Do you believe in God?

zimmermania · 17-10-2019 7:39pm

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 · 17-10-2019 7:45pm

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 · 17-10-2019 7:47pm

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 · 17-10-2019 10:29pm

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 · 17-10-2019 11:24pm

Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »

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

bahahahahahaha

gctest50 · 17-10-2019 11:32pm

Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »

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

.

Pherekydes · 17-10-2019 11:34pm

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 · 17-10-2019 11:35pm

gctest50 wrote: »

.

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

gctest50 · 17-10-2019 11:45pm

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 · 17-10-2019 11:51pm

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 · 17-10-2019 11:55pm

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 · 17-10-2019 11:57pm

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 · 18-10-2019 7:09am

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 · 18-10-2019 7:15am

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 · 18-10-2019 7:20am

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 · 18-10-2019 7:25am

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 · 18-10-2019 7:30am

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 · 18-10-2019 7:32am

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 · 18-10-2019 7:37am

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 · 18-10-2019 7:37am

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.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-10-2019 7:38am

realitykeeper wrote: »

No. To trust is to affirm what is good in others.

No dictionary I have uses that definition. You are making up your own definition of words to suit yourself at this point.

realitykeeper wrote: »

You say there is no evidence when in fact there is quite a lot if you count testimony as evidence.

As I detailed to two users yesterday, at some length, testimony is indeed evidence but not for what you think it is.

Worse testimony WITHIN a text is not evidence of the truth of the text. You are using the assertions of the bible to prove the truth of the bible. This is circular.

So the issue is not whether testimony is evidence or not, but whether you are fallaciously using the evidence.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-10-2019 7:46am

Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »

We can't prove the wind exists, we know it does by it's effects.

I corrected this error yesterday so weird that you contrive to make it again. Wind does not exist and we prove that by it's effects. Wind is the name we give TO an effect. It IS an effect. It is not itself a thing to be proven.

Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »

God is no different. I know Him by His effect in my life and those around me.

Not the same thing at all. When we measure the effects of something in this world we can distinguish the effects of that thing by showing other things to not have the same effect. We can prove the effect of the thing being tested by distinguishing it from everything else.

What you are doing is merely asserting the effect, without evidence or proof, of something you can not even evidence the existence of.

To say these things are no different therefore is at best a joke, at worst a canard.

Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »

Whether I or anyone believes He exists or not doesn't change His existence.

Exactly! You merely believing it, does not make it real

Glad you see that. That is, at least, a start.

Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »

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.

Do you really think us believing in the afterlife or God means they exist just because we say so? It's either incredible ignorance or arrogance or both to think so.

realitykeeper · 18-10-2019 7:48am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

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

Then you would be wrong.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

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

No matter how much we know, there will always be other things we don`t know. I should point out that wisdom is more important than knowledge. In fact, without wisdom, knowledge has negative value. You complain of childhood cancer yet overlook the fact that humanity is driving many other species to extinction and created weapons of mass destruction which will probably be deployed at some point in the future. Surely if childhood cancer was such a concern, that is what would have consumed the full focus of our attention.

Hypocrisy is another aspect of the human condition. To eradicate it, we should begin by prioritizing wisdom over knowledge.

Fourier · 18-10-2019 7:50am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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".

Just to say in science the reason things get called theory, conjecture or hypothesis is usually aribtrary or historical. Many things are called theory but are completely unverified and some things are called a hypothesis or conjecture even though they have rigorous empirical support.

gctest50 · 18-10-2019 7:51am

realitykeeper wrote: »

.......

To eradicate it, we should begin by prioritizing wisdom over knowledge.

Been overdosing on Proverbs 4:6-7 again then have we ?

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-10-2019 7:52am

Fourier wrote: »

Just to say in science the reason things get called theory, conjecture or hypothesis is usually aribtrary or historical.

I tend to write theory and Theory to make that distinction, though I do not always get it right

But as you say if the field as a whole is not getting it right, then I can not really be expected to always do so either

Wanderer78 · 18-10-2019 7:58am

realitykeeper wrote:

Then you would be wrong.

I would see this statement as being rather arrogant, almost narcissistic. In my mind we have no absolute evidence of God's or the afterlife's existance, but I've no problem with people believing so, I respect their beliefs, but in return, I would ask them to also respect my beliefs.

realitykeeper wrote:

No matter how much we know, there will always be other things we don`t know. I should point out that wisdom is more important than knowledge. In fact, without wisdom, knowledge has negative value. You complain of childhood cancer yet overlook the fact that humanity is driving many other species to extinction and created weapons of mass destruction which will probably be deployed at some point in the future. Surely if childhood cancer was such a concern, that is what would have consumed the focus of our attention.

Cancers of all types, and not just in children, they consume the thoughts of many humans, I'm very grateful of this, as it has helped many globally, it has even saved lives. All humans have abilities, it's important we spend our time perusing these abilities, but not all humans should be made focus on these issues entirely, as we have a multitude of serious issues to work on simultaneously

uck51js9zml2yt · 18-10-2019 7:59am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

How do you know it's oxygen? Just because someone said it was? I've named it negyxo. Job done, that's what it's called.
As I said, we never knew black holes existed until we experienced them. Just because you haven't experienced something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's incredible arrogance to assert it doesn't just because you say so.

But anyway, it comes to a point where one has to consider if a person is worth continuing to discuss something precious with. It's not.
Jesus said if they are worthy, stay. If not, leave. I'm out!
I'll leave you to your science and your ignorance.

realitykeeper · 18-10-2019 8:00am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No dictionary I have uses that definition. You are making up your own definition of words to suit yourself at this point.

I got it from the kung fu master: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwXxjSIzlcg

i.e. affirm the good in man through trust.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I detailed to two users yesterday, at some length, testimony is indeed evidence but not for what you think it is.

Worse testimony WITHIN a text is not evidence of the truth of the text. You are using the assertions of the bible to prove the truth of the bible. This is circular.

So the issue is not whether testimony is evidence or not, but whether you are fallaciously using the evidence.

If it is circular, then you have no argument. The text is evidence and it needs no defense as the text is not on trial.

Fourier · 18-10-2019 8:03am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I tend to write theory and Theory to make that distinction, though I do not always get it right But as you say if the field as a whole is not getting it right, then I can not really be expected to always do so either

I'm not saying you are using it wrong, that is how it is used in the philosophy of science. Especially those philosophers of science following Popper or Kuhn. It's more the use of the word theory in science was long established in science itself prior to this. Where it more often means a well developed body of knowledge and interrelated conjectures where as hypothesis or conjecture usually means a short brief statement.

More so than science getting it wrong, it just doesn't typically use the more recent philosophy of science meaning which you have given here.

realitykeeper · 18-10-2019 8:10am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

All humans have abilities, it's important we spend our time perusing these abilities, but not all humans should be made focus on these issues entirely, as we have a multitude of serious issues to work on simultaneously

Yes but do these issues include warmongering, the development of horrendous weapons etc? It would seem a lot of people think so and yet we complain about childhood cancer. Do you not see the hypocrisy in this?

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-10-2019 8:11am

Fourier wrote: »

I'm not saying you are using it wrong

I know. I was being self critical there only, not suggesting you were. I do my best to make the same distinct when context demands it. But I know myself I do not always get it perfect.

The more important distinction for me in THIS context is between one use of those terms, and how the user above is using them. I am not sure I know what he is asking me, partly because I am not sure HE knows what he is asking me. So I am working with im to discern those two things lest me and he talk at cross purposes.

Fourier · 18-10-2019 8:18am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I know. I was being self critical there only, not suggesting you were. I do my best to make the same distinct when context demands it. But I know myself I do not always get it perfect.

The more important distinction for me in THIS context is between one use of those terms, and how the user above is using them. I am not sure I know what he is asking me, partly because I am not sure HE knows what he is asking me. So I am working with im to discern those two things lest me and he talk at cross purposes.

Don't worry I get that, it's just to let you know it's another "gotcha" I've seen people use, they'll go off and find X theory which has no evidence. The problem being in many cases the scientific use of the word is in some closer to the every day use of the term. Scientists often say "right now it's only a theory" and things like that.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-10-2019 8:18am

Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »

How do you know it's oxygen?

By discerning the attributes in the way I already described. You can observe other gases in the same way and they will not do the same things. You can LOOK at it in multiple ways and it looks different for a start. A candle will not burn in the presence of other gases. And so on. You can compile, test, retest and repeat the relevant attributes and distinguish oxygen from other things.

The issue is we can not do ANY of this with your god hypothesis. We can not test it in ANY way to distinguish the effects of it from anything else. If you give me two gases I can perform tests and tell you which one is oxygen. You can not do that with a "god" hypothesis. You can not look at some "effect" you are attributing to god and in any way perform a test to verify OR negate the hypothesis.

So what you are doing here, intentionally or unintentionally, is creating two different standards and jumping between them as it suits. And that is not a useful way to proceed.

Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »

As I said, we never knew black holes existed until we experienced them. Just because you haven't experienced something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Sure there are things we did not know until we knew them. This is blatantly obvious and I wholly accept that. And until we had a reason to think Black Holes existed, we did not think black holes existed.

But you are not really applying that standard to your god. What you are doing is somewhat different by suggesting it exists BEFORE we have reason to think it does. This is not therefore Analogbus to the history of black holes in the way you want to pretend.

Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »

It's incredible arrogance to assert it doesn't just because you say so.

Did I at any point do that? I usually do not so I am surprised to hear this. Can you quote me so I can retract, or clarify, what it was I actually said?

Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »

I'll leave you to your science and your ignorance.

What ignorance? You have not shown any in me yet.

Phoenix Wright · 18-10-2019 8:19am

I have struggled to believe in God since I was a teenager, but who knows? I mean if you think about it, life itself is miracle so who is to say that there is not something else? We are very complicated beings with families, friends, emotions, thoughts and opinions. I almost struggle to believe that evolution, biology and socialisation can lead to this without some intervention and will from another force

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-10-2019 8:20am

realitykeeper wrote: »

I got it from the kung fu master

Regardless, you are introducing your own pet definitions for words to suit yourself. Which is not likely to help conversation much.

realitykeeper wrote: »

If it is circular, then you have no argument. The text is evidence and it needs no defense as the text is not on trial.

Not sure what the word "trial" is attempting to do here. The point is that if we want to ascertain whether the events testified to in the Bible occurred, then merely resorting to the testimony of the bible is not going to do it. You need more than that.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-10-2019 8:32am

Fourier wrote: »

Scientists often say "right now it's only a theory" and things like that.

Agreed, but very often while talking to the media I think, would I be right? At which point I assume 100% they are talking standard English and I am not thinking of the science meaning of those terms at all.

Dawkins for example when communicating with the public will talk again and again about what the gene "wants". Knowing he is talking to the public, I do not see any reason to take him up on ascribing intentionality to a molecule.

But yeah in general.... leaving science far behind.... I tend to get antsy when we use the same word for multiple things. It is one of the strengths and weaknesses of our language. It can generate great beauty and art, or great confusion and obfuscation.

It has been a big issue for me in, say, the abortion debates. Where we have single words like "Human" to describe very disparate concepts. And much of the anti abortion rhetoric is founded solely in conflating all those meanings into one in such a way that they can leap between them at will in a fashion that manufactures points that are not actually there in reality.

And it does not help that even people who should no better, myself included in this and I berate myself when I catch myself at it, will often switch between contexts and definitions in a way that is not entirely correct. Much like you describe above.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-10-2019 8:36am

Phoenix Wright wrote: »

I have struggled to believe in God since I was a teenager, but who knows? I mean if you think about it, life itself is miracle so who is to say that there is not something else?

Indeed but this is very subjective. I think many people use the word "miracle" to mean things like awesome and wonderful and amazing and rare. In this sense life is very much a miracle to us. To be celebrated and awed at.

The actual meaning of the word however is things like "an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency."

By this definition I think it is a mistake to describe life as a miracle for anything other than artistic license. It is not a miracle. It is just a beautiful wonder to us limited humans. And when something is that wonderous to us, we naturally want to ascribe it to something greater, like a god.

But as Douglas Adams said..... Is it not enough the garden is beautiful without having to imagine there are fairies at the end of it.

Part of the reason we struggle to accept evolution could have produced all this wonder is just that emotionally we do not WANT to think something so precious to us.... came from something so simple, mundane, and mindless.

Fourier · 18-10-2019 8:48am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Agreed, but very often while talking to the media I think, would I be right? At which point I assume 100% they are talking standard English and I am not thinking of the science meaning of those terms at all.

Actually it would be used that way even among scientists themselves. Basically even among each other scientists usually mean just "idea" or "proposal" or a body of interelated such ideas or proposals without intending much about their empirical support. I've heard people say things like "String Theory is still just a theory" at conferences.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-10-2019 8:51am

Thought as much, which is why I edited "usually" out of my post and changed it to "very often"

Think if I heard that at a conference I would get the same feeling I get when people at a gig say "I preferred his old stuff".

Nothing really WRONG with saying that, but still..... it twangs something inside me all the same.

Zubeneschamali · 18-10-2019 8:52am

realitykeeper wrote: »

This life, you see is inherently unfair.

Yes, we noticed.

So, if an all loving God created it, why didn't she make it fair?

Seanachai · 18-10-2019 9:44am

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?

You're not the first to pose that question, Native Americans generally refer to it as the 'Great Mystery' which could be taken as a kind of a cop-out :rolleyes:.

In the Eastern philosophies there isn't any need for a creator for anything to exist, it just is, scientists generally gravitate towards the Eastern viewpoint more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakan_Tanka

https://aeon.co/essays/can-buddhist-philosophy-explain-what-came-before-the-big-bang

realitykeeper · 18-10-2019 9:55am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Regardless, you are introducing your own pet definitions for words to suit yourself. Which is not likely to help conversation much.

Miceart. I quoted Master Kan so it was not my definition. I am merely someone who agrees with Master Kan.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not sure what the word "trial" is attempting to do here. The point is that if we want to ascertain whether the events testified to in the Bible occurred, then merely resorting to the testimony of the bible is not going to do it. You need more than that.

You said there was no evidence. There is, i.e. testimony. Now you want more evidence? This reminds me of the parable of the rich man in hell:

…30‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone is sent to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31Then Abraham said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

the-island-man · 18-10-2019 10:00am

Ryann Yummy Mosque wrote: »

If you were baptized, then you're technically a Roman Catholic, regardless of whether you go to mass or believe in God. There's a formal process by which people can defect from the Catholic Church, but few bother to take that step..

As of 2011 there is no formal process. The option was removed from canon law:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/church-defection-website-shuts-due-to-change-in-canon-law-1.1488263

seamus · 18-10-2019 10:01am

realitykeeper wrote: »

You said there was no evidence. There is, i.e. testimony. Now you want more evidence? This reminds me of the parable of the rich man in hell:

…30‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone is sent to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31Then Abraham said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

That's circular reasoning. "This testimony is fact because it says it is".

Or to use that old joke:

Jesus: "Let me in so I can save you"

Man: "Save me from what?"

Jesus: "From what I'm going to do to you if you don't let me in".

The value of any individual piece of evidence is measured by corroboration. The more it can be corroborated, the more valuable it is.

A single piece of uncorroborated testimony is of extremely limited value.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-10-2019 10:04am

realitykeeper wrote: »

Miceart. I quoted Master Kan so it was not my definition. I am merely someone who agrees with Master Kan.

Please read more carefully. I did not say it was your definition. I am saying you are introducing your pet definitions. Different thing.

But pedantic linguistic issues aside, you attempted to draw a parallel between faith and trust and I made the distinction that one is more evidence based that the other. That distinction still holds true for the new definition you just imported too.

realitykeeper wrote: »

You said there was no evidence. There is, i.e. testimony.

And ONCE AGAIN (I am happy to say it as often as you are happy to repeat the error) the testimony is not evidence. At least not in the sense you are using it.

If the question is "Is there a god" then the testimony that there is a god IS the thing we are trying to evidence. So using the testimony as evidence for itself, is circular. You are using AS evidence, the thing I am seeking evidence for.

So no, I am not seeking "more" evidence. You have not provided ANY evidence yet for the thing I actually asked so I can not be seeking "more" by definition.

The testimony of people who think there is a god, is only evidence that some people think there is a god. It is not, at all, evidence there actually is one.

realitykeeper · 18-10-2019 10:12am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, we noticed.

So, if an all living God created it, why didn't she make it fair?

If you do not understand the ways of this life, you would not understand the reasoning of the next. Anecdotally, we know that inequality is in fact a very good thing as it encourages co-operation e.g. trade. Societies that try to impose equality end up impoverished with everyone attempting to serve only themselves. By contrast, a blind man can carry a sighted cripple. If there was no reason to co-operate, life would be unpleasant.

Let he who hath understanding count the number of the beast. So it is the lack of understanding and the proliferation of confusion that enables evil to thrive.

seamus · 18-10-2019 10:19am

realitykeeper wrote: »

Let he who hath understanding count the number of the beast.

I love that song.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-10-2019 10:20am

realitykeeper wrote: »

If you do not understand the ways of this life, you would not understand the reasoning of the next.

Again, until you show there IS a next one, you have not shown there is anything to understand. So asserting people do not understand it, is fantasy on your part.

Have you any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest human experience, subjectivity, or consciousness survives the death of the brain?

Or do you just have more of this "I just know it" to offer?

Zubeneschamali · 18-10-2019 11:13am

realitykeeper wrote: »

a blind man can carry a sighted cripple. If there was no reason to co-operate, life would be unpleasant.

Life is unpleasant for the people who die in famines through no fault of their own, the children who die of cancer, the civilian casualties in war and terrorism. And these people are religious in the same proportion as any other people, belief in God is no protection from anything.

And if your god exists, they set it up that way. They apparently like cancer and worms in children's eyes and so on.

Do you believe in God?

Comments