| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/11/2009 09:39:36 PM · #326 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No system of belief can contain within itself the proof of its correctness. |
I quite agree. For that we require evidence, and where none exists no correctness may be claimed. |
You apparently still don't get it. "Evidence" is contextual. The statement is broader than that. All triangles contain within themselves 180 degrees; that's axiomatic. But the axiom only holds true in "plane", or "Euclidean" geometry (the one we were taught in school): in reality, on the surface of the earth (a 3-dimensional space) a triangle has more than 180 degrees.. But you know all this. You're a smart man.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2009 09:55:49 PM · #327 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
:) Nice quote but I think the "Jesus loves you" sentiment mentioned in the article is meant for when its said in a condescending way. At least that was my interpretation. Like the bumper stickers that say "Jesus loves you but everyone else hates you" or something of that sort, only drop off the ending. hah. Or perhaps "Jesus loves you so you better love him back!" only drop off the ending. But I'm sure there are people that really do say it with love and joy in their hearts. But those usually aren't the ones telling atheists to shut up. |
Sometimes "Jesus loves you" is just "Jesus loves you"... |
Yes, and I covered that possibility in my last 2 sentences. What point are you trying to make? |
|
|
|
04/11/2009 10:34:09 PM · #328 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I was having an interesting conversation with my boss today. As I understand it, the Old Testament is the story of the Jews, correct?
And they were "The Chosen" correct?
Then Jesus comes along, and Christianity, with Jesus as the Lord our God, is now the Chosen Way.
So....does this mean that basically the Jews are now kicked to the curb?
Is the God, who is Jesus, now not considering the Jews as his children any more? |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Well, strictly speaking, the core of the Jewish faith is belief in the Messiah. When Jesus came along, he was positioned as the Messiah by his followers. Orthodox Judaism didn't/doesn't accept him as the Messiah. Depending on who's right, Jews are winners or losers in this debate. More or less. This is an extremely simplified version, LOL.
R. |
Do the Jews NOT achieve salvation then if Christianity is "Right"?
I know I'm an uneductaed heathen, but the God I believe in doesn't work that way.
I cannot think of the really good people I know who are Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, agnostics, atheists, Mennonites, Catholics and reconcile the idea that only one is correct and the rest burn in Hell.
For the same reason Jason says that life makes more sense with God in it for him, life makes *NO* sense to me whatsoever if only one denomination is right and the rest burn.
I just cannot within my value and belief system accept that.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2009 11:07:26 PM · #329 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No system of belief can contain within itself the proof of its correctness. |
I quite agree. For that we require evidence, and where none exists no correctness may be claimed. |
You apparently still don't get it. "Evidence" is contextual. |
True again. The real world requires real evidence while fantastic ideas may be supported with fantasy alone. You're missing the paradox of your assertion: a dimension that doesn't interact with our reality at all is also irrelevant to our reality for the same reason. If you can be transferred to another plane of existence, then there MUST be interaction with this world... an intersection where real-world laws apply. If they were completely separate systems, then there's no point in pondering whether you'll get there. |
|
|
|
04/11/2009 11:25:20 PM · #330 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No system of belief can contain within itself the proof of its correctness. |
I quite agree. For that we require evidence, and where none exists no correctness may be claimed. |
You apparently still don't get it. "Evidence" is contextual. |
True again. The real world requires real evidence while fantastic ideas may be supported with fantasy alone. You're missing the paradox of your assertion: a dimension that doesn't interact with our reality at all is also irrelevant to our reality for the same reason. If you can be transferred to another plane of existence, then there MUST be interaction with this world... an intersection where real-world laws apply. If they were completely separate systems, then there's no point in pondering whether you'll get there. |
No, Shannon, *I'M* not making an assertion. And *YOU* are (as usual, and as smoothly and as hypnotically as usual) dancing around the issue without addressing it. The "contextuality" I'm referring to is the heart of the circularity your statement is spinning in. For it's *your* definition of "evidence" that's defining your world view. What you're saying, basically, is uncannily close to superstition, the idea that by naming a thing we know it, and that by changing its name we alter it. This, of course, is at the heart of all "magic".
But I don't expect you to understand this, or at least I don't expect you to acknowledge it is you DO understand it. So it goes...
R.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2009 11:38:44 PM · #331 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The "contextuality" I'm referring to is the heart of the circularity your statement is spinning in. For it's *your* definition of "evidence" that's defining your world view. |
There's no dancing involved. It's the same definition used by scientists, courts, doctors, sports officials, and any other "impartial" judge of truth. It is YOU who are trying to claim superstition as evidence. Try to use "God told me so" in a court of law, and the best you can hope for is an insanity plea.
Message edited by author 2009-04-11 23:43:46. |
|
|
|
04/11/2009 11:46:48 PM · #332 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The "contextuality" I'm referring to is the heart of the circularity your statement is spinning in. For it's *your* definition of "evidence" that's defining your world view. |
There's no dancing involved. It's the same definition used by scientists, courts, doctors, sports officials, and any other "impartial" judge of truth. It is YOU who are trying to claim superstition as evidence. Try to use "God said so" in a court of law, and the best you can hope for is an insanity plea. |
Good grief, Shannon, I haven't DONE that. I'm not so much supporting the opposing point of view as I am trying (apparently with zero success) to point out that the specific argument you're using does not hold water. And if you weren't so busy spinning like a dervish and avoiding dealing with my assertion, you might actually realize I *have* a valid point, and you might actually *learn* something useful from this interchange.
Stop trying to pin me down, stop trying to score points off of me, stop thinking of me as some sort of a zealot who needs to be smited, and just freaking ANALYZE what you're saying to see the flaw in it.
I'm NOT saying your position is wrong, I'm NOT arguing against your position, I'm just pointing out that the particular argument you're using to support your position is cricular. And it IS, dude!
R.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2009 11:55:18 PM · #333 |
| Watch it Bear, Shannon has caused me to up my blood pressure medicine on more than one occasion... ;) |
|
|
|
04/12/2009 01:19:21 AM · #334 |
Oh, I don't give a rat's patootie which side you're on, Bear. The argument itself is NOT circular. Another dimension either affects this one or it doesn't. If it does, then its effects would be detectable in a real sense just as the effects of gravity from an unseen black hole can be observed and measured. If the dimension has no effect, then it's completely irrelevant to this one since there's no way to know anything about it (certainly not knowledge as specific as the "will" of any beings residing there). To use Jason's example, if his boxcar represents a barrier to all knowledge and someone inside the boxcar writes a book that he claims is the infallible word of people on the outside, then you're faced with a paradox: either knowledge WAS transferred through the barrier or it's not true. It's one or the other, period.
Oh, and Happy Easter. ;-)
Message edited by author 2009-04-12 01:20:59. |
|
|
|
04/12/2009 01:22:44 AM · #335 |
I just want to chime in to remind The BearĂ¢„¢ that he could spend some of the energy he's expending in this amusing thread on finishing up an interview that he seemed to be so gung-ho on wanting to do in the past! ;)
Taps foot. |
|
|
|
04/12/2009 01:32:16 AM · #336 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Oh, I don't give a rat's patootie which side you're on, Bear. The argument itself is NOT circular. Another dimension either affects this one or it doesn't. If it does, then its effects would be detectable in a real sense just as the effects of gravity from an unseen black hole can be observed and measured. If the dimension has no effect, then it's completely irrelevant to this one since there's no way to know anything about it (certainly not knowledge as specific as the "will" of any beings residing there). To use Jason's example, if his boxcar represents a barrier to all knowledge and someone inside the boxcar writes a book that he claims is the infallible word of people on the outside, then you're faced with a paradox: either knowledge WAS transferred through the barrier or it's not true. It's one or the other, period.
Oh, and Happy Easter. ;-) |
Since I made up the analogy, I get to make the rules. :) Actually talking about things outside the boxcar (other than dirt) doesn't make a ton of sense as I posed it because the dirt represents knowledge rather than a physical place (like something outside our universe). However, IF we were to use the analogy like you two are doing now, I would disagree with Shannon that the boxcar represents a barrier to all knowledge, just to all Scientific knowledge (ie. shoveling). One could, presumably, try to gain information about the outside of the boxcar through logic and reason. (Perhaps someone speculates that since all the dirt inside the boxcar was subject to gravity and isn't floating, then there must be something outside the boxcar supporting it. Just an example)... |
|
|
|
04/12/2009 02:02:42 AM · #337 |
| Doc can you elaborate? By that i mean use logic and reason to acquire actual knowledge of the outside of that boxcar. |
|
|
|
04/12/2009 02:02:52 AM · #338 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
ETA: In the case of abortion I'm on the fence. That is to say, I'm pro choice HOWEVER, I understand the oppositions want to end abortion and the views that it stems from. I believe it is a truly debatable subject and holds a lot of moral dilemmas because there is some entity involved without a say. |
I'd like to state my stance on this, which seems, to me anyway, to be a total no-brainer.....
What on earth gives any male any right to tell any woman what she can or cannot do with her body?
The idea that some male could tell some woman that she must incur the risk of pregnancy to term is reprehensible. |
When a woman wants to kill another person. It is everyone's responsibility to protect an innocent child from being killed.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2009 02:16:37 AM · #339 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I was having an interesting conversation with my boss today. As I understand it, the Old Testament is the story of the Jews, correct?
And they were "The Chosen" correct?
Then Jesus comes along, and Christianity, with Jesus as the Lord our God, is now the Chosen Way.
So....does this mean that basically the Jews are now kicked to the curb?
Is the God, who is Jesus, now not considering the Jews as his children any more? |
Nobody is kicked to the curb. Jesus came for everyone especially the Jews.
To be come a Jew, you had to be born into the faith. With Jesus, anyone can be part of God's chosen. |
|
|
|
04/12/2009 02:18:25 AM · #340 |
Lastly (since this is a Christian thread),
Happy Easter: A celebration that Jesus is risen.
Message edited by author 2009-04-12 02:19:07. |
|
|
|
04/12/2009 07:20:40 AM · #341 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
ETA: In the case of abortion I'm on the fence. That is to say, I'm pro choice HOWEVER, I understand the oppositions want to end abortion and the views that it stems from. I believe it is a truly debatable subject and holds a lot of moral dilemmas because there is some entity involved without a say. |
I'd like to state my stance on this, which seems, to me anyway, to be a total no-brainer.....
What on earth gives any male any right to tell any woman what she can or cannot do with her body?
The idea that some male could tell some woman that she must incur the risk of pregnancy to term is reprehensible. |
When a woman wants to kill another person. It is everyone's responsibility to protect an innocent child from being killed. |
A woman who wants to kill another person is different than a woman who feels she needs to stop what is yet a person. If the woman was raped, would we subject her to more trauma by carrying through with the pregnancy. Provide me with evidence that the fetus (A few weeks into a pregnancy) is a conscious being and your case for 'murder' will hold more water. This is a gray area for me...while I'm pro-choice, my hope is that the choice is life. Make abortion illegal with the exception of rape, you'll find many cases of 'rape' on the rise with the real cases being put on the back burner. |
|
|
|
04/12/2009 09:40:02 AM · #342 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One could, presumably, try to gain information about the outside of the boxcar through logic and reason. (Perhaps someone speculates that since all the dirt inside the boxcar was subject to gravity and isn't floating, then there must be something outside the boxcar supporting it. Just an example)... |
Whoopsie... doing so would be using gravity as a measurable interaction from an unseen force beyond a barrier (I just used that example). The rate of acceleration of dropped objects within the boxcar would allow you to calculate the mass and general direction of what lies beyond. Where there is NO interaction from the outside (no sound, gravitational influence, vibration, etc.), you can infer nothing from within. Logic and reason have no framework, and you're left with pure speculation. There may be a whole train beyond the walls or absolutely nothing at all. Without interaction, you have no grounds whatsoever to assert knowledge of the outside. As I've been saying, you can speculate all you want, but you cannot claim to know an outside inhabitant exists, describe its relation to us, assume its wishes, attribute direct quotes, and expect everyone else to believe you. |
|
|
|
04/12/2009 09:47:22 AM · #343 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
ETA: In the case of abortion I'm on the fence. That is to say, I'm pro choice HOWEVER, I understand the oppositions want to end abortion and the views that it stems from. I believe it is a truly debatable subject and holds a lot of moral dilemmas because there is some entity involved without a say. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'd like to state my stance on this, which seems, to me anyway, to be a total no-brainer.....
What on earth gives any male any right to tell any woman what she can or cannot do with her body?
The idea that some male could tell some woman that she must incur the risk of pregnancy to term is reprehensible. |
Originally posted by Nullix:
When a woman wants to kill another person. It is everyone's responsibility to protect an innocent child from being killed. |
Um....NOT when the child by definition is debateable and it's inside the woman's body.
Then it's everyone's responsibility to mind their own business.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2009 09:51:34 AM · #344 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I just want to chime in to remind The BearĂ¢„¢ that he could spend some of the energy he's expending in this amusing thread on finishing up an interview that he seemed to be so gung-ho on wanting to do in the past! ;)
Taps foot. |
It's 2/3 done, dude. Will finish it today. TOLD ya I wouldn't get to it until the weekend... Did most of it yesterday, whilst watching the Masters.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2009 09:53:35 AM · #345 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
ETA: In the case of abortion I'm on the fence. That is to say, I'm pro choice HOWEVER, I understand the oppositions want to end abortion and the views that it stems from. I believe it is a truly debatable subject and holds a lot of moral dilemmas because there is some entity involved without a say. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'd like to state my stance on this, which seems, to me anyway, to be a total no-brainer.....
What on earth gives any male any right to tell any woman what she can or cannot do with her body?
The idea that some male could tell some woman that she must incur the risk of pregnancy to term is reprehensible. |
Originally posted by Nullix:
When a woman wants to kill another person. It is everyone's responsibility to protect an innocent child from being killed. |
Originally posted by heavyj:
A woman who wants to kill another person is different than a woman who feels she needs to stop what is yet a person. If the woman was raped, would we subject her to more trauma by carrying through with the pregnancy. Provide me with evidence that the fetus (A few weeks into a pregnancy) is a conscious being and your case for 'murder' will hold more water. This is a gray area for me...while I'm pro-choice, my hope is that the choice is life. |
I'm pro-choice as well....I believe that a woman, and ONLY a woman has the right to decide whether or not she's going to terminate HER pregnancy.
The actual viability of the fetus; when it's considered a conscious being......there is no known, it's always been a subject of controversy, yet what is not controversial on any level is the permanent effect that a pregnancy has on a woman's body and mind. That ANYONE could possibly imagine that they have the right to tell a woman that she HAS to see a pregnancy through to term is ridiculous and the most horrid violation of personal rights.
That is not debateable.....no human being has the right to tell another that they must subject themselves to physical risk because of another's beliefs.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2009 09:55:59 AM · #346 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Another dimension either affects this one or it doesn't. If it does, then its effects would be detectable in a real sense just as the effects of gravity from an unseen black hole can be observed and measured. If the dimension has no effect, then it's completely irrelevant to this one since there's no way to know anything about it (certainly not knowledge as specific as the "will" of any beings residing there). |
How is this anything but clear?
Am I missing something?
Originally posted by scalvert:
Oh, and Happy Easter. ;-) |
I'm gonna assume that you meant this in general.....right back at'cha!
|
|
|
|
04/12/2009 02:50:04 PM · #347 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Another dimension either affects this one or it doesn't. If it does, then its effects would be detectable in a real sense just as the effects of gravity from an unseen black hole can be observed and measured. If the dimension has no effect, then it's completely irrelevant to this one since there's no way to know anything about it |
Black holes have only been accepted recently, and there is a great deal of advanced physics that is closer to art or faith than science. Yet did not black holes have the same effect on out universe before and after we theorized about them? Now that we are developing tools to locate and measure them,are they more real than they ever were?
Any idea starts as an observation, you create a theory to explain it, and through repeatable experiments test the theory. If It can be repeated independently the theory is accepted to be proven. For little things this method works well in a short time frame (Flemming and penicillin), for big ideas, not so much. Theories of the origin of the universe will not be proven until we have the tools to make one of our own.
The period of time between ascribing a theory to an observation, and the acceptance of that theory as proven, is the period of faith. You have observed something, think you understand why it happened, and though you understand that your theory is not proven, you collect data to prove your theory, looking in the areas that your faith leads you. This is as true for Einstein's clock tower (relativity), Schrodinger's cat (quantum theory), or Jesus' divinity (Christianity).
If we break out into Armegeddon and Jesus comes back on the day of judgment, that will be proof enough for me. Until then its just an issue of faith, an unproven theory in the experimental phase.
Message edited by author 2009-04-12 14:56:35. |
|
|
|
04/12/2009 03:06:15 PM · #348 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Black holes have only been accepted recently, and there is a great deal of advanced physics that is closer to art or faith than science. Yet did not black holes have the same effect on out universe before and after we theorized about them? Now that we are developing tools to locate and measure them,are they more real than they ever were? |
Nobody said that their verification makes them any more real.....just that since you can verify the existence, no other explanation for their existence is needed.
That doesn't mean that we still can't learn about them, but their existence is verified with actual scientific data.
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Any idea starts as an observation, you create a theory to explain it, and through repeatable experiments test the theory. If It can be repeated independently the theory is accepted to be proven. For little things this method works well in a short time frame (Flemming and penicillin), for big ideas, not so much. Theories of the origin of the universe will not be proven until we have the tools to make one of our own. |
Or can at least grasp how it was done......8>)
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The period of time between ascribing a theory to an observation, and the acceptance of that theory as proven, is the period of faith. You have observed something, and though you understand that your theory is not proven yet, you collect data to prove your theory, looking in the areas that your faith leads you. This is as true for Einstein's clock tower (relativity), Schrodinger's cat (quantum theory), or Jesus' divinity (Christianity). |
Yeah.....the earth was known to be flat for a long, LONG time, too.
I'm not so sure that the span of time has any relevance simply because as we evolve and learn, we get better at figuring things out.
When you consider how little dinosaurs evolved over the amount of time they were here versus what we've done just in the past century, well.....
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
If we break out into Armegeddon and Jesus comes back on the day of judgment, that will be proof enough for me. Until then its just an issue of faith, an unproven theory in the experimental phase. |
That's just it.....I have faith and belief, irrational though they may be, what I know is good enough for me. I also feel that has shown me enough Grace for me to have faith, and here and there a sign, that I choose to believe have been signs of Grace.
But I also think that God wants me to use my head and not overlook anything in my quest for knowledge, and to leave an open door for new info to arrive through.
But I also don't expect anyone else to necessarily arrive at the same conclusions I do for things....I hope for others to at least see where I come from, but not necessarily to buy into it.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2009 03:15:39 PM · #349 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
...did not black holes have the same effect on out universe before and after we theorized about them? Now that we are developing tools to locate and measure them,are they more real than they ever were? |
Of course, but black holes were not defined as unknowable by science. In addition, they were theorized as the logical conclusion of scientific evidence (and not accepted as fact without considerable further evidence) rather than simply being declared to exist by ancient storytellers.
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Any idea starts as an observation, you create a theory to explain it, and through repeatable experiments test the theory. If It can be repeated independently the theory is accepted to be proven. |
Correct, however claiming that an omnipotent entity not only exists, but does so exclusive of any other unknown entities, has a particular list of demands, requires obedience, controls everything, has uttered specific known phrases, justifies certain actions, and cannot possibly be detected by natural means is quite a bit more than an hypothesis!
Message edited by author 2009-04-12 15:17:54. |
|
|
|
04/12/2009 03:57:14 PM · #350 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Correct, however claiming that an omnipotent entity not only exists, but does so exclusive of any other unknown entities, has a particular list of demands, requires obedience, controls everything, has uttered specific known phrases, justifies certain actions, and cannot possibly be detected by natural means is quite a bit more than an hypothesis! |
And THAT to me is what religion debates all come down to. There is no way to know if God exists. And I don't think I've ever seriously tried to argue that there isn't a God. What I do seriously argue is that us, lowly humans, have ANY idea what an all powerful, all knowing God wants. And when I say this, I get met with attitudes as if I don't respect God, when I think it means I respect God MORE to not fall for HUMANS speaking for it. I think if there is a God, it is more powerful than any human can wrap their brains around. |
|
