welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

11/6 Aged
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
rm



Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 4073

PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yes, this is where faith diverges from science because even if the odds were next to nil I'd still believe it was chance. at the most I'd say that god created enough room for a happy accident... but I'd more than likely not say that because I don't believe in god.

why do you keep saying god "helped" life happen? are you saying life is a mixture of happenstance and divine intervention? or is that just your fun way of saying god created life?
_________________
...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i see the "helping" aspect to be a weaker assertion than saying something along the lines of "god created the system that spit out life on this planet at exactly the moment he intended it to"...

...in order to properly support the "helping" aspect, you really need to be able to identify something that obviously wasn't a chance occurance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rm



Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 4073

PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Major Tom wrote:
...in order to properly support the "helping" aspect, you really need to be able to identify something that obviously wasn't a chance occurance.


I am sure plenty of examples will be provided for us.
_________________
...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

odds are...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CoolChristian



Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 360

PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

umm...i think that god created the world using natural laws, and that he also created those laws. how so many unrelated mathematical expressions use simple formulas is astounding (such as the strength of gravity that decreases as the radius increases as 1/r^2, for example). It's really interesting (but my physics education is decidedly limited), and has led to my compounded view on the formation of the universe. Also, as all mathematical expressions collapse as time approaches the origin of the universe, I believe that some yet undefined entity (god) set things into motion at the beginning of time.

Basically, I believe that there is a god, that he formed the world using laws that humans can discover, and that he guided the world to be what he wanted. A really mixed up view of the world, but everything that I have studied, read, and experienced can be explained by it.

Major Tom wrote:
odds are...

the origin of the universe
religious experiences
people rising from the dead (that one is kinda hard to prove either way, but I'm bringing it up as something that if it happened then it cant be explained with out divine intervention)
_________________
--Christianity with a touch of logic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12207
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:32 am    Post subject: Re: rhapschodillicological Reply with quote

MellowFish wrote:
But back to your point, feel free to use the origional aramaic if you can actually read it and then feel free to discuss said bible with only those who also can read aramaic so as to preserve the true meaning of your arguments. Or you can read english and discuss in english and use the holy spirit (assuming you are chirstian, I really dont know) to safeguard any major mistranslations from ruining your arguments.

See, though, if that sort of supernatural copy-editing were the case, you'd think it would have been in effect for the two thousand years the texts have been around, when in fact serious analysis of the texts going by all the manuscripts we have say that this isn't so. Here again, what you're saying isn't "Trust in God," but "Trust yourself to be right, even if evidence proves you wrong." Which is completely fucking stupid and incredibly egocentric.

Quote:
Also for your second point, isn't it possible that god made the world the way it is becuase it is the only way it would have worked, and that man misinterpretted the signs (as falliable mankind is prone to do) to mean something completely different?

Given all the different signs we have that are all apparently saying the same thing, this is extremely unlikely. And since you want to play the "fallible humans" card, you have to try and defend YOUR alternative view from the same criticism: that all this literal Genesis stuff is a mistaken interpretation by fallible human minds. Your only defense for your views has simply been to say that you believe your beliefs are right, and all evidence to the contrary is wrong, and that God is on your side alone.

Quote:
There are many things such as scientific constants, position of the earth with respect to the sun, atmospheric composition and others, that make earth perfect for life...

How surprising that life should flourish here, then!
What you're doing here is called the "Anthropic Principle," which essentially boils down to a tautological truism: where life can't exist, life doesn't exist. I'd be much, MUCH more impressed if life existed where the conditions should make living impossible than life existing where it has every right, means, and opportunity to do so. To me, THAT would be miraculous. Otherwise, with life existing only where the conditions for life are present, you're just flapping your gums, uselessly trying to convince people that it's miraculous that life exists where the conditions for life are favorable. Given everything we know, it's not that the world was made for us, rather that we are made (and constantly re-made) for the world.

Quote:
...couldn't the geology of the earth be just another of those things god tweaked to make earth a perfect world for his creations to live on?

Given that earthquakes and other natural disasters kill thousands upon thousands of people every year? No, that's a stupid argument.

Major Tom wrote:
...in order to properly support the "helping" aspect, you really need to be able to identify something that obviously wasn't a chance occurance.

Which is one of the key reasons why any Watchmaker argument fails.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Secret



Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 5429

PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CoolChristian wrote:

the origin of the universe
religious experiences
people rising from the dead (that one is kinda hard to prove either way, but I'm bringing it up as something that if it happened then it cant be explained with out divine intervention)


May not have happened (see: A Brief History of Time)
Rationalization of mental experiences (like near-death experiences - people can see "a light at the end of the tunnel" or Mario)
Prove that it happened before you use it as evidence.
_________________
rm wrote:
the grail is patient.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CoolChristian wrote:

the origin of the universe

an unexplained phenomenon is not automatically defined as not-a-chance-occurance

Quote:

religious experiences

could be anything from, literally, random misfiring of the cranial circuitry to pure fantasy. this is non-corporeal ephemera, not stuff of the life-giving universe

Quote:
people rising from the dead (that one is kinda hard to prove either way, but I'm bringing it up as something that if it happened then it cant be explained with out divine intervention)

i appreciate that you largely dismissed this one on your own, but to your second comment, here, i would not call modern medicine "divine intervention" and yet doctors can, indeed, revive clinically dead individuals


Last edited by Major Tom on Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CoolChristian



Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 360

PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

well, in "A Brief History of Time" i found a couple of things out
1) its really interesting, and
2)i don't know enough about physics


I only read the chapter on the origin and fate of the universe, as i think thats what you were referring to. I'd like to point out that Hawking's published this book in 1988 (please correct me if I get anything wrong), and 18 years later, i think that the big bang is still the generally accepted theory. Also, i think that string theory has been the topic of more discussion, along with the recent advancements of dark matter detection. Is there anything more recent about this line of thought?

First argument-The big bang is the generally accepted theory, and until Hawking's theory is accepted "the burden is on you to prove it." not like those idiots that are trying to teach creationism in public schools, but prove it to be scientifically accepted. So maybe the universe doesn't have a beginning, but maybe it does, and the only thing that we can easily argue is what is accepted to be true right now, and that is the big bang theory.



In a different matter, when i said people rising from the dead, i didn't mean doctors using medicine to bring back people who are clinically dead, i understand that is different, and respect that. I meant in the bible, people that were actually dead coming back to life, and its kinda hard to prove anything that happened almost 2000 years ago--which is why i said that the argument should be discounted.

There are, however, documented cases of medical cases of spontaneous recovery, where, for no apparent reason, terminal cancer patients go into remission (i dont have any documented facts for this yet, but unless all the cases ive heard about are all urban myths, i think we can assume that this is true*) and end up having a complete recovery. It is possible that these cases have reasons and simply can't be explained by any medical explanation, but...wouldn't that fall right in line with divine intervention?

*edit-there are documented cases easily googled, and one biased source lists up to 1051 cases, in which at least a few must be real*)
_________________
--Christianity with a touch of logic


Last edited by CoolChristian on Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:47 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12207
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CoolChristian wrote:
Also, i think that string theory has been the topic of more discussion, along with the recent advancements of dark matter detection. Is there anything more recent about this line of thought?

String ideas are still not really "theories," they're speculative and unsubstantiated models that have a long way to go before any of them make testable predictions. Dark Matter has been "observed," or rather there's been strong observational evidence for it.

Quote:
First argument-The big bang is the generally accepted theory, and until Hawking's theory is accepted "the burden is on you to prove it."

Hawking didn't propose an alternative to the Big Bang, he outlined a few possible interpretations of the idea that physicists were throwing around at the time that dealt with things like the "geometry" of the universe. They all relied on the Big Bang as a premise.

Quote:
It is possible that these cases have reasons and simply can't be explained by any medical explanation, but...wouldn't that fall right in line with divine intervention?

Quite frankly we don't know WHAT would fall right in line with "divine intervention," because by the very fact of supernatural "intervention" we can't make naturalistic assumptions or use empirical reasoning to outline what would or wouldn't qualify as "divine." If God is the ultimate source of natural laws, and can break them at His whim, how do we know that he's actually breaking them in the first place? We have a hard enough time trying to find out what natural laws there are to be broken.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CoolChristian wrote:

*edit-there are documented cases easily googled, and one biased source lists up to 1051 cases, in which at least a few must be real*)


well...there ya go...if they must be real...

...but, wait -- why is that? [/square one]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9521

PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:00 pm    Post subject: rhapschodillicological dos Reply with quote

CoolChristian wrote:
slow down, thats not what i meant at all.


Don't worry, I'm not battling you -- just being silly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14
Page 14 of 14

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group