure cancer. They don`t so they can`t. If you cannot understand the mysteries of this life, how can you expect to understand the next. In any event, death is only the beginning.

What if you don't believe in the afterlife, what if you believe, this is the only life you will experience?

What do you mean by understanding this world? We ve made incredible discoveries as a species, no we do not understand everything, and we probably never will, but our discoveries thus far have been incredible

realitykeeper

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Even if that were vaguely true and not utter nonsense and fantasy, how come the same logic doesn't apply to doing the things that your god doesn't like? How come when it comes to the 'bad stuff' that god doesn't like - you know, the fornication, the 'honouring your parents', the coveting of next door's missus? When it comes to those things, the 'very short life' is very significant, and enough to apparently damn you to hell for eternity, but when it comes to your child dying of cancer, you're supposed to just brush it off as 'very short'.



Does this glaring difference seem a little illogical and inconsistent to you, for a supposed 'fair and just god'?

What difference precisely? I am not sure what you are asking. All sorts of people live lives of varying lengths. Both good and bad live both long and short lives. This life, you see is inherently unfair. What matters is how you conduct yourself or carry your cross in the short time you have to live your life.

uck51js9zml2yt

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What if you don't believe in the afterlife, what if you believe, this is the only life you will experience?

What do you mean by understanding this world? We ve made incredible discoveries as a species, no we do not understand everything, and we probably never will, but our discoveries thus far have been incredible

You're correct. Our discoveries have been incredible and we don't understand everything.
We can't prove the wind exists, we know it does by it's effects.
God is no different. I know Him by His effect in my life and those around me.
Whether I or anyone believes He exists or not doesn't change His existence.
We didn't know black holes existed for thousands of years and yet they did.

Do you really think us not believing in the afterlife or God means they don't exist just because we say so? It's either incredible ignorance or arrogance or both to think so.

realitykeeper

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not really. Trust is, very often, evidence based too. Faith seems to be defined very much as belief without evidence of any sort. Very different.

As predicted though, when we drop the word "proof" and switch to "Any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning at all" you still got nothing to offer.

No. To trust is to affirm what is good in others. You say there is no evidence when in fact there is quite a lot if you count testimony as evidence. In most jurisdictions, testimony is counted as evidence and the books of the bible are full of testimony.

realitykeeper

As I say, if one e.g. My Fry, does not understand this world, they will not understand the next. So God is good. Q.E.D.

nozzferrahhtoo

Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »

So you can't prove their existence,only their effect... thought so!

You act like those are two different things. If you walk into a room the evidence of your existence is also your effect. The effect you have on the rays of light coming from the sun, bouncing off your body, and hitting my eye balls. It is all just "effect" there too.

In other words you are creating a distinction that does not actually exist. The distinction between proving the existence of something, and proving the effects that something has, is one that is only in your head. You have not pulled off the "Gotcha" you are pretending you have. Rather, you are just showing how little you understand your own question.

As I said you can weigh it and ascertain it's attributes. That is a little more substantive that "proving its effect" too.

Further since you are very much a lay man to science, I assume the distinction you invented above is centred around something like sight. You want proof you can physically be shown and see. Sure we can do that too! We can cool oxygen down to a temperature at which it liquefies and you can physically SEE it too. It is pale blue if you are wondering.

You can also at low pressure initiate a plasma in it by bombarding it with electrons so that the oxygen molecules give off light. In this situation you can now see it, and it is a darkish pinkish color.

We have also seen oxygen in space using telescopes.

Again a lot more than "proving its effect" doncha think? I mean when it reaches the point you can literally SEE it in multiple ways and can be thrown to bounce off the side of your head.... exactly what type of "proof" are you specifically looking for here?

Again though, a little schooling for you, the word "prove" is important here, if you are asking me to do science. We do not "prove" anything in science the way the word "prove" is used in the vernacular. We do not show anything to be 100% fact or true in science. We prove (which in science basically means test) hypothesis until the point it gets elevated to "Theory".

The comedy of the "gotcha" you failed to achieve however is that with this "god" entity the thread is about you can not do any of the things I describe OR you describe. You can not weigh it. You can not ascertain a single attribute. You can not see it. You can not throw it and bounce it off your head. You can not measure it's effect or distinguish and separate it's effects from the effects of anything else.

You got..... nothing.

nozzferrahhtoo

realitykeeper wrote: »

If people understood this world, they could cure cancer. They don`t so they can`t. If you cannot understand the mysteries of this life, how can you expect to understand the next.

To answer the question, even if it was intended only to be a rhetorical dodge, I think the first step to attempting to understanding ANYTHING is to first ascertain if that something exists.

Sure, as you say, we do not fully understand this world. But we are trying, and we at least have strong evidence it exists while we do so.

The "next" life or next world however.... despite me asking again.... and again and again.... and again.... and then again..... you have not only failed to show.... but have failed to even begin to attempt to engage with me to show...... a shred of evidence, argument, data or reasoning upon which to think it exists.

So I would suggest if we wish to understand the "next" world or "next" life.... the first step would be for someone to show it even exists in the first place. This you have failed quite spectacularly, but entirely consistently, to do.

All the above said however I wonder also if this...

realitykeeper wrote: »

If people understood this world, they could cure cancer.

... is not wanton assertion and assumption? It MIGHT be that a 100% understanding of the universe would lead to a 100% capability to manipulate it any way we want. But I do not think that is a given.

A 100% understanding of reality does not change the limitations that reality places upon us. Your assertion is assumption and little more. It is entirely possible that we could 100% understand reality and still not be able to "cure cancer".

So to be honest about my own limitations here, I am genuinely not sure what you are talking about and, continuing to be honest, I am not convinced you know what you are talking about either.