Christianity/Catholisim - DPChallenge Forums

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

04/08/2009 10:19:32 PM · #176

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Proof" for Christianity is never going to exist in the way I am imagining you are using it. However, that "proof" does not exist for many, many things which we accept and incorporate into our worldviews. Why should I be held up as foolish for doing such when everybody else does the same?

Everybody else does not do the same. There is a world of difference between accepting ideas on evidence and accepting them on belief. What's foolish is equating the two.

My dinner is getting cold so I only made it 3:30 into it, but I have to say I don't think the video really applies. I don't disagree with what is being said, but it has no bearing outside the physical world. One cannot apply the principles learned in this video to the problem of whether or not female circumcision is morally acceptable.

The point of the video was combatting those who believe in the "supernatural", ie. that which is other than natural. This conflict doesn't apply to philosophical positions because they are not within the realm of the "natural".

I do NOT want to know what bizarre sequence of misfiring neurons took you from "Proof for Christianity" to female circumcision. If you're going to throw out a red herring, at least use a fresh one. Phew!

Message edited by author 2009-04-08 22:19:50.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/08/2009 10:22:30 PM · #177

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Wait, isn't female circumcision a religious practice? Doesn't it still go on largely because in some parts of the world people are closeminded?

Message edited by author 2009-04-08 22:23:37.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/08/2009 10:32:47 PM · #178

Originally posted by Nullix:

[quote=escapetooz]
But if you do know about God and you reject God, you'll end up in his absence. Your choice.

Shall I assume that this God you speak of could be one of several denominations.

Ray

04/08/2009 10:54:33 PM · #179

Originally posted by scalvert:

Haha. Touche. I was trying to bring up a purely philosophical problem. Like most discussions we all have, this one is meandering hither and tither so I'm not even sure I WAS talking about "proof for Christianity" at that point. I was talking more generally about the idea that "proof" has so many meanings in these conversations and people often switch back and forth in mid-conversation as it fits their position.

I'm gonna go back to see where this conversation was really going. Stay tuned.

Message edited by author 2009-04-08 23:06:12.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

04/08/2009 11:05:44 PM · #180

I think this current line of thinking started with yanko's:

"I think there is a difference between discarding information that hasn't been proven vs discarding information that has."

Trying to stick with this thought and ejecting the rest, I had this reply:

"The problem with this challenge lies in "prove". I can prove things to you to what I would consider a reasonable extent, but you may claim it is not proven to a reasonable extent for yourself. Both of us could be correct, but never the twain shall meet."

Yank replied:

"You went on to say that Christianity was different from other religions and that was important to you. That's great and all but that just speaks to a personal preference, not proof."

Then I replied:

""Proof" for Christianity is never going to exist in the way I am imagining you are using it. However, that "proof" does not exist for many, many things which we accept and incorporate into our worldviews. Why should I be held up as foolish for doing such when everybody else does the same?"

At that point there were calls for the "many, many things which we accept and incorporate into our worldviews". K10DGuy added the term "tangible proof" to the mix.

Brennan had some good ones, although the main traction seemed to come from:
People are basically good.

I chimed in with some more examples and summarized:
"Morality is fraught with "unprovables" and is often part of the framework of our worldview."

I think when you came in you were back on my comment about "Proof for Christianity" while I was up on "Morality is fraught with 'unprovables'". That's where the disconnect in my reply to you came.

So I will back up and try to get on the track you are. My point about your video still stands. The video concerns how to deal with people who have supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. It does not deal with problems, ideas, or concepts that are outside science to start with. Questions about God, morality, and religion (among other things) are not ones that the methods of science are good or even capable of answering. We've had that recursive discussion many times. This is the reason why I felt your link was a non sequitur.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

04/08/2009 11:12:01 PM · #181

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well, put me down on record for not talking about 'morality' whatsoever, so I obviously lost the track of the conversation myself. Now, after going to the midway and going on 6 spinny-rides in a row at my ripe age of 36, I'm too nauseous to continue tonight. lol.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

04/08/2009 11:29:29 PM · #182

Haha. Me too. I'm being roped into watching a teen movie about vampire love.

What took you so long to enter the conversation Shannon? I wondered where you had been.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

04/09/2009 06:03:30 AM · #183

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The point of the video was combatting those who believe in the "supernatural", ie. that which is other than natural. This conflict doesn't apply to philosophical positions because they are not within the realm of the "natural".

No, the point of the video was that it's really hard to talk to some people because when they decide they have the answer to something inexplicable, and they decide it's supernatural, they get indignant and call you closed-minded if you just don't happen to agree. That there are other possibilities, and/or that the answer just simply isn't available seems to be outside their realm of acceptibility and it seems to make them nuts.

Message edited by author 2009-04-09 06:08:01.

04/09/2009 08:01:13 AM · #184

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The point of the video was combatting those who believe in the "supernatural", ie. that which is other than natural. This conflict doesn't apply to philosophical positions because they are not within the realm of the "natural".

No, the point of the video was that it's really hard to talk to some people because when they decide they have the answer to something inexplicable, and they decide it's supernatural, they get indignant and call you closed-minded if you just don't happen to agree. That there are other possibilities, and/or that the answer just simply isn't available seems to be outside their realm of acceptibility and it seems to make them nuts.

What Jeb said. Even with philosophical or moral issues, pointing out that we don't have a complete natural explanation doesn't mean there isn't one. More importantly, you're essentially claiming that the answers must be supernatural even as you declare we don't know the answers.

04/09/2009 11:51:01 AM · #185

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The point of the video was combatting those who believe in the "supernatural", ie. that which is other than natural. This conflict doesn't apply to philosophical positions because they are not within the realm of the "natural".

No, the point of the video was that it's really hard to talk to some people because when they decide they have the answer to something inexplicable, and they decide it's supernatural, they get indignant and call you closed-minded if you just don't happen to agree. That there are other possibilities, and/or that the answer just simply isn't available seems to be outside their realm of acceptibility and it seems to make them nuts.

What Jeb said. Even with philosophical or moral issues, pointing out that we don't have a complete natural explanation doesn't mean there isn't one. More importantly, you're essentially claiming that the answers must be supernatural even as you declare we don't know the answers.

I think you guys both miss my point which is one I've tried over time to repeatedly make on Rant. I highly recommend a book by Stephen Jay Gould called Rocks of Ages. In it, Gould lays out the idea that Science and Religion (which could probably be called Philosophy) have Non-Overlapping Magesteria (NOMA). To quote wiki: "He defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution" and the NOMA principle is "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."

In my view, Shannon's link was suddenly interjecting the tools of Science into a conversation that needs the tools of Philosophy. I understand that if my lampshade is seemingly moving by itself one should explore all natural explanations before jumping to the supernatural. However, if one is exploring the arena of epistemology (how we logically know things), the idea of "natural explanation" does not make sense. In this realm one uses the logic of deduction and inference instead of empiric observation and experimentation. To me, the current discussion of how I feel Christianity is proven to me, is a Philosophical question, not a Scientific one.

As an aside, I like you Shannon. You are a brilliant guy and can often cut to the core of a discussion with intelligence. But sometimes I think you suffer from a mental version of hemineglect. You sit squarely in the NOMA of Science, but ignore the fact that there is another world out there. It's not a world, incidentally, that must include God (although it can). It's the world of Philosophy. Religion falls squarely in this realm and your laws do not apply (although we must, out of a sense of fairness, also remind the citizens of the world of Religion that their laws do not apply in the world of Science). I find myself in the unusual position of working in one world, but residing in the other. I am, in a sense, an ambassador who is familiar with the laws of both lands. In these Rant threads I try hard not to disparage either side, but to foster understanding. Whenever I get frustrated with you, it's because I interpret your posts as ignorning the other land (at best) or waging full out war (at worst). If Louis were here, I'd tell him this is also why Dawkins infuriates me. He would want nothing less than to see the capitol of the other world burn and the walls pulled down forever.

Ok, I digress. So in the end I disagree with your last point and Jeb's as well. We do not have "complete natural explanations" for philosophical or moral issues because "natural explanations" is a nonsensical phrase.

04/09/2009 12:39:50 PM · #186

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I understand that if my lampshade is seemingly moving by itself one should explore all natural explanations before jumping to the supernatural. However, if one is exploring the arena of epistemology (how we logically know things), the idea of "natural explanation" does not make sense. In this realm one uses the logic of deduction and inference instead of empiric observation and experimentation. To me, the current discussion of how I feel Christianity is proven to me, is a Philosophical question, not a Scientific one.

...We do not have "complete natural explanations" for philosophical or moral issues because "natural explanations" is a nonsensical phrase.

That's your opinion. To me, there's the real world (natural) and there's fantasy (supernatural). There's a reason that people and gorillas can appreciate a beautiful sunset (art) or risk their lives to save another (morality), while a cow might not exhibit either one. You could use "logic of deduction and inference" to ponder why, but the actual explanation will be physiological, with proof via empiric observation and experimentation so far thwarted by the overwhelming complexities involved. Using deduction and inference to justify your belief in Christianity is not "a different kind" of proof, as you imply. It's not proof at all- it's rationalization.

Message edited by author 2009-04-09 12:41:36.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

04/09/2009 01:28:29 PM · #187

Originally posted by scalvert:

Using deduction and inference to justify your belief in Christianity is not "a different kind" of proof, as you imply. It's not proof at all- it's rationalization.

I guess what I'm saying is that rationality IS proof in this world (although "proof" means something different than in the Scientific world).

Let's dip back into the moral realm for examples of questions that cannot be answered by scientific inquiry but could be with philosophical tools.

Is abortion morally wrong?

There is no method using empiricism and experimentation to answer that. (I'm open to your suggestions though.) However, the realm of Philosophy can use the tool of Thought Experiments to see if the question can be answered. An example which tries to get at the above question would be:

We are asked to imagine a famous violinist falling into a coma. The society of music lovers determines from medical records that you and you alone can save the violinist's life by being hooked up to him for nine months. The music lovers break into your home while you are asleep and hook the unconscious (and unknowing, hence innocent) violinist to you. You may want to unhook him, but you are then faced with this argument put forward by the music lovers: The violinist is an innocent person with a right to life. Unhooking him will result in his death. Is it morally right to unhook him?

This is merely an example of a question that cannot be addressed by science. There is no "natural explanation" for "Is abortion morally wrong?" In fact, it seems nonsensical to ask, "What is the natural explanation for is abortion morally wrong?"

Message edited by author 2009-04-09 13:31:17.

escapetooz

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

04/09/2009 01:56:03 PM · #188

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The point of the video was combatting those who believe in the "supernatural", ie. that which is other than natural. This conflict doesn't apply to philosophical positions because they are not within the realm of the "natural".

No, the point of the video was that it's really hard to talk to some people because when they decide they have the answer to something inexplicable, and they decide it's supernatural, they get indignant and call you closed-minded if you just don't happen to agree. That there are other possibilities, and/or that the answer just simply isn't available seems to be outside their realm of acceptibility and it seems to make them nuts.

What Jeb said. Even with philosophical or moral issues, pointing out that we don't have a complete natural explanation doesn't mean there isn't one. More importantly, you're essentially claiming that the answers must be supernatural even as you declare we don't know the answers.

I think you guys both miss my point which is one I've tried over time to repeatedly make on Rant. I highly recommend a book by Stephen Jay Gould called Rocks of Ages. In it, Gould lays out the idea that Science and Religion (which could probably be called Philosophy) have Non-Overlapping Magesteria (NOMA). To quote wiki: "He defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution" and the NOMA principle is "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."

In my view, Shannon's link was suddenly interjecting the tools of Science into a conversation that needs the tools of Philosophy. I understand that if my lampshade is seemingly moving by itself one should explore all natural explanations before jumping to the supernatural. However, if one is exploring the arena of epistemology (how we logically know things), the idea of "natural explanation" does not make sense. In this realm one uses the logic of deduction and inference instead of empiric observation and experimentation. To me, the current discussion of how I feel Christianity is proven to me, is a Philosophical question, not a Scientific one.

As an aside, I like you Shannon. You are a brilliant guy and can often cut to the core of a discussion with intelligence. But sometimes I think you suffer from a mental version of hemineglect. You sit squarely in the NOMA of Science, but ignore the fact that there is another world out there. It's not a world, incidentally, that must include God (although it can). It's the world of Philosophy. Religion falls squarely in this realm and your laws do not apply (although we must, out of a sense of fairness, also remind the citizens of the world of Religion that their laws do not apply in the world of Science). I find myself in the unusual position of working in one world, but residing in the other. I am, in a sense, an ambassador who is familiar with the laws of both lands. In these Rant threads I try hard not to disparage either side, but to foster understanding. Whenever I get frustrated with you, it's because I interpret your posts as ignorning the other land (at best) or waging full out war (at worst). If Louis were here, I'd tell him this is also why Dawkins infuriates me. He would want nothing less than to see the capitol of the other world burn and the walls pulled down forever.

Ok, I digress. So in the end I disagree with your last point and Jeb's as well. We do not have "complete natural explanations" for philosophical or moral issues because "natural explanations" is a nonsensical phrase.

:) Hmmm. I wish you would debate with some of my Christian friends for me. The kind that think, since the bible is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH that anything in science that they consider to step on the bible's toes (like the age of the earth, dinosaurs, evolution, etc) is pure hogwash. They don't seem to understand these 2 realms you speak of. I'm not sure your stance on the issues because I have not "battled" with you as much as the others but I hope at least that you understand that the bible doesn't disprove science. Seems like a very basic concept to me. And I don't believe that science disproves God either.

Dawkins and people like him are why I don't like to call myself atheist. They are just as crazy as the extreme religious groups. Sure he's smart and has SOME good insights, but on the whole I think he work is way too judgmental and has a very limited scope (just lie the religions he bashes).

I would like to comment however on something you said in a past comment about morality that I don't care to wade through and look for. I think morality is testable. You can give people a moral situation and see how it plays out. I think a person and their morality has little to do with their religion in terms of HAVING it. There are religious and non religious people that do not have morals (or very few), and those that do. I think religion is a tool and a way to sort out the details. I am not religious, was not raised religious, don't believe in one super powerful God watching over me, nor do I believe in consequences in the afterlife (at least not in the way of heaven and hell). But I have morals, and I believe in consequences in this life. And not just the obvious ones like jail, or bad "things" happening to me. Doesn't that alone disprove your theory that God is necessary for morality? I don't prescribe to your brand of morality but I'm sure much of our morals overlap, as do the morals of the other major religions.

04/09/2009 02:04:10 PM · #189

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I guess what I'm saying is that rationality IS proof in this world (although "proof" means something different than in the Scientific world)...

This is merely an example of a question that cannot be addressed by science. There is no "natural explanation" for "Is abortion morally wrong?" In fact, it seems nonsensical to ask, "What is the natural explanation for is abortion morally wrong?"

Another red herring. "Proof" in terms of Christianity or Islam or Norse Mythology refers to a question of existence, not a judgement of value. "Does abortion exist" is a yes or no answer, and readily answerable through scientific inquiry. If there is a supreme being, then the question of which religion is the "correct" religion is not analogous to your moral examples.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/09/2009 02:08:45 PM · #190

Originally posted by escapetooz:

And not just the obvious ones like jail, or bad "things" happening to me. Doesn't that alone disprove your theory that God is necessary for morality?

You didn't remember my quote properly. I said God is necessary for absolute morality. Relative morality is open to worldviews without a supreme being. If you want to try to get my position on that more, you can wade into lots of the posts on Rant. I'm sure there are hundreds discussing this. I could try to track them down for you if you want.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

04/09/2009 02:13:07 PM · #191

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Is abortion morally wrong?

There is no method using empiricism and experimentation to answer that. (I'm open to your suggestions though.)

Sure there is. Some pretty smart guys tussled with that a few years back, looking at the laws of the land and the best that science could tell them about when human life began, and at what point we could be sure enough that potential had move to certainty, that we as a society had the right to impose that viewpoint of empirical certainty on an individual.

The decision was called Roe v Wade.

Message edited by author 2009-04-09 14:14:27.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

04/09/2009 02:16:08 PM · #192

Originally posted by scalvert:

You sound like Dawkins.

"exist" does not necessarily mean "in the physical world". Do my thoughts exist? Does my id exist? Does logic exist? Once again you are declaring from the highest tower, "ONLY THE LAWS OF OUR LAND ARE VALID!" while failing to see there is another land with a different set of laws. The only "proof" you are accepting above is derived from empiric experimentation.

I'm also not following you on your "does abortion exist" part. Of course that is an answer readily answerable through scientific inquiry. "Is it right?" is the real question and you didn't address that so I fail to follow your line of thought. I wasn't drawing a parallel in the way you seem to think. I was pointing out a question that scientific inquiry cannot address. Certainly it isn't as simple as "Does Christianity exist?" because that's an easy question, isn't it?

Message edited by author 2009-04-09 14:34:45.

eqsite

Nikon D7100

04/09/2009 02:22:44 PM · #193

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

"exist" does not necessarily mean "in the physical world". Do my thoughts exist? Does my id exist? Does logic exist? Once again you are declaring from the highest tower, "ONLY THE LAWS OF OUR LAND ARE VALID!" while failing to see there is another land with a different set of laws. The only "proof" you are accepting above is derived from empiric experimentation.

I'm also not following you on your "does abortion exist" part. Of course that is an answer readily answerable through scientific inquiry. "Is it right?" is the real question and you didn't address that so I fail to follow your line of thought. I wasn't drawing a parallel in the way you seem to think. I was pointing out a question that scientific inquiry cannot address. Certainly it isn't as simple as "Does Christianity exist?" because that's an easy question, isn't it?

It sounds like you are saying that since science cannot provide an answer to a question, there must be some other construct which can. So, because science can't explain your thoughts, or your id, or absolute morality (if such a thing exists) there must be some non-scientific (perhaps supernatural?) explaination for that. How is that any different from the guy in Shannon's video who couldn't explain the moving lampshade?

Message edited by author 2009-04-09 14:23:09.

escapetooz

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

04/09/2009 02:28:42 PM · #194

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by escapetooz:

And how many Catholics are there? And of those, how many do you think are "true" Catholics? How many people is that compared to ALL the people that exist and have ever existed? Why would God create so many people that don't even know about Catholicism, have other options, etc, only for them ALL to go to burn in Hell?

What about all the people that existed before there even WAS Catholicism? Was God just dicking around with them like a cruel boy killing ants with a magnifying glass? Here humans, here is this world for you to live on, but the ONE TRUE religion doesn't even exist yet in your time, so you are doomed to hell.

That sounds downright cruel. But I don't believe that. I don't believe if there is a God it would be that sort. So that just leaves me to believe people of your beliefs are just cruel, or narcissistic, or both. "My religion is right, all the rest of you are doomed unless you join me". No thanks. You don't speak for God. Who gave you that right? The Bible? Who gave the people that wrote it that right? God? How do you know? You weren't there. The fact is you don't KNOW. Those may be your beliefs, and that's fine, whatever. But don't think you have the "Truth". None of us do.

Yes, life is humbling, or at least it should be. But I don't think people like you have learned that lesson yet.

Wow, am I on the correct thread? I thought this was how catholics and christians related. It's not a justification for one religion or another.

First off, hell is not fire and brimstone, it's the absence of God.

What will happen to people who don't know God, I have no clue. I'm sure he has something in is plan.

But if you do know about God and you reject God, you'll end up in his absence. Your choice.

What are you talking about? Not a justification for one religion or another?

This was said:
"his answer was "The only true Church is the Catholic church. It might be hard to swallow, but that's it." I took that to mean that I wouldn't be going to a nice place when I died. So how does one really know which church to follow?"

And then you said:
As a Catholic, I have to say he is correct.

That doesn't sound like cooperation to me.

I like this. This is how conversations usually end when I talk religion and the other person doesn't want to respond to the things I say. "Oh well, you don't know God, have fun in hell." Not so say you said that. I mean you did, in not so many words, I just mean I've had much more sinister, more direct, responses in the past so please don't take this response completely personally I'm about to go off here on the concepts you brought up:

Hell is the absence of God. Well define God? Is god the feeling I get when I've reached the top of a mountain and I'm overwhelmed with something more than happiness? Something full? Life? Is God the voice in my head that says 'bring that scarf' when it's hot outside, but then the night turns cold and I'm glad I did? Is God the feeling I get when I love someone and I think there are moments of pure understanding even in complete silence? Is God the ocean that holds me weightless as I swim?

Or is God the dude up there in the clouds telling me not to be gay and to go to church on sundays and give the pastors my money? Is God the one that compels people to go on street corners and yell with bullhorns that everyone is a sinner? Is God the one that tells people to stop thinking and turn their brains off to new information?

Because if its the first one. Don't worry about me. I know THAT God and its not going to go away. If its the second... well good. I'm glad for a life without that. If that's hell then I'm inviting all my friends along. But that's not it. THAT is not God. THAT is humans pretending to know God, pretending that they have the power to tell other people what God wants for them, pretending they know the rules. And that is why I say I don't believe in God. Because that word has be stretched and pulled to be used to pursue the interests of humans. Because there isn't time to say "I believe is something that is what I think the concept of God was intended to be but I don't believe in organized religion's definition of God. I don't believe in the popular concept of what God is."

But it's always a one word answer. Short. Simple. And then comes judgment.

Name: Monica
Sex: Female
Orientation: Bisexual
Race: White
Religion: Atheist

but wait... bisexual isn't quite right. I'm a serial monogamist that happens to date either men or women, its not like I want both at the same time or *fill in the blank with random stereotype*. But wait... my dad is a Brazilian immigrant and is mixed races, and my mom's side is all mixed too. Am I really just "white"? (So I put "other" or "mixed" but I've been advised to just put white MANY times because "you are white Monica!") But wait... I'm not an atheist like that. I don't believe there is no mystery in the world. I don't believe that science knows everything. I guess I could put agnostic but that's not quite right either.

So I don't believe in god and I am bi, and not quite "white". Well some people like to make a whole lot of assumptions of what THAT all means. I know we all do it but I think the extreme religious people have a tendency to see "non-believers" and throw a whole lot of other traits at them like they all come in one package, like we are "empty" or "without morals", and on and on.

So anyway I got way off topic when all I meant to say was. Rest easy everyone! Put down your bibles and crosses! Me and God we talked, and we are cool.

(yes I'm aware of the hyperbole here, and again Nullix, this was not directed towards you, just sparked by your statements)

So again, to the OP on the question of WHICH religion. In my best guess, though I wouldn't be as brazen as to say I KNOW... so in my opinion, God does not really care as long as you are a thinking, caring being that is trying at life to the best of your abilities.

04/09/2009 02:38:00 PM · #195

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"exist" does not necessarily mean "in the physical world". Do my thoughts exist? Does my id exist? Does logic exist? Once again you are declaring from the highest tower, "ONLY THE LAWS OF OUR LAND ARE VALID!" while failing to see there is another land with a different set of laws. The only "proof" you are accepting above is derived from empiric experimentation.

I'm also not following you on your "does abortion exist" part. Of course that is an answer readily answerable through scientific inquiry. "Is it right?" is the real question and you didn't address that so I fail to follow your line of thought. I wasn't drawing a parallel in the way you seem to think. I was pointing out a question that scientific inquiry cannot address. Certainly it isn't as simple as "Does Christianity exist?" because that's an easy question, isn't it?

It sounds like you are saying that since science cannot provide an answer to a question, there must be some other construct which can. So, because science can't explain your thoughts, or your id, or absolute morality (if such a thing exists) there must be some non-scientific (perhaps supernatural?) explaination for that. How is that any different from the guy in Shannon's video who couldn't explain the moving lampshade?

No no no. I'm just saying that "existence" does not necessarily mean physical. Think of Plato's Forms. Does the ideal Form of a Tree exist? Not in the physical world, but it does exist in the philosophical world. I was trying to come up with examples of things which we clearly believe "exist", but don't do so in a physical sense. Maybe I should just use the generic "idea". Do ideas exist?

04/09/2009 02:38:56 PM · #196

Originally posted by escapetooz:

...trying at life to the best of your abilities.

Whoa. I've had this conversation before, but do you REALLY think anybody falls into this category?

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/09/2009 02:41:28 PM · #197

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

"exist" does not necessarily mean "in the physical world". Do my thoughts exist? Does my id exist? Does logic exist?

If you're trying to equate God with an abstract construct of your imagination, you'll get no argument from me, but existence of something that can interact with the physical world pretty much requires that it be a physical reality. Your thoughts, etc. probably could be shown to exist with sufficiently advanced technology, but logic is not an independent entity making demands of others.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm also not following you on your "does abortion exist" part. Of course that is an answer readily answerable through scientific inquiry. "Is it right?" is the real question and you didn't address that so I fail to follow your line of thought. I wasn't drawing a parallel in the way you seem to think. I was pointing out a question that scientific inquiry cannot address. Certainly it isn't as simple as "Does Christianity exist?" because that's an easy question, isn't it?

The question is, "How do you know a God, in the Christian sense, exists?" Whether or not it's "right" is a moot point per your absolute morality argument, but you have no actual evidence that it does, and the rationalizations you use to reach that conclusion are indistinguishable from the guy claiming ghosts moved the lampshade.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

04/09/2009 02:44:08 PM · #198

Originally posted by eqsite:

The closed minded guy in the video who saw ghosts in the lampshade failed to use all the tools at hand before he resorted to supernatural explanations. But had there been no heater, and had he been scientific and isolated the lampshade from outside sources of natural influence, and had it kept moving anyway, then an open mind has to consider the movement supernatural.

I for one know that the supernatural exists. I also know UFOs exist.

I look into the sky. I see moving lights. Those are UFOs. Might be United 506 due in Oakland in ten minuets, might be visitors from another planet. I'm pretty sure Its UA 506, but it is not a certainty.

Some people feel that science is driving God out of our world, because God is by his nature not understandable by man. Many of those have fought science in the name of God, Popes who put Galielo on his knees or had DaVinci writing backward. But the more we discover, the more mysteries there are. The Copernican system is not a threat to faith, I find God much easier to believe in in an infinite universe than the fellow on the Cistine Chaple ceiling.

Message edited by author 2009-04-09 14:47:25.

eqsite

Nikon D7100

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

04/09/2009 02:52:57 PM · #199

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by eqsite:

It sounds like you are saying that since science cannot provide an answer to a question, there must be some other construct which can. So, because science can't explain your thoughts, or your id, or absolute morality (if such a thing exists) there must be some non-scientific (perhaps supernatural?) explaination for that. How is that any different from the guy in Shannon's video who couldn't explain the moving lampshade?

The closed minded guy in the video who saw ghosts in the lampshade failed to use all the tools at hand before he resorted to supernatural explanations. But had there been no heater, and had he been scientific and isolated the lampshade from outside sources of natural influence, and had it kept moving anyway, then an open mind has to consider the movement supernatural.

I for one know that the supernatural exists. I also know UFOs exist.

I look into the sky. I see moving lights. Those are UFOs. Might be United 506 due in Oakland in ten minuets, might be visitors from another planet. I'm pretty sure Its UA 506, but it is not a certainty.

Some people feel that science is driving God out of our world, because God is by his nature not understandable by man. Many of those have fought science in the name of God, Popes who put Galielo on his knees or had DaVinci writing backward. But the more we discover, the more mysteries there are. The Copernican system is not a threat to faith, I find God much easier to believe in in an infinite universe than the fellow on the Cistine Chaple ceiling.

And so how do you know we haven't availed ourselves of all possible scientific explainations for the unknowable things? Just because science hasn't shown what thoughts are doesn't mean it won't.