Some thoughts on religion/christianity

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by ThaiBxr, Jul 15, 2006.

  1. Topher

    Topher allo!

    Just to nit pick - one doesn't *believe* in gravity, one *accepts* gravity.
     
  2. NewLearner

    NewLearner Valued Member

    And perhaps you might see that some have updated their knowledge based upon revelation and experience?

    So gaining additional knowledge leads to different claims. Such as those that believe they have experienced a relationship with God or His revealed message to man.


    An explosion is defined as a sudden release of energy in a violent manner. You don't think that applies to the big bang? In what way?


    No I don't. But that is because I am willing to consider the possibility that there is more than the natural world. You aren't. Joseph, if read in context, did not believe Mary and was ready to be done with her. But along the way, he encountered something that was supernatural, an angel, and recognized that it was not the natural. Your view would be that Joseph was approached by Mary's brother, who he already knew, who told him that he was Mary's angel and to go ahead and marry her and Joseph was stupid enough to buy it.
     
  3. NewLearner

    NewLearner Valued Member

    They are close, but not the same thing.
    Uh, Tekken in the post before?
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2006
  4. NewLearner

    NewLearner Valued Member

    Believe in gravity is the better word choice. When you believe that it is true, you have confidence that is true. Yet only one of the meanings comes close, in which case it is practically a synonym for believe, in meaning to regard as true. Believe would be the stronger amount of trust in the law of gravity, which I would hazard to guess would be his intent.
     
  5. tekkengod

    tekkengod the MAP MP

    :D
     
  6. Socrastein

    Socrastein The Boxing Philosopher

    Newlearner, you don't seem to understand that order and complexity arise naturally all the time. It is no violation of any scientific law. Contrary to popular opinion, evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The universe still is, and always has been, increasing in entropy. However, while on a large scale entropy may be increasing throughout the universe as a whole, small localized systems can and do sponteneously create complexity and order. This is made possible because the system in question is recieving energy from an external source. The Sun emits energy, massive amounts of it, feeding into our terrestrial system. This allows an apparent 'entropy reversal', but this is only an illusion. The total entropy of our solar system at large is definitely increasing.

    Who cares? Obviously you've put little, if any, time into actually studying evolution and abiogenesis. Nobody thinks that all the right materials fell into place randomly and poof there was a cell. Perhaps before you jump to your supernatural "explanations", maybe you should actually bother to understand the natural explanation, the one that you say is inadequate, in spite of the fact you don't understand the first thing about it.

    Some resources to get you started:

    http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
    http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coincidence.cfm

     
  7. tekkengod

    tekkengod the MAP MP


    again, i refer you to the elephant analogy, and ask you to prove there is no elephant. same concept. how can you not see that? occam's razor asks you to kill off all the unnessecarry assumptions. which you're not doing.
     
  8. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    Sounds very magical and mysterious Victor, how that happened. But nature can be that way, remarkably. But as long as we call any form of speculation regard a mystery natural, it will magically be so. Some people a very long time ago came up with a not so far removed theory. I think they called the nothing part 'wuji'. I think they may have even called this movement (fluctuation) - taiji. They even described some 'spiralling' - something of a tunneling scenario i guess. It goes on to talk of twin energies and ten thousand things and more. A really good yarn, but yours is nice too. Freshness is always nice.

    twin energies ?

    ten thousand things maybe ?

    I wonder if they thought of this randomly or based it on some kind of knowledge. But I would imagine you are not copying or using the same knowledge surely. :confused:

    Are we supposed to take this 'something from nothing' on faith. Or is that you call it 'random quantum fluctuation' enough ? can we prove that there is even/ can be or ever was such a thing as a 'pure vacuum' in nature I wonder. Yes maybe we do need some faith in something regardless of the story told..

    Perhaps we can say that 'vacuum in the sky' that made us all. Or maybe that magic vacuum produced a God like entity even - of course it just popped out randomly from nothing due to some movement, David Copperfield would be green as grass. By the by (just because) one of its 'natural' processes was the ability to create patterning things to its design, being that whatever it is maybe a pattern itself. Much like a tiny part of this universe evolved to design a ford focus. Patterns off a production line, that sounds nice. We could call them nature1, nature2, nature3 and so on.

    How does anything fluctuate, quantum or otherwise in a pure vacuum. Or does quantum = magic beans these days. Or are we to take it quantum anything just happens in a vucuum on faith? This quantum thing sounds quite supernatural (to me anywayz), because that is not what happens in anything observable or testable in the natural world. At least it has not been demonstrated to me to happen, so i do accept it would require my faith in certain assumptions it makes. It seems holding such a faith says it is ok for it to steal a concept away and make it its own. Which is fine because ownership is nine tenths of the law. And we must all obey the ownership law..

    I don't know how true it is, but i heard quantum particles phase in and out of existance here and now. I don't know to what 'here and now' they go to. maybe it is that nothing you speak of Victor. This 'nothing' sounds really super and magical i wish we could know more about this nothing and how it does these things which are contra to what nature does in our plane. There really be a lot more to the nature of 'nothing' than one would imagine there to be. Is pure vacuum nature even ? But i think we will always wonder about it and marvel at its great power and eternity to infinately facilitate the richly profound deeds of everything.

    Awesome!
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2006
  9. Socrastein

    Socrastein The Boxing Philosopher

    Quantum physics is actually the most accurate and experimentally verified branch of science we have. Ironically, it's also the most counterintuitive and difficult to grasp. However, it's conclusions are unavoidable, namely that causality does not exist on the quantum level, that matter and energy can, do, and necessarily must come in and out of existance, completely randomly.

    Victor Stenger is a physicist who I believe teaches in Hawaii right now. He's written a lot on the big bang and anthropic coincidences, symmetry breaking, quantum physics, and other interesting topics of our universe and its origins.

    Everything the quoted scenario involves is consistent with all the observations we've gathered so far. It's also consistent with all of our mathematics. Finally, it's as well logically coherent. Given all this, there's no reason to take any of it on faith. There is no magic at work. It only seems like magic to those ignorant of the quantum science behind it.

    This is not to say it has been proven, it surely has not yet. However, the very fact that the universe, its laws, and everything in it can possibly be explained without appealing to any supernatural causes is enough to completely dismiss any supernatural "arguments" for the need of a metaphysical "first cause".

    The point I was trying to hit home for newlearner was the universe makes sense without God. In fact, the more you look into things, the less sense our observations make sense when we try to reconcile them with the idea of a personal creator who is involved with our universe.
     
  10. Capt Ann

    Capt Ann Valued Member

    Sorry, but not so. (Where is AZeitung when you need him????)

    The 'singularity' posited for the start of the universe is a mathematical artifact. In every other case of which I am aware where a physical formula results in a singularity, the 'singularity' does not exist, physically, but just indicates a place where the mathematical model breaks down. I'm sure you've heard the dictum, "Nature abhores a vacuum.". Apparently, it is also true that, "Nature abhores a singularity." New Learner's point was actually accurate. Someone on this thread asked for an example of a creation ex nihilo event that we could observe. Along the same vein, I must ask for someone to provide an example of any observable physical singularity.
     
  11. tekkengod

    tekkengod the MAP MP

    Which i am still waiting for. :rolleyes:
     
  12. Capt Ann

    Capt Ann Valued Member

    .....then give me an example of a physical singularity we can observe! :rolleyes:
     
  13. tekkengod

    tekkengod the MAP MP

    no no, don't play the reverse question game. don't play the twist words game.

    You're the die-hard theist. I asked for physical proof a few pages back and never got it. feel free to present it any time now. :rolleyes:
     
  14. WatchfulAbyss

    WatchfulAbyss Active Member


    That's a great one for those that claim science as having the answer, but, what about folks like myself that don't claim a definitive answer?
    Basically, I don't have anything to prove, but that doesn't change the fact that I would like to see proof of god. I am not going to say your wrong, I couldn't prove it if I did. So with that being said, can anyone prove it's right no "ifs," "ands" or "buts" without the show me yours and I will show you mine game.

    ( I start to feel like I am in the middle of a drug deal with some extremly paranoid individuals, that may just have been up for to long)


    Whenever I speak to religious people, I get almost as many personal reasons as there are people as to why they believe. I don't find any of it working for me, I am looking for universal evidence, undeniable truth. Maybe some day I won't need it, maybe I will acquire my own personel reasons, it just hasn't happened yet....



    ( This is just where I stand on the matter, I am not trying to badger anyone in particular )
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2006
  15. Capt Ann

    Capt Ann Valued Member

    No, several pages ago you offered proof. You claimed that you could prove that zombies don't exist and that no one can rise from the dead. I am calling you on it. Prove it.

    As far as physical proof, let's start with some basic understanding of what it is we are agreeing to try to 'prove' (just proving the whole Bible, all of Christianity, and the exact nature of God is a little too broad, even for all us folks on MAP ;) ).

    For background, let's agree to start with just the claims in these few passages of the Bible:
    1. Isaiah chapter 52, verse 13 through the end of the following chapter (Isaiah 53).
    2. Micah chapter 5 verse 2
    3. Daniel chapter 9, verses 24 through 27.

    Anyone truly interested, would you please look over these passages?

    Thoughts on these passgaes (as relates to 'proof') to follow.
     
  16. NewLearner

    NewLearner Valued Member


    Socrastein, you seem to be concerned that I am not up to par in my knowledge of science. Might I ask your background?
     
  17. NewLearner

    NewLearner Valued Member

    I think I have been pretty clear in my posts in this thread. You are no more likely to get a post proving that God is real than that God is not real. As another person posted, trying to prove anything is extremely difficult and you always start with at least a set of assumptions. Those assumptions will guide you to the decisions you make.

    In the end, I think it always goes to personal reasons whether or not you believe in God.
     
  18. NewLearner

    NewLearner Valued Member

    Tekken, is there a reason that others shouldn't play the same games that you do?

    I think we all know that trying to put together a strong argument is far harder than to nitpick one apart. I think also know that even if someone produced an argument so elogquent and logical that it was obvious, you would not be convinced.
     
  19. WatchfulAbyss

    WatchfulAbyss Active Member

    If that is the case, then what is all of this about?



    There is one thing I don't understand, why would I have to prove there is no god, there would be nothing to disprove.

    For example: I don't have to prove there is no invisible wall, the person saying there is a wall has something to prove, not the other way around. Basically, the lack of the wall not being there, is my proof/defense. Untill they have some valid evidence to argue, there really shouldn't be anything ellse for the non wall seeing individual to say, it's not his claim. Right????




    I agree, especially when you take it to the "seeing is believing" level.....


    I know quite a few athiest turned, so, I don't know how case to case this is, or just how much those assumptions play a part in matters.......







    I am actually going to read those. I am going to be needing to pick up a bible tomorrow, all I got is ot, I would like to follow this thread under nt views.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2006
  20. NewLearner

    NewLearner Valued Member

    That some want to try and prove that they are right by setting enormously difficult challenges for others that hold a different viewpoint.

    In your analogy, if you said there is no wall and there can be no wall and you are all idiots for thinking there is a wall, it is quite different than if you say I haven't see a wall and I am going to act as if there is no wall until I experience it or you prove it exists. I don't think many of us would care if
    the approach was the second rather than the first. In the first, a claim is being made. A negative claim, in that there can be no wall. It is just as much a claim as a positive claim that there is a wall. Either both should be proven, or neither.



    Actually, proving goes far beyond seeing in this type of debate. Generally, if someone claims to have experienced or seen something miraculous, it is claimed that the person was hallucinating, dreaming, or one I just saw today, having an epileptic seizure.



    There have been quite a few athiest that have turned. Some were determined to prove that Christianity was a farce and then became Christians. And I do think the person's assumptions are extremely relevant as they will guide how the person perceives things. But assumptions can change.


    I am also looking at those passages.
     

Share This Page