|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 3466 days) Posts: 28 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity | |||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
You have to consider that question in the context of this discussion - i.e. in comparison with the belief in God. What is the difference between accepting the existence of Coca Cola and believing that Coca Cola exists? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
greentwiga writes:
Where does it do that? Chapter and verse, please.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
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.
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
They aren't "private definitions". They're distinctions - like making a distinction between dogs and cats instead of just calling them "pets".
But one doesn't need to invent private definitions of "belief" or "accept" to make that point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
AZPaul's Angel theory of gravity would be sufficient for many practical purposes too....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
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.
... an idiotic and patently false claim that you are as ignorant as Moses... Straggler writes:
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.
... some semantic nit picking in order to make a "distinction". Straggler writes:
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.
And you had the temerity to call me a troll....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Given that we are considering why people might believe in gravity but not in God that is an incredibly strange reply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
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. Hey I'm just making a distinction between your understanding of gravity and that of Moses..... I thought you liked distinctions. I'm making a distinction between concepts. You're making a distinction between numbers. Do you see the difference?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024