Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What if Jesus and Satan were real?
MFFJM2
Member (Idle past 3207 days)
Posts: 58
From: Washington, DC
Joined: 10-11-2009


Message 287 of 591 (726195)
05-07-2014 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Blue
05-06-2014 4:15 PM


Re: Satan
quote:
I have received several revelations.
And what mechanism are you using to differentiate a true revelation from a delusion..? How do you know you're not delusional..?
quote:
I base my views not on 1 revelation but on several revelations.
It is just as easy, or hard, to have one delusional incident as it is to have a hundred. If you're delusional then you have delusions, and the number of delusions is not pertinent, just the intensity and duration. So how do you know you're not delusional..?
quote:
This is like looking at the fossil record, and then realizing fossils come out of the ground in a certain order. Apes earlier, humans first, etc.
It's difficult for me to believe you're this obtuse. The fossil record isn't happening in someone's head without empirical evidence. The fossil record exists in physical reality. Others can review the fossils and determine if their views are correct or not. These revelations are only seen by you, and there is no methodology for anyone to review them objectively.
quote:
This does not mean God does not exist, it just means we don't have a good understanding perhaps, or God does not exist.
Nothing like hedging your bets, is there. This doesn't mean there is no God, unless it does. I'm beginning to think you're a POE.
quote:
There is more than 1 conclusion.
But none of your suppositions support any of your conclusions. Saying something is so, doesn't make it so.
quote:
As time proceeds we gather facts and build conclusions.
That's not how it works. Now I understand. You don't know anything about how logic works, so of course you keep making inane and insipid comments like this one. You build premises, from which you draw a conclusion. Facts will help you support your premises, and show that they are true, but it is the premise that leads to the conclusion, not facts.
quote:
Revelation upon revelation upon revelation has lead me to know God is real, does exist and is answering my prayers.
Which does not explain how you know the revelations are real and not simply delusions. Do you recognize that people have religious delusions..? Do you recognize that people can hear aural and see visual hallucinations, which appear quite real, but are not..? Confirmation bias and after this therefore because of this reasoning are hardly the tools of a critical thinker.
quote:
This is not Science, this is theology. Theology is a different tool but does work well with Science.
No it doesn't. Theology relies on faith, and faith is not a pathway to truth. Faith is gullibility. Faith is believing something is true without evidence, or in face of contradictory evidence. Science does not and never will rely on faith, and neither should we.
quote:
An atheist without an open mind is like a Christian without an open mind, idiotic.
Did you read that in a fortune cookie. That kind of talk is referred to by Daniel Dennett as a deepity. Having an open mind is one thing, but believing in the supernatural without any convincing and verifiable evidence is idiotic alright. The point was that I don't believe you were ever an atheist, because an atheist wouldn't pray even as a test. An agnostic might do a test, but not an atheist.
quote:
quote:
How do you know they weren't coincidences, or confirmation bias, or delusion..? What kinds of double blind tests did you run..?
People prayed for things for me and I didn't know anything about it, because of where I was in life. Then later I found out they prayed for me and I received what they had prayed about.
And how is that anything other than after this therefore because of this..? Correlation does not prove causation. So, months or years after someone prayed for you, looking back you were able to find something that met your expectation of what constitutes divine intercession, and that was what convinced you..? Please tell me you have more than this..? How do you know they prayed at all..?
quote:
I have also heard other people with similar stories.
Me too. I've had schizophrenics tell me how they had conversations with the Archangel Gabriel, but that doesn't mean they did.
quote:
I may not able to quantify it for you, because you can't relive my history but you can pray if you are open minded and receive revelation.
You can't even quantify it for you, let alone me. I have prayed, just like you. However, I decided after years of nothing happening that I was just talking to myself, and that was exactly what the evidence supported. Now how do you know these so-called revelations are true and real, and not delusions..?
quote:
I doubt you would give it a chance though, which is why you are stuck in your view God does not exist.
My view that God does not exist is based on a lack of convincing evidence. Your assertion that God does exist is completely without merit, and based solely on something happening in your head. Can you provide any evidence that these revelations are not wholly a construct of your mind..?
quote:
A close mind is like a closed door.
I'm sure you mean a closed mind, because I don't know what a "close mind" is. More fortune cookie wisdom..? "In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. We are curious but cautious." Michael Schermer. "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned."
quote:
I am not an atheist anymore. I opened the door and walked outside to see things I couldn't see from inside the room. If you only stand by atheism you will not get to see other avenues of existence.
I'm perfectly willing to address any or all of these so-called avenues of existence, and all you have to do is show them to me. Oh wait, that's too difficult. Sorry, I don't except that there is any other reality than what we see and hear and taste, unless you have evidence. Do you have evidence..? Non-belief is the default position whenever there is a lack of evidence, and atheism is non-belief.
quote:
Most likely things are still not what they appear.
I wrote that things are not always as they appear, especially if you're delusional. Believing in something sans evidence is foolish, and it can be demonstrated that it is against our very natures.
quote:
You can't go anywhere, even though there is many places to go in existence.
Could you be a little less ambiguous..? What are you rambling on about now..? I can go anywhere I choose. There is however only one plane of existence, and that is this physical reality, of the here and now. Do you know of some other..? Do you have evidence for its existence..? Do you know the difference between physical and conceptual..?
quote:
Just because you become scientific about things does not mean your Science is correct.
I don't "become scientific about things." I use the scientific method to determine what is real and true, because we have no other methodology that has consistently proven to be correct. Science is the best method of determining physical reality, and faith is the worst.
quote:
Just because a theory lives a century does not mean it will not be changed later.
Huh..? That is the nature of science. It conforms to the physical universe and the empirical evidence around us. That is the failure of faith and religion, because they do not.
Do you understand how science works, because it appears you don't..?
An hypothesis is developed to explain the evidence, and after time (sometimes a lot of time) it is refined into a theory. The theory explains all the evidence and tells us why. There may be refinements to the theory as better and more facts are gathered, but it wouldn't be a theory if it wasn't already close to a full explanation. A theory never graduates into a fact, because facts are explained by the theory.
quote:
The electric universe theory is shattering gravitation theories.
Ah, that "theory".
"The "Electric Universe" (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmological ideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the universe can be better explained by electromagnetism than by gravity. The exact claims are diverse and vary from crank author to author. A common motif is the insistence that all science should be done in a laboratory an attempt to throw away gravity from the very beginning, because one can't put a solar system or a galaxy in a laboratory. Most Electric Universe proponents claim some kind of relation to the "plasma cosmology" of the Nobel Prize laureate Hannes Alfvn. Too bad his model was rendered obsolete by the missing observations of the radio emission predicted by his cosmology.
EU advocates can be roughly split into two groups: garden-variety physics cranks who are convinced that they have a legitimate revolutionary scientific theory, and various woo-peddlers who use EU claims to prop their main ideas (because mainstream physics would blow them apart). One subset of the latter comprises some of the more loony global warming deniers (such as Vault-Co), who try to use it to "prove" that climate change is being caused by some process outside human control.
Immanuel Velikovsky was an enthusiastic early adopter of electric universe ideas, seeing in them a possible mechanism to explain his scenario of planetary billiards, cosmic thunderbolts, and the notion that Earth was previously a satellite of Saturn."
ROFL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Blue, posted 05-06-2014 4:15 PM Blue has not replied

  
MFFJM2
Member (Idle past 3207 days)
Posts: 58
From: Washington, DC
Joined: 10-11-2009


Message 288 of 591 (726226)
05-07-2014 6:40 AM


I apologize to the readers for the two long posts re: Blue, as I failed to notice he had become inactive.
What a shame. I thought we might actually get someone to explain how they know they aren't delusional when receiving supernatural revelations.
Oh well, perhaps he'll return. Would any other theists care to step up and explain how they know their supernatural revelations aren't simply constructs of their own minds..?

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2014 10:15 AM MFFJM2 has replied
 Message 293 by 1.61803, posted 05-07-2014 12:17 PM MFFJM2 has replied
 Message 456 by Blue, posted 05-17-2014 12:10 PM MFFJM2 has not replied

  
MFFJM2
Member (Idle past 3207 days)
Posts: 58
From: Washington, DC
Joined: 10-11-2009


(1)
Message 294 of 591 (726272)
05-07-2014 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by New Cat's Eye
05-07-2014 10:15 AM


quote:
I dunno, man, you're kind of a dick.
You mean asking questions and refusing to put up with BS, makes me not such a nice fellow..? Just for sh!ts and giggles, what difference should that make anyway. Either your God exists, or He doesn't. And since, in the estimation of nearly every Christian I've ever encountered, I am destined to be tortured for all eternity for the unforgiveable sin of apostasy, I don't intend to kiss your @ss.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2014 10:15 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2014 3:17 PM MFFJM2 has replied

  
MFFJM2
Member (Idle past 3207 days)
Posts: 58
From: Washington, DC
Joined: 10-11-2009


Message 295 of 591 (726274)
05-07-2014 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by 1.61803
05-07-2014 12:17 PM


quote:
Not without being circular.
However, one need not be a theist to suffer from delusions.
Of granduer or beautific.
The mind is fertile ground for all manner of claptrap be it religious or not.
So true. "In popular imagination, at least, psychotic delusions often have a religious component. In reality, many psychotic delusions are not religious. However, many delusions involve hallucinations or mind control by unseen agents, and so it's not too surprising that those who experience them fold them into their religious background. The religious beliefs don't trigger the psychosis, but they become enmeshed within it."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by 1.61803, posted 05-07-2014 12:17 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
MFFJM2
Member (Idle past 3207 days)
Posts: 58
From: Washington, DC
Joined: 10-11-2009


(1)
Message 297 of 591 (726277)
05-07-2014 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by New Cat's Eye
05-07-2014 3:17 PM


quote:
case in point.
And you can say shit an ass in here.
I didn't say anything, as this forum is the written word, not the spoken word. However, I didn't write it either. Look again. But now that you bring it up, your calling me names is unlikely to elicit a friendly response.
Edited by MFFJM2, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2014 3:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2014 3:45 PM MFFJM2 has replied

  
MFFJM2
Member (Idle past 3207 days)
Posts: 58
From: Washington, DC
Joined: 10-11-2009


Message 299 of 591 (726309)
05-08-2014 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by New Cat's Eye
05-07-2014 3:45 PM


quote:
Well that was a dumb thing to say.
Once again, and for the learning impaired, I haven't said anything. But I bow to your superior personal knowledge of what constitutes dumb. I'm sure you have more experience with the dumb. Don't you also think the Theory of Evolution and the Geologic Column to be dumb ideas..?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2014 3:45 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-08-2014 10:14 AM MFFJM2 has replied

  
MFFJM2
Member (Idle past 3207 days)
Posts: 58
From: Washington, DC
Joined: 10-11-2009


(1)
Message 301 of 591 (726315)
05-08-2014 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by NoNukes
05-08-2014 7:21 AM


Re: Satan
quote:
If you are going to preen, you ought at least be right about something.
The first phrase of your post is in violation of forum rule #10. The matter under discussion is not about how someone can or cannot square a circle on a computer. It is about the law of identity, as a logical absolute.
"In logic, the law of identity is the first of the three classical laws of thought. It states that: each thing is the same with itself and different from another. By this it is meant that each thing (be it a universal or a particular) is composed of its own unique set of characteristic qualities or features, which the ancient Greeks called its essence. Consequently, things that have the same essence are the same thing, while things that have different essences are different things. In logical discourse, violations of the Law of Identity (LOI) result in the informal logical fallacy known as equivocation."
quote:
You are right when you say that you cannot square a circle using a computer.
I dislike using imprecise language when writing in a forum such as this, and so I try my best to be as precise as I can. I originally asked if the person I was answering could "square a circle". They replied that they could using a computer. In my answer I explained that they could not, because of the law of identity. That I was referring to the law of identity should have been obvious with my original reference to "can you make a dog a cat..?"
quote:
The 'square the circle' problem is to construct, using only a straight edge and compass, a square having the equivalent area of a given circle. Turning a square into circle or equating the two has nothing to do with the problem. The problem is intractable because addressing the problem requires multiplication by a multiple of pi squared using the tools given.
Okay, but that has nothing to do with the problem of the fallacy of equivocation, due to a failure to observe the law of identity.
quote:
Using a computer fails because only the compass and straight edge are allowed. Period.
Okay. You are arguing an issue that is not in contention. A square is defined as: a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles. A circle is defined as: a round plane figure whose boundary (circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed center.
Therefore, according to the law of identity it is impossible for a square to be a circle or a circle to be a square.
quote:
You are dismissed.
I don't mean to belabor this point, but a thing is what it is, and is not what it is not. Please refer to my original post to see this referenced. A cat cannot be a cat and not a cat simultaneously, and that is one of the impossibilities defined by the law of identity.
The entire discussion started based on the poster who asserted that "nothing is impossible", and my response using the logical absolutes to show that indeed there are some things which are impossible.
From Wikipedia: "Squaring the circle is a problem proposed by ancient geometers. It is the challenge of constructing a square with the same area as a given circle by using only a finite number of steps with compass and straightedge. More abstractly and more precisely, it may be taken to ask whether specified axioms of Euclidean geometry concerning the existence of lines and circles entail the existence of such a square.
In 1882, the task was proven to be impossible, as a consequence of the Lindemann—Weierstrass theorem which proves that pi () is a transcendental, rather than an algebraic irrational number; that is, it is not the root of any polynomial with rational coefficients. It had been known for some decades before then that the construction would be impossible if pi were transcendental, but pi was not proven transcendental until 1882. Approximate squaring to any given non-perfect accuracy, in contrast, is possible in a finite number of steps, since there are rational numbers arbitrarily close to .
The expression "squaring the circle" is sometimes used as a metaphor for trying to do the impossible."
I was using the phrase in its metaphorical sense. Class is dismissed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2014 7:21 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2014 12:05 PM MFFJM2 has replied

  
MFFJM2
Member (Idle past 3207 days)
Posts: 58
From: Washington, DC
Joined: 10-11-2009


Message 304 of 591 (726353)
05-08-2014 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by New Cat's Eye
05-08-2014 10:14 AM


You're an idiot, so we will have no further interactions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-08-2014 10:14 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-08-2014 12:33 PM MFFJM2 has not replied
 Message 312 by Pressie, posted 05-09-2014 1:21 AM MFFJM2 has not replied

  
MFFJM2
Member (Idle past 3207 days)
Posts: 58
From: Washington, DC
Joined: 10-11-2009


Message 306 of 591 (726355)
05-08-2014 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by NoNukes
05-08-2014 12:05 PM


Re: Satan
quote:
True. However the problem with such a statement as a response to a statement regarding squaring a circle on a computer is that despite being true the statement does not address the reason why you cannot solve the problem on a computer. More specifically, the poster did not make any improper statements about squares and circles being the same.
Nor did I need to explain why he couldn't do it as I was using that particular reference metaphorically as an example of an impossibility. He asserted that he could do something which is specifically listed as an impossibility in all the sources I could find.
quote:
But secondarily, if there was any doubt about the issue before this post of yours, it is pretty clear that you had no idea what 'squaring the circle' meant. And yet that lack did not stop your pompous lecture.
Can you tell what I am thinking now. Pretty arrogant of you, don't you think, to suggest you know what I was thinking. Talk about pompous! I provided an explanation after you decided to lecture me on the subject that I was using the phrase metaphorically. Do you need an explanation of what that word means..?
quote:
Which is, of course, not the reason why you cannot square a circle on a computer or anywhere else. You can, for example, solve the analogous problem of constructing a triangle with the same area as a given square without a square and a triangle being the same.
Are you perhaps a mathematician..? I WAS USING THE PHRASE METAPHORICALLY. One cannot square a circle as a matter of mathematics, but that was not my usage. You are still refusing to consider the issue raised was those things which are impossible. Could you explain mathematically his assertion that he could just name a cat a dog and vice versa, and that that would solve the problem with the law of identity..?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2014 12:05 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2014 12:54 PM MFFJM2 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024