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 126 - 150 of 350, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/07/2015 01:46:02 AM · #126
Originally posted by Cory:

abiogenesis is illogical" is opening the door to some really fun questions, like, ok, if life (as we know it) was created, who was the creator. Can we call the universe's laws of physics a creator? Or do we have to have intelligence in that creator? In which case I'd suggest Alpha Centaurians. Of course, you can still choose Ewah if you wish, but I don't see why you would do so with confidence in your choice.


Yes, but as the little ol' lady said; "It's turtles all the way down sonny!"
02/07/2015 01:47:19 AM · #127
Just as a fun example of WHY this conversation matters.

Earth's Dashboard is Flashing RED!
02/07/2015 01:48:10 AM · #128
Originally posted by Erastus:

Originally posted by Cory:

abiogenesis is illogical" is opening the door to some really fun questions, like, ok, if life (as we know it) was created, who was the creator. Can we call the universe's laws of physics a creator? Or do we have to have intelligence in that creator? In which case I'd suggest Alpha Centaurians. Of course, you can still choose Ewah if you wish, but I don't see why you would do so with confidence in your choice.


Yes, but as the little ol' lady said; "It's turtles all the way down sonny!"


All the way down to what? ;-)
02/07/2015 01:52:00 AM · #129
Quoted from the dashboard article you posted;
"National Geographic cartographer Juan José Valdés"

Wonder if he draw maps for coffee producers...........
I think I'll go have a cuppa. Have a pleasant evening.
02/07/2015 08:43:42 AM · #130
.

Message edited by author 2015-02-07 10:51:28.
02/07/2015 10:51:12 AM · #131
Originally posted by Cory:

Just as a fun example of WHY this conversation matters.

Earth's Dashboard is Flashing RED!


conversation always matters, but you have to remember science may not be right, even if you think it is. science is based on assumptions and we have no way to determine if our current assumptions are even correct. i can understand why people are skeptical of science, and even brightest argue over assumptions.

changing our assumptions could alter all of the models we have established, for instance changing your assumption, you could show that pi = 4 easily by squaring the circle, but a square never, ever converges to a circle, pi =4 only works in a in a true pixilated world. our calculus model is based on limits, which makes a huge assumption that our models converge at infinity. earlier the example of 0.9999... = 1 is only true if infinitesimal numbers exist. we assume they do to prove that 0.9999 = 1, but according to the long standing Archimedian property which our current number system assumes, infinitesimals don't exist. of course, negative numbers doesn't exist either but we allow them to with certain rules, the same with imaginary numbers. its all just a way to explain and model behavior; negative numbers explain deficit, imaginary explain rotations, infinitesimals may explain convergence at infinity.

another example, take e, its merely a model to explain exponential growth, but nature doesn't work with e, for instance, cells divide in whole numbers, you will never have 1.2 or 5467.1234, cells at any time, you will only have, 1,2,4,8, etc, but we can approximate number in between to fit out needs, to model cases where we need to get more exact, for instance, money. we can make those numbers smaller and smaller, get many irrationals but at some point you have to have a rational jump to a whole number. another problem i have is pi, pi = 3.14... we can show it does, to millions of decimal places, proved over and over with mathematical techniques but we assume in many that we converge at infinity. again nature doesn't work with irrational numbers since at some point you have to have a definite value or else you get chaotic behavior.

so how does nature make the jump to infinite convergence? how does the chemistry make meat self aware? at some level there has to be driving force does there not? does nothing actually converge to infinity and everything is actually just random events? is there order in chaos or is there merely chaos with bits of order that we can define?

if there is order, what defines that underlying order? maybe its above our heads, maybe god is the underlying order and humans just can do and make and explain stuff with "good enough" models. maybe god and nature are interchangeable and nature actually is "intelligent" and we can't with our human brains make sense of how that is possible since we cant model it.

the point here is just that because you can explain stuff with math and science, doesn't mean that it is 100% right or if it will ever be, despite the fact that we appear to be going in that direction, it could end up just being good enough to solve many of our basic problems but it may never explain if there is a god. remember we can assume convergence at infinity, but its only an assumption.

Message edited by author 2015-02-07 10:55:13.
02/07/2015 10:51:23 AM · #132
Originally posted by dtremain:

God is good.
God wants to have a relationship with me.

Please explain how these statements can possibly be factual.
02/07/2015 01:09:32 PM · #133
i think the "faith-based assumptions" you guys are talking about are so trivial that I feel silly that i need to point them out. I also think you're completely missing my point about math being a useful tool that we can use for things, but that it's still a human-made instrument, and people recognize that.

Look; there are a LOT of fundamental assumptions that people have to make, just because there's absolutely no getting around them, yet, and because to assume otherwise makes life silly and really really challenging. For example, we have to assume that other people exist, even though we can't ever know that (how do we know you're not just a computer brain alone in a completely empty universe, fabricating all of existence?). Life would become really silly if you didn't take the most simple to explain route in that instance. There are still lots of philosophers working on trying to solve that problem i'm sure, but until it's solved we've worked out that there's not much point in worrying about that.

The same is true with math. NOBODY is saying that thought-experiments such as infinitesimal numbers came from observing the real world. But, the nice thing about math axioms is that they are superbly consistent and repeatable, which is where their value comes from. Nobody would use the Pi formula if it changed every time we plugged it into an equation. We would have to find a better model that fit the numbers if that was the case, or think of some other way of assessing how nature works.

Let's move this conversation back into the context of god, because that's the only way I will ever be able to understand how you're conflating the two things. i THINK what you're trying to say is that making the mathy assumptions i just talked about are the same as assuming god is real. howw?????????? first of all, how is assuming the universe has an intelligent creator the most fundamental, unbudgeable explanation of nature? if we admit god is a human-made tool in order for us be able to solve problems, like is the case with math, does god REALLY solve all that many problems? our funny math quirks like 0.99...=1 really do tell us some insights about the real world, because they're so consistent and repeatable. If we removed one of those equations from the space shuttle, it would fall out of the sky straight into manhattan, just like the other equations we invented told us it would. the space shuttle is a real physical thing, so they have some bearing onto our physical world. mathemeticians are constantly doubting, constantly trying to come up with simpler models; there is a whole branch of axiomatic proof theory that basically tries to solve the problem of humans getting to a fundamental point where we can no longer "prove" things. can the same level of doubt and constant re-evaluation be applied to religion? is god really that hard to get around?

Message edited by author 2015-02-07 13:21:38.
02/07/2015 01:17:49 PM · #134
in regards to mike's last post, the purpose of science isn't specifically to be "right". it's nice when science helps us uncover new quirks of nature that we didn't know before, that's about the short of it. there's no good scientist that would say what science has uncovered is undoubtedly true.

to quote the feynman video i posted earlier, "i have levels of beliefs and opinions about some things, but i'm not 100% certain about anything, and a lot of things i don't know anything about"

Message edited by author 2015-02-07 13:18:51.
02/07/2015 01:27:01 PM · #135
Originally posted by LanndonKane:

to quote the feynman video i posted earlier, "i have levels of beliefs and opinions about some things, but i'm not 100% certain about anything, and a lot of things i don't know anything about"

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/0-4999/1031/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1132378.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/0-4999/1031/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1132378.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
02/07/2015 01:40:08 PM · #136
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by dtremain:

Proof of God? Try this on for size. Scientific study. Should thrill ya'll.
Hypothesis: The curse is real. (Gen. 3:17-19) - or you can do it negative, not real
Methodology: using any non-trivial sample size of earth humans from any culture, religion (or none), ethnicity - given any non-trivial task, individuals or groups are to plan out the best plan they can conceive and execute the task.
Analysis: what is the ratio of the tasks that went according to plan, vs. those that encountered difficulties that had to be overcome in order to successfully complete the task?
Criteria for support of hypothesis: a skewed curve towards difficulties encountered in performing the task. A normal bell curve would indicate randomness of results and not support the hypothesis.
Non scientific data points. Tooth extraction today. Live tooth came out ok, as expected, except for one small part that broke off and then was difficult to pull.
Pacemaker implant - had to invert typical wire route.
Maybe it is just me.


You misunderstand the study. The tooth extraction was done by a licensed doctor in a professional office. I presume that he has done tooth extractions many, many times and is very competent at his profession. The pacemaker implant was done by one of the best Cardiologists in our area (who I just happened to get, but I'm sure that was just a coincidence - and I haven't even mentioned the other major complication with that).
The curse was directed against Adam (and his descendants) that things would not cooperate with him and that he would have to struggle to obtain his desired results. The quote is specifically agricultural, but my experience is that it may be generally applied.
My thought is that IF the curse is real (which the study would attempt to examine), and one could infer an entity (not necessarily "God") powerful enough to enforce such a curse over the spread of (let's be conservative here) 3000 years, across all cultures, languages, and geographic locations, might be worth considering as something outside of our natural experiences and worth taking into account.
I'm not talking about first attempts - I'm talking about experienced, competent people or groups performing in areas within their experience and expertise. Advanced experience simply provides more tools to overcome the unexpected and unanticipated obstacle - it does not prevent the obstacle. The task can be relatively simple, but not something that muscle memory or similar factors could accomplish without the person or group's intent of outcome being actively involved.
I could have gone down the path of the first part of the curse (pain during childbirth for human women), but since scientists can't even agree on whether fish feel pain, I felt the second part was more testable.
-- Wife tried to grind up something metal in the garbage disposal -- (maybe it is just me...)
Evidently we do use a different dictionary, because yours is wrong (and no, I really don't care who wrote it). Indulge me - I'm thinking for myself rather than blindly accepting what I'm told - something that is to be encouraged and lauded.
Originally posted by Cory:


fact fakt noun
a thing that is indisputably the case

IF that were the correct definition, every fact would stop being a fact the first time someone disputed it. Yes? That definition of "fact" is closer to the definition of "consensus", which is primarily what science is based on (and rightly so). The fact of gravity does not disappear because airplanes fly or because someone doesn't believe it applies to them.
Facts are rather stubborn things, and don't care about anyone's opinion of them.
Also, just become something is outside of your experience, reason, or conception, does not invalidate it as a fact. Hearts beat, and move blood through the body. That was a fact in Babylonian, Roman, and Egyptian times - even though their "facts" were that the heart was about as useful as the appendix. But, humans only figured it out after they invented pumps, and made the connection between the sound a pump makes and the sound they heard when listening to someone's chest.

Now you all can pat the blitering well-meaning but fatally stupid idiot condescendingly on the head. Again.
02/07/2015 01:52:03 PM · #137
Originally posted by dtremain:

The fact of gravity does not disappear because airplanes fly or because someone doesn't believe it applies to them.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/0-4999/1031/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1132605.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/0-4999/1031/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1132605.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
02/07/2015 10:23:34 PM · #138
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by dtremain:

The fact of gravity does not disappear because airplanes fly or because someone doesn't believe it applies to them.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/0-4999/1031/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1132605.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/0-4999/1031/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1132605.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

+1
02/07/2015 11:16:25 PM · #139
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by dtremain:

The first two facts of the universe:
God is good.
God wants to have a relationship with me.

Please explain how these statements can possibly be factual.

You tell me.

If, after over 50 years that I can remember, God has never lied to me, has always acted in my best interest (regardless of what I wanted), and has always initiated re-establishing a relationship with me even after I behaved like His enemy - AND He has always been congruent with the God revealed in the Bible (both Old (Jewish) and New (Christian) Testaments) and as taught about by Christians - what am I supposed to conclude?
02/08/2015 01:05:33 AM · #140
What about the 2 billion Hindus who find him incongruent?
02/08/2015 02:50:27 AM · #141
Originally posted by dtremain:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by dtremain:

Proof of God? Try this on for size. Scientific study. Should thrill ya'll.
Hypothesis: The curse is real. (Gen. 3:17-19) - or you can do it negative, not real
Methodology: using any non-trivial sample size of earth humans from any culture, religion (or none), ethnicity - given any non-trivial task, individuals or groups are to plan out the best plan they can conceive and execute the task.
Analysis: what is the ratio of the tasks that went according to plan, vs. those that encountered difficulties that had to be overcome in order to successfully complete the task?
Criteria for support of hypothesis: a skewed curve towards difficulties encountered in performing the task. A normal bell curve would indicate randomness of results and not support the hypothesis.
Non scientific data points. Tooth extraction today. Live tooth came out ok, as expected, except for one small part that broke off and then was difficult to pull.
Pacemaker implant - had to invert typical wire route.
Maybe it is just me.


You misunderstand the study. The tooth extraction was done by a licensed doctor in a professional office. I presume that he has done tooth extractions many, many times and is very competent at his profession. The pacemaker implant was done by one of the best Cardiologists in our area (who I just happened to get, but I'm sure that was just a coincidence - and I haven't even mentioned the other major complication with that).
The curse was directed against Adam (and his descendants) that things would not cooperate with him and that he would have to struggle to obtain his desired results. The quote is specifically agricultural, but my experience is that it may be generally applied.
My thought is that IF the curse is real (which the study would attempt to examine), and one could infer an entity (not necessarily "God") powerful enough to enforce such a curse over the spread of (let's be conservative here) 3000 years, across all cultures, languages, and geographic locations, might be worth considering as something outside of our natural experiences and worth taking into account.
I'm not talking about first attempts - I'm talking about experienced, competent people or groups performing in areas within their experience and expertise. Advanced experience simply provides more tools to overcome the unexpected and unanticipated obstacle - it does not prevent the obstacle. The task can be relatively simple, but not something that muscle memory or similar factors could accomplish without the person or group's intent of outcome being actively involved.
I could have gone down the path of the first part of the curse (pain during childbirth for human women), but since scientists can't even agree on whether fish feel pain, I felt the second part was more testable.
-- Wife tried to grind up something metal in the garbage disposal -- (maybe it is just me...)
Evidently we do use a different dictionary, because yours is wrong (and no, I really don't care who wrote it). Indulge me - I'm thinking for myself rather than blindly accepting what I'm told - something that is to be encouraged and lauded.
Originally posted by Cory:


fact fakt noun
a thing that is indisputably the case

IF that were the correct definition, every fact would stop being a fact the first time someone disputed it. Yes? That definition of "fact" is closer to the definition of "consensus", which is primarily what science is based on (and rightly so). The fact of gravity does not disappear because airplanes fly or because someone doesn't believe it applies to them.
Facts are rather stubborn things, and don't care about anyone's opinion of them.
Also, just become something is outside of your experience, reason, or conception, does not invalidate it as a fact. Hearts beat, and move blood through the body. That was a fact in Babylonian, Roman, and Egyptian times - even though their "facts" were that the heart was about as useful as the appendix. But, humans only figured it out after they invented pumps, and made the connection between the sound a pump makes and the sound they heard when listening to someone's chest.

Now you all can pat the blitering well-meaning but fatally stupid idiot condescendingly on the head. Again.


Hmm. First, you're not stupid, you are allowed to be mistaken, and I appreciate you and your time/effort.

Several points:

I've never heard the "I wrecked my car, therefore God" argument before. I simply cannot understand how "shit happens" gives us the sequitur "therefore God".

Did you really just claim my dictionary is wrong, because you made up your own definition? (I'm thinking for myself rather than blindly accepting what I'm told is not acceptable in this particular case, there is no merit in this position)

Gravity on Earth's surface is a fact. I invite you to see if your challenging that fact negates it, I would suggest something under three stories as I'd like to hear you admit that you were mistaken about this premise.

02/08/2015 02:51:53 AM · #142
Originally posted by LanndonKane:

in regards to mike's last post, the purpose of science isn't specifically to be "right". it's nice when science helps us uncover new quirks of nature that we didn't know before, that's about the short of it. there's no good scientist that would say what science has uncovered is undoubtedly true.

to quote the feynman video i posted earlier, "i have levels of beliefs and opinions about some things, but i'm not 100% certain about anything, and a lot of things i don't know anything about"


Perfectly stated.
02/08/2015 02:55:13 AM · #143
Originally posted by dtremain:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by dtremain:

The first two facts of the universe:
God is good.
God wants to have a relationship with me.

Please explain how these statements can possibly be factual.

You tell me.

If, after over 50 years that I can remember, God has never lied to me, has always acted in my best interest (regardless of what I wanted), and has always initiated re-establishing a relationship with me even after I behaved like His enemy - AND He has always been congruent with the God revealed in the Bible (both Old (Jewish) and New (Christian) Testaments) and as taught about by Christians - what am I supposed to conclude?


Unicorns are good.
Unicorns want to have a relationship with me. (ewww)

Unicorns have never lied to me, and have always acted in my best interest (regardless of what I wanted), and have always initiated re-establishing a relationship with me even after I behaved like their enemy - AND they have always been congruent with the Unicorns revealed in Harry Potter (primarily as described by "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone") and as taught about by JK Rowling - what am I supposed to conclude?

Message edited by author 2015-02-08 02:55:33.
02/08/2015 08:15:15 AM · #144
Here is my attempt:

Please explain to me what Evidence or Proof you accept when you dismiss the claims of other religions as false. I have included 5 questions below, the answers to which I believe will help to illuminate this issue in a more understandable way for both sides of this argument.

1. What proof is there that Mohammad was not a prophet of God? (Islam)
It is interesting in the Old Testament how both the Jewish and Arabic people are traced from Abraham and itwhout reading and studying Islamic teachings I cant say he wasn't a prophet of the one God to the Arabs.

2. What evidence is there that you won't go to hell for eating bacon-wrapped shrimp? (Judaism)
Jewish laws for cleanliness required a sacrifice for unclean practices (food being one of many) to be "cleansed" for worship before God. I don't believe there is a teaching of going to hell for being unclean in the Jewish religion.

3. What proof is there that there aren't MANY gods? (Roman Mythology)
Order. Polytheism would result in total chaos.

4. What convinced you that Amon Ra was not God? (Egyptian Mythology)
The Egyptians abandoned Amon Ra before I was born. They didn't believe and the religion disappeared.

5. How do we know that the Mercury and Mars are not gods? (Celtic Polytheism)
Their religion was supplanted by monotheism (see above re: chaos).

Best regards,
02/08/2015 08:17:43 AM · #145
The reason I asked you the question I did is because it seems that you may have what I call a "vested interest" in God not existing.
The "dead men bleed" story is a great illustration of what I mean. (I can summarize it if you're not familiar with it.)
And, if that is the case, it is crucial that you resolve the real issue(s) - if you are able to engage them. Please don't read anything negative or judgmental into that statement, and I very well may be all wet...

You missed the most important part of my statement - in my over 50 years of memory. I'm talking about what I experienced - not imagined. You can dismiss what I relate to you as my personal experience (the events of my life over the years) as imaginary, delusional, mistaken, just plain wrong, or made-up, but that has no effect on what I've experienced.

Maybe I've focused too much on the "indisputable" part of the dictionary definition, but to say that a fact cannot be disputed is ridiculous. Perhaps "disputed successfully" might be more accurate, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish, so to speak.

There is much in life I'm not sure of. There are many experiences I've had that I'm not sure of. But, when I experience the same thing over and over again through a long (for me) period of time, I begin to pay attention. But, of my encounters with the living, loving God that shows by His behavior that He wants to have a relationship with me, I have no doubt. I definitely do not understand, but of all I've experienced, I find them to be the most certain.

And yes, you have my permission to call Him a unicorn, if you wish.
02/08/2015 10:36:52 AM · #146
Originally posted by dtremain:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by dtremain:

The first two facts of the universe:
God is good.
God wants to have a relationship with me.

Please explain how these statements can possibly be factual.

You tell me.

If, after over 50 years that I can remember, God has never lied to me, has always acted in my best interest (regardless of what I wanted), and has always initiated re-establishing a relationship with me even after I behaved like His enemy - AND He has always been congruent with the God revealed in the Bible (both Old (Jewish) and New (Christian) Testaments) and as taught about by Christians - what am I supposed to conclude?


There are others who have had diametrically opposed results in their dealings with God.

Are we to assume that they are just unlucky, not worthy, misinformed or simply delusional?

Ray
02/08/2015 01:00:31 PM · #147
As far as considering the Bible reliable, would you continue to trust a person whom you had previously caught in multiple undenibly obvious lies?

If so, why, and if not, then why treat the Bible differently?

You know, the one thing that drives me away from religion and towards science more than any other is this precise issue. I know, for a fact, the Bible can be shown to be wildly innaccurate, in many places. If a scientific theory were found to be untrue, even one single time, the entire theory would have to be discarded as untrue. Yet, despite a great deal of innaccuracy, you are willing to accept anything I cannot directly disprove as true.
02/08/2015 02:23:57 PM · #148
5. How do we know that the Mercury and Mars are not gods? (Celtic Polytheism)

Very minor point but Mercury and Mars were not Celtic deities as far as i recall. They were Roman.
02/08/2015 02:28:07 PM · #149
Originally posted by rooum:

5. How do we know that the Mercury and Mars are not gods? (Celtic Polytheism)

Very minor point but Mercury and Mars were not Celtic deities as far as i recall. They were Roman.

They were the Greek gods Hermes and Ares before the Romans took over and re-named them.
02/08/2015 02:43:58 PM · #150
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by rooum:

5. How do we know that the Mercury and Mars are not gods? (Celtic Polytheism)

Very minor point but Mercury and Mars were not Celtic deities as far as i recall. They were Roman.

They were the Greek gods Hermes and Ares before the Romans took over and re-named them.


They were indeed. My point was that they weren't Celtic.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 11/14/2019 07:29:21 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: 11/14/2019 07:29:21 AM EST.