My Beliefs- GDR

No of course not. Quarks are not detected by our 5 senses, only through the use of equipment. Some gases aren't detected by our senses, or wave lengths.What was this supoosed to mean? That's still good for our group, just on a larger scale. It doesn't. The question is nonsensical. Sentience has nothing to do with base elements (whatever that means).Chemistry and evolution have the potential for all of life, sentient or otherwise, to emerge. The potential for sentient life exist ONLY when chemistry and evolution exist. You've already agreed to that. I simply start where the objective evidence points at. There is no ividence for invisible superpowers that control things. The science and the evidence points to chemistry and evolution, and I believe you already agreed with this. You have said that you don't know but you're convinced that there is a god. That is not an explanation. Just because you use some words that physicists use doesn't help what you said make anymore sense.Just saying the word god doesn't describe anything, and likewise saying words like "mulit-dimensional reality" doesn't either.Like I suspected, you don't really know what god is or how he does anything. You're swinging wildly with a few science words to compensate for how poorly your beliefs stand up to scrutiny. You've missed my point entirely.- Oni

I'm not following. Paul never saw Jesus yet claimed he appeared to him (or whatever it says exactly) - then Paul also writes of 500 nameless people, unidentified completely, who he says also saw Jesus.The only question that I'm asking you is do you think that can be faked? I wouldn't do any of that, and I don't believe anyone else did that either. I do believe some people wrote a story like that and passed it on as truth. I also believe Paul was full of shit when he wrote what he wrote. People lie all the time. It is much more likely that a few people lied and made up a story about a man that came back from the dead than a man actually coming back from the dead.Thus I repeat the question, which you continue to evade: Is it easier to fake a miracle or for there to have actually accured a miracle? I don't think you're comprehending me. OF COURSE I know you believe the resurrection is possible because you believe there is a god, this is my argument with you in the other posts - that you put the cart before the horse. It's a logical fallacy. It's circular reasoning. Haven't you been paying attention?See if you can follow your own reasoning: You believe god exists therefore the ressurection is possible. And you believe Christianity is the right one because of the power of the ressurection.That is straight up begging the question - a logical fallacy and completely circular. How do you justify that?- Oni

Yes, and as I have shown in this thread, he is wrong to do so. I don't believe a resurrection happened because there is no evidence for a resurrection happening. There are stories, there is no evidence. I know he's doing that, and he continues to be wrong in doing so.If I started with the position that magic was real, then I'd believe a number of supernatural events were real. That goes without saying.The point is why would one start from a position that is unevidenced - such as magic OR god - and then claim anything else is possible after that? That is begging the question.- Oni

The way you're asking that question leads me to think you may not know what either of those two things are.Chemistry is not something unique to our planet, chemicals bond everywhere throughout the universe. Evolution happens after life emerges - which is how you go from a single cell to humans after 4.5 billion years. In combination the two (chemistry and evolution) have all the potential for life emerging AND surviving.So yes, chemistry existed before the Earth formed. Ok, because you said before it was not possible.I was never talking about physically faking the miracle as in some kind of magic act. Maybe it was the way I worded it.I just meant, is it more likely that someone lied about seeing a miracle or that a miracle actually occured. Or, it could just mean the entire story is a fable, and as I have shown, pulled from other stories that wrote about the son of god, his death, and resurrection. Since the Bible doesn't come together as one book until over 200 years after the alleged death of Jesus, who knows who the sources are of these stories and if any of them actually saw what they saw. I do believe Straggler was playing devil's advocate. But I have also shown Straggler how your position of trying to reverse the logical fallacy is wrong.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I know! Well, if GDR's position was "I don't know if god exists so I can't know if a resurrection, and for that matter, Jesus himself are real" then this thread wouldn't have happened.GDR differs in that he starts not from an agnositic (I don't know either way) position, but from a firm "I know there is a god and therefore miracles can happen" position. This is not the same as RAZD's position of agnostism and is the reason his position specifically is a logical fallacy.I can almost get behind RAZD's position of admitting to not know either way, and as I have said before my position is that I have to know what you mean by god first before I can take a position one way or the other. But I can't understand why one would start with the belief that there is a god without evidence for said god, then, assume everything else claimed about god can be true because one already believes in the god....my head is spining. I don't actually think he feels they are the same. I think it's just what he's saying in this debate. If the discussion was about the abilities of unicorns, he would, as he has said already, need evidence for unicorns before one can claim a unicorn has any abilities at. Otherwise you have put the cart before the horse.Why he doesn't do the same for god is what I'm questioning.Furthermore, someone asking for evidence first for unicorns before believing they exist is NOT also putting the cart before the horse.- Oni

Not only do many of us think it is not worthwhile, many of us might also think it is condescending of you to think you should take on the role of praying for us.However, if it gives you a sense of worth in this life to put yourself above others and in control of their salvation, then I guess do what you must. It shows a lot about the character of believes.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I also doubt he believes any miracle, religious or othwerwise, can happen. I don't reject anything, though. I don't see how that applies here. I have not been given any evidence to decide for or against. I haven't even been given a proper explanation as to what we would be rejecting or accepting. But I don't start with the position that god doesn't exist. God could very well exist. I start with the position that there is no evidence for god. So I hold no position one way or the other.I have explained this throughout the thread. Fine, we don't like unicorns. Bigfoot meets the requirements above. Many books, many eye witnesses, there's the BFRO and even 3 seasons of the show on Animal Planet called Finding Bigfoot. To include people on this show that call themselves experts who claim there are about 2000 BF in North America.THIS IS FOR GDR TO ANSWER:Do you start with the position that Bigfoot/s exist? Replace unicorn with Bigfoot. It fits the bill.- Oni

Right, and the same should go for anything else that is only claimed by eye witness accounts and written about in stories.That's why I said earlier in the thread that bigfoot is beating god. At least with bigfoot nothing supernatural has to also be considered. With god, not only is there no objective evidence, there is also the whole supernatural, immaterial, creator of everything aspect of it making god far beyond something as natural as bigfoot.And yet, of the two, you are skeptical of the most plausable one.- Oni

Chemistry, is chemistry, is chemistry. It all functions the same.So yes, it was. Really? So you accept the plausibility of any and all miracles just because you believe in god? From any religion, belief system and or philosophy? You aren't skeptical about any just because you believe in god?I fail to see how your belief in god makes you more likely to believe some holy man in the far east miraculously cured someone of cancer. You don't believe it is more likely that this holy man and those around him lied about the miraculous powers he has? Well I have done what I can to show you that evidence. I have shown you Osiris, the son of a god, who was tortured and killed only to be ressurected days later at the hand of his mother who was said to be in love with him. This story is similar to Jesus, the son of god, who was tortured and killed only to be resurrected days later, and appearing first as claimed by some to his lover, as claimed by others, Mary Magdalene.Like this there are many more. These stories pre-date the story of Jesus by 2500 years. Sure there was. Osiris was resurrected in the form of a plant. Others in the form of other things. The story of Jesus chose a human vessel. Big deal.You can't change the car from a Delorean to a Corvette and claim your story is completely different from Back to the Future.- Oni

Does god not exist now? Geez, I wish you would apply such reasonable logic for god. We are talking about the plausiblity of god vs bigfoot, not the resurrection. Remember, this is in regards to you saying you don't start with the position that bigfoot exists.Let me remind you again, of the two, you are skeptical of the one that doesn't require you to accept the supernatural and the one that even currently people are still claiming to have seen it. Finding Bigfoot is coming back for a 4th season!- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

I don't know if specifically for god GDR would consider that position, but his opinion changes when we switch it from god to bigfoot.He had this to say:

quote:

---

The more time that goes by without a confirmed sighting the less plausible its existence becomes.

---

So both camps have the same perspective on how to guage the veracity of claims, but GDR does not choose to be rational about god. Only about bigfoot.Perhaps for all the reasons that Stile's presented.- Oni

Ok, so you accept the possibility of all miracles? Even the ones claimed by the holy man and his followers on how he miraculously cured the sick? Yes it did. Coming back from the dead. That is what resurrected means. Given that they were the slaves of Egyptian, clearly the source of Jewish mythology came from Egypt. I mean, we've covered this and you've already conceded. Yes, there have been. Many have come back in the body of animals.- Oni

Before we get on with the rest that posted, take note that it was YOUR point also. You said very intelligently:

quote:

---

The more time that goes by without a confirmed sighting the less plausible its existence becomes.

---

Now, you say if bigfoot is real or not then who cares. It doesn't matter. Well, sure, it really doesn't matter unless you're a biologist - then it would change a lot about the evolution of the homo genus. Who ever discovered it would probably win a Noble Prize in science. But hey, that's for the nerds to care about.You say you're more inclined to care about god because the books talk about life after death. Ok, that's a fair point. But it only becomes a concern once you've placed faith in what is written in those books. So it really isn't anything to be concerned about, but you've decided to make it a point of concern. To each his own.But I can address this: We can follow the emergence of rituals and belief in the afterlife and how it follows the evolution of our prefrontal cortex.

quote:

---

The most typical psychological term for functions carried out by the prefrontal cortex area is executive function. Executive function relates to abilities to differentiate among conflicting thoughts, determine good and bad, better and best, same and different, future consequences of current activities, working toward a defined goal, prediction of outcomes, expectation based on actions, and social "control" (the ability to suppress urges that, if not suppressed, could lead to socially unacceptable outcomes).

---

From this we can see, that having the belief that the person you loved so dearly, a fairly new emotion that early man dealt with, is waiting for you in the afterlife supresses urges and emotions that could lead to socially unacceptable outcomes. Such as depression, which leads to not taking care of your young, or looking for food, or may let your guard down and you don't see danger.Since there were no therapist in those days or delicious prozac, telling someone "Don't worry you'll see them in the afterlife" was comforting enough to help the person not fall apart. They continue living, and taking care of their responsibilities to their social group and offspring.So that is a good case as to why evolution selected spirituality, as a coping method for loss and to deal with the debilitating emotional effects due to death. There is literally a point in human history when we start to bury people in what looks like ritual funerals. Before that there was none of that. So at some point our brain developed so many new emotions that it also had to develop a method by which to control these emotions to not allow the species to be over run by them and die off. This could just be a byproduct of having created god's that punish people - we've had these stories in our culture for 5000 years, or more. You can't be certain this isn't a culturally influenced sense of justice. No, not at all. That is not the definition of the word. Why you have cognitive dissonance is because in one case you say "The more time that goes by without a confirmed sighting the less plausible its existence becomes" and then ignore that very reasoning when it comes to something you just want to believe like god. You hold two conflicting beliefs.- Oni

No. Yo said you believe in the possiblity of miracles because you believe in god.So fine, but, does this mean you accept the possibility of ANY miracle from ANY source, including medicine men (or holymen) from different parts of Asia who have claimed to cure people miraculously?What is you criteria for accepting miracles? Not so at all, since those who wrote the stories were themselves Jewish. They heard all the stories of the Egyptian and Greek gods. There is no reason to think they didn't pull stories from those sources. So does the Jesus story. It's a grey area as to what you call it, because the story is rewitten to sound unique. But like I said, you can't change the car and claim it's not Back to the Future.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Greg Giraldo. RIP- Oni