DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Christians Vs. Religious(other) - Evidence & Proof
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 301 - 325 of 350, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/18/2015 04:26:57 PM · #301
I'll give you a specific example of what I mean. I've had conversations where someone will sincerely question my ability to believe that Jesus was fully God and fully Man. It's paradoxical, contradictory, and seems to defy logic, yet it is what I believe. One can then point to the wave particle duality of light not as an explanation for how Jesus is both God and Man, but as a seemingly paradoxical, contradictory, logic defying idea that is readily accepted by scientists. Once they see the metaphysical analogy, they feel just a bit easier in accepting that I accept the hypostatic union (there, I had to give Ray something to look up) even if they themselves continue to choose not to believe themselves.
02/18/2015 04:31:49 PM · #302
Originally posted by jagar:

Quantum mechanics, I Ike this:

"We can imagine a closed box containing just a single electron. Now until someone looks in the box, the probability wave associated with the electron will fill the box uniformly, thus giving an equal probability of finding the electron anywhere inside the box. If a partition is introduced into the middle of the box that divides it into two equal boxes, still without anyone looking inside, then common sense tells us that the electron must be in one side of the box or the other. But this is not the case according to the Copenhagen Interpretation; that says that the probability wave is still evenly distributed across both half-boxes. This means that there is still a 50:50 chance of finding the electron in either side of the box. When somebody looks into the box the wave will then collapse and the electron will be noticed in one half of the box or the other, but it will only at the moment of observation 'decide' which half it will be in. At the same time the probability wave in the other half of the box vanishes. If the box is then closed up again, and the electron no longer observed, its probability wave will again spread out to fill the half box, but cannot spread back into the other half of the box that was empty."


1. It is talking about probability. Don:t confuse probability with certainty. For example if you guess about me, I could be in of a house or out. 50 50 if you talk of probability. It does not mean I am both inside and outside of house the same time. Once you find out that I am in a house, the probability of me outside of house is not there.

2. Electrons don't behave like a spherical type objects that you might have image of.

PS: I think all this quantum thing is just a joke. The virgin birth and all this stories make much more sense to me. Flooding whole planet - totally happened. A man come from death - possible. The quantum probability thing - nonsense.

PS2: Hindus have more Gods so the probability that all this is created by a Hindu god is much much higher.

02/18/2015 04:44:22 PM · #303
Originally posted by zxaar:

Originally posted by jagar:

Quantum mechanics, I Ike this:

"We can imagine a closed box containing just a single electron. Now until someone looks in the box, the probability wave associated with the electron will fill the box uniformly, thus giving an equal probability of finding the electron anywhere inside the box. If a partition is introduced into the middle of the box that divides it into two equal boxes, still without anyone looking inside, then common sense tells us that the electron must be in one side of the box or the other. But this is not the case according to the Copenhagen Interpretation; that says that the probability wave is still evenly distributed across both half-boxes. This means that there is still a 50:50 chance of finding the electron in either side of the box. When somebody looks into the box the wave will then collapse and the electron will be noticed in one half of the box or the other, but it will only at the moment of observation 'decide' which half it will be in. At the same time the probability wave in the other half of the box vanishes. If the box is then closed up again, and the electron no longer observed, its probability wave will again spread out to fill the half box, but cannot spread back into the other half of the box that was empty."


1. It is talking about probability. Don:t confuse probability with certainty. For example if you guess about me, I could be in of a house or out. 50 50 if you talk of probability. It does not mean I am both inside and outside of house the same time. Once you find out that I am in a house, the probability of me outside of house is not there.

2. Electrons don't behave like a spherical type objects that you might have image of.

PS: I think all this quantum thing is just a joke. The virgin birth and all this stories make much more sense to me. Flooding whole planet - totally happened. A man come from death - possible. The quantum probability thing - nonsense.

PS2: Hindus have more Gods so the probability that all this is created by a Hindu god is much much higher.


Hey hey hey, I'm not at all religious. Both sides just seem as rigid as each other to me.
02/18/2015 06:00:54 PM · #304
Originally posted by zxaar:



1. It is talking about probability. Don:t confuse probability with certainty. For example if you guess about me, I could be in of a house or out. 50 50 if you talk of probability. It does not mean I am both inside and outside of house the same time. Once you find out that I am in a house, the probability of me outside of house is not there.


I will be first to admit we are all armchair physicists unless someone wants to stand up and say they did any grad level work. I think, however, that quantum physics is a bit odder than you are making it out to be here. While what you are saying makes perfect sense when thinking about you being inside or outside, I don't quite think it holds for an electron.
02/18/2015 06:02:06 PM · #305
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'll give you a specific example of what I mean. I've had conversations where someone will sincerely question my ability to believe that Jesus was fully God and fully Man. It's paradoxical, contradictory, and seems to defy logic, yet it is what I believe. One can then point to the wave particle duality of light not as an explanation for how Jesus is both God and Man, but as a seemingly paradoxical, contradictory, logic defying idea that is readily accepted by scientists. Once they see the metaphysical analogy, they feel just a bit easier in accepting that I accept the hypostatic union (there, I had to give Ray something to look up) even if they themselves continue to choose not to believe themselves.


Excellent example. Thank you for providing a perfect case study of this. Light particles are subject to quantum physics. Human particles (or Jesus particles) are not, as they follow the normal laws of physics.
02/18/2015 06:22:44 PM · #306
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'll give you a specific example of what I mean. I've had conversations where someone will sincerely question my ability to believe that Jesus was fully God and fully Man. It's paradoxical, contradictory, and seems to defy logic, yet it is what I believe. One can then point to the wave particle duality of light not as an explanation for how Jesus is both God and Man, but as a seemingly paradoxical, contradictory, logic defying idea that is readily accepted by scientists. Once they see the metaphysical analogy, they feel just a bit easier in accepting that I accept the hypostatic union (there, I had to give Ray something to look up) even if they themselves continue to choose not to believe themselves.


Excellent example. Thank you for providing a perfect case study of this. Light particles are subject to quantum physics. Human particles (or Jesus particles) are not, as they follow the normal laws of physics.


And analogy particles apparently zoom right over your head. :D
02/18/2015 06:46:53 PM · #307
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

And analogy particles ...

I don't the LHC can create analogies without a further upgrade ... ;-)
02/18/2015 06:58:44 PM · #308
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

And analogy particles ...

I don't the LHC can create analogies without a further upgrade ... ;-)


I was going to make a comment about Jesus being filled with Higgs, but I thought Cory might think I was serious so didn't.
02/18/2015 08:19:33 PM · #309
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'll give you a specific example of what I mean. I've had conversations where someone will sincerely question my ability to believe that Jesus was fully God and fully Man. It's paradoxical, contradictory, and seems to defy logic, yet it is what I believe. One can then point to the wave particle duality of light not as an explanation for how Jesus is both God and Man, but as a seemingly paradoxical, contradictory, logic defying idea that is readily accepted by scientists. Once they see the metaphysical analogy, they feel just a bit easier in accepting that I accept the hypostatic union (there, I had to give Ray something to look up) even if they themselves continue to choose not to believe themselves.


Excellent example. Thank you for providing a perfect case study of this. Light particles are subject to quantum physics. Human particles (or Jesus particles) are not, as they follow the normal laws of physics.


And analogy particles apparently zoom right over your head. :D


Yeah, I think it'd be best if we kept analogies within the same realm of physics laws.
02/18/2015 08:24:21 PM · #310
Originally posted by Cory:


Light particles are subject to quantum physics. Human particles (or Jesus particles) are not, as they follow the normal laws of physics.


wrong. nothing follows the laws of physics and QM, the laws of physics and QM merely predict and model behavior and interactions. in fact, QM exists because things stopped following the laws of physics as they got smaller :P
02/18/2015 09:12:55 PM · #311
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'll give you a specific example of what I mean. I've had conversations where someone will sincerely question my ability to believe that Jesus was fully God and fully Man. It's paradoxical, contradictory, and seems to defy logic, yet it is what I believe.
This contradiction is nothing to sniff at. It split the Christian church in half, between logical Greeks of the east and hippy dippy Romans of the west.
02/18/2015 09:41:32 PM · #312
Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'll give you a specific example of what I mean. I've had conversations where someone will sincerely question my ability to believe that Jesus was fully God and fully Man. It's paradoxical, contradictory, and seems to defy logic, yet it is what I believe.
This contradiction is nothing to sniff at. It split the Christian church in half, between logical Greeks of the east and hippy dippy Romans of the west.


I don't really think this is accurate Don, but I'm open to correction.
02/18/2015 09:50:37 PM · #313
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'll give you a specific example of what I mean. I've had conversations where someone will sincerely question my ability to believe that Jesus was fully God and fully Man. It's paradoxical, contradictory, and seems to defy logic, yet it is what I believe.
This contradiction is nothing to sniff at. It split the Christian church in half, between logical Greeks of the east and hippy dippy Romans of the west.

I don't really think this is accurate Don, but I'm open to correction.

"The Orthodox church are Nicean Christians just like the Roman Catholic (and consequent Protestant) Christians. We all believe in the confessions of the Nicean Creed which pronounce the existence of the Holy Trinity one God, Father-Son-and Holy Spirit.

The confession of this creed is the mark of the church and we all go by it. The difference in the Eastern church and the Western church is an argument over something called the phileoque clause in the creed. This may sound like an odd theological point but it has been a major issue of contention between East and West for about 1100 years.
Essentially it comes down to this. In the Western (catholic) rescention of the Creed we state that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

In the Eastern Church (orthodox) they say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and not from the Son.

Sound sort of hyper technical and something that we shouldn't be seperating over. Well actually it is a question of theology. In the Orthodox version the Father is the ultimate creator, sharing in all and one with the Son and Spirit but still the primo genetor of creation. Though all are still completely one together.

In the western version the Son is made one with the Father in being the Creator and therefore it underlines the fact that the Son (JESUS) was one in the creation of the universe and that same one came and walked with us.

Now the problem is that both sides have scrolls or versions of old OLD Nicean Creeds that support their arguments."
02/18/2015 09:53:45 PM · #314
East-West Schism (Wikipedia)
Originally posted by Linked Article:


Still, the Church split along doctrinal, theological, linguistic, political, and geographical lines, and the fundamental breach has never been healed, with each side sometimes accusing the other of having fallen into heresy and of having initiated the division. The Crusades, the Massacre of the Latins in 1182, the West's retaliation in the Sacking of Thessalonica in 1185, the capture and sack of Constantinople in 1204, and the imposition of Latin patriarchs made reconciliation more difficult.

All in the name of the Prince of Peace ...
02/18/2015 10:07:31 PM · #315
Thank you, general and the bear! People think I just make stuff up.
02/18/2015 11:41:53 PM · #316
I'm a bit confused though because while I was quite aware of what Bear is talking about (the infamous Greek word homoousis), that is quite different from what i had been talking about (the hypostatic union). The first has to do with the nature of the Trinity, the second has to do with the nature of the god-man Jesus. This is, however, probably getting far beyond where we need to go when conversing with a bunch of people who don't even believe in God. ;)
02/19/2015 02:13:23 AM · #317
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm a bit confused though because while I was quite aware of what Bear is talking about (the infamous Greek word homoousis), that is quite different from what i had been talking about (the hypostatic union). The first has to do with the nature of the Trinity, the second has to do with the nature of the god-man Jesus. This is, however, probably getting far beyond where we need to go when conversing with a bunch of people who don't even believe in God. ;)


My eyes didn't quite glaze over before I made it to the end. :)
02/19/2015 07:57:31 AM · #318
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm a bit confused though because while I was quite aware of what Bear is talking about (the infamous Greek word homoousis), that is quite different from what i had been talking about (the hypostatic union). The first has to do with the nature of the Trinity, the second has to do with the nature of the god-man Jesus. This is, however, probably getting far beyond where we need to go when conversing with a bunch of people who don't even believe in God. ;)
I enjoy the irony of you using Greek terms to make your opinion seem well considered, since it was the Greek tradition of logic that caused so much trouble accepting the contradictions of the New Testament. The "trinity," nowhere mentioned in the bible, was invented to appease this need for logic. I recommend the book, "when Jesus became God."
02/19/2015 10:24:21 AM · #319
Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Really now. Perhaps you would be so kind as to demonstrate exactly how it is that the morality of theists differs significantly from atheists.


Using atheistic views, can you explain what morality is and how it exists?


Sure, my morality is a product of one's environment and has nada to do with anyone hearing a voice from the heavens

Now, give me your version and we can go on from there.

Ray
02/19/2015 10:41:34 AM · #320
Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm a bit confused though because while I was quite aware of what Bear is talking about (the infamous Greek word homoousis), that is quite different from what i had been talking about (the hypostatic union). The first has to do with the nature of the Trinity, the second has to do with the nature of the god-man Jesus. This is, however, probably getting far beyond where we need to go when conversing with a bunch of people who don't even believe in God. ;)
I enjoy the irony of you using Greek terms to make your opinion seem well considered, since it was the Greek tradition of logic that caused so much trouble accepting the contradictions of the New Testament. The "trinity," nowhere mentioned in the bible, was invented to appease this need for logic. I recommend the book, "when Jesus became God."


You are reading too many books without actually reading the Bible Don. :). Also, the Eastern tradition, just BTW, is much more comfortable with the mysticism of some of the paradoxical concepts of Christianity than the West. When you previously described the East as logical and he West as hippy dippy it, in essence, became reversed.

I was only using the Greek terms to be specific since it was clear that you were under the impression I was talking about something else. It pays to be clear in these conversations and I hadn't been clear enough and that led you off on a tangent about the splitting of the church.

EDIT: I thought I'd come back and add a little just so Don doesn't have to worry about me. I know the word "trinity" does not appear in the bible and I am also aware that what used to appear as the most blatant passage about the trinity, 1 John 5:7-8, comes with a big old footnote saying to be very cautious because no Greek (ie. the oldest) copies of 1 John have this verse. Still, that being said, I would recommend the first chapter of the gospel of John and the first chapter of Hebrews as examples of passages that show the concept of the trinity nicely. I balk a bit at the word "invented" because it's clumsy. The Trinity was invented by early church fathers in the same way Newton invented gravity. If that makes sense to you, then fine, otherwise use a different word (I would suggest "described").

Message edited by author 2015-02-19 11:15:29.
02/19/2015 11:32:57 AM · #321
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

... The Trinity was invented by early church fathers in the same way Newton invented gravity. If that makes sense to you, then fine, otherwise use a different word (I would suggest "described").


I will go out on a limb here and suggest that the theory of gravity has been tested and proven to be true.

Can the same be said about the Trinity and if so, where can I find these studies.

You know me Doc, I am ever so curious. :O)

Ray
02/19/2015 11:41:27 AM · #322
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If we have two spectra on an X/Y axis (theism-atheism, realism-antirealism) then we wind up with four boxes representing their combinations. Three boxes are logically consistent. One box, at least in my view, is not. That box is the combination of atheism and realism (wiki "moral realism" for more info).


Part of this the difference in how the word "objective" is used - colloquially (something that is true, regardless of personal beliefs or prejudices) versus academically/technically (something that exists external or independent of the/a mind). I, personally, don't think it makes sense to talk about morality existing independent of the mind - no minds = no morality.

But, more broadly, I would argue that theist don't actually believe in objective morality, at least not an objective morality that they have access to. What they mean by objective morality is that God defines what moral is, but that means that from our perspective morality is arbitrary.

As an illustration - when an atheist points out the biblical instances of sanctioned slavery and commanded genocide, and the theist responds with a plea to "context," how is the theist not making a case for relative morality/situational ethics? The believer says that she believes in absolute moral objectivity through God, but doesn't have access to this moral objectivity ("we can't judge God's actions by our own moral standard"), so the theist necessarily must act as a moral relativist, even to a greater extent than the non-believer.

Why? Because the adherence to the belief means that the theist must set aside her own moral intuitions if they conflict with stated doctrine (or, perhaps more likely, reinterpret the stated doctrine so as to align with her moral intuitions). In other words the theist acts like a relativist (anything God says/commands is good and just), while simultaneously proclaiming to be an objectivist (God is the source of morality).

-----
edited to add link to video

The Superiority of Secular Morality

Message edited by author 2015-02-19 12:05:36.
02/19/2015 11:51:25 AM · #323
Originally posted by Cory:

Essentially, it is the missionary who directly opens the gates of hell himself, for according to Christianity, you are only subject to eternal damnation once you reject Christ as your personal savior.


It should also just be noted that this is a modern version of the doctrine of hell. Early Christians were perfectly convinced that all "heathen savages" were on the hell express. And that is the much more philosophically consistent position. The modern revision is simply to accommodate our modern (completely relativistic ;) moral intuitions that condemning someone to an eternity of torment and torture without giving them any opportunity to accept the "truth" might just be a little morally unjustifiable.
02/19/2015 11:55:15 AM · #324
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

... The Trinity was invented by early church fathers in the same way Newton invented gravity. If that makes sense to you, then fine, otherwise use a different word (I would suggest "described").


I will go out on a limb here and suggest that the theory of gravity has been tested and proven to be true.

Can the same be said about the Trinity and if so, where can I find these studies.

You know me Doc, I am ever so curious. :O)

Ray


Newton didn't invent gravity. He just came up with a model to predict its influence. Currently we have yet to prove what it actually is or what causes it.
02/19/2015 12:01:32 PM · #325
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by zxaar:



1. It is talking about probability. Don:t confuse probability with certainty. For example if you guess about me, I could be in of a house or out. 50 50 if you talk of probability. It does not mean I am both inside and outside of house the same time. Once you find out that I am in a house, the probability of me outside of house is not there.


I will be first to admit we are all armchair physicists unless someone wants to stand up and say they did any grad level work. I think, however, that quantum physics is a bit odder than you are making it out to be here. While what you are saying makes perfect sense when thinking about you being inside or outside, I don't quite think it holds for an electron.


Quantum mechanics and the doctrine of the Trinity share at least one key aspect - anyone who says they understand, almost certainly doesn't. (All apologies to Neils Bohr.)
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 03/25/2019 06:09:59 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 03/25/2019 06:09:59 AM EDT.