marienbad wrote: » So it is a matter of opinion then ?
philologos wrote: » It's a matter of truth. God led me, a stubborn unrepentant sinner to the foot of the cross and ultimately to Him. If you were talking to me before 2007 you would find me at loggerheads with the gospel in many ways. I didn't know Jesus at all really. I was an agnostic without the foggiest clue. I can think back literally a mere few years ago to what I was before. But God in His kindness brought me to a true knowledge when I didn't deserve one bit of it. That's amazing to me. I think if you honestly look into it God will work the sane way. I think the Gospel makes better logical sense than atheism does.
marienbad wrote: » But again that is just a matter of opinion is it not ? Saying it with emphasis makes no difference.
marienbad wrote: » Ok - can I jump in and ask you a question ? Why one religion or belief as opposed to any other ?
The Gospel presents a realistic portrayal of the fallen creation that we dwell in
So it is a matter of opinion then ?
Zombrex wrote: » Would be interesting to ask a scientist the same question about a scientific theory (why Darwinism and not Lamarickism, why electromagnetic theory of light and not the luminous ether) and see if you get the same type of answers. I would imagine with the scientists you wouldn't get a lot if "it makes sense to me" answers :rolleyes:
Zombrex wrote: » Define those things you mentioned in a manner that doesn't reference human experience, which is measurable, or the brain, which is also measurable. It is all very well to say these things are transcendent but that is romanticising the words that when you examine them properly, ie actually define the words, are rather simple.
philologos wrote: » Not really. If God is who He says He is, and if Jesus was who He was it doesn't matter a damn what my opinion is other than it affects my salvation.
Zombrex wrote: » Damn right I'm angry. Between your nonsense notions and the Creations science is under attack from all sides on this forum.
Originally Posted by nagirrac; You should have no worries about science, it is extremely well funded
tommy2bad wrote: » Human experience is measurable? I must be more post modern than I thought? How do you measure love? observe actions and correlate to previously observed actions? Examine hormone and physiological effect?
Give me a break, you must be a torment on valentines day, imagine having to make sure your effort matched the expected (and scientifically proven) level of love?
Yes I'm romanticizing the words and the feelings and actions, it's called being human.
nagirrac wrote: » On the question of God, he said "When I look at what I call the gift of life, I feel a gratitude which is in tune with some religious ideas of God. However, the moment I even speak about it, I am embarrassed I may do something wrong to God in speaking about God". What a wonderfully humble statement, in contrast to the arrogant and ignorant nonsense from certain atheists.
nagirrac wrote: » Well, it is the Christianity forum, so you should expect people to have a somewhat different view than your extreme scientism. It is quite ironic that you keep bringing up the philosophy of science. You should really read up on Karl Popper, who gave us the modern view on this subject, regarding what he thought about the whole "God" question. He used the phrase "arrogant and ignorant" to describe some athiests, which one can only assume means strong atheists. On the question of God, he said "When I look at what I call the gift of life, I feel a gratitude which is in tune with some religious ideas of God. However, the moment I even speak about it, I am embarrassed I may do something wrong to God in speaking about God". What a wonderfully humble statement, in contrast to the arrogant and ignorant nonsense from certain atheists. You should have no worries about science, it is extremely well funded and will continue to make slow and steady progress with occasional leaps driven by intuitive genius as it always has. The only danger with science is the formation of "fixed ideas" that act as an inhibitor to future study.
Zombrex wrote: » Popper was saying with that quote don't suppose things you cannot know. Don't guess, don't make up stuff and assume its real, don't think you ideas about reality some how mean something just because you thought of them
nagirrac wrote: » If you reflect on this long enough you can only come to one conclusion. The underlying reality of the universe is based on magic (the only word we have to describe it). We have no means whatsoever, currently at least, to understand this reality based on scientific observation.
Morbert wrote: » Yes we do.
philologos wrote: » This is why you need to look into what Jesus actually said and did rather than dismiss it off the cuff. By the by, have you ever thought that if the Bible is God's inspired word, and if God did send Jesus to die for the sin of the world and to raise from the dead three days later that you are doing something wrong by God by rejecting Him?
tommy2bad wrote: » God I hate spelling nazis! And your argument is ??? Yeah and 'goddidit' is about as usefull a retort as nanana! Come on make an attempt at a resoned argument instead of cheap potshots.
Brian Shanahan wrote: » My argument is that your writings are as useless as a paper bag in a hurricane, i.e. that you would have trouble converting a dead fish to your cause never mind a thinking rational person like myself or Zombrex.
Zombrex wrote: » You could do it that way. There are others. For example when I was in hospital the nurses were constantly asking me how I felt and was I in pain. There was even a pain scale so the nurses could communicate to the doctor how this pain was to say another pain. They didn't say Oh well pain is this transcendent experience that goes beyond human under standing, or any other fluffy nonsense. They just said 1 to 10 how is your pain today. You would be amazed how quickly fluffy romanticised nonsense is abandoned when there is an actual need for something. That is a rather irrelevant straw man. What does being able to measure something have to do with having to tell someone. I know exactly how much my flowers cost, am I obliged to inform my hypothetical partner. If the best argument for why these things are intangible and impossible to measure is that otherwise it would be awkward at dinner, well that isn't much of any argument. When has something being nice sounding to humans ever had anything to do with truth. The argument is we cannot measure these things in an empirical fashion. Again if the only argument for that is it more romantic sounding if we pretend we can't that isn't much of an argument.
nagirrac wrote: » Where did you get the idea I dismiss things off the cuff? Any views I have on religion are based on careful examination of what they say. What I think is that as we evolve as a species our concept of "God" will continue to evolve. We started out worshipping the sun and the moon, we then moved on to "revealed" religions, and today I would say we are in the atheistic "science as religion" era. To move on, we need to understand that "nature" is driven by a mental process that creates everything we observe from underlying chaos.
tommy2bad wrote: » Do you always play the man rather than the ball? Please!
Brian Shanahan wrote: » I'm "playing the ball" in this case. Just because you cannot come up with anything it is not my fault. Saying your argument is useless is not playing the man, because it is not a comment on you, but what you say.
tommy2bad wrote: » I claim that their is no empirical evidence for a lot of things we as humans use to get on with life. You seem to be saying 'you are wrong' without proposing an alternative.
Brian Shanahan wrote: » As Zombrex, has said show us proof of all this stuff that cannot be quantifed by empirical evidence. Everything you've previously listed has been shown to be empiricly measurable. I don't need to propose an "alternative" all I have to do is show that you are wrong, which I and others have done.
nagirrac wrote: » Then why would he have asked that the interview in question not be published until after his death? Because it had nothing to do with science and reflected his personal beliefs.
nagirrac wrote: » How confident are you in your understanding of what reality is?
nagirrac wrote: » Arguably the best scientific theory we have is Quantum Theory. It has survived almost 100 years of attempts to falsify it and mathematically is accurate to any number of orders of magnitide you try and throw at it. Of course like any scientific theory it may be falsified someday. What quantum theory unambiguously describes is an underlying reality that is non-local and indeterminate. However, every scientific observable fact we have is always local and determinate (the various double slit experiments). The Irish genius John Stewart Bell resolved this dilemna with his theorem which proves* there is no possible underlying reality that is local and determinate that can result in our observed universe. Put in lay man's terms what Bell's theory tells us is that this universe that appears local and determinate to us is built upon a non-local, indeterminate reality. If you reflect on this long enough you can only come to one conclusion. The underlying reality of the universe is based on magic (the only word we have to describe it).
nagirrac wrote: » We have no means whatsoever, currently at least, to understand this reality based on scientific observation.
nagirrac wrote: » Bell's theory however proves that reality is non-local and indeterminate. It proves that in our underlying reality all things are possible and thus the only plausible conclusion is that nature selects from the "all things possible" to give us the universe we observe.
tommy2bad wrote: » Hmmm. We may be taking across each other at this stage. I never said intangibles were unmeasurable, just unmeasurable by science, I can use as the pain scale but it's always relative to me, my 10 may not be the same as your 10, it's a self reference that can never be more than a guide.
tommy2bad wrote: » The problem I have with your position, and forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you, is that it leads to the same conclusion that Calvin predestination leads, to a clockwork universe. I don't think either of us are claiming that.
tommy2bad wrote: » No, the argument is we cant measure them empirically but it doesn't matter because we can measure them relatively.
tommy2bad wrote: » I cannot quantify them for someone or thing that can't feel to them.
Zombrex wrote: » The idea that Popper's views on science were an "entirely different matter" to his views on anything else just shows how utterly out of touch you actually are. Science is not a philosophy limited to a laboratory or a bunsen. No that is not the conclusion I (or anyone else who has a clue about science) comes to nagirrac. The conclusion we come to is "we don't know". "Magic" is the conclusion you come to because when faced with "we don't know" you seem compelled to fill that gap with what ever nonsense you find most appealing or romantically sounding.
tommy2bad wrote: » Link?
nagirrac wrote: » You seem wedded to the philosophy of science. Here's what Richard Feynmann, an atheist, had to say on the matter: "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds". I believe Feynmann was a most excellent scientist, how come he did not agree with you, as apparently you speak for science?
Pushtrak wrote: » You are so misrepresenting Feynman here I have to wonder if it is intentional. His issue was with philosophy not the scientific method. [/youtube]
