Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 136

Thread: Determinism, Morals, and God.

  1. #1 Determinism, Morals, and God. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    It is my believe that there is no random. Random is the lack of understanding of how something works. There are plenty of things people perceive to be random. Two simple examples include a die roll or a coin flip. If one were to have all the variables for each particular instance of a die roll or a coin flip they would be able to predict each of their outcomes without any uncertainty. The problem in doing this is that humans both as a single entity or a collective group will never be able to hold all the variables.

    Morals are very similar. There is only right and wrong. They are are not ambiguous, they are set in stone. What is right will ultimately end in success and happiness and what is wrong will ultimately end in failure and misery. We with our finite minds can not understand everything and in the moral area when we come to a situation we can not understand we often call it a gray area. The thing is that gray is just the blurring of light and dark, but it seems like many people have forgotten that.

    How do airplanes fly? How do things work? An all inclusive answer would be, because everything is ordered. In other terms there are rules to how everything works. Science is not an entity, science is a methodology for understanding how the universe works. We then use this understanding to develop technology. Technology can be crudely described as something that uses the rules of the universe to create an outcome intended by its maker.

    Now that we know that everything is ordered in the universe because things would just not work, I will make this statement.

    From order chaos can easily be derived, but from chaos order can not.

    Things do not tend to magically get better, usually things get rationally worse.

    Order needs not only a creator, but a maintainer.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,831
    Oh good.
    Apart from some rather unforgivable errors (such as, for one, "order can't come from chaos" 1) which I'll largely ignore I'll stick to your main point.
    Which I see as this:
    If one were to have all the variables for each particular instance of a die roll or a coin flip they would be able to predict each of their outcomes without any uncertainty.
    Do you subscribe to the belief that "god" knows all of these variables?
    Simple question, therefore simple answer: yes or no.

    1 Again, since you couldn't be bothered to support your claim I'll do you the same (lack of) courtesy. But you might want actually Google "chaos leading to order" sometime before you claim such a thing again.


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    Hi, it is you again.


    Yes I believe in God and I believe in Jesus and I think that God is all knowing.


    I believe that God is outside of time. He created time along with everything else and is above and beyond our understanding.


    I believe we as humans have a finite mind and can never understand everything.


    I believe that in the beginning we were all evil and that is why God created time.


    I believe time is a chance to seek God's help and become good because if there is no time we would eternally be evil and would forever suffer.


    I currently think that chaos can not create sustainable order because to me it would defy my current understanding of logic.


    I think and truly believe that God is all that is good and all that is good is derived from God.


    I also think that we are currently in a Tower of Babble age.


    I also want to make it clear that I have come to these conclusions of my own thought and reasoning and from what I have personally experienced.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,831
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Yes I believe in God and I believe in Jesus and I think that God is all knowing.
    Would you agree then that god knew what would happen to us before we were born?
    Before he even created the Earth?
    Who would be good and who would be evil?
    (I'm taking this one slowly on purpose).

    I believe that in the beginning we were all evil and that is why God created time.
    Uh what?
    We existed before time?

    I currently think that chaos can not create sustainable order because to me it would defy my current understanding of logic.
    Try that Google I mentioned.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    If God is all-knowing why does God have to get Adam to tell him the names of the animals in Genesis?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    If God is all-knowing why does God have to get Adam to tell him the names of the animals in Genesis?
    When you have a young child you might show it a flower and say, "What colour is this?" That was not because you did not know but you want to see how intelligent your child was.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    If God is all-knowing why does God have to get Adam to tell him the names of the animals in Genesis?
    When you have a young child you might show it a flower and say, "What colour is this?" That was not because you did not know but you want to see how intelligent your child was.
    If god is all knowing, why would he want to see how intelligent the child was?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    If God is all-knowing why does God have to get Adam to tell him the names of the animals in Genesis?
    When you have a young child you might show it a flower and say, "What colour is this?" That was not because you did not know but you want to see how intelligent your child was.
    If god is all knowing, why would he want to see how intelligent the child was?
    Even when you know you have intelligence you take an IQ test just to confirm it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    I believe that God is outside of time. He created time along with everything else and is above and beyond our understanding.
    Were we and everything else including god stagnant.
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    I believe that in the beginning we were all evil and that is why God created time.
    Were we and everything else including god stagnant.
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    I believe time is a chance to seek God's help and become good because if there is no time we would eternally be evil and would forever suffer.
    Were we and everything else including god stagnant. I've repeated this several times so please do think about your answer.
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    I currently think that chaos can not create sustainable order because to me it would defy my current understanding of logic.
    Something to mull over. From Dr Robert Stovold.
    Sandwiched between a plagiarised biography and biased references are several canards from the Creationist canon, such as (and I paraphrase) “evolution is simply a matter of chance”, and “the complexity of living things requires a designer”. I’ve refuted both lies with an analogy that I’ve used for years, which I’ll share with Freethinker readers in the form of an amusing conversation I once had with a Creationist:

    Creationist: Design requires a designer – it couldn’t arise by random chance!

    Me: Would you say that order requires an orderer?

    Creationist: Yes.

    Me: So why is it that all the small cornflakes tend to settle at the base of the box? Do you think it’s because God put them there?

    Creationist: No – it must be, well, gravity pulling the small flakes down.

    Me: Wouldn’t gravity have pulled the large flakes down as well? Why do the small flakes fall further?

    Creationist: I don’t know.

    Me: It’s because small flakes fall through large gaps, but large flakes can’t fall through small gaps. The flakes sieve themselves. Random shaking of the box coupled with a non-random filtering law (which we might call “the furthest-falling of the smallest” or “the persistence of the largest”) leads to an ordering of flakes over time, with no intelligent input required. Random shaking is analogous to random mutation, and “the survival of the fittest” (Natural Selection) is analogous to “the persistence of the largest”. Cornflakes and living things are both self-ordering systems, filtering out smaller flakes and deleterious mutations respectively. Cornflakes become more organised over time, and organisms become better-adapted.

    Creationist: There must be more to it than that? There must be! There has to be!

    [Walks away scratching his head....]

    A more detailed refutation of Comfort’s nonsense is beyond the scope of this blog, but will appear in a future print edition of The Freethinker.
    The Freethinker - The voice of atheism since 1881 » On the Origin of Specious Arguments
    Dr Robert Stovold
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    I also want to make it clear that I have come to these conclusions of my own thought and reasoning and from what I have personally experienced.
    Then you need to rethink you position!
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    If God is all-knowing why does God have to get Adam to tell him the names of the animals in Genesis?
    When you have a young child you might show it a flower and say, "What colour is this?" That was not because you did not know but you want to see how intelligent your child was.
    If god is all knowing, why would he want to see how intelligent the child was?
    ed
    Even when you know you have intelligence you take an IQ test just to confirm it.
    IQ isn't designed to confirm intelligence, it designed to assess it. So when you take an IQ you already know you are reasonably intelligent, you just wish to know at what level.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    If God is all-knowing why does God have to get Adam to tell him the names of the animals in Genesis?
    When you have a young child you might show it a flower and say, "What colour is this?" That was not because you did not know but you want to see how intelligent your child was.
    If god is all knowing, why would he want to see how intelligent the child was?
    ed
    Even when you know you have intelligence you take an IQ test just to confirm it.
    IQ isn't designed to confirm intelligence, it designed to assess it. So when you take an IQ you already know you are reasonably intelligent, you just wish to know at what level.
    I'm not like God so I stay away from IQ tests.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I'm not like God so I stay away from IQ tests.
    Nor am I, I'm not fictitious. However I know what level my IQ's at.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    It is my believe that there is no random. From order chaos can easily be derived, but from chaos order can not.
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    I believe that God is outside of time. He created time along with everything else and is above and beyond our understanding.
    I will never be able to wrap my head around this.

    An outright refusal to believe things which can be demonstrated, measured, and explained. A refusal to accept scientific rationale coupled with open acceptance of something which admittedly exists outside of time and space and is, by your very definition, unknowable.

    Do you reject big bang theory? If so, how? How can you rationalize a non-acceptance of science, but a complete and utterly blind acceptance of something you say you can't understand?

    I don't get it.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    ...
    Yes I believe in God and I believe in Jesus and I think that God is all knowing.....
    I also want to make it clear that I have come to these conclusions of my own thought and reasoning and from what I have personally experienced.
    Hi deepblah.
    I read in another thread where you explained a bit about why you think this way. I wish you all the luck in the world but I really think you should be talking to your doctors and should reconsider your decision to go off your meds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    ...
    Yes I believe in God and I believe in Jesus and I think that God is all knowing.....
    I also want to make it clear that I have come to these conclusions of my own thought and reasoning and from what I have personally experienced.
    Hi deepblah.
    I read in another thread where you explained a bit about why you think this way. I wish you all the luck in the world but I really think you should be talking to your doctors and should reconsider your decision to go off your meds.
    . deleted my comment
    Last edited by Robittybob1; August 16th, 2014 at 04:15 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    Debate is good it will give me something to think about over time, and try to remember how I came to understand these concepts. I got upset one day and ripped up the five notebooks I filled with ideas and thoughts. Also I am glad it seems that the discussion is bit nicer.

    Would you agree then that god knew what would happen to us before we were born?
    Before he even created the Earth?
    Who would be good and who would be evil?
    (I'm taking this one slowly on purpose).

    It is my belief and my understanding that we are all evil and that is why God created time. Time is a chance to seek God's help and to become good because if there was no time then there could be no change and therefore we would forever be evil.

    AKA since we are not perfect and can not be perfect we are evil and need God's help.

    Also to be perfect you would have to know everything.


    Uh what?
    We existed before time?
    No, God knew everything that would happen. My eyes were messing up and it was late. It is also why I have started spacing things out again. Also you were very mean and I was very sad at that time. I was not sad just because of you, but because the day had been going badly for me and my family.


    1 Again, since you couldn't be bothered to support your claim I'll do you the same (lack of) courtesy. But you might want actually Google "chaos leading to order" sometime before you claim such a thing again.

    What I found when I searched that was chaos theory. Is that what you meant?

    I am going to share my thoughts on that if it is what you meant or have not meant. I have read about it before though.

    To my understand chaos theory is saying that there is no one that would be able to predict outcomes even in a deterministic system because a single determinate system would be too complex for someone to understand.

    I agree with this. The thing is God is not a person. God is the creator and the maintainer and has created the rules we are currently coming to better understand.

    When you have a young child you might show it a flower and say, "What colour is this?" That was not because you did not know but you want to see how intelligent your child was.
    That is kind of what is happening here just not in the way others might be thinking.

    Were we and everything else including god stagnant.
    Were we and everything else including god stagnant.
    Were we and everything else including god stagnant.
    I believe it is beyond our understand to fully comprehend something that we are not able to experience.

    I believe that it is possible that there was also no height, width, or depth as well. Is that call a singularity I have no idea? Or may be I just can not remember.

    Can you fully comprehend something that you can not or have not experienced?

    This why we call things random or we call things in which we can not understand in moral situations gray areas. These things come from our inability to understand everything. You must realize that you are a human with a finite mind.

    If half the world experiences one thing and the other the opposite which one really happened?

    I ask this question to may be help you and anyone else realize that you have a finite mind and if something is not understandable to you does not mean it is not true.


    It’s because small flakes fall through large gaps, but large flakes can’t fall through small gaps. The flakes sieve themselves. Random shaking of the box coupled with a non-random filtering law (which we might call “the furthest-falling of the smallest” or “the persistence of the largest”) leads to an ordering of flakes over time, with no intelligent input required. Random shaking is analogous to random mutation, and “the survival of the fittest” (Natural Selection) is analogous to “the persistence of the largest”. Cornflakes and living things are both self-ordering systems, filtering out smaller flakes and deleterious mutations respectively. Cornflakes become more organised over time, and organisms become better-adapted.
    Yes I understand this.

    Now tell me, why does it work that way?

    Also I will quote what I posted before.

    Science is not an entity, science is a methodology for understanding how the universe works.
    The hint is, science is not the answer.


    I will never be able to wrap my head around this.

    An outright refusal to believe things which can be demonstrated, measured, and explained. A refusal to accept scientific rationale coupled with open acceptance of something which admittedly exists outside of time and space and is, by your very definition, unknowable.

    Do you reject big bang theory? If so, how? How can you rationalize a non-acceptance of science, but a complete and utterly blind acceptance of something you say you can't understand?
    The feeling is mutual. I believe many are blinded by their pride and shiny degrees.

    Do believe that there is random?

    I do not reject the big bang theory. The Bible already answers this in the beginning there was nothing only God. This would include time or space or whatever you would like throw at it.

    Hi deepblah.
    I read in another thread where you explained a bit about why you think this way. I wish you all the luck in the world but I really think you should be talking to your doctors and should reconsider your decision to go off your meds.
    Thank you for your concern. I wish to not go back on medications. I can understand where you are coming from though I sound like a loon sometimes. The thing is it had gotten to the point where I did not want to do anything except to sleep and eat and then play video games. Then it got so bad I did not want to play games, but to just eat and sleep because my waking hours were so horrible.

    I do not understand why they are putting and have been putting children on resperidol and various other psychotropic drugs at a very young age. To sum it up I have been on medications since I have been a child and that has been more than half my life. I was never violent to anyone even to myself. I just had a lot of meltdowns, even on the medications.

    Does modern science not realize how that can effect a human brain, especially if you are a developing child, because I can tell you what it had and has done to me.
    Last edited by deepblah123; August 16th, 2014 at 05:17 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,831
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    No, God knew everything that would happen.
    Okay we have this from you: "god" knew everything that would happen. ("Before he even created the Earth?" was the way I asked it).
    So what you're saying is.
    "God" created us knowing how we would turn out.
    Knowing who would be good and who would be evil. (Forget this about "all of us being evil until time started" - it's largely irrelevant).
    So "god" knew, before each and every one of is was born how we'd turn out - whether we'd be worth "saving" or not.
    And, because he knows everything we can't turn out any other way (because if we did, somehow, become good when he knew we'd be bad he'd have been wrong).

    And yet he went and created us all regardless.
    Even the "bad" ones who have no chance whatsoever at becoming good and being "saved".
    And, in fact, no chance of altering the behaviour (one way or the other) of those who turn out to be good.
    In other words he specifically created some of us to be condemned.
    Does that not strike you as somewhat sadistic?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Sounds like she specifically created me to not believe in her so she could send me to hell for my blasphemy. Even weirder, she created an ever-growing movement of rational thinkers who are rejecting religion and substituting higher education. Strange cat, that God.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    Okay we have this from you: "god" knew everything that would happen. ("Before he even created the Earth?" was the way I asked it).
    So what you're saying is.
    "God" created us knowing how we would turn out.
    Knowing who would be good and who would be evil. (Forget this about "all of us being evil until time started" - it's largely irrelevant).
    So "god" knew, before each and every one of is was born how we'd turn out - whether we'd be worth "saving" or not.
    And, because he knows everything we can't turn out any other way (because if we did, somehow, become good when he knew we'd be bad he'd have been wrong).

    And yet he went and created us all regardless.
    Even the "bad" ones who have no chance whatsoever at becoming good and being "saved".
    And, in fact, no chance of altering the behaviour (one way or the other) of those who turn out to be good.
    In other words he specifically created some of us to be condemned.
    Does that not strike you as somewhat sadistic?

    So why do you not choose now? Also why are you so mad?


    Sounds like she specifically created me to not believe in her so she could send me to hell for my blasphemy. Even weirder, she created an ever-growing movement of rational thinkers who are rejecting religion and substituting higher education. Strange cat, that God.

    So why do you not choose now?

    Also it seems like you are getting mad too, but instead are using sarcasm to try to make me as mad as I have made you or maybe as mad as God has made you. I have no idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,831
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Also why are you so mad?
    I'm not mad, nor even close.
    The words were written large because they form the important and crucial question.

    So why do you not choose now?
    You're mistaken.
    If "god" knew before I was born (before Earth even existed) I CANNOT choose.
    Because, as you said, "he/ she/ it/ them" knows. Therefore whatever I do is what "god" knew I would/ will do. There is no choice.
    If god knew that, at some point, I will decide to believe then, AT THAT POINT ONLY I will start to believe. Until then I will not and CANNOT believe.
    And those who do not "choose" were created without being able to choose.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    I'm not mad, nor even close.
    The words were written large because they form the important and crucial question.
    I thought that large and bold print implies shouting.



    You're mistaken.
    If "god" knew before I was born (before Earth even existed) I CANNOT choose.
    Because, as you said, "he/ she/ it/ them" knows. Therefore whatever I do is what "god" knew I would/ will do. There is no choice.
    If god knew that, at some point, I will decide to believe then, AT THAT POINT ONLY I will start to believe. Until then I will not and CANNOT believe.
    And those who do not "choose" were created without being able to choose.

    Well I never said I did not believe in free will. I hold the compatibilist view.


    To sum it up from some guy I can not remember his name, "Man can do as he wills, but can not will what he wills."


    Here is how I see life.


    Influences > Will > Actions > Influences



    In other words human's are a culmination of their influences and their actions shape their influences.


    Perhaps this experience will be a positive influence for you and me and all that view this.


    Also the Bible says God has mercy on who he has mercy. At least to my current memory I think it says that somewhere. I am thinking it is in one of Paul's writings.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,831
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    I thought that large and bold print implies shouting.
    It depends on context.

    I hold the compatibilist view.
    Ah.
    a "wretched subterfuge" and "word jugglery." (Kant)
    Regardless, god either knows or he doesn't.
    If he does we can't choose (although we may very well believe that we can).

    Influences > Will > Actions > Influences
    In other words human's are a culmination of their influences and their actions shape their influences.
    Perhaps this experience will be a positive influence for you and me and all that view this.
    If god knows then we cannot choose. Ever.
    All influences were (if god knew beforehand) a fixed thing before they were even started.
    So it was set up from the very beginning what influences you would come under and also how you would react to them.
    There is no choice.

    Also the Bible says God has mercy on who he has mercy. At least to my current memory I think it says that somewhere. I am thinking it is in one of Paul's writings.
    Yeah, all that means is that if you were created to have mercy then "god" would be merciful.
    Sorta makes a mockery of the word "mercy" doesn't it?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    I was not aware that Dywyddyr was quite so familiar with Calvinist doctrine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,831
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    I was not aware that Dywyddyr was quite so familiar with Calvinist doctrine.
    Pfft, I'm so familiar with Calvinism I didn't even know that there anything in common with it and what I'd written.

    Upon checking Wiki however, I found this: "While people are said to retain free will".
    I'm of the opinion that, if "god" exists (with the attribute of omniscience 1) then free will cannot exist.


    ETA: ah, further digging goes into unconditional election.
    Yes, I see the parallels.

    1 Actually, anyone or anything with omniscience negates free will, but I haven't come across anyone claiming it for anything but "god".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    If God is all-knowing why does God have to get Adam to tell him the names of the animals in Genesis?
    When you have a young child you might show it a flower and say, "What colour is this?" That was not because you did not know but you want to see how intelligent your child was.
    If god is all knowing, why would he want to see how intelligent the child was?
    Even when you know you have intelligence you take an IQ test just to confirm it.
    I guess you are having difficultly with the term "all knowing". There is no test necessary. If someone else was preparing said test, then that person would be all knowing since they would be able to determine if god's answers correct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    If God is all-knowing why does God have to get Adam to tell him the names of the animals in Genesis?
    When you have a young child you might show it a flower and say, "What colour is this?" That was not because you did not know but you want to see how intelligent your child was.
    If god is all knowing, why would he want to see how intelligent the child was?
    Even when you know you have intelligence you take an IQ test just to confirm it.
    I guess you are having difficultly with the term "all knowing". There is no test necessary. If someone else was preparing said test, then that person would be all knowing since they would be able to determine if god's answers correct.
    I suppose there is a difference between being all-knowing and a smart ass?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    How you choose to define yourself is your decision.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    How you choose to define yourself is your decision.
    And how do you handle it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    How you choose to define yourself is your decision.
    And how do you handle it?
    You guys are funny.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    How you choose to define yourself is your decision.
    And how do you handle it?
    You guys are funny.
    This is serious stuff. I really have no idea why God got Adam to name the animals - Imagine if God named them they might have been given some sort of part number representing the evolutionary steps taken up to that point!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    I believe that this debate of logic has already been won. You are stumbling over your own logic and your own words, it was obvious when you started using your emotions to counter attack the logic that I put forth. You did this because you could not dispute it with rational thought, the very thing you accuse Christians of not being able to do.

    In other words he specifically created some of us to be condemned.
    Does that not strike you as somewhat sadistic?

    I will try to attempt to continue to humor you. Also your statement would lead me to believe that you have also had a hard life.


    Ah.
    a "wretched subterfuge" and "word jugglery." (Kant)
    Regardless, god either knows or he doesn't.
    If he does we can't choose (although we may very well believe that we can).

    If god knows then we cannot choose. Ever.
    All influences were (if god knew beforehand) a fixed thing before they were even started.
    So it was set up from the very beginning what influences you would come under and also how you would react to them.
    There is no choice.

    If you fail to understand something that does not mean it does not exist.


    I have already explained this and will now reiterate, but will attempt to not be so condescending.


    Humans are a culmination of their experiences. What people do is based upon what they experienced both environmental and genetic.


    People have wills and are free to act upon their will, but they can not decide what they will. Your definition of free will opposes modern science, which to my understand is built upon cause and effect or as Newton put it, "every action has an equal and opposite reaction."


    I am giving you logical reasons as to why God must exist and you are choosing to refute them with emotions probably because you have had experiences in your life that have created influences that make you bitter to the truth.


    I believe you said something like this before, "This is not science."



    If god knows then we cannot choose. Ever.
    All influences were (if god knew beforehand) a fixed thing before they were even started.
    So it was set up from the very beginning what influences you would come under and also how you would react to them.
    There is no choice.
    You're mistaken.
    If "god" knew before I was born (before Earth even existed) I CANNOT choose.
    Because, as you said, "he/ she/ it/ them" knows. Therefore whatever I do is what "god" knew I would/ will do. There is no choice.
    If god knew that, at some point, I will decide to believe then, AT THAT POINT ONLY I will start to believe. Until then I will not and CANNOT believe.
    And those who do not "choose" were created without being able to choose.


    You are now conforming to the logic that I have put forth whether you realize it or not and the reason is because it is the truth.

    People think about this all the time whether Christian or Atheist or any other religion.


    People can not understand everything, especially something that is infinite because our minds are finite.



    Can you fully comprehend something that you can not or have not experienced?

    This why we call things random or we call things in which we can not understand in moral situations gray areas. These things come from our inability to understand everything. You must realize that you are a human with a finite mind.

    If half the world experiences one thing and the other the opposite which one really happened?

    I ask this question to may be help you and anyone else realize that you have a finite mind and if something is not understandable to you does not mean it is not true.

    Also the answer to that question was, what ever really happened.

    I was trying to show you and others that reality is not dependent on any one person's or multiple person's perception of reality, but to whatever holds true within reality.




    It’s because small flakes fall through large gaps, but large flakes can’t fall through small gaps. The flakes sieve themselves. Random shaking of the box coupled with a non-random filtering law (which we might call “the furthest-falling of the smallest” or “the persistence of the largest”) leads to an ordering of flakes over time, with no intelligent input required. Random shaking is analogous to random mutation, and “the survival of the fittest” (Natural Selection) is analogous to “the persistence of the largest”. Cornflakes and living things are both self-ordering systems, filtering out smaller flakes and deleterious mutations respectively. Cornflakes become more organised over time, and organisms become better-adapted.



    Yes I understand this.

    Now tell me, why does it work that way?

    Also I will quote what I posted before.


    Science is not an entity, science is a methodology for understanding how the universe works.



    The hint is, science is not the answer.

    Also this person or any other has failed to answer my question.

    This leads me to believe that this person and others in this conversation are purposely avoiding it because it is contrary to their current understanding and they have no way refute it or may be they can not understand.

    I will give you the answer to the question now.

    The answer is God.

    If you were to say the Laws of Nature I would say, who created those laws or why do they exist?

    Then you would say I do not know.

    Or would say why do laws have to be created?

    I would say laws or rules imply that something has been order and therefore requires intelligence.

    Then you would yell and say something like this.

    In other words he specifically created some of us to be condemned.
    Does that not strike you as somewhat sadistic?
    Then you would walk away scratching your head.



    Me: So why is it that all the small cornflakes tend to settle at the base of the box? Do you think it’s because God put them there?

    Creationist: No – it must be, well, gravity pulling the small flakes down.

    Me: Wouldn’t gravity have pulled the large flakes down as well? Why do the small flakes fall further?

    Creationist: I don’t know.

    Me: It’s because small flakes fall through large gaps, but large flakes can’t fall through small gaps. The flakes sieve themselves. Random shaking of the box coupled with a non-random filtering law (which we might call “the furthest-falling of the smallest” or “the persistence of the largest”) leads to an ordering of flakes over time, with no intelligent input required. Random shaking is analogous to random mutation, and “the survival of the fittest” (Natural Selection) is analogous to “the persistence of the largest”. Cornflakes and living things are both self-ordering systems, filtering out smaller flakes and deleterious mutations respectively. Cornflakes become more organised over time, and organisms become better-adapted.

    Creationist: There must be more to it than that? There must be! There has to be!

    [Walks away scratching his head....]
    .

    I use science to help me figure things out because many things are confusing to me including people.

    I get the feeling many others use it as a barrier to hide behind as they tout a false intellectual superiority. I believe it may also be a way of being a part of such a community and gaining a some kind of sense of belonging.
    Last edited by deepblah123; August 17th, 2014 at 09:54 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    If you were to say the Laws of Nature I would say, who created those laws or why do they exist?

    Then you would say I do not know.
    I would question you application of "who" to a situation where it does not belong. There is no requirement for a who in this case. Your need to anthropomorphize the universe is your own failing, not a misunderstanding by another party.

    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Or would say why do laws have to be created?
    Again, your requirement for a "why" implies you feel there is a purpose behind everything. There is no evidence that this is the case. Another failure to understand the other side of the argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Then you would yell and say something like this.
    Projecting. Your argument loses credibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    I get the feeling many others use [science] as a barrier to hide behind as they tout a false intellectual superiority.
    Says the person who claims to know the answers to the entire existence of the universe...
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    I would question you application of "who" to a situation where it does not belong. There is no requirement for a who in this case. Your need to anthropomorphize the universe is your own failing, not a misunderstanding by another party.
    You have yet to share your answer.

    Again, your requirement for a "why" implies you feel there is a purpose behind everything. There is no evidence that this is the case. Another failure to understand the other side of the argument.
    I would like to know your side, please inform me.

    All you have yet to do is say is

    I will never be able to wrap my head around this.

    An outright refusal to believe things which can be demonstrated, measured, and explained. A refusal to accept scientific rationale coupled with open acceptance of something which admittedly exists outside of time and space and is, by your very definition, unknowable.

    Do you reject big bang theory? If so, how? How can you rationalize a non-acceptance of science, but a complete and utterly blind acceptance of something you say you can't understand?

    I don't get it.
    and

    Sounds like she specifically created me to not believe in her so she could send me to hell for my blasphemy. Even weirder, she created an ever-growing movement of rational thinkers who are rejecting religion and substituting higher education. Strange cat, that God.
    Which was nothing, but sarcasm and mockery, which is nice because it leads me to your next comment.

    Projecting. Your argument loses credibility.
    I am answering the questions that you are failing to answer.

    I thought that you or others would have an answer. You are quick to speak mean words, but slow to make any kind of rational thought as to why I should believe what you feel to be true.

    Answer this question, please.

    Do you think things happen for no reason?


    Again, your requirement for a "why" implies you feel there is a purpose behind everything. There is no evidence that this is the case. Another failure to understand the other side of the argument.
    Yes this is how science works. If things happen for no reason then science does not work. Here I answered that for you already.

    Your definition of free will opposes modern science, which to my understand is built upon cause and effect or as Newton put it, "every action has an equal and opposite reaction."
    Says the person who claims to know the answers to the entire existence of the universe...
    I will admit I get prideful sometimes and other times I hate myself.

    Could you please show me where I made the claim that I know all the answers to the entire existence of the universe.

    I thought I said the opposite.

    I believe it is beyond our understand to fully comprehend something that we are not able to experience.
    People can not understand everything, especially something that is infinite because our minds are finite.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,831
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    I believe that this debate of logic has already been won. You are stumbling over your own logic and your own words, it was obvious when you started using your emotions to counter attack the logic that I put forth. You did this because you could not dispute it with rational thought, the very thing you accuse Christians of not being able to do.
    Your claims here show several things:
    1) You don't know how logic works.
    2) You're not exactly sure what "logic" is. (E.g. the "logic that you put forth" wasn't logic it was unsupported claims).
    3) You are - again - assuming emotion on my part.
    4) If you had any actual logic to refute my arguments then you should, really, have used it, rather than make more claims.

    I will try to attempt to continue to humor you. Also your statement would lead me to believe that you have also had a hard life.
    Again, you're assuming.
    I asked a question: can you answer it?

    If you fail to understand something that does not mean it does not exist.
    And if you claim something it doesn't mean that it DOES exist.

    I have already explained this and will now reiterate, but will attempt to not be so condescending.
    No, you've explained nothing - you have, however, claimed much.

    People have wills and are free to act upon their will
    This is not an established fact.

    Your definition of free will opposes modern science
    Given the extremely poor understanding of science that you've shown thus far (modern or not) I'm not going to accept this without actual evidence. Please provide links showing how I "oppose modern science".

    which to my understand is built upon cause and effect or as Newton put it, "every action has an equal and opposite reaction."
    Yep, you're wrong.
    Newton's law applies SOLELY to physical systems; it doesn't come into the picture - at all - with regard to "human experiences".

    I am giving you logical reasons as to why God must exist and you are choosing to refute them with emotions probably because you have had experiences in your life that have created influences that make you bitter to the truth.
    Once again you confuse your (unsupported) claims with logic and assume emotion on my part. You also, once again, think it's a good idea to assume things about my life.
    And, just to top it off, you claim "truth" when it has not been shown to so.

    You are now conforming to the logic that I have put forth whether you realize it or not and the reason is because it is the truth.
    1) If I'm "conforming" does that mean that you agree with me?
    2) You didn't use logic - you made claims.
    3) And again - you claim "truth" and it hasn't been established that it is.

    People think about this all the time whether Christian or Atheist or any other religion.
    Um atheism isn't a religion.

    People can not understand everything, especially something that is infinite because our minds are finite.
    So what?
    YOU are making claims.
    You haven't supported them.
    You haven't addressed my argument (except for claiming you've "defeated" me, making irrelevant assumptions and ascribing suppositional motives to me).

    Also this person or any other has failed to answer my question.
    This leads me to believe that this person and others in this conversation are purposely avoiding it because it is contrary to their current understanding and they have no way refute it or may be they can not understand.
    I will give you the answer to the question now.
    The answer is God.
    If you were to say the Laws of Nature I would say, who created those laws or why do they exist?
    Then you would say I do not know.
    Or would say why do laws have to be created?
    I would say laws or rules imply that something has been order and therefore requires intelligence.
    Yeah, I think this sums up your entire stance. And, for that matter, your entire arsenal available to you in the argument.
    You believe.
    You will not change your mind.
    You are incapable (or entirely unwilling) to address the subject rationally and logically.
    You are prepared to skirt close to making ad homs in order to hang on to your position.

    I use science to help me figure things out
    You have, as I said earlier, no clue about science (this was demonstrated quite conclusively in the first thread you started). Your claim to "use" it to help you out is, therefore, either a delusion or a lie.

    I get the feeling many others use it as a barrier to hide behind as they tout a false intellectual superiority.
    Oh look - going toward the personal attacks again...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    60
    To Deepblah and RobbityBob:

    Do you both believe the Bible to be the word of God? If so, why?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by RobinM View Post
    To Deepblah and RobbityBob:

    Do you both believe the Bible to be the word of God? If so, why?
    You need to start a new thread to change topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    Your claims here show several things:
    1) You don't know how logic works.
    2) You're not exactly sure what "logic" is. (E.g. the "logic that you put forth" wasn't logic it was unsupported claims).
    3) You are - again - assuming emotion on my part.
    4) If you had any actual logic to refute my arguments then you should, really, have used it, rather than make more claims.
    The feeling is mutual.

    Again, you're assuming.
    I asked a question: can you answer it?
    Please direct me to the question. I must have missed it.

    No, you've explained nothing - you have, however, claimed much.
    What have I not explained?

    What question have I not answered.

    Please ask the question you are having trouble understanding and I will attempt to explain it to you to the best of my current ability.

    I thought I have answered all of your questions.

    Given the extremely poor understanding of science that you've shown thus far (modern or not) I'm not going to accept this without actual evidence. Please provide links showing how I "oppose modern science".
    I have given evidence. Explain to me your problem as specifically as you possibly can.

    Yep, you're wrong.
    Newton's law applies SOLELY to physical systems; it doesn't come into the picture - at all - with regard to "human experiences".
    Humans are not physical beings?

    Humans do not exist within the physical world?

    Why does this not come into the picture?

    So you are wrong and now I will use your own words.

    And again...
    For you to be correct you have to be right in all cases.
    For you to be shown as wrong I only need to show a single falsehood.
    Rather like someone claiming "all sheep are white". You'd have to display each and every sheep in existence to "prove" that.
    I only need to show one black sheep (or green for that matter) to show you're wrong.

    Your understanding of science or Newton's laws or whatever is incorrect and it is interesting because you say that I do not know what I am talking about.


    See what you wrote.

    You have, as I said earlier, no clue about science
    According to your own logic you are wrong and you have no clue about science.

    Also I just realized everything you said below would describe yourself as well.


    Yeah, I think this sums up your entire stance. And, for that matter, your entire arsenal available to you in the argument.
    You believe.
    You will not change your mind.
    You are incapable (or entirely unwilling) to address the subject rationally and logically.
    You are prepared to skirt close to making ad homs in order to hang on to your position.

    You have not given me a rational reason to think otherwise. Please give me reason other than your opinion and unbelief and meanness that free will is not as free as you think it is.


    Answer the question, please.

    It’s because small flakes fall through large gaps, but large flakes can’t fall through small gaps. The flakes sieve themselves. Random shaking of the box coupled with a non-random filtering law (which we might call “the furthest-falling of the smallest” or “the persistence of the largest”) leads to an ordering of flakes over time, with no intelligent input required. Random shaking is analogous to random mutation, and “the survival of the fittest” (Natural Selection) is analogous to “the persistence of the largest”. Cornflakes and living things are both self-ordering systems, filtering out smaller flakes and deleterious mutations respectively. Cornflakes become more organised over time, and organisms become better-adapted.

    Now tell me, why does it work that way?

    You have, as I said earlier, no clue about science


    Yes I think very lowly of myself sometimes, but your hypocrisy has made me happy.


    (this was demonstrated quite conclusively in the first thread you started). Your claim to "use" it to help you out is, therefore, either a delusion or a lie.
    Um No. It is not a delusion or lie. Also yes we "use" science there is no need for the quotations.


    What else would we do with science for?


    Just to let you know the questions are not rhetorical, I would like you to answer them.


    Oh look - going toward the personal attacks again...

    Was it true? I mean no harm to you. I just speak my mind. Also this question is rhetorical.

    It is my belief that you are the one bullying me. You say that I know nothing and patronize me along with most of the others in this forum thread or what ever it is called. Just because I do not have the reading fluency or writing skills or communication skills or social skills or math skills or whatever does not justify you for being so mean to me.

    After the first night I really felt like I did not want to learn or do anything intellectual, but when I came back and viewed what you wrote I realized that you were all talk and a bully.
    Last edited by deepblah123; August 17th, 2014 at 02:34 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,831
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Please direct me to the question. I must have missed it.
    This one:
    In other words he specifically created some of us to be condemned.
    Does that not strike you as somewhat sadistic?


    What have I not explained?
    Anything.
    Claims are not explanations.
    Especially unsupported claims.

    I thought I have answered all of your questions.
    The only "answers" you've given have been unsupported claims, avoidance or personal comments.

    I have given evidence. Explain to me your problem as specifically as you possibly can.
    You have not given evidence.
    You made a specific claim.
    It was not supported.

    Humans are not physical beings?
    Humans do not exist within the physical world?
    This is yet another display of the depth or your ignorance of science.
    The 3rd law is about physical forces on physical bodies.

    Your theory on science or newtons laws or whatever is incorrect and it is interesting because you have built your entire understanding of science on it.
    Wrong.
    Go take a science class.

    You have not given me a rational reason to think otherwise. Please give me reason other than your opinion and unbelief and meanness that free will is not as free as you think it is.
    You haven't, so far, recognised "rational".

    It’s because small flakes fall through large gaps, but large flakes can’t fall through small gaps. The flakes sieve themselves. Random shaking of the box coupled with a non-random filtering law (which we might call “the furthest-falling of the smallest” or “the persistence of the largest”) leads to an ordering of flakes over time, with no intelligent input required. Random shaking is analogous to random mutation, and “the survival of the fittest” (Natural Selection) is analogous to “the persistence of the largest”. Cornflakes and living things are both self-ordering systems, filtering out smaller flakes and deleterious mutations respectively. Cornflakes become more organised over time, and organisms become better-adapted.
    Now tell me, why does it work that way?
    It says why in the quote: large flakes can't fall through small gaps.

    Um No. It is not a delusion or a lie. Also yes we "use" science there is no need for the quotations.
    Again: you are largely ignorant of science (and its applicability): therefore you cannot be using it. You may be misusing it, or abusing it, but not using.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    Sorry I forget to refresh the page sometimes.

    Here I will re-post this to make sure you can see it and then I will add in your new response.

    Yep, you're wrong.
    Newton's law applies SOLELY to physical systems; it doesn't come into the picture - at all - with regard to "human experiences".


    This is yet another display of the depth or your ignorance of science.
    The 3rd law is about physical forces on physical bodies.



    Humans are not physical beings?

    Humans do not exist within the physical world?

    Why does this not come into the picture?

    Humans are physical beings in both a physical world. I have answered it for you.

    So you are wrong and now I will use your own words.


    And again...
    For you to be correct you have to be right in all cases.
    For you to be shown as wrong I only need to show a single falsehood.
    Rather like someone claiming "all sheep are white". You'd have to display each and every sheep in existence to "prove" that.
    I only need to show one black sheep (or green for that matter) to show you're wrong.




    Your understanding of science or Newton's laws or whatever is incorrect and it is interesting because you say that I do not know what I am talking about.


    See what you wrote.


    You have, as I said earlier, no clue about science



    According to your own logic you are wrong and you have no clue about science.

    Also I just realized everything you said below would describe yourself as well.


    In other words he specifically created some of us to be condemned.
    Does that not strike you as somewhat sadistic?
    It was answered several times some even before you asked it.

    The problem in doing this is that humans both as a single entity or a collective group will never be able to hold all the variables.
    We with our finite minds can not understand everything and in the moral area when we come to a situation we can not understand we often call it a gray area.
    AKA since we are not perfect and can not be perfect we are evil and need God's help.

    Also to be perfect you would have to know everything.
    Oh I just realized that all answers to your question were answered before you asked it. Well, maybe not all I have no idea.

    Anything.
    Claims are not explanations.
    Especially unsupported claims.

    The only "answers" you've given have been unsupported claims, avoidance or personal comments.

    Why are they not supported?

    Because they are not in your science book?

    You have not given evidence.
    You made a specific claim.
    It was not supported.
    What is your definition of a claim and your definition of an explanation?


    Wrong.
    Go take a science class.
    Why am I wrong?

    Why do you think that I am dodging questions when it is you that is dodging questions by just saying wrong?



    It says why in the quote: large flakes can't fall through small gaps.
    Yes I understand this.

    Now why does it work like this?

    Yes I understand this.

    Now tell me, why does it work that way?

    Also I will quote what I posted before.


    Science is not an entity, science is a methodology for understanding how the universe works.



    The hint is, science is not the answer.
    It feels like I am repeating myself. That is a joke because I am repeating myself.


    Again: you are largely ignorant of science (and its applicability): therefore you cannot be using it. You may be misusing it, or abusing it, but not using.
    This would be a claim. Again your contradicting yourself.

    Are you really educated in science? I wanted to come on these forums to talk to people who knew what they were talking about.


    To top it off I will leave you with this for now.

    Then you need to rethink you position!
    Quoted from the person who thinks corn flakes are intelligent.

    This is a joke to lighten the mood, you seem upset. By the way I know corn flakes are not intelligent. It is cause and effect.

    Also I highly recommend thinking things out on your own.
    Last edited by deepblah123; August 17th, 2014 at 03:04 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    There's no discussion here, just straight ahead proselytizing, which is against the rules.

    Time for the trash.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    No it is not, it is a Scientific discussion of religion and now that I have successfully backed up my claims it has been considered trash?

    I have yet to be proven wrong, I have only been bullied and slandered.

    I had a feeling this would happen when I won the discussion. Thank you for proving the feeling I had correct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    My post number #9 was posted on the 16th at 1.12pm. It had been just over 24 hours before you got snarky about not receiving a reply. sometime a reply can take weeks. I have a life outside this forum don't presume to think you won an argument simply because you haven't receive an instant answer.
    [QUOTE=deepblah123;586281]
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    Were we and everything else including god stagnant.
    Were we and everything else including god stagnant.
    Were we and everything else including god stagnant. I've repeated this several times so please do think about your answer.
    Fify(Fixed it for you)
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    I believe it is beyond our understand to fully comprehend something that we are not able to experience.
    Doesn't follow. Were we stagnant in a place without time. A simple yes or no will suffice comprehension has nothing to do with it. And please do think about your answer.
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    I believe that it is possible that there was also no height, width, or depth as well.
    So you agree that we and god were stagnant. Then how was anything done?
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Can you fully comprehend something that you can not or have not experienced?
    Yes. That's why we have an imagination.
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    This why we call things random or we call things in which we can not understand in moral situations gray areas. These things come from our inability to understand everything.
    Really! Yet we have the ability to empathise. Moral situation are not grey areas to me. what I consider moral and what you consider moral may be different. But they are black and white to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    You must realize that you are a human with a finite mind.
    So what!
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    If half the world experiences one thing and the other the opposite which one really happened?
    The one with the evidence to verify there experience.
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    I ask this question to may be help you and anyone else realize that you have a finite mind and if something is not understandable to you does not mean it is not true.
    But for it to be accepted as true it would need to be Filch-ed
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    It’s because small flakes fall through large gaps, but large flakes can’t fall through small gaps. The flakes sieve themselves. Random shaking of the box coupled with a non-random filtering law (which we might call “the furthest-falling of the smallest” or “the persistence of the largest”) leads to an ordering of flakes over time, with no intelligent input required. Random shaking is analogous to random mutation, and “the survival of the fittest” (Natural Selection) is analogous to “the persistence of the largest”. Cornflakes and living things are both self-ordering systems, filtering out smaller flakes and deleterious mutations respectively. Cornflakes become more organised over time, and organisms become better-adapted.
    Yes I understand this.
    You do! wonderful.
    But why did you say this " I currently think that chaos can not create sustainable order because to me it would defy my current understanding of logic." I can only surmise that your logic is faulty.
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Now tell me, why does it work that way?
    It is clear in the analogy why. You said you understood, are you sure. So far I have my doubts.
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Also I will quote what I posted before.
    Science is not an entity, science is a methodology for understanding how the universe works.
    The hint is, science is not the answer.
    But it's the best way to obtain the answer. This you should understand. if you understood the analogy.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    I am sorry that I have appeared as being snarky.


    When I feel as if I being attack I try to defend myself.


    I meant no harm and apologize for anything bad I may have done to you or others.


    I can also sometimes appear to be rude and mean when I am not trying to be I am also sorry for that as well.


    Also thank you for the information on how forums work. I appreciate it and makes me feel happy.


    Also sorry for being bad at communicating I am not super good at it.


    You seem nice now probably because I was talking to the duck person a lot and they were mean to me.


    Also I think I had to bring the daffy duck person up to speed I think they thought that there was random.


    I am going to take a break after this because my eyes are bothering me and you have said that forum posts can take a long time to respond,


    so now that I know that it will make me feel better to do so.



    Doesn't follow. Were we stagnant in a place without time. A simple yes or no will suffice comprehension has nothing to do with it. And please do think about your answer.

    So you agree that we and god were stagnant. Then how was anything done?



    I do not know what it would be like before the big bang.

    Do you know what it would be like before the big bang?



    Yes. That's why we have an imagination.

    To imagine something is to experience it.


    What we experience is not always correct.


    Imagination is not always correct.



    Really! Yet we have the ability to empathise. Moral situation are not grey areas to me. what I consider moral and what you consider moral may be different. But they are black and white to me.

    That is a pretty bold claim.


    Explain to me how you see no gray areas within morality?



    Here is my understanding of morality.

    There is only right and wrong. They are are not ambiguous, they are set in stone. What is right will ultimately end in success and happiness and what is wrong will ultimately end in failure and misery.

    Please share your understandings on this. If you want.




    So what!

    Was that a yes or a no?


    If it is a no you are incorrect.


    If it is a yes then your previous statement about your moral abilities is incorrect.




    The one with the evidence to verify there experience.

    Yes, this is similar to my answer. Mine is more correct though because evidence can have errors.


    This is my answer to that question.


    Also the answer to that question was, what ever really happened.



    But for it to be accepted as true it would need to be Filch-ed


    I do not know what that means and am often afraid to follow links and could not find it with a google search. Also the opposite to my statement would be true too if your understanding were to be incorrect.



    It is clear in the analogy why. You said you understood, are you sure. So far I have my doubts.

    Tell me if this is the correct answer to the question to see if I am right, so you may check my understanding.


    Now tell me, why does it work that way?

    The laws of nature or cause and effect.



    But it's the best way to obtain the answer. This you should understand. if you understood the analogy.

    Yes you are correct, science is the current best way for us to obtain the answer to the corn flake problem, I have never refuted this.


    Here are my words.


    science is a methodology for understanding how the universe works

    Okay, now use science to obtain this answer. Why does the non-random filtering law exist?
    Last edited by deepblah123; August 17th, 2014 at 05:24 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    I agree with Alex. Please close this thread, nothing but preaching from the OP here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,831
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    also i think i had to bring the daffy duck person up to speed
    Rofl!
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    also i think i had to bring the daffy duck person up to speed
    Rofl!
    You'll never get the duck in a row.
    Last edited by Robittybob1; August 17th, 2014 at 07:52 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    MrMojo1, you are entitled to your opinion.


    Dywyddyr I have trouble seeing letters and other things after reading for long periods of time.


    My head begins to hurt and my eyes start to burn. It often feels like my brain messes up. That is why I called you the daffy duck person.


    I also fear talking to people. Your an example of one of the reasons why. That is why I try not to venture on to forums or to try to go places in real life.


    You never told me your position and were incredibly rude.


    This is one of the reasons why I said people use science to hide behind.


    You excused yourself from being mean by saying that it is science or something like that in other posts.


    I am sorry I am unable to communicate with you in such a way that you will be able to understand.


    I am sorry that I have even tried now. To try to talk to people and have a conversation or discussion or debate or whatever you want to consider it.


    I should have remembered people can not understand what they have not experienced.


    I probably will not re-post or anything because this has only made me more sad.
    Last edited by deepblah123; August 17th, 2014 at 08:16 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    Doesn't follow. Were we stagnant in a place without time. A simple yes or no will suffice comprehension has nothing to do with it. And please do think about your answer.
    So you agree that we and god were stagnant. Then how was anything done?
    I do not know what it would be like before the big bang.
    Sorry doesn't answer the question. a simple yes or no will suffice. Thank you.
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    Yes. That's why we have an imagination.
    To imagine something is to experience it.
    No it is to imagine it. experiencing a thing evolves all your senses. your imagination is subjective not objective.
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    What we experience is not always correct.
    Should read what we think we experience is not could always correct. this is why we need verification such as evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Imagination is not always correct.
    Imagination is never correct/real as it is imagination.
    But we can garner a way to finding the truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    Really! Yet we have the ability to empathise. Moral situation are not grey areas to me. what I consider moral and what you consider moral may be different. But they are black and white to me.
    That is a pretty bold claim. Explain to me how you see no gray areas within morality?
    Lol. Yet you say the very same below. I've highlighted it.
    Quote Originally Posted by you
    Here is my understanding of morality.
    There is only right and wrong. They are are not ambiguous, they are set in stone. What is right will ultimately end in success and happiness and what is wrong will ultimately end in failure and misery.
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    So what!
    Was that a yes or a no?
    Neither it is relevant.
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    The one with the evidence to verify there experience.
    Yes, this is similar to my answer.
    Where!
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Mine is more correct though because evidence can have errors.
    This is my answer to that question.
    What question, it was irrelevant!
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Also the answer to that question was, what ever really happened.
    Doesn't follow.
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    But for it to be accepted as true it would need to be Filch-ed
    I do not know what that means and am often afraid to follow links and could not find it with a google search.
    The link is to this forum. and it stands for. and I quote "The six rules of evidential reasoning are Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency. Thus FiLCHeRS. Apply these six rules to the evidence offered for any claim, and no one will ever be able to sneak up on you and steal your belief. You'll be filch-proof."
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Also the opposite to my statement would be true too if your understanding were to be incorrect.
    Only if it hadn't been filch proved.
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    It is clear in the analogy why.
    You said you understood, are you sure. So far I have my doubts.
    Tell me if this is the correct answer to the question to see if I am right, so you may check my understanding.
    Now tell me, why does it work that way?
    The laws of nature or cause and effect.
    Makes no sense. Every natural event has a natural cause. Thus you understanding is faulty.
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    But it's the best way to obtain the answer. This you should understand. if you understood the analogy.
    Yes you are correct, science is the current best way for us to obtain the answer to the corn flake problem, I have never refuted this.
    Here are my words.
    science is a methodology for understanding how the universe works
    Okay, now use science to obtain this answer. Why does the non-random filtering law exist?
    It is clear in the analogy. Have you actually read it? please read it then think on it. it is not rocket science, ok. Thank you.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,831
    You're completely wasting your time and "breath" Pavlos.
    The guy doesn't understand science, logic or the requirement to provide actual support.
    As far as he's concerned "goddidit" is an a priori incontrovertible fact and all of his claims are predicated on that unshakeable belief.
    Since he considers it to be factual then, essentially, it's not only his argument it's also the proof of his argument.
    I've washed my hands of him entirely: he can troll to his heart's content until he gets the deserved ban.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    I should have listened to my family and the Bible.


    You can not understand what I have felt and why it is real and I am unable to properly explain it to you.


    What is right will ultimately end in success and happiness and what is wrong will ultimately end in failure and misery.

    I include everyone in this statement.



    Originally Posted by deepblah123

    Originally Posted by pavlos
    Really! Yet we have the ability to empathise. Moral situation are not grey areas to me. what I consider moral and what you consider moral may be different. But they are black and white to me.



    That is a pretty bold claim. Explain to me how you see no gray areas within morality?



    Lol. Yet you say the very same below. I've highlighted it.

    Originally Posted by you
    Here is my understanding of morality.
    There is only right and wrong. They are are not ambiguous, they are set in stone. What is right will ultimately end in success and happiness and what is wrong will ultimately end in failure and misery







    I can not make you happy or others happy or even myself happy. I developed some form of courage to go on this forum and try to help and discuss what I have thought, but


    no matter how hard I try to help people I make them hate me and I make things worse.


    I can not understand why we can not tell the truth all the time. People keep telling me that you can not do that and that you hurt peoples feelings when you do.


    I know God is real because I can feel him in my heart.



    I can see what he has done for me and for others, but I am unable to quantify it in a way that you would be able to understand.


    We with our finite minds can not understand everything

    How can something finite completely understand something that is infinite?


    Also just so you know and do not have to try to figure out later or think that I think I do.


    I do not understand God completely I



    I know God is real because I can feel him in my heart.



    I can see what he has done for me and for others, but I am unable to quantify it in a way that you would be able to understand.


    he can troll to his heart's content until he gets the deserved ban.


    I told you that I am not trolling, but no one believes me.



    I am trying to do the opposite. I want people to be happy and all I cause anyone is pain.



    Around 11:00 pm last night I told my dad I would like to try anxiety medication, which is what he thought I should have been put on from the


    very beginning, but the doctors would not listen.


    I am sorry if I have caused anyone any pain.


    I just keep seeing all this pain in the world and I want to help and I do not know how.



    Why is the world not chaotic?


    Why is the world not complete entropy?


    What causes those laws to exist?


    Why is the world cause and effect?


    Think about it really hard, like really really really hard.
    Last edited by deepblah123; August 18th, 2014 at 07:02 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    ......
    Around 11:00 pm last night I told my dad I would like to try anxiety medication, which is what he thought I should have been put on from the very beginning, but the doctors would not listen.....
    Have thought of just having a beer and relax a bit?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I'm of the opinion that these "debates" are pointless. We both have our ideas and neither will be swayed by the other. Still, I'll share mine with you even though you'll find it very similar to most of the other posters here.

    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    I am answering the questions that you are failing to answer.
    You're not offering answers, you're offering opinions. Answers would have some kind of truth to them or at least be supported by very strong evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    I thought that you or others would have an answer. You are quick to speak mean words, but slow to make any kind of rational thought as to why I should believe what you feel to be true.
    Because we don't care if you are willing to accept reality. We've had dozens of people come through this forum who refuse to accept reality and choose to substitute their religion of choice because it is how they were raised or because it makes their life easier. That's on you, not us.

    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Answer this question, please.

    Do you think things happen for no reason?
    Depends. Cause does not imply reason. Why does the Earth spin? Conservation of angular momentum. That's a cause, but not a reason.

    I said:
    Again, your requirement for a "why" implies you feel there is a purpose behind everything. There is no evidence that this is the case. Another failure to understand the other side of the argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Yes this is how science works. If things happen for no reason then science does not work. Here I answered that for you already.

    Your definition of free will opposes modern science, which to my understand is built upon cause and effect or as Newton put it, "every action has an equal and opposite reaction."
    It seems like you're confusing cause for purpose. Effect requires cause, but it does not require purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    I will admit I get prideful sometimes and other times I hate myself.

    Could you please show me where I made the claim that I know all the answers to the entire existence of the universe.

    I thought I said the opposite.

    I believe it is beyond our understand to fully comprehend something that we are not able to experience.
    People can not understand everything, especially something that is infinite because our minds are finite.
    You've laid out God as the framework for the universe. You've claimed you know there is a divine hand behind everything in the universe. There is no evidence for this, no evidence for God, nothing whatsoever to suggest this is the case. You've even claimed God cannot be understood and that humans cannot understand that which they do not experience, which is an odd hypocrisy insofar as you seem to understand something which cannot be understood.

    Basically, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the Bible has any answers in it at all. I'm not impressed by a book when the rocks around me have stories to tell from billions of years ago. The fact is, you just don't know how to read the stories written in the rocks by our planet. To me, that makes you unenlightened. Yet, you seem to think that your ability to interpret stories from what is in comparison a glorified children's book is something special. I feel sorry for people who have deluded themselves into believing in religious text in terms of answering the big questions. I wouldn't teach a biology class on a book from the 1800's, but you would us one from almost a couple thousand years ago to answer the mysteries of the universe. It's just not worth addressing, to me. That's why I didn't make a serious effort to reply. Now I have and I still feel it was a waste of time.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    Okay one second I will read your post I want to ask I question because this confuses me a little bit.



    Every natural event has a natural cause.

    If every effect is a cause and every cause an effect, would that be circular logic?


    Is that a good way to explain it or is evidence for you or something?


    I have to think of existence as a picture because it can get confusing.


    Do you see existence as a circle and self sustaining logically.


    Because I see existence logically as a line and the beginning is God and then there is no end.


    I think by existence I may mean time, but I do not totally know, I might just mean everything.


    I am indecisive and paranoid and anxious.



    Have thought of just having a beer and relax a bit?

    I want to avoid alcohol use because alcoholism runs on my mom's side.


    I think it does or maybe it is just an addictive personality.



    Okay Flick I read your post I think maybe what I wrote above within this post might be a good way to put it to you.


    Also thank you for being nice in your most recent post.
    Last edited by deepblah123; August 18th, 2014 at 09:49 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Because I see existence logically as a line and the beginning is God and then there is no end.
    I feel comfortable providing a response for most of the people on this forum in regards to the question, "What do you think is the beginning and end of existence?"

    We would say, "I don't know." Why? Because we don't. Any other answer is speculation and to take speculation as fact and build your worldview around it is a bit foolhardy.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    I feel comfortable providing a response for most of the people on this forum in regards to the question, "What do you think is the beginning and end of existence?"

    We would say, "I don't know." Why? Because we don't. Any other answer is speculation and to take speculation as fact and build your worldview around it is a bit foolhardy.

    Now that we know that everything is ordered in the universe because things would just not work, I will make this statement.

    From order chaos can easily be derived, but from chaos order can not.

    Things do not tend to magically get better, usually things get rationally worse.

    Order needs not only a creator, but a maintainer.


    Why is the world not chaotic?


    Why is the world not complete entropy?


    What causes those laws to exist?


    Why is the world cause and effect?




    Every natural event has a natural cause.

    If every effect is a cause and every cause an effect, would that be circular logic?


    How can something finite completely understand something that is infinite?


    I can understand the way you feel.


    This post was about why science and God are not contradictory.


    It was about why God is beyond the scope of science. That is why there is faith.


    If anything though I think science gives us more of a reason to believe in God and helps a lot in theology.


    Theology also helps in science a lot too.


    Yes you are correct, science is the current best way for us to obtain the answer to the corn flake problem, I have never refuted this.

    Oh, also I do not think existence will ever end, but that is theological.


    You all kept asking about my beliefs and so I answered them.
    Last edited by deepblah123; August 18th, 2014 at 12:19 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    If God is outside the realm of science, how could believing in God ever possibly affect the science one performs? God and science do not have to be conflicting at an individual level, but they do not coexist in the realm of reality. One or the other is true and there is no evidence for God so you can imagine which one I have chosen.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    I do not think IQ tests can give a very accurate way to know how smart a person is.

    An example would be writing poetry, where do IQ tests ask anything about that? Another would be how to weld with any types of welders. Painting good pictures would be another thing that isn't asked about. There are so many things that IQ tests do not ask about I feel it is an unfair test to determine what your IQ really is.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,831
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I do not think IQ tests can give a very accurate way to know how smart a person is.

    An example would be writing poetry, where do IQ tests ask anything about that? Another would be how to weld with any types of welders. Painting good pictures would be another thing that isn't asked about. There are so many things that IQ tests do not ask about I feel it is an unfair test to determine what your IQ really is.
    While you may have a point on the poetry you certainly don't with regard to the welding.
    IQ tests (supposedly) rate your intelligence, not your knowledge.
    How to weld with different types of welder is learned (and it incorporates not a small amount of acquired skill).
    Possibly, though, you could hand someone a welder and see how long it takes them to work out how it's used.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    Here you go Flick and to any others who may have failed to realize this.


    Makes no sense. Every natural event has a natural cause. Thus you understanding is faulty.

    This means that if everything is only cause and effect then eventually each cause would be their own effect and their own effect would be their

    own cause.


    This is called circular logic and means that it is false.


    Circular logic means that it does not prove anything, because it is a part of the problem it is trying to prove.


    "The six rules of evidential reasoning are Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency. Thus FiLCHeRS. Apply these six rules to the evidence offered for any claim, and no one will ever be able to sneak up on you and steal your belief. You'll be filch-proof."

    This means that the corn flake analogy and any understanding of science based upon it is false because it does not fulfill at least the logic portion of FLICH.


    And again...
    For you to be correct you have to be right in all cases.
    For you to be shown as wrong I only need to show a single falsehood.
    Rather like someone claiming "all sheep are white". You'd have to display each and every sheep in existence to "prove" that.
    I only need to show one black sheep (or green for that matter) to show you're wrong.

    If you can not understand this you can not understand the original post.


    Now that this is understood.


    Maybe you can realize that cause and effect must have a beginning or a first cause.


    What proceeded the Big Bang to create how it would be able to work?


    To respond to the IQ tangent. Inability to apply one's intelligence does not mean one does not have intelligence.
    Last edited by deepblah123; August 18th, 2014 at 07:04 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    This means that if everything is only cause and effect then eventually each cause would be their own effect and their own effect would be their own cause.

    This is called circular logic and means that it is false.
    I stopped reading after this. Either you're a good troll or a bad debater.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    I stopped reading after this. Either you're a good troll or a bad debater.

    Prove me wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Prove me wrong.
    The mantra of the crank.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    The mantra of the crank.

    Again I followed your rules and I have won.


    Now you all resort to name calling.


    I am again being bullied.


    I stopped reading after this. Either you're a good troll or a bad debater.

    Flick I was trying to be nice and explain to you what circular reasoning was.


    You then start name calling me and fail to give an answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,550
    Looks like you're a pigeon chess grandmaster
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    Looks like you're a pigeon chess grandmaster

    Again more name calling.


    Why is the internet full of mean people


    You would think that world is bad enough already, but everyone has to be on the internet too.


    I just realized, I do not know what you mean by that though, which one is the pigeon?


    I would perceive the people dodging to answer the questions are the pigeons.


    Oh hey I just realized you are the guy on Daffy Ducks signature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,550
    You post unsupported nonsense, address none of the criticism you get in any meaningful way and proclaim victory. You are a nut, pointing this out is not bullying or mean, it is an objective fact...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45

    Makes no sense. Every natural event has a natural cause. Thus you understanding is faulty.



    This means that if everything is only cause and effect then eventually each cause would be their own effect and their own effect would be their

    own cause.


    This is a cause and I used your rules.


    Look up circular logic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,550
    You are the pigeon Urban Dictionary: Pigeon chess
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    PHD, you're just feeding the troll.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    PHD, you're just feeding the troll.

    I am not a troll.


    Here is a link to the main problem I have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism



    I have trouble socializing and communicating.


    I listed everything that I thought I could in the introduction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,550
    Alex, you're right. I'm trying to ignore the stupider posters on the forum as getting into pointless arguments with window lickers is taking up too much of my time. I cracked and responded to this loon but I'll stop now, pigeon chess is only fun for pigeons...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    Alex, you're right. I'm trying to ignore the stupider posters on the forum as getting into pointless arguments with window lickers is taking up too much of my time. I cracked and responded to this loon but I'll stop now, pigeon chess is only fun for pigeons...

    Is there any nice people on this forum at all. I am accused of being a troll and I am not trying to be mean.


    I want to try to help, but it is hard when you can not communicate well and people are mean to you and then when you prove them wrong say that you are trolling.


    Maybe you should say I can not refute this as of now or something.


    Or you could say I do not agree.


    Instead you call me names and refuse to give me any kind of answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Let me break this down for you as simply as I can so you can understand why no one wants to engage you in a serious debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    This means that if everything is only cause and effect then eventually each cause would be their own effect and their own effect would be their own cause.

    This is called circular logic and means that it is false.
    Strawman. You create an argument where there was none, ascribe it to us, then proceed to tear it down. Amateur move.

    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Prove me wrong.
    Anyone who knows anything about science knows that this is fundamentally impossible. I cannot prove you wrong. I cannot prove you are not a frog. I cannot prove ANY negative. Nor can you.

    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Again I followed your rules and I have won.
    Declaration of victory, aka the chess with a pigeon finishing move.

    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    I am again being bullied.
    Victim card. You've put yourself in a position where any rational person would disagree with you. When that disagreement becomes more than you can handle, you cry foul. It's a shameful way of avoiding the fact that you can't dig yourself out of your hole.

    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Flick I was trying to be nice and explain to you what circular reasoning was.

    You then start name calling me and fail to give an answer.
    I assure you, the reason I am throwing out this discussion with you is NOT because I don't understand what you're saying. The problem is that what you're saying is either false or not part of the debate. Why would I want to engage someone who is basically winning an argument with himself?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    I will never be able to wrap my head around this.


    An outright refusal to believe things which can be demonstrated, measured, and explained. A refusal to accept scientific rationale coupled with open acceptance of something which admittedly exists outside of time and space and is, by your very definition, unknowable.

    Do you reject big bang theory? If so, how? How can you rationalize a non-acceptance of science, but a complete and utterly blind acceptance of something you say you can't understand?

    I don't get it.

    Having compassion is not a weakness it is a strength.


    Hopefully you will come to understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Having compassion is not a weakness it is a strength.

    Hopefully you will come to understand.
    Compassion has nothing to do with anything stated thus far in this thread. You're starting to remind me of Stargate.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    This post was about why science and God are not contradictory.


    It was about why God is beyond the scope of science

    If God is beyond the scope of science then it is illogical and unjustifiable to refute God with science according to the rules of science.


    In layman's terms you can not make the claim that God is not real because you would need proof of why God is not real.


    Which is interesting because that is the argument that Christian's use.


    "
    The six rules of evidential reasoning are Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency. Thus FiLCHeRS. Apply these six rules to the evidence offered for any claim, and no one will ever be able to sneak up on you and steal your belief. You'll be filch-proof."

    Anyway this is why debates about God must be discussed with Theology.


    Now when I think about it all science is doing is explaining the obvious, but I think that is what you said to me.


    But it's the best way to obtain the answer. This you should understand. if you understood the analogy.

    Also I just noticed that is what I said too.


    Science is not an entity, science is a methodology for understanding how the universe works.

    See peaceful discussion is good. I have learned and have been learning that conflict is often caused by confusion.


    In one of the Bible songs we sing at church there is a lyric that says, I have the peace that passes understanding down in my heart.


    Just noticed I said this before.


    I know God is real because I can feel him in my heart.

    It makes me cry now that I have said that and noticed that.
    Last edited by deepblah123; August 19th, 2014 at 06:46 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    945
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    In one of the Bible songs we sing at church there is a lyric that says, I have the peace that passes understanding down in my heart.
    I'm an atheist (a catholic atheist) and I don't need a church lyric for that. I do the Kum Nye yoga exercises for opening the heart, where the heart chakra meets the liver meridian. Great sensations and nothing to do with God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    45
    Here is what it seems like you are saying to me. The universe exists because the universe exists.


    My response is. This logically proves nothing thus breaking the rules of FiLCHeRS.


    Here is another example of what it seems like you are saying to me, corn flakes fall to the bottom of the box because they just do.


    My response is. This logically proves nothing thus breaking the rules of FiLCHeRS.



    Here is my next point.
    Every natural event has a natural cause.

    I agree, now what is the natural cause of the universe?


    Here is how it seems that I have been answered. Why does there need to be a reason?


    Here is my answer.


    So why is it that all the small cornflakes tend to settle at the base of the box?
    Last edited by deepblah123; August 19th, 2014 at 09:29 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Here is another example of what it seems like you are saying to me, corn flakes fall to the bottom of the box because they just do.
    So what YOU'RE saying is that smaller corn flakes settle to the bottom because God prefers raisin bran.

    Oh wait, you're NOT saying that? Then stop attributing your nonsense to us. No one here thinks what you're telling us we think.

    I don't know if you're genuinely struggling to understand even rudimentary science or if you're being a troll, but either way you've demonstrated that further discussion with you is essentially pointless in this matter.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RobinM View Post
    To Deepblah and RobbityBob:

    Do you both believe the Bible to be the word of God? If so, why?
    You need to start a new thread to change topic.
    I thought the subject was "God"? Maybe not "belief in God" ? Okay...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by RobinM View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RobinM View Post
    To Deepblah and RobbityBob:

    Do you both believe the Bible to be the word of God? If so, why?
    You need to start a new thread to change topic.
    I thought the subject was "God"? Maybe not "belief in God" ? Okay...
    That maybe so but to start discussing whether "the Bible to be the word of God" or not, is a different topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by deepblah123 View Post
    Morals are very similar. There is only right and wrong. They are are not ambiguous, they are set in stone. What is right will ultimately end in success and happiness and what is wrong will ultimately end in failure and misery. We with our finite minds can not understand everything and in the moral area when we come to a situation we can not understand we often call it a gray area. The thing is that gray is just the blurring of light and dark, but it seems like many people have forgotten that.
    To my mind, the fact that there are people who honestly believe this is frightening. The notion people believe that right and wrong are never ambiguous is appalling. To think behaving rightly is a matter of seeking out and following the will of some divine being, rather than considering the consequences of ones own actions, is a denial of rationality, a refutation of responsibility. This "hotline to truth" is a concept that begs to be abused, a justification to elitist rule by the spiritually anointed over the unenlightened masses. The stagnation and backwardness of every theocratic state on Earth speaks for itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    ^ "Like" ^
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    There are just a lot of problems with the whole topic. A couple wold be:

    If there is a good god and we are all evil, and he invented time for us to redeem ourselves, then we existed before time, so why would we want to join in to the time thing, when it means we will no longer be outside of time and therefor doomed to die?

    I really cannot and do not wish to consider someone as a god who only him or her self good and all others as bad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    Deepblah and Robbitybob1 do not understand TSF logic which is somewhat different than other places in the Universe. Here, anything that agrees with their Godless, senseless, chaotic, meaningless, senseless world view is logical. Anything that points to a meaningful, purposeful, orderly Universe is illogical.

    Early in the thread was a discussion relating to free will v. God's choice of who will be saved. It is not that God makes His choices whimsically. He knew from the foundation of the world who would choose Him and who would reject Him. He chose those whom He knew would choose Him. The rejecters still have a choice and will not be able on judgment day to complain that God did not choose them.

    I have constantly in my many forays to the gates of hell here on TSF, been amazed that people who have no faith or beliefs whatsoever feel they are experts on what others should believe in and have faith in. This is illogical.

    Why do we BELIEVE in a designed creation? Because it is the only logical justification for existence of anything. We all agree that the Universe is full of all sorts of "stuff." Where it came from and how it got here is something we disagree upon. Science has no answer to this question other than the "Big Bang."

    We of belief do not particularly disagree with the concept of the Big Bang which merely suggests that there was nothing and then all of a sudden there was everything. We of faith say that God did it, the disbelievers try to suggest that we believe in a magical beginning. Even if that is, in a sense, true, at least we have the Magician!!!

    What do you have? You have a magical beginning without a magician.

    Naturalism cannot answer these questions: Why is there "stuff" in the Universe? I mean why is there something rather than nothing? Where did all this stuff come from?

    I think it was Carl Sagan who attempted to sum up the naturalist point of view this way: "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." I have no idea what scientific process was used to make that determination, but it certainly wasn't the scientific method.

    Science is built on the concept of cause and effect. If you have a certain cause, it should bring about a certain effect. If there is an effect, it has to have had a cause. That is until we get to the Big Bang which, to naturalist, just happened without any cause.

    The fact that they cannot prove something is not daunting in their acceptance of such things as the Big Bang or missing links. But the fact that we have no (acceptable to them) physical proof of our God is proof to them that He does not exist. This is an example of an illogical double standard. Well, it is logical to them.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Deepblah and Robbitybob1 do not understand TSF logic which is somewhat different than other places in the Universe.
    This is a trite an inaccurate remark. There is no TSF position on the topic. If there is, then it is an amalgam of the view of all contributing members. That makes it partly yours. What you are referring to is a sub-set of opinion on TSF; the sub-set that disagrees with you. To characterise it as being somewhat different is just a snide inaccuracy that does you and your argument no credit.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Early in the thread was a discussion relating to free will v. God's choice of who will be saved. It is not that God makes His choices whimsically. He knew from the foundation of the world who would choose Him and who would reject Him. He chose those whom He knew would choose Him. The rejecters still have a choice and will not be able on judgment day to complain that God did not choose them.
    And you believe this as an act of faith. And you ask the non-believers to believe that such an act is logical. And you disregard, as far as I can tell, those who ascribe to different Gods, with different ground rules, who are equally certain, based on faith that they are correct: and you call this logic also.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    I have constantly in my many forays to the gates of hell here on TSF, been amazed that people who have no faith or beliefs whatsoever feel they are experts on what others should believe in and have faith in. This is illogical.
    I have rarely seen members declare what you, for example, should believe in. Many, however, have pointed out that faith and belief are subjective, unfounded positions. Sure, you can follow them, if you like self-delusion. That is what is illogical.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Why do we BELIEVE in a designed creation? Because it is the only logical justification for existence of anything.
    And there is the heart of it. You decide, with no justification whatsoever, that there must be a justification. You arrive at your conclusion apparently because to do otherwise would make you uncomfortable. You lack the courage to face the possibility that the universe may be without purpose and you lack the resources to create your own purpose. That's a self created hell.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,831
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Early in the thread was a discussion relating to free will v. God's choice of who will be saved. It is not that God makes His choices whimsically. He knew from the foundation of the world who would choose Him and who would reject Him. He chose those whom He knew would choose Him. The rejecters still have a choice and will not be able on judgment day to complain that God did not choose them.
    And here we are again: God knew from the start who would choose him - even those who currently reject him but will change their minds.
    So where's the free will?
    Why did he bother "creating" the ones who will reject him? Sadism?

    We of faith say that God did it, the disbelievers try to suggest that we believe in a magical beginning.
    What's the difference between "god" and "magic"?

    What do you have? You have a magical beginning without a magician.
    Neither.

    Naturalism cannot answer these questions
    Are. You. Sure?

    That is until we get to the Big Bang which, to naturalist, just happened without any cause.
    Nope.
    Now who's telling people what they do or don't think?

    The fact that they cannot prove something is not daunting in their acceptance of such things as the Big Bang or missing links. But the fact that we have no (acceptable to them) physical proof of our God is proof to them that He does not exist. This is an example of an illogical double standard. Well, it is logical to them.
    Yeah, you're wrong again.
    Science doesn't ask for proof.
    The BB and "missing link" 1 have evidence.
    "God" does not.
    (And very few people - let alone scientists - declare that the lack of evidence is "proof that he doesn't exist").

    In other words you're attacking a strawman here. I don't know if that's based on ignorance or duplicity.

    1 Your use of this term is indicative of either your bias or your lack of knowledge of the subject.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Deepblah and Robbitybob1 do not understand TSF logic which is somewhat different than other places in the Universe. Here, anything that agrees with their Godless, senseless, chaotic, meaningless, senseless world view is logical. Anything that points to a meaningful, purposeful, orderly Universe is illogical.
    Why did you single me out?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    Robbitybob1 asked:
    Why did you single me out?
    Hmmm, not to be picky, but I did mention two names which would suggest that while you may have been doubled out, you were not singled out.

    Whatever. It appeared in the early going that both you and Deepblah were accused of being illogical. Perhaps not. But if you express Christian beliefs here you are considered by most as prima facie illogical.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    ... It appeared in the early going that both you and Deepblah were accused of being illogical. Perhaps not. But if you express Christian beliefs here you are considered by most as prima facie illogical.
    I am a bit of both for I am a Christian who supports evolution. Try that one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    Sheesh, John Gault, your reply is fraught with inconsistency and self contradiction.

    First JG says:
    This is a trite an inaccurate remark. There is no TSF position on the topic. If there is, then it is an amalgam of the view of all contributing members. That makes it partly yours. What you are referring to is a sub-set of opinion on TSF; the sub-set that disagrees with you.
    You call what I said trite and then turn around and make the same statement I did but just reverse it so that I consider anyone who disagrees with me is illogical. Thus, you repeat the trite and as I might point out, an equally inaccurate state. I do not usually consider someone else's disagreement in these matters as illogical so much as coming from misunderstanding.

    JG then says:
    And you believe this as an act of faith. And you ask the non-believers to believe that such an act is logical. And you disregard, as far as I can tell, those who ascribe to different Gods, with different ground rules, who are equally certain, based on faith that they are correct: and you call this logic also.
    I see nothing in what I wrote that solicits your belief in anything. I merely stated what I think about the topic. The discussion appeared to me to be about the God Yahweh and Christianity. If you wish to discuss what other religions believe, I suggest you discuss it with an advocate of the other religion and make whatever comparisons you want.

    Next JG says:
    I have rarely seen members declare what you, for example, should believe in. Many, however, have pointed out that faith and belief are subjective, unfounded positionYou s. Sure, you can follow them, if you like self-delusion. That is what is illogical.
    Why is it illogical to believe that if there was a magical happening called the Big Bang that there would not be a magician to perform it? It is illogical to believe that the Big Bang occurred without cause. You did not even attempt to answer the salient questions -- Why is there stuff instead of nothing and how did it get here? This is circumvention of the question by suggesting that my answer is a delusion while you have no answer. Is it more or less logical to believe that an effect has a cause or that an effect has no cause?

    JG concludes:
    And there is the heart of it. You decide, with no justification whatsoever, that there must be a justification. You arrive at your conclusion apparently because to do otherwise would make you uncomfortable. You lack the courage to face the possibility that the universe may be without purpose and you lack the resources to create your own purpose. That's a self created hell.
    Actually you are very, very wrong here. It is you who lacks the courage to face the possibility that there is God in whose hands your eternal destiny resides based on your decision to accept or reject Him. If you are correct, I will never know I was wrong nor will I regret my belief. If I am correct, well . . . there is a logical conclusion for you to draw.

    I would still be interested in knowing what you (or any other naturalist) think about why there is something instead of nothing and how this "stuff" came into being.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    Robbitybob1 said:

    I am a bit of both for I am a Christian who supports evolution.
    Many educated Christians as well as non-Christians accept that micro evolution has and continues to take place within the parameters of genetic possibilities and limitations. Macro evolution, however, is a horse of another duck.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Robbitybob1 said:

    I am a bit of both for I am a Christian who supports evolution.
    Many educated Christians as well as non-Christians accept that micro evolution has and continues to take place within the parameters of genetic possibilities and limitations. Macro evolution, however, is a horse of another duck.
    It can be achieved in the end. We are descended from a fish ....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Why is it illogical to believe that if there was a magical happening
    There was no magic involved.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    called the Big Bang that there would not be a magician to perform it?
    Because there is no reason to insert a creator into the process. There is no evidence for a creator and, apparently, there cannot be since such a being exists either outside our reality or is able to act without presenting herself in any way shape or form which can be observed by humans. Therefore, to insert such a being into a process and thereby disrupt the entirety of accepted physics is perhaps the most illogical thing one can do when one is unable to grasp a concept.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    It is illogical to believe that the Big Bang occurred without cause.
    We don't. We may say that we don't yet know the cause of something, but admitting ignorance is not capitulation to some absurd deity-based explanation. It's simply the acknowledgment that we need further study. Also, I feel like you're mistaking cause for purpose, which would be a pretty severe misunderstanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    You did not even attempt to answer the salient questions -- Why is there stuff instead of nothing and how did it get here?
    There is stuff instead of nothing because events took place which led to stuff instead of nothing. You appear to be looking for motive where there is none.

    Why did lighting decide to hit my house? It made no such choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    This is circumvention of the question by suggesting that my answer is a delusion while you have no answer. Is it more or less logical to believe that an effect has a cause or that an effect has no cause?
    There is no shame in not having an answer. There may be uncertainty and that may lead to unease, but there should be no shame. As for understand cause and effect, I think most of us would agree that everything which happens has some kind of cause. What we don't know are the specific details of the exact moment of the occurrence of the big bang. If you cannot accept "I don't know" as an answer, then it is your failing to deal with, no ours.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    If there is a God who is eternal, and others who he created who are not eternal, they are going to pass away anyways, so why does or should he care, or even bother to create life for them in the first place? Just lonliness? Not kidding, this could make sense to me. "Ok, they will pass away, but I can just keep creating more to keep me company, so it is all good after all". Maybe the people can do the same? We can make up imaginary beings and play with them, and then more and more imaginary friends. We can also make up and imagine Gods. I, of course prefer the term Goddess, and also Dakinis (Sanskrit for sky dancers!) - If I can create a god in my mind, why cannot a god make up me in his (or her) (or its) mind? It really cannot be less imaginitve than me, can it? Unimaginitive gods are not worth my time to even imagine!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    Flick:

    And yet, I suspect, you would agree with Carl Sagan's opening statement on each segment of his Cosmos show: "The Cosmos is all there is, all there ever was and all there will ever be."

    You continue to admit that events occurred but offer no suggested cause of the events, falling back on the convenient naturalistic cop-out, "We don't know yet." I think the question really is whether you think something within our Universe caused it or if something external of our Universe caused it, keeping in mind that prior to the Big Bang, there was no Universe.

    I have no problem with the lack of a naturalistic explanation for the Big Bang nor does it cause me a problem or unrest. Naturalism does not seem to have any resources or methods to explain where all the "stuff" in the Universe came from. Christian theism does. If you cannot understand this explanation, that is your failing to deal with, not only in this life, but also the next.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Flick:

    And yet, I suspect, you would agree with Carl Sagan's opening statement on each segment of his Cosmos show: "The Cosmos is all there is, all there ever was and all there will ever be."
    I am a fan of Carl Sagan, but I neither agree nor disagree with his statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    You continue to admit that events occurred but offer no suggested cause of the events, falling back on the convenient naturalistic cop-out, "We don't know yet."
    It is a cop out to admit ignorance? Your ability to substitute an absurdity for which there is no evidence or even rationale makes your line of thought superior? We share very different ideals regarding world view.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    I think the question really is whether you think something within our Universe caused it or if something external of our Universe caused it, keeping in mind that prior to the Big Bang, there was no Universe.
    We don't know. We may never know. If that scares you, I'm sorry. I'm perfectly happy not knowing how the universe began or even how life on Earth began. To me, the important thing is to keep pursuing knowledge. Remain curious and open-minded. You are afraid of not knowing, so you're willing to substitute oddities into the gaps to make you feel better. I think that is a shameful approach to understanding the universe and ultimately destructive to the individual.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    I have no problem with the lack of a naturalistic explanation for the Big Bang nor does it cause me a problem or unrest. Naturalism does not seem to have any resources or methods to explain where all the "stuff" in the Universe came from. Christian theism does. If you cannot understand this explanation, that is your failing to deal with, not only in this life, but also the next.
    Christian theism only has answers if you're willing to accept information without evidence or support. I have standards. I will only accept something as fact if you can demonstrate that it is the best possible explanation. Fairy tales do not, and likely will never, satisfy that criterion. Science may not have all of the answers, but the methods by which it pursues knowledge are vastly superior than the theistic explanations, which are essentially like a parent telling their child, "Because I said so" when they have the gall to ask, "Why?"
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    I would still be interested in knowing what you (or any other naturalist) think about why there is something instead of nothing and how this "stuff" came into being.
    I would be interested in your explanation of how your God came into existance,
    ...and what makes you think your God is any more real than the myriad of other Gods that exist for all the other delusional people?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    It seems to be replacing something which cannot be explained with something which does not need to be explained.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Genetic Determinism
    By ahappycamper in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 26th, 2011, 10:24 AM
  2. How is morals adressed when you study philosophy?
    By Raziell in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 7th, 2010, 09:04 PM
  3. the bible and morals
    By captaincaveman in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: September 19th, 2007, 06:29 PM
  4. Are morals even real?
    By Perk in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: May 12th, 2007, 07:05 AM
  5. Morals, Ethics
    By DaBOB in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2007, 05:19 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •