Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-13-2017 12:16 AM
335 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,060 Year: 28,666/21,208 Month: 732/1,847 Week: 107/475 Day: 0/17 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
19Next
Author Topic:   Detecting God
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15984
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 196 of 271 (575249)
08-19-2010 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by sac51495
08-17-2010 11:36 AM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
Why do there tend to be more mis-interpretations of the Word of God than of physical laws? Because no one has a good reason for wanting to mis-interpret physical laws ...

That depends on what you mean by a good reason.

Have you ever read any creationist literature?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by sac51495, posted 08-17-2010 11:36 AM sac51495 has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member
Posts: 5681
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 197 of 271 (575250)
08-19-2010 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by hooah212002
08-17-2010 10:23 AM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
"hooah212002" writes:

Not at all what I meant. Love is a feeling. "Wisdom" is not intelligence or knowledge. I said a book of facts. If I read a nuclear physics book 10 years ago, it still says exactly the same thing and means exactly the same thing today. It is inconceivable that I would pull a different "meaning" out of it.

Are you a robot, or a person? You have feelings, and you need to learn about those feelings. The bible has facts in it, and those facts do not change. When I read about when the woman pouring perfume on Jesus's feet, that image remains unchanged in my mind. But the reason why may change. Much of the bible deals with philosophy and feelings, but that does not make it invalid, or any less valuable than a book on nuclear physics.

You ALL interpret the same book in your own way and assert that YOUR way is the "truth" and the ONLY way.

No, we all don't do that. The truth is the truth, you can't change truth. The truth is separate from I think the truth is, or how much I've learned about the truth. Most of us understand this, and we are just disciples, learning the way. If my way was the only way, I would be God, and that is not the case.

If your close friend told you he had a pink and blue zebra standing right next to you, but it could only be seen if you believed in it's majik powers, would you believe him? Would you take the leap of faith?

Ah the old pink unicorn/.santa clauss bit. Really these simple ideas do not compare to God, or what is taught in the bible. If it were only that simple. I can't speak for everyone, but there are no blind reasons why I believe. The reasons I believe are very tangible to me, and some story or fairy tale, or yoda.

I was a believer at one point, quite recently. The only feeling I got out of it was a sense of belonging to a group. While a nice feeling it was, it wasn't a magic spirit or any such thing. It was comforting at the time, nothing more.

The thing I dislike the most about religion is belonging to a group. But it comes with the territory. Groups can be good and bad. After all, groups are just man. I said I believed for many years before I felt something more.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by hooah212002, posted 08-17-2010 10:23 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by hooah212002, posted 08-19-2010 8:39 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 516 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 198 of 271 (575262)
08-19-2010 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by riVeRraT
08-19-2010 8:06 AM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
The bible has facts in it, and those facts do not change.

Really? It's funny how NONE of you can name any pertinent to this topic, which is also key in validating your fairy tale book. The only possible facts in your group of books is possibly the names of some places. The topic is detecting god and none of you have provided a way to do so.

No, we all don't do that. The truth is the truth, you can't change truth.

Again, "truth" is a meaningless word coming out of the mouth of a theist.

Really these simple ideas do not compare to God, or what is taught in the bible.

It's too bad it's true though. Just because you don't like the analogy and have no refutation for it, doesn't mean it doesn't stand up.

I can't speak for everyone, but there are no blind reasons why I believe.

Ok, name something then. Prove it.

The reasons I believe are very tangible to me, and some story or fairy tale, or yoda.

Which is exactly why "truth" out of the mout of a theist is meaningless: what is "truth" to you mean diddly to me. remember, we are talking about detecting god here.


"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by riVeRraT, posted 08-19-2010 8:06 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by riVeRraT, posted 08-20-2010 6:48 AM hooah212002 has responded

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 516 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 199 of 271 (575265)
08-19-2010 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by riVeRraT
08-19-2010 7:49 AM


Re: Science: objective? Nah.
Tom Sawyer is sold as a fiction book.

And the bible IS a fiction book.......


"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by riVeRraT, posted 08-19-2010 7:49 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 200 of 271 (575281)
08-19-2010 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by riVeRraT
08-19-2010 7:49 AM


No first hand accounts?
Gee, I still don't see any first hand or contemporary accounts.

There has already been a fantastic refutation on this board already. Kapyong destroyed this line of thought 5 years ago.
Message 8

Tom Sawyer is sold as a fiction book.

How is this relevant?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by riVeRraT, posted 08-19-2010 7:49 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by riVeRraT, posted 08-20-2010 6:57 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
riVeRraT
Member
Posts: 5681
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


(1)
Message 201 of 271 (575491)
08-20-2010 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by hooah212002
08-19-2010 8:39 AM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
"hooah212002" writes:

Really? It's funny how NONE of you can name any pertinent to this topic, which is also key in validating your fairy tale book. The only possible facts in your group of books is possibly the names of some places. The topic is detecting god and none of you have provided a way to do so.

Nice contradiction...really.

Again, "truth" is a meaningless word coming out of the mouth of a theist.

The truth is one of the most powerful things you could ever experience. We could go on and on about truth, and how important it is in life.

Ok, name something then. Prove it.

Well, I've been, for the last 6 years.

You also keep saying "prove it", as if to say you would only believe in something if it was proven. But nothing in life is ever really proven.

Which is exactly why "truth" out of the mout of a theist is meaningless: what is "truth" to you mean diddly to me. remember, we are talking about detecting god here.

Which is why I mention truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by hooah212002, posted 08-19-2010 8:39 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by hooah212002, posted 08-20-2010 10:22 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member
Posts: 5681
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 202 of 271 (575496)
08-20-2010 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Theodoric
08-19-2010 10:03 AM


Re: No first hand accounts?
"Theodoric" writes:


There has already been a fantastic refutation on this board already. Kapyong destroyed this line of thought 5 years ago.
Message 8

Well I don't really have the time, or the knowledge to refute all this. However it seems really silly to me, and hypocritical to say that because someone didn't write about Jesus, means He didn't exist. There could be a whole slew of reasons why.

I get a real kick out of how we can 2000 years later be arguing about this stuff. Stuff that changed the world. There were others before Him (so I've heard) but they didn't change the world like He did. The reason why Jesus changed the world from His walk on, is because what He was teaching is from God.
No one hear can prove it.......or dis-prove it.

How is this relevant?

That is my question to you. Make a valid comparison.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Theodoric, posted 08-19-2010 10:03 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 516 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 203 of 271 (575527)
08-20-2010 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by riVeRraT
08-20-2010 6:48 AM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
You also keep saying "prove it", as if to say you would only believe in something if it was proven. But nothing in life is ever really proven.

Well, I can prove to you that my dog is real when he bites your ass. I can prove that pavement is hard by slamming you down on it. I can prove a horse is real by riding it. I can prove I have gas by ripping a stinky ass fart.

Now prove your god is more real than my fart, because as it stands, he's not.

Which is why I mention truth.

You mention truth because it is meaningless? Nice.


Your god believes in Unicorns
This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by riVeRraT, posted 08-20-2010 6:48 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by riVeRraT, posted 09-08-2010 8:09 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
sac51495
Member (Idle past 2331 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 204 of 271 (575775)
08-21-2010 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by bluescat48
08-18-2010 10:38 PM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
bluescat,

That makes a lot of sense. (sarcasm to those who don't know my type of writing) How could Moses understand the writing when there was no formal writing at the time. What did god write in Cuneiform, Hieroglyphics? There was no alphabet at the time.

"These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly, in the mountain from the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and He added no more. And He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me." [emphasis mine], (Deut. 5:22).

I would be interested to know upon what grounds you claim that there was no alphabet (or "alephbet").


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by bluescat48, posted 08-18-2010 10:38 PM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by bluescat48, posted 08-21-2010 10:24 AM sac51495 has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1802 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 205 of 271 (575842)
08-21-2010 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by sac51495
08-21-2010 2:39 AM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
I would be interested to know upon what grounds you claim that there was no alphabet (or "alephbet").

wiki writes:

The Proto-Sinatic or Proto-Canaanite script eventually developed into the Proto-Canaanite alphabet, which in turn was refined into the Phoenician alphabet. The oldest text in Phoenician script is an inscription on the sarcophagus of King Ahiram. This script is the parent script of all western alphabets. By the tenth century two other forms can be distinguished namely Canaanite and Aramaic. The Aramaic gave rise to Hebrew.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet

There was no Hebrew alphabet until at least the 10th century BCE whereas the so called Exodus was somewhere between the 13th to 16th centuries BCE.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by sac51495, posted 08-21-2010 2:39 AM sac51495 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 5:01 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 206 of 271 (576852)
08-26-2010 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by killinghurts
06-30-2010 11:29 PM


What counts as detection?
I have yet to hear a reasonable response as to how someone (or something) would detect God.

You mentioned in your prologue, detecting gravity by its effects on a ball when it is released. So are you saying that you would accept the effects of a God or gods on physical objects, as evidence of His/her/their existence? What exactly counts as "god evidence?"

Here are some other important question that relate to this topic.
Do you agree that the universe is finite? Yes or No?
Do you agree that something can not come from nothing? Yes or No?
Do you agree that if there was ever a time that there was absolutely nothing, that nothing could exist now? Yes or No?
Do you agree that a yes answer to that last question requires something infinite to exist in order for something now to exist?
Do you agree that for something to exist infinitely it must be self sustaining?
What is the best term to give to something that is infinite, self sustaining, and able to produce our universe?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by killinghurts, posted 06-30-2010 11:29 PM killinghurts has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Huntard, posted 08-26-2010 5:01 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 209 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2010 5:05 AM Just being real has responded

    
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 207 of 271 (576855)
08-26-2010 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Just being real
08-26-2010 4:28 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
Just being real writes:

You mentioned in your prologue, detecting gravity by its effects on a ball when it is released. So are you saying that you would accept the effects of a God or gods on physical objects, as evidence of His/her/their existence?


If it can be shown it was indeed the god that interacted with the object, yes.

What exactly counts as "god evidence?"

I would say that it depends on the claim, if you claim "God can heal someone with cancer through prayer, I would require the following for evidence:

  1. We would go to a cancer patient
  2. Prayer would be said to the god of choice
  3. The patient is cured
  4. It is shown the god prayed to was responsible for the healing

Here are some other important question that relate to this topic.
Do you agree that the universe is finite? Yes or No?

We don't know. It could be infinite.

Do you agree that something can not come from nothing? Yes or No?

No.

Do you agree that if there was ever a time that there was absolutely nothing, that nothing could exist now? Yes or No?

There never was such a time, and even if there was, then no.

Do you agree that a yes answer to that last question requires something infinite to exist in order for something now to exist?

No.

Do you agree that for something to exist infinitely it must be self sustaining?

No.

What is the best term to give to something that is infinite, self sustaining, and able to produce our universe?

Non-existant.

Edited by Huntard, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 4:28 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 5:37 AM Huntard has responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 208 of 271 (576856)
08-26-2010 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by bluescat48
08-21-2010 10:24 AM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
There was no Hebrew alphabet until at least the 10th century BCE whereas the so called Exodus was somewhere between the 13th to 16th centuries BCE.

My understanding is not that the Hebrew alphabet didn't exist, but only rather that the oldest Hebrew writings found to date are from the tenth century BCE. Would the fact that no older writings have been found to still exist today, truthfully negate the possibility that the Hebrew language could go back much further?

http://www.livescience.com/...rliest-hebrew-text-100115.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by bluescat48, posted 08-21-2010 10:24 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Huntard, posted 08-26-2010 5:08 AM Just being real has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13367
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 209 of 271 (576857)
08-26-2010 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Just being real
08-26-2010 4:28 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
quote:

Here are some other important question that relate to this topic.

Do you agree that the universe is finite? Yes or No?


I'll agree that our universe (which may be embedded in a larger universe) is probably finite spatially, and temporally in the pastward direction. I don't think that I can go further on that, but let's say that that satisfies.

quote:

Do you agree that something can not come from nothing? Yes or No?
Do you agree that if there was ever a time that there was absolutely nothing, that nothing could exist now? Yes or No?

These are essentially the same question and my answer is that it depends on what you consider "nothing". However, let's say "yes" for the sake of argument.

quote:

Do you agree that a yes answer to that last question requires something infinite to exist in order for something now to exist?

Definitely no. It doesn't seem to follow at all.

quote:

Do you agree that for something to exist infinitely it must be self sustaining?

No.

quote:

What is the best term to give to something that is infinite, self sustaining, and able to produce our universe?

I don't know of one. "God" is definitely a poor choice because it refers to a personal entity and no personal qualities are even mentioned above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 4:28 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 6:08 AM PaulK has responded

    
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 210 of 271 (576858)
08-26-2010 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Just being real
08-26-2010 5:01 AM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
Just being real writes:

My understanding is not that the Hebrew alphabet didn't exist, but only rather that the oldest Hebrew writings found to date are from the tenth century BCE. Would the fact that no older writings have been found to still exist today, truthfully negate the possibility that the Hebrew language could go back much further?


Since there is older writing found, I wouldn't say so. See Wiki:

quote:
The early writing systems of the late 4th millennium BC were not a sudden invention.

Emphasis added.

Oh, and welcome to EvC!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 5:01 AM Just being real has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
19Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017