232 replies to this topic

[d4rksabre]

LastPommerFan, on 19 July 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

I went to a Catholic University. My first Philosophy class was basically going through the various arguments for and against the existence of God. The students were probably about 80% devout Catholics. The professor was a well published atheist. It was, by far, the best academic experience I have ever had. He didn't militantly push his atheism, but his arguments always ended there. I, as a believer, was fully challenged, I came out with my own faith strengthened, but others walked away shaken. All in all, an absolutely fantastic discussion to have.

There's certainly a lot to debate, isn't there?

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

gohansrage, on 19 July 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

Couldn't you make an equally compelling case that a non-believer gives up control by accepting that the world is a random place where random stuff happens no matter what you do?

But it is a cop-out to say "we just don't know everything, yet", and then explain things off to randomness. What one person sees as randomness, another sees as an infinite permutation that just happened to strike at the right place, at the right time.......and when you see a few of those happen and are willing to allow for the possibility it is controlled from a higher up through loose borders....you begin to further see just how "not random" life is.

I can't speak for others though....just myself. I can't get angry at someone for not understanding though if they don't feel it is possible TO understand "randomness" and "coincidence" as being anything other than that. I just hope they live a good life and get lucky enough to see it someday.

[d4rksabre]

Ghost of Dwight Drane, on 19 July 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

But it is a cop-out to say "we just don't know everything, yet", and then explain things off to randomness. What one person sees as randomness, another sees as an infinite permutation that just happened to strike at the right place, at the right time.......and when you see a few of those happen and are willing to allow for the possibility it is controlled from a higher up through loose borders....you begin to further see just how "not random" life is.

I can't speak for others though....just myself. I can't get angry at someone for not understanding though if they don't feel it is possible TO understand "randomness" and "coincidence" as being anything other than that. I just hope they live a good life and get lucky enough to see it someday.

It's not a cop out though. It's a way of saying that I don't need an explanation of why the universe exists. The big bang theory is good enough for me. Some kind of creator just seems too....perfect. It's too simple of an answer to a question that is very complex.

[Glass Case Of Emotion]

d4rksabre, on 19 July 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

There's certainly a lot to debate, isn't there?

It is, and it can be a great discussion, as long as it is narrowed only to the existence or non-existence of a higher power. As soon as we start debating what that higher power wants us to do and how we should do it, a whole lot of people end up dead.

[d4rksabre]

LastPommerFan, on 19 July 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

It is, and it can be a great discussion, as long as it is narrowed only to the existence or non-existence of a higher power. As soon as we start debating what that higher power wants us to do and how we should do it, a whole lot of people end up dead.

Aye

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

MattPie, on 19 July 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

OK, the only way out of this is time is not the linear progression that we, as humans, perceive it to be.

Which leads us to science......which has not progressed in linear fashion, but in exponential fashion. Our parabolic rate of understanding has put us in a spot now where we are about to no longer advance forward in time when you quantify technology. In a very short amount of time Moore's Law and the like will have us in a catchy spot. Are you like Ray Kurtzwieler and feel we will achieve Singularity with technology and thus solve the problem of no longer moving forward in time through immortality aided by technology? Or do you explain what is about to happen is something more of Biblical in nature where the only way to continue to move forward on the X-Axis of time is through a major technological setback, be it war, biological, astronomical, etc.?

Something has to give....and soon. Kurtzweiler just said 20 years tops to Singularity. I see a population, debt level, and weapons at exponential growth and the resources we are competing for declining. Something has to give to reset a linear balance going forward. That could very well be God. Either way we are soon to find out in my opinion who God really is. Science and the Singularity? Or a big fella that sort of resembles John Muckler on a Scotch bender?

[Suffer_enuff]

I offer two items:

An elderly lady is in the library looking at picture in a book.  The picture is of Atlas holding the world on his back and he is standing on the back of a turtle. A young man comes along, sees the woman looking at the picture and says, "You know that's not really how the world stays in space, don't you?"
The woman replies, "Of course it is young man. If it weren't for Atlas, the world would fall out of the sky."
The young man rolls his eyes and says, "But ma'am, He's standing on a turtle."
The woman says, "That keeps Atlas from falling out of the sky".
"So, what is the turtle standing on?"
"You can't fool me, young man...it's turtles all the way down!"

Secondly, if anyone is at all unsure of who to vote for in November for president, please feel free to vote for me.  I'm staunchly middle-of-the-road and I believe in less goverment and more beer.  I have a New York-certified birth certificate and I am old enough to remember JFK and the moon walk and young enough to listen to Lady GaGa.  I will make hockey the new national pasttime.  And I will glady release all of my tax retruns for the last decade (if everyone promises not to laugh at my paltry salary...)

Edited by Sabre Dance, 19 July 2012 - 03:19 PM.

[gohansrage]

Ghost of Dwight Drane, on 19 July 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

But it is a cop-out to say "we just don't know everything, yet", and then explain things off to randomness. What one person sees as randomness, another sees as an infinite permutation that just happened to strike at the right place, at the right time.......and when you see a few of those happen and are willing to allow for the possibility it is controlled from a higher up through loose borders....you begin to further see just how "not random" life is.

I fail to see how "we don't know everything yet" in response to a post saying "yet who are too silly to figure out the only way you get 100 is to understand you never will get a 100. " is a cop out.

It's a cop out to say a lack of answers must point to a divine source.

Quote

I can't speak for others though....just myself. I can't get angry at someone for not understanding though if they don't feel it is possible TO understand "randomness" and "coincidence" as being anything other than that. I just hope they live a good life and get lucky enough to see it someday.

I'm going to assume this a troll job.  There is no way someone as intelligent as you seem to be cannot see how condescending that comment is. Other than the "sky fairy" comment (which I regret and have gone back and corrected), I've resisted the urge to slip into snark and I would appreciate it if you would do the same.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

gohansrage, on 19 July 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

I fail to see how "we don't know everything yet" in response to a post saying "yet who are too silly to figure out the only way you get 100 is to understand you never will get a 100. " is a cop out.

It's a cop out to say a lack of answers must point to a divine source.



I'm going to assume this a troll job. There is no way someone as intelligent as you seem to be cannot see how condescending that comment is. Other than the "sky fairy" comment (which I regret and have gone back and corrected), I've resisted the urge to slip into snark and I would appreciate it if you would do the same.

It's a philosophical difference. I am just being honest. That's where things like "prayer" come in. I can understand you being upset because it is a Catch 22 for a "believer". If you see it, you feel it, you hope others will as well. If you feel someone if wrong in what they see and feel as being from a higher power, you are going to view them as illogical or I guess in this case condescending. I can't prevent that. All I can say is that I don't think people need to be belittled or threatened if they do not believe. I'm trying to just have an open conversation in a civil manner and would hope you could see that would be part of the shrapnel of someone believing.

[gohansrage]

Ghost of Dwight Drane, on 19 July 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

It's a philosophical difference. I am just being honest. That's where things like "prayer" come in. I can understand you being upset because it is a Catch 22 for a "believer". If you see it, you feel it, you hope others will as well. If you feel someone if wrong in what they see and feel as being from a higher power, you are going to view them as illogical or I guess in this case condescending. I can't prevent that. All I can say is that I don't think people need to be belittled or threatened if they do not believe. I'm trying to just have an open conversation in a civil manner and would hope you could see that would be part of the shrapnel of someone believing.

I really try not to say things like "I hope that one day you can understand the peace that comes with acknowledging the non existence of god" to religious people because it's unproductive and condescending. It's assuming a "more right" way of looking at the world.  It's why I get upset with myself when I write or say things like "sky fairy."

So when religous people tell me I'm missing out on the wonders of belief and they hope I understand it one day, I see the same condescension I try very hard to avoid.

Edit: Spelled Peace wrong

Edited by gohansrage, 19 July 2012 - 03:48 PM.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

gohansrage, on 19 July 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

I really try not to say things like "I hope that one day you can understand the peace that comes with acknowledging the non existence of god" to religious people because it's unproductive and condescending. It's assuming a "more right" way of looking at the world.  It's why I get upset with myself when I write or say things like "sky fairy."

So when religous people tell me I'm missing out on the wonders of belief and they hope I understand it one day, I see the same condescension I try very hard to avoid.

Edit: Spelled Peace wrong

How about this.....I hope you lead a happy and productive life no matter your beliefs.

Which I do.

So i'll leave it at that.

[TrueBluePhD]

Tell me again, what's so wrong about being satisfied with the Big Bang Theory?  

[Drunkard]

Ghost of Dwight Drane, on 19 July 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

Would it be fair of me to say that using my knowledge in the science of psychology, a person who is not capable or does not want to believe in a higher power does so to pacify their innermost needs of security at the cortex of their brain because they are afraid to admit they truly are not in control of every aspect of their lives?

You could also argue a believer does so to satisfy other needs in order to explain away failures in both their own lives and society?

But in a believer's case, the ceiling is unlimited and euphoria is capable of reaching infinity, while the non-believer has a low ceiling of finite achievments that will never be reached because it is impossible to know all?

I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist because I don't claim to know or have proof either way but if push comes to shove, I'd side with atheism.

I think your point is off and it isn't any more fair to assume than me assuming that a belief in a higher power stems from nothing more than the fear of death because we know we are all going to die and creating an invisible man in the sky who loves us very much and keeps a close eye on things helps to alleviate much of that stress from fearing death because you simply created the idea of a whole new life for after you're dead and gone.

[gohansrage]

Ghost of Dwight Drane, on 19 July 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

How about this.....I hope you lead a happy and productive life no matter your beliefs.

Which I do.

So i'll leave it at that.

Cheers. You too.

[weave]

LastPommerFan, on 19 July 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

It is, and it can be a great discussion, as long as it is narrowed only to the existence or non-existence of a higher power. As soon as we start debating what that higher power wants us to do and how we should do it, a whole lot of people end up dead.

And as long as it stays a decent discussion I'll leave the thread open.

TrueBluePhD, on 19 July 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

Tell me again, what's so wrong about being satisfied with the Big Bang Theory?  

Well,  maybe this is the real reason why I'll leave the thread open a little longer.

[d4rksabre]

weave, on 19 July 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

And as long as it stays a decent discussion I'll leave the thread open.



Well,  maybe this is the real reason why I'll leave the thread open a little longer.

Can she be our new forum mascot? It's time we found a suitable replacement for Hayden.

[deluca67]

d4rksabre, on 19 July 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

Can she be our new forum mascot? It's time we found a suitable replacement for Hayden.

It should be the default avatar.

[d4rksabre]

DeLuca67, on 19 July 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

It should be the default avatar.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

[d4rksabre]

Ghost of Dwight Drane, on 19 July 2012 - 11:18 PM, said:

Bawk Bawk Bawk

[Oliver_Cromwell]

d4rksabre, on 19 July 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

It's the only scientific theory of the universe's creation that we have. Until someone comes up with a better scientific theory, then the big bang theory is the correct one. Discussion of belief systems is in no way relevant to science learning.

You might want to take a look at Answers in Genesis. They're quite comprehensive. After all, you seem to be receptive to checking things out from all angles.

Ghost of Dwight Drane, on 19 July 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

But it is a cop-out to say "we just don't know everything, yet", and then explain things off to randomness. What one person sees as randomness, another sees as an infinite permutation that just happened to strike at the right place, at the right time.......and when you see a few of those happen and are willing to allow for the possibility it is controlled from a higher up through loose borders....you begin to further see just how "not random" life is.

I can't speak for others though....just myself. I can't get angry at someone for not understanding though if they don't feel it is possible TO understand "randomness" and "coincidence" as being anything other than that. I just hope they live a good life and get lucky enough to see it someday.

Not to insult those who obviously do not have a Gospel-centered worldview, but I wonder if they have a firm foundation in anything. To me, it seems like randomness is being tossed in the waves of a raging sea.

[Drunkard]

Tepponator, on 20 July 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

You might want to take a look at Answers in Genesis. They're quite comprehensive. After all, you seem to be receptive to checking things out from all angles.


Not to insult those who obviously do not have a Gospel-centered worldview, but I wonder if they have a firm foundation in anything. To me, it seems like randomness is being tossed in the waves of a raging sea.

Gotta love the "I'm not trying to insult anyone but here's an insult" line. No firm foundation in anything? Are you kidding me? What kind of firm foundation is choosing to believe an invisible man in the sky did it when there's absolutely no proof of his existence? Sounds like a cop out to avoid actual learning to me.

[Oliver_Cromwell]

Drunkard, on 20 July 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

Gotta love the "I'm not trying to insult anyone but here's an insult" line. No firm foundation in anything? Are you kidding me? What kind of firm foundation is choosing to believe an invisible man in the sky did it when there's absolutely no proof of his existence? Sounds like a cop out to avoid actual learning to me.

Would you have preferred that I not put that tag in there? I was trying to show due respect. Then again, some people cannot be pleased with infinite groveling.

As for actual proof of His existence, both you and I are here. The difference is that one of us is mocking his Creator, while the other one is not.

[Punch]

Tepponator, on 20 July 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

As for actual proof of His existence, both you and I are here. The difference is that one of us is mocking his Creator, while the other one is not.

If I believe money literally grows on trees, does the existence of money prove my thesis? There are probably better arguments--- but that's a straw man.

[Drunkard]

Tepponator, on 20 July 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

Would you have preferred that I not put that tag in there? I was trying to show due respect. Then again, some people cannot be pleased with infinite groveling.

As for actual proof of His existence, both you and I are here. The difference is that one of us is mocking his Creator, while the other one is not.

In that case, NO OFFENSE, but anyone who takes the Bible literally is a moron. I fail to see how the little disclaimer makes up the insult but if you can do it, then so can I. The fact of the matter is that modern science didn't exist back when the Bible was written by those ancient humans therefore you can't expect the Bible to contain anything of scientific value.

Both you and I being here is not proof of God's existence no matter how much you want to claim it does. Maybe if creationists and intelligent design advocates actually applied the scientific method to their theory they could see that, but I doubt it'll ever happen.

Great website though. I guess we can consider Hannah Barbera a great scientific duo as well because they had the whole humans riding dinosaurs thing nailed when they made the Flintstones.

[Glass Case Of Emotion]

Tepponator, on 20 July 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

You might want to take a look at Answers in Genesis. They're quite comprehensive. After all, you seem to be receptive to checking things out from all angles.


Not to insult those who obviously do not have a Gospel-centered worldview, but I wonder if they have a firm foundation in anything. To me, it seems like randomness is being tossed in the waves of a raging sea.

Drunkard, on 20 July 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

Gotta love the "I'm not trying to insult anyone but here's an insult" line. No firm foundation in anything? Are you kidding me? What kind of firm foundation is choosing to believe an invisible man in the sky did it when there's absolutely no proof of his existence? Sounds like a cop out to avoid actual learning to me.

XC, you could rephrase to, "The Gospel Centered world view allows me to have a firm foundation in scripture to explain the world around me. I don't see that same foundation in a science-only based view of the world. To me, it seems, the randomness required for the scientific explanations it too much to accept, allowing little room for a firm grasp on how the world works.

Drunkard, you could rephrase, "The Gospel centered world view ignores too much of what we can explain. Science may not have a firm grasp on all things, but the understanding that we do have is firm enough on some things, and my understanding of the Gospel Teachings would force a believer to ignore many of the things that we do understand to a near certainty. This selective acceptance of the observed world is too much to accept."

And then we can get back to an excellent, albeit sensitive, conversation without hurling insults.

Carry on.

[SwampD]

I always hate the "Either/Or"ness of these discussions.  I don't go to church,.. at all, but why are the two things mutually exclusive?  Couldn't science be just a way to quantify or explain what "God" did.  I at least leave that possibility open.

And as far as the election, to think that one party's set of values would work for the entire country is pretty ridiculous.  That's why there are elections every 2-4-6 years, to create that ebb and flow.  It's the alarmism that drive's me nuts when the flow goes away from someone's "side".

Edited by SwampD, 20 July 2012 - 10:50 AM.

[Oliver_Cromwell]

Punch, on 20 July 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

If I believe money literally grows on trees, does the existence of money prove my thesis? There are probably better arguments--- but that's a straw man.

Actually, money does grow on trees - sort of. Think about it. Trees have to be cut down and turned into paper, which is then used to print fiat currency (with no gold backing BTW).

As for the straw man, I disagree with you. There's nothing straw man about it.

Drunkard, on 20 July 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

In that case, NO OFFENSE, but anyone who takes the Bible literally is a moron. I fail to see how the little disclaimer makes up the insult but if you can do it, then so can I. The fact of the matter is that modern science didn't exist back when the Bible was written by those ancient humans therefore you can't expect the Bible to contain anything of scientific value.

Both you and I being here is not proof of God's existence no matter how much you want to claim it does. Maybe if creationists and intelligent design advocates actually applied the scientific method to their theory they could see that, but I doubt it'll ever happen.

Great website though. I guess we can consider Hannah Barbera a great scientific duo as well because they had the whole humans riding dinosaurs thing nailed when they made the Flintstones.

Answer me this: what is the beginning of knowledge?

[Glass Case Of Emotion]

Tepponator, on 20 July 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

Actually, money does grow on trees - sort of. Think about it. Trees have to be cut down and turned into paper, which is then used to print fiat currency (with no gold backing BTW).

As for the straw man, I disagree with you. There's nothing straw man about it.

one final clarification, money is made from Cotton, which grows on a shrub, not a tree.

Edited by LastPommerFan, 20 July 2012 - 10:53 AM.

[Oliver_Cromwell]

LastPommerFan, on 20 July 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

one final clarification, money is made from Cotton, which grows on a shrub, not a tree.

ok, you got me there, but it's still fiat currency at the end of the day.

EDIT: While we're on the subject of cotton, if enough of it is grown and made into "money", then it sure should help the South rise again.

Edited by Tepponator, 20 July 2012 - 10:55 AM.

[Punch]

Tepponator, on 20 July 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

Actually, money does grow on trees - sort of. Think about it. Trees have to be cut down and turned into paper, which is then used to print fiat currency (with no gold backing BTW).

As for the straw man, I disagree with you. There's nothing straw man about it.



Answer me this: what is the beginning of knowledge?

Money is fully cut, printed, serialized and ready to spend. If I believed that grew on trees I would be wrong--- it wouldn't be true because believe it.

The Bible is true because the Bible tells me so is not a sound argument--- you can do better.

Edited by Punch, 20 July 2012 - 10:55 AM.

[weave]

Long enough.

[Spndnchz]

and DONE.