Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 121 of 693 (709967)
10-31-2013 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Straggler
10-30-2013 1:32 PM


Straggler writes:
What is the difference between accepting the existence of Coca Cola and believing that Coca Cola exists?
You have to consider that question in the context of this discussion - i.e. in comparison with the belief in God.
I accept Coca-Cola in the same way I accept aerodynamics. I can observe the effects and I can recognize that somebody else understands those effects better than I do. Belief in God is quite different. There are no effects to observe.
Ergo, acceptance of Coca-Cola and aerodynamics are different from belief in God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Straggler, posted 10-30-2013 1:32 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2013 11:49 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 122 of 693 (709968)
10-31-2013 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by greentwiga
10-30-2013 3:52 PM


greentwiga writes:
I am talking about the Bible preserving the time and location of the domestication of wheat, even to the location being on a volcano, despite 6,000 years of passing the story on verbally.
Where does it do that? Chapter and verse, please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by greentwiga, posted 10-30-2013 3:52 PM greentwiga has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 123 of 693 (709969)
10-31-2013 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by 1.61803
10-31-2013 11:01 AM


Re: Authors Perspective
Numbers writes:
Your assessment of what is likely to be correct is garnered from thousands of years of human development. Bronze age people did not have that advantage.
Which is exactly what I have said: Message 79 to Ringo
quote:
The authors of the bible could observe apples falling. So can you. But there are many direct observations you take for granted that they could never experience and a vast array of information that was unavailable in biblical times but which permeates the modern world in ways that are unavoidable. You can view images of satellites orbitting a spherical Earth, you can examine a model of the Earth called a "globe", you can fly half way round the world and back again. Newton's key idea that apples falling and planets orbitting are the result of the same phenomenon (i.e. gravity) was unheard of in biblical times, revolutionary in Newton's time but is entirely ingrained in modern thought.
The set of information and observations available to you regarding gravity are so far in excess of those available to Moses that it would be virtually impossible for your understanding of gravity to be in the same ballpark as his. For it to be so would require a level of wilful ignorance on your part that would make creationists look like they are on the path to enlightenment regarding bilogical diversity.
Numbers writes:
It is a bit disingenuous to make claims of the bible being scientifically inferior to a modern text book on quantum mechanics.
But where have I made that point?
Numbers writes:
You miss my point completely.
Ditto to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by 1.61803, posted 10-31-2013 11:01 AM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 124 of 693 (709970)
10-31-2013 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Straggler
10-31-2013 11:37 AM


Re: Theological Claims
Too funny and you even quoted the question that I HAVE answered many times in this thread while misrepresenting what I have done.
here is your question and my answers yet again.
Straggler writes:
If one wants to believe things that are likely to be true how does one decide which parts of the bible are helpful and which are a hindrance?
Things can be both true and not true, factually false yet practically true.
And you decide which parts of the bible are helpful and which are a hindrance the same way you decide whether anything is helpful or a hindrance.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2013 11:37 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2013 11:54 AM jar has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 125 of 693 (709971)
10-31-2013 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by ringo
10-31-2013 11:41 AM


Ringo writes:
Ergo, acceptance of Coca-Cola and aerodynamics are different from belief in God.
Belief in the existence of God is derived on a wholly different (and far inferior) basis to belief in the existence of Coca Cola or aerodynamic principles. So - Yes.
But one doesn't need to invent private definitions of "belief" or "accept" to make that point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by ringo, posted 10-31-2013 11:41 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by ringo, posted 10-31-2013 11:53 AM Straggler has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 126 of 693 (709972)
10-31-2013 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Straggler
10-31-2013 9:20 AM


Re: Theological Claims
Straggler writes:
Does the fact that adopting the theories of the apple guy and the crazy hair dude allowed us to put men on the moon and discover/predict a range of new observable phenomena indicate that these theories are in any way accurate descriptions of reality?
They are accurate enough for the problem at hand, just like the Biblical understanding of gravity is accurate enough for deciding whether or not to sleep under apple trees.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2013 9:20 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2013 11:59 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 127 of 693 (709973)
10-31-2013 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Straggler
10-31-2013 11:49 AM


Straggler writes:
But one doesn't need to invent private definitions of "belief" or "accept" to make that point.
They aren't "private definitions". They're distinctions - like making a distinction between dogs and cats instead of just calling them "pets".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2013 11:49 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2013 11:56 AM ringo has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 128 of 693 (709974)
10-31-2013 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by jar
10-31-2013 11:49 AM


Re: Theological Claims
Straggler writes:
If one wants to believe things that are likely to be true how does one decide which parts of the bible are helpful and which are a hindrance?
jar writes:
And you decide which parts of the bible are helpful and which are a hindrance the same way you decide whether anything is helpful or a hindrance.
Again it is noted that you feel the need to remove the "likely to be true" stipulation.
Which again makes the point that the key difference between belief in gravity and belief in God is the application methods that seek to meet the stipulation.
I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity because I seek to believe things that are likely to be correct rather than wrong...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 10-31-2013 11:49 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by jar, posted 10-31-2013 12:08 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 129 of 693 (709975)
10-31-2013 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by ringo
10-31-2013 11:53 AM


Well your contribution to this thread amounts to an idiotic and patently false claim that you are as ignorant as Moses regarding gravitational effects and some semantic nit picking in order to make a "distinction".
And you had the temerity to call me a troll....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by ringo, posted 10-31-2013 11:53 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by ringo, posted 10-31-2013 12:07 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 130 of 693 (709976)
10-31-2013 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by ringo
10-31-2013 11:51 AM


Re: Theological Claims
AZPaul's Angel theory of gravity would be sufficient for many practical purposes too....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by ringo, posted 10-31-2013 11:51 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 131 of 693 (709978)
10-31-2013 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Straggler
10-31-2013 11:56 AM


Straggler writes:
... an idiotic and patently false claim that you are as ignorant as Moses...
You missing the word "about" makes me an idiot? I have ABOUT the same understandimg of gravity as Moses did - despite the availability of additional opportunities. I have ABOUT the same consumption of Coca-Cola as Moses did, despite the increased availability.
Straggler writes:
... some semantic nit picking in order to make a "distinction".
The semantic nitpicking would be pretending there isn't a distinction when there is. If you don't make a distinction between dogs and cats, that's fine, but don't pretend that nobody can make a distinction.
Straggler writes:
And you had the temerity to call me a troll....
Yup. I did and I do. About half the time you have something intelligent to say. I think I've even cheered you a couple of times. The other half, you're a troll, trying to get the answer you want instead of the answer you get.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2013 11:56 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2013 12:10 PM ringo has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 132 of 693 (709979)
10-31-2013 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Straggler
10-31-2013 11:54 AM


Re: Theological Claims
And true is not synonymous with correct or wrong.
No one cares whether or not you believe in god. That is really irrelevant.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2013 11:54 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2013 12:12 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 133 of 693 (709980)
10-31-2013 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by ringo
10-31-2013 12:07 PM


Hey I'm just making a distinction between your understanding of gravity and that of Moses.....
I thought you liked distinctions. Now do calm down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by ringo, posted 10-31-2013 12:07 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by ringo, posted 10-31-2013 12:19 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 134 of 693 (709982)
10-31-2013 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by jar
10-31-2013 12:08 PM


Re: Theological Claims
Given that we are considering why people might believe in gravity but not in God that is an incredibly strange reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by jar, posted 10-31-2013 12:08 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 135 of 693 (709983)
10-31-2013 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Straggler
10-31-2013 12:10 PM


Straggler writes:
Hey I'm just making a distinction between your understanding of gravity and that of Moses.....
I thought you liked distinctions.
I didn't say there was no possible distinction. Did you miss the word "about" again? Dogs are about as popular as cats - maybe within ten or twenty per cent, who knows. Maybe I do know ten or twenty per cent more about our concept of gravity than Moses did. Most likely he knew twenty to forty per cent more about their concept of gravity than I do.
I'm making a distinction between concepts. You're making a distinction between numbers. Do you see the difference?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2013 12:10 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2013 12:32 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024