Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-20-2019 10:29 PM
23 online now:
14174dm, AZPaul3, Coragyps, DrJones* (4 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,666 Year: 6,703/19,786 Month: 1,244/1,581 Week: 66/393 Day: 49/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based?
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1999
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 52 of 511 (771535)
10-27-2015 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Raphael
10-27-2015 4:47 AM


Raphael writes:

This is where I expected you to go, based on previous conversations with you here . First, this is a misleading statement simply because there isn't a lot of physical evidence for the reliability of many ancient documents. In fact, less. Second, your bias for physical evidence is shown here when, in reality, testimonial evidence is almost equally as valid,...

Nope. DNA paternity tests beat marriage certificates. Every time.

Raphael writes:

... especially when it is impossible to procure physical evidence.

Nope again. Physical actions leave physical evidence. Every time. Sophistry is not going to help you on this one.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Raphael, posted 10-27-2015 4:47 AM Raphael has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1999
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 53 of 511 (771540)
10-27-2015 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by ICANT
10-26-2015 11:47 PM


Re: God
ICANT writes:

I believe in a supernatural God. Everybody says why?

Not everybody says that, I think that religion is a brain virus. I've found the reason why. The religious brain virus.

ICANT writes:

Scientific fact: The universe has not always existed.

Really? The jury is still out on that one. Better change it to: the Universe, as we know it, didn't always exist. But again, it's not strictly true, as there's no 'before' our current Universe.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ICANT, posted 10-26-2015 11:47 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 10-27-2015 6:24 PM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1999
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 54 of 511 (771541)
10-27-2015 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Raphael
10-27-2015 12:52 AM


Raphael writes:

So when responding to a question like this we need to, first off, define what exactly we're talking about when it comes to the terms we're using. Really, this conversation is, at the most basic level, a conversation about epistemology.

Nope. Every piece of physical evidence beats sophistry. Every time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Raphael, posted 10-27-2015 12:52 AM Raphael has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1999
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 94 of 511 (771621)
10-28-2015 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by ICANT
10-28-2015 1:01 AM


Re: ICANT, Meet ICANT
ICANT writes:

But the only truthful answer is "We don't Know what existed at T=0".

ICANT writes:

It had to be a supernatural power

ICANT writes:

Before the universe there would have been an absence of anything.

Let us know when the three ICANT's reach consensus.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ICANT, posted 10-28-2015 1:01 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by ICANT, posted 10-28-2015 10:12 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1999
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 98 of 511 (771626)
10-28-2015 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by ICANT
10-28-2015 1:01 AM


Re: ICANT, Meet ICANT
ICANT writes:

Scientist is the ones that do not have their mind made up.

I take it that you write that scientists are the people who can't make their minds up.

Hope you do know that it's a virtue and not a vice? In the industry I work in (economic geology) scientists change their minds all the time as new evidence comes along. It works. Very, very well. Getting closer to reality all the time.

That's the way mining companies spend billions on exploration and mining. To change one's mind when new evidence comes along to get closer to reality is a virtue. Not a vice.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ICANT, posted 10-28-2015 1:01 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by ICANT, posted 10-28-2015 10:44 AM Pressie has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1999
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 123 of 511 (771734)
10-29-2015 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by ICANT
10-28-2015 10:44 AM


Re: ICANT, Meet ICANT
ICANT writes:

Working in industry where the survival of a company depends on refining methods and procedures is actually science at work.

Working with grants,...

Around 50% of the income the organisation I work for do come from grants. I work in economic geology.

ICANT writes:

... agendas have to be met and appeased to keep the grants coming.

Actually, the company I work for only has one agenda. To deliver the most reliable product to our customers. Mining companies, exploration companies, Governments, scientific organisations, chicken farmers, etc.

ICANT writes:

Keeping the grants coming is the most important thing.

Not for the organisation I work for. For us delivering the most reliable products is the most important thing. Then the income from mining companies and governments and chicken farmers, etc. just flows in and we get paid more! And we get more grants, too!

ICANT writes:

True science has to take a backseat to the most important thing.

True science, hey? It seems like you think that the science works like religions do...you read a favourite book and believe it must be true...science doesn't work like that.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by ICANT, posted 10-28-2015 10:44 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2015 4:17 PM Pressie has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1999
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 124 of 511 (771735)
10-29-2015 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by ICANT
10-28-2015 11:32 AM


Re: ICANT, Meet ICANT
ICANT writes:

The universe is expanding. which rules out a static universe.
The Big Bang Theory requires the universe having a beginning to exist.

Stephen Hawking made the following statement concerning the universe.

"No divine force was needed to explain why the Universe was formed."

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”

You lost the argument the moment you tried an argument from authority, an authority who doesn't agree with you, ICANT.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by ICANT, posted 10-28-2015 11:32 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2015 4:49 PM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1999
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 125 of 511 (771739)
10-29-2015 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by ICANT
10-29-2015 2:31 AM


Re: ICANT,
Sorry, I couldn't help laughing at this one.

ICANT writes:

I would like to see an experiment that produced anything out of nothing.

Me too! I'd love to see Angelina Jolie being poofed into existence!

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2015 2:31 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2015 4:56 PM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1999
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 143 of 511 (771804)
10-30-2015 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by ICANT
10-29-2015 4:17 PM


Re: ICANT,
ICANT writes:

If the company you work for produces the most reliable product to the customers why do they need grants?

You can't be serious with this question. Or are you?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2015 4:17 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1999
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 144 of 511 (771805)
10-30-2015 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by ICANT
10-29-2015 5:42 PM


Re: ICANT,
ICANT writes:

So why does the universe exist rather than nothing?

So why would your favourite Spooks exist rather than nothing?

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2015 5:42 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1999
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 251 of 511 (772200)
11-09-2015 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by ICANT
11-06-2015 9:43 PM


Re: ICANT,
ICANT writes:

Laws have to be created.

Nope. Scientific laws are descriptive. Not prescriptive. For some reason creationists never can spot the difference.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by ICANT, posted 11-06-2015 9:43 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by kbertsche, posted 11-09-2015 3:25 PM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1999
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 266 of 511 (772222)
11-10-2015 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by kbertsche
11-09-2015 10:27 PM


kbertsche writes:

For the universe to begin to exist, there must be a cause of some sort...

Or causes. Or not. Or the causes for the universe (if they existed then) don't exist anymore today. Or all the other millions of possibilities.

kbertsche writes:

Causes that don't which logically pre-existed the universe.

Or logically didn't survive our current Universe.

kbertsche writes:

The two leading options...

Two leading options? Trying a false dichotomy here?

kbertsche writes:

... for a pre-existent cause are 1) God, and 2) natural law.

Or lots of Gods who died in the meantime. Or lots of non-Gods who died in the meantime. After all, the BB happened billions of years ago...for a scientist the false dilemma you presented is disturbing.

kbertsche writes:

But if natural law is only DEscriptive and not PREscriptive, option 2 is ruled out as a cause.

Really? How so? I mean, nature exists today. Nature causes lots and lots of things, while any Spook or Spooks causing anything has never been observed.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by kbertsche, posted 11-09-2015 10:27 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1999
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 303 of 511 (772300)
11-12-2015 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by ICANT
11-11-2015 1:48 PM


ICANT writes:

There is no argument for the origin of God.

Yes there is. There even isn't any empirical, verifiable evidence that Gods exist today.

ICANT writes:

He either exists or He does not exist.

Or maybe some form of Gods existed billions of years ago, but died in the meantime. You like your false dichotomies, don't you?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2015 1:48 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2015 6:00 PM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1999
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 318 of 511 (772381)
11-13-2015 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Raphael
11-13-2015 4:19 AM


Re: Raphael's many errors Part 3
Raphael writes:

... Take, for instance, Caesar's Firsthand account of the Roman invasion of Gaul (in the Commentarii de Bello Gallico). It is the only account we have of this invasion - we only have one manuscript - written by Caesar (or claimed to be), and the only copy we have is written 900 years after the event.

Whether Caeser existed or not, we have lots and lots and lots of other empirical, verifiable evidence that the Romans invaded and ruled Gaul. Your attempt at drawing similarities fails miserably.

We all know that, whether Caeser existed or not, he was not a Spook. And that the Roman empire ruled Gaul. And that Rome was a place and and they had an empire. And that DNA exists and existed in those days, too.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Raphael, posted 11-13-2015 4:19 AM Raphael has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Raphael, posted 11-13-2015 3:30 PM Pressie has responded
 Message 386 by Raphael, posted 11-21-2015 8:44 PM Pressie has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1999
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 319 of 511 (772382)
11-13-2015 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Raphael
11-13-2015 4:19 AM


Re: Raphael's many errors Part 3
Raphael writes:

Of course belief is a choice.

Nope. Not for me. To me belief is the opposite of choice.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Raphael, posted 11-13-2015 4:19 AM Raphael has not yet responded

    
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019