Christianity/Catholisim - DPChallenge Forums

04/09/2009 04:50:30 PM · #226

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Because, specifically, they aren't. The Scientific Method "consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation. This may involve the formulation and testing of hypotheses." Thought experiments and inferences and deductions of logic are tools that can be used by science, but aren't exclusive to it. Also, when people demand "proof" on these threads, they are almost always pointing to proof through the Scientific Method rather than thought experiment and inference and deduction.

You conveniently left off this line from your citation from that page: be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1]

Thought experiments and logic would fall under the umbrella of reasoning.

So are you saying that in the original question of "proving Christianity" (which is, at large, proving God) I am allowed to present thought experient and logical inferences and deductions as proof?

No, what I'm saying is that thought experiment, logical inferences, and deductions when used with observation and experiment may be used as proof. You may build such an argument and long as, at it's core, it rests on reproducable observations.

Pfft. Wasn't that exactly what I was saying when I pointed out that these things are "tools that can be used by Science" but that "when people demand proof on these threads, they are almost always pointing to proof through the Scientific method"?

04/09/2009 04:52:54 PM · #227

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The fact that we understand now what causes weather and global rotation has taken them from the supernatural into the natural. But the more we learn the more we find that there is to learn.

Precisely. What was unexplained has frequently been shown to have a natural explanation, but never to have a supernatural one. Once the mystery is revealed, it's always turned out to be physics and chemistry rather than magical spirits.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The person who says, "It's unexplained but the answer is natural." claims to have an explanation as much as the guy who claims a generic "supernatural" explanation.

No. Saying there's probably a logical reason is not claiming an explanation (it's still unknown), but declaring that there's a supernatural explanation AND it's a witch/god/alien *IS* making a claim to know the answer. They are not at all the same.

I agreed to that when I said the guy who said it what a ghost was overstepping good assumption. But the guy who completely rejects a supernatural explanation is being closed just as the guy who completely rejects a natural explanation. The only difference you see is based on your own worldview.

Don't worry. It isn't work continuing on about. We've had this conversation sooo many times...

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

04/09/2009 04:54:24 PM · #228

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Is abortion morally wrong?

There is no method using empiricism and experimentation to answer that.

Sure there is.

As birth control, it's morally wrong.

To terminate the spawn of a rapist is not morally worng.

scarbrd

Leica M10

04/09/2009 05:04:04 PM · #229

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Is abortion morally wrong?

There is no method using empiricism and experimentation to answer that.

Sure there is.

As birth control, it's morally wrong.

To terminate the spawn of a rapist is not morally worng.

To say it another way, abortion is a medical procedure, by it's very nature it is morally neutural.

How it is applied, as in all medical procedures, is where morality comes in.

Message edited by author 2009-04-09 17:04:57.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

04/09/2009 05:12:29 PM · #230

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Is abortion morally wrong?

There is no method using empiricism and experimentation to answer that.

Sure there is.

As birth control, it's morally wrong.

To terminate the spawn of a rapist is not morally worng.

To say it another way, abortion is a medical procedure, by it's very nature it is morally neutural.

How it is applied, as in all medical procedures, is where morality comes in.

I'm not quite clear what Jeb is saying and whether David is agreeing with him or not. How does empirical experiment allow us to deduce whether it is wrong in these situations?

trevytrev

Canon EOS-5D

04/09/2009 05:38:16 PM · #231

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

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?

HA... ok ok. lol. I think you took this too literally. Do I think anyone does? Sure. There are some people out there that do. I guess what I meant was to live your life, do what you can in it, and be a good person, in your own eyes as best you can. We can go on and on about what THAT might mean too, understandably. I dunno, out of everything I said, why pick apart the semantics of that sentence? I think you got my main point did you not?

Picking things apart with Semantics is what we DO, it's what we LIVE for, to help unfortunate forum-folk like yourself, poor souls, with no-one else to turn to!

I admit that in the past I've been a nasty
they weren't kidding when they called me, well, a jerk
But you'll find that now-a-days, I've mended all my ways
repented, seen the light and got to work. True? Yes...

And I fortunately know a little humor,
It's a talent that I always have possessed,
and dear Lady please don't laugh,
I use it on behalf,
of the DPCers that always seem so stressed! (and lonely)

Poor unfortunate souls,
in Rant, in need
This one wanting to change voting
that one wants to rule the world,
and do I tease them?

Yes indeed...

Those poor unfortunate souls,
so mad, so stewed
They come flocking to the forums
crying "Listen to me!"
And I mock them, yes I do.

Now it's happened once or twice
Someone thought I wasn't nice,
and I'm afraid I got my ass raked on the coals,
yes I've had the odd beat-down
but on the whole, I'm just a clown,

To those Poor unfortunate SOOOOUUUUULLLSS!

You've been watching The Little Mermaid too much;-)

eqsite

Nikon D7100

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

04/09/2009 06:41:21 PM · #232

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by eqsite:
No, what I'm saying is that thought experiment, logical inferences, and deductions when used with observation and experiment may be used as proof. You may build such an argument and long as, at it's core, it rests on reproducable observations.

Pfft. Wasn't that exactly what I was saying when I pointed out that these things are "tools that can be used by Science" but that "when people demand proof on these threads, they are almost always pointing to proof through the Scientific method"?

Pfft yourself ;) If you can offer a proof of god through logical reasoning built upon reproducable observations, then you'll make a convert of me.

04/09/2009 06:45:15 PM · #233

Originally posted by eqsite:

Pfft yourself ;) If you can offer a proof of god through logical reasoning built upon reproducable observations, then you'll make a convert of me.

But of course. I'd certainly hope that was true.

Message edited by author 2009-04-09 18:46:35.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/09/2009 06:54:45 PM · #234

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

No again. It's apparent that you either haven't watched the video or didn't comprehend it at all. To paraphrase, requiring evidence is not closed-mindedness. It's the very opposite because you're not simply jumping to conclusions. If evidence were presented that actually favored a ghost, then that person would be willing to consider it. HOWEVER, ghosts would no longer be supernatural if there were actual evidence of their existence. By contrast, claiming explanations without evidence IS closed-mindedness since you've already reached a conclusion and therefore locked out alternative explanations. Accepting explanations without evidence isn't open-mindedness, it's gullibility.

Message edited by author 2009-04-09 19:11:40.

04/09/2009 06:57:37 PM · #235

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Let me start over. Because I didn't mean that as some sort of mandate or say it as some sort of mantra I repeat to myself. I was trying to express in a rushed way an abstract idea that I live by that is hard to squish into one sentence. So let me put it more clearly with an example.

I don't think God cares that I'm dating a woman. I think he/she/it (if for the sake of argument I am to believe this is a thinking being that in fact, DOES care what I do) would care that I treat her right, respect her, and also that I am respected in the relationship.

or perhaps this is simpler:

He/she/it (God) doesn't care HOW I got my morals, just that I HAVE them. Intent I guess is a big word to use here. Good intentions coupled with the subsequent good actions. My intentions for having a girlfriend are because I love and enjoy this person in my life. If my intentions were to piss off my family or use her to make a guy jealous, that would be wrong, or "immoral". I don't think being Gay just on its own is immoral. There is no reason it would be.

In other words I believe in the substance, not the packaging or showmanship.

Some people understand and practice one or the other, or both, or neither.

Substance: The person who does altruistic deeds even if no one will ever find out because (fill in personal reason here).
Packaging: The person who will only do an altruistic deed if people will know about it and praise him/her for it and would never think to do it if that was not the case.
Both: The person who likes to do altruistic deeds for personal reason but also enjoys the recognition.
Neither: The person who would not do an altruistic deed.

In a religious context:

Substance: The person who wholeheartedly believes in God, and does what they think is best by God but may not always go to church or follow the dogma.
Packaging: The person who doesn't believe in God but goes to church anyway fearful of the "what if" of his existence or hell or judgment by others (family, peers, etc). In addition probably shows off his or her "faith" like a metal of entitlement.
Both and neither go without explanation.

Am I getting my point across more clearly? Because I've tried to explain it before and I've been misrepresented horribly by people that thought I was saying "as long as you think it's ok, it's ok" and would go on to say "if I think murder is ok, then it is?" and that's not what I'm saying at all.

04/09/2009 07:04:29 PM · #236

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I agreed to that when I said the guy who said it what a ghost was overstepping good assumption. But the guy who completely rejects a supernatural explanation is being closed just as the guy who completely rejects a natural explanation.

No again. It's apparent that you either haven't watched the video or didn't comprehend it at all. To paraphrase, requiring evidence is not closed-mindedness. It's the very opposite because you're not simply jumping to conclusions. If evidence were presented that actually favored a ghost, then that person would be willing to consider it. HOWEVER, ghosts would no longer be supernatural if there were actual evidence of their existence. By contrast, claiming explanations without evidence IS closed-mindedness since you've already reached a conclusion and therefore locked out alternative explanations, and accepting explanations without evidence is called gullibility.

The guy completely rejected the supernatural explanation because he turned the dang fan off and it stopped. And I bet if he turned it on again, the fan would move again. Would that make him the ghost? ;)

This sounds so familiar its almost like... what was that little subject that people are in such a fuss about? Oh yea, Creationism v. Evolution. I don't say that I 100% believe in macro evolution (thought probably 99.9% (; ) but I will say what science has found brings enough evidence to light to disprove creationism and yet it is discarded as (and these are actual reasons I've been told by Christians) "only a theory" and when I explain how they misunderstand what a theory is and show HARD evidence they say "well the Devil put it there".

Ah... that tricky Devil!! Putting all those fossils and skulls around deep in the Earth.

Maybe he put that fan there too so we wouldn't know about all the ghosts...

things to ponder.

PS I DO believe in the possibility of some supernatural things. Just not the ones we already have evidence disproving.

04/09/2009 07:30:05 PM · #237

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I agreed to that when I said the guy who said it what a ghost was overstepping good assumption. But the guy who completely rejects a supernatural explanation is being closed just as the guy who completely rejects a natural explanation.

No again. It's apparent that you either haven't watched the video or didn't comprehend it at all. To paraphrase, requiring evidence is not closed-mindedness. It's the very opposite because you're not simply jumping to conclusions. If evidence were presented that actually favored a ghost, then that person would be willing to consider it. HOWEVER, ghosts would no longer be supernatural if there were actual evidence of their existence. By contrast, claiming explanations without evidence IS closed-mindedness since you've already reached a conclusion and therefore locked out alternative explanations. Accepting explanations without evidence isn't open-mindedness, it's gullibility.

All I hear is your worldview coming through loud and clear. The answer is natural. It's always going to be natural. It is never not going to be natural and that's the end of it.

Perhaps the disconnect is that someone up above changed the thought experiment to include the fact that we could find no evidence for a natural explanation. Let's pretend this moving lampshade has been probed by everybody and anybody with a doo-hicky and a thing-a-matron and we still can't explain it. The easy answers (fan, earthquake, blah blah blah) are ruled out. Does this reminder help you to see the potential error in assuming a natural explanation? I think the nature of the example effectively "stacked the deck" against us identifying with the supernatural guy because, duh, there are so many natural reasons a lampshade can move apparently by itself (including the friggin fan you ghost-loving idiot!). But if that is all ruled out. If we have no known possibilities left, where does that leave us?

Message edited by author 2009-04-09 19:35:36.

04/09/2009 07:38:23 PM · #238

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Good intentions coupled with the subsequent good actions.

So this is always interesting when I ask who gets to decide what's "good"? :)

04/09/2009 08:15:31 PM · #239

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
Good intentions coupled with the subsequent good actions.

So this is always interesting when I ask who gets to decide what's "good"? :)

Ah hah! And that's the kicker isn't it. Does the Bible get to decide? And if it does, whose interpretation? And what if someone else's interpretation directly contradicts that one? What if the Bible contradicts itself? And if not the Bible then what? Laws? There are some laws that aren't for the "good" of people.

And I think that's exactly my point. Some religious folk think it should be their interpretation of the bible and F*** what anyone else has to say. In my world view, everyone has a difference of opinion and thus the word "good" is fluid.

BUT there are boundaries. As I said this doesn't mean anyone can just go around doing whatever they want. There are social norms that help dictate but even these are not completely reliable. I think are necessary social norms (murder, stealing, raping are not "good") and social norms that are misguided (slavery is "good", being gay is not "good"). So obviously social norms are not enough of an explanation either. Murder is not usually going to be "good" in the eyes of most sane people in our society. But there is a reason for that, the murderer has infringed on someone's right to live. And THAT can be agreed upon, proven, etc. People have the right to STOP and punish that action because it interferes with the rights of others.

Now being gay. In a person's world view, this can be "bad" to them, and in fact to a large number of people. BUT me dating a woman does not infringe on anyone's rights to date who they want, is not hurting anyone, etc. In fact if they want to force their world view on me, they are trying to infringe upon MY rights. If in your world you think being gay is bad, then don't be gay (though if you are, that's going to be one hell of a life long struggle to avoid) but don't go telling me I can't be gay. No one has the right to stop or punish me for being Gay.

Hmmm. I love how I did a whole rant again and got one sentence, one word really, cherry picked out. Which will it be this time?

04/09/2009 08:25:26 PM · #240

Originally posted by escapetooz:

I don't think God cares that I'm dating a woman. I think he/she/it (if for the sake of argument I am to believe this is a thinking being that in fact, DOES care what I do) would care that I treat her right, respect her, and also that I am respected in the relationship.

And if you have a relationship with the God of your understanding, and it seems like this is a decent and moral way to live, who is anyone else to say that's wrong?

That's what pisses me off.

Who the Hell nominated this supposed "Moral Majority" to tell *ME* how to be?

God tells me how to be.

Regardless of what the Doc says, I genuinely try my VERY best to be as good as I can.

But.....BECAUSE I'm human, I lapse, fall short, slip up......but I also get the guidance I need to be able to see these things, too, though not always in time to stop it up front.

That's another issue I have with you, Jason, I do not accept YOUR view that absolute morality is possible only through God.....for that very reason....because YOU say so.

It's your view, and your opinion.

Morality is fluid......it's patently obvious simply by observing other cultures. There are some things we do that are wholly immoral in other societies and cultures that are outright blasphemous, and some things that are done elsewhere are incomprehensible to us.

And that's the shift in morality. I think it's fundamentally imp[ossible to even state what absolute morality is simply because by definition, it HAS to be different to different societies.

Either that, ot it has to be very basic and simple to be able to cross cultural lines.

04/09/2009 08:27:26 PM · #241

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Let's pretend this moving lampshade has been probed by everybody and anybody with a doo-hicky and a thing-a-matron and we still can't explain it. The easy answers (fan, earthquake, blah blah blah) are ruled out. Does this reminder help you to see the potential error in assuming a natural explanation? I think the nature of the example effectively "stacked the deck" against us identifying with the supernatural guy because, duh, there are so many natural reasons a lampshade can move apparently by itself (including the friggin fan you ghost-loving idiot!). But if that is all ruled out. If we have no known possibilities left, where does that leave us?

Then it's very possible that it's supernatural.

But can that be proven?

04/09/2009 08:29:41 PM · #242

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Good intentions coupled with the subsequent good actions.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So this is always interesting when I ask who gets to decide what's "good"? :)

It's a reasonable statement that doesn't need dissection and/or explanation.

We're not talking absolutes, but by good it's meant that within the society's framework that you exist, good intentions, etc.

You don't have to specify to the Nth degree what good intent and deeds are.

04/09/2009 08:36:24 PM · #243

So I have an interesting thing to chew on......I constantly tell people that I'm the guy who gets the bay leaf in the spaghetti sauce and the bone in the chicken corn soup.

And it's true.....I have this weird sort of luck that I believe to be statistically more than the average person, and I've met people that had similar traits.....one friend of mine was a pretty decent racecar driver, but it seemed like he had this inordinate predilection for getting hit in the races and taken out. Another friend could drive into a rolling wreck.....people bouncing off each other and always seem to get through the mess unscathed.

Don't most of you know someone who seems either charmed or cursed with something about their life?

I don't know as I'd call that supernatural, but what about that? I know a guy who's a douser, too......he has an amazing ability to be able to tell where to find water.

How do you explain talent?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/09/2009 08:38:36 PM · #244

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...if that is all ruled out. If we have no known possibilities left, where does that leave us?

It leaves us with "unexplained." It's also a Catch-22 for superstitious beliefs: a supernatural explanation at that point would be totally unfounded unless some evidence is presented, but any tangible/verifiable evidence offered would suggest a natural explanation.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/09/2009 08:52:58 PM · #245

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
Good intentions coupled with the subsequent good actions.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So this is always interesting when I ask who gets to decide what's "good"? :)

It's a reasonable statement that doesn't need dissection and/or explanation.

We're not talking absolutes, but by good it's meant that within the society's framework that you exist, good intentions, etc.

You don't have to specify to the Nth degree what good intent and deeds are.

Haha... this could have saved me a lot of typing if it had come before my response. Thank you. I can never seem to cut to the chase. Maybe that's why I feel I'm more gifted with short stories and novels (if I were to ever complete one) than poems or songs. :)

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/09/2009 09:05:04 PM · #246

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Statistical averages require outliers.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

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

04/09/2009 09:08:07 PM · #247

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Then it's very possible that it's supernatural.

But can that be proven?

If it can be proven then it is natural, part of nature as defined by science with known causes and probable outcomes. If it is supernatural, then the cause must lie outside rational explanation; there can be no provable anything otherwise its not supernatural.

Your example of the dowser is a great example. I have seen a good dowser work, there is no scientific method that explains how these guys can do what they do, but they beat the tar out of probability when it comes to finding water. some day we may understand how they do it, but just because we don't know why it works doesn't make it less effective.

Message edited by author 2009-04-09 21:12:07.

david_c

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/09/2009 09:19:02 PM · #248

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
Good intentions coupled with the subsequent good actions.

So this is always interesting when I ask who gets to decide what's "good"? :)

Society? :)

04/09/2009 09:35:34 PM · #249

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I have been mulling over this very question actually because I DO know people that seem charmed or cursed. And one friend of mine in particular seems especially cursed with big things that significantly alter her life circumstances...

I've been reading a lot of books lately that don't deal with this issue directly but kind of deal with different issues that I feel might feed into it. Lots of psych books for one, books on intuition (a couple are science oriented explanations, and another is written by a psychic), the book "What Should I Do with My Life?" all about how people chose their careers, paths, etc, a couple on body language, and then a few books on creativity. Oh and I recently re-watched the documentary on the book "The Secret".

I'm a strong believer in the self-fulfilling prophecy. Not in the "ask the universe and it will come" way that The Secret talks about but more in a psychological way. Lets say you go into an interview thinking you don't have it. Your body language will shows these signs. Perhaps you look defensive, scared, agitated, etc and YOU don't even realize it, and perhaps the interviewer doesn't either but in the end, in the decision, they feel something was just "off" about you and decide not to hire you. You sabotaged your own interview without eve knowing it.

There is also the issue of intuition which is highly fascinating and overlaps A LOT into the creativity books I was reading. I think some people are better attuned to their intuition and know how to listen to it and find their way through life that way. If your intuition or "gut feeling" tells you the job isn't right, you might hold off on an offer and receive a better one down the road.

The book "Gut Feelings" about intuition was saying there are a lot of simplistic "rules of thumb" that go on unconsicously that help us make decisions all the time. And sometimes too much information gets in the way and muddies our results. One study found the lay person was as good as or better at guessing successful stocks than high paid stock brokers. So basically, as the author put it, there is a whole industry of high paid "fortune tellers" who are no more accurate than anyone walking down the street.

I guess I'm getting off topic. I just mean I think there are a lot of things that come in to play unconsciously and sometimes even involuntarily in our lives that have to do with our "luck" that we don't realize.