|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
posted January 25, 2008 04:05 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 16:10, 25 Jan 2008.
|
Evidence of God is everywhere.
And anywhere cannot be without a creator hence God is logical.
If not then whats the logical explanation of how anywhere and
everywhere became to be?
____________
What are you up to
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted January 26, 2008 09:41 AM |
|
|
Just because you can't yet fully explain something doesn't mean you should jump to a final and illogical conclusion based on no evidence.
That doesn't help you find out what the real answer is.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 26, 2008 09:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Just because you can't yet fully explain something doesn't mean you should jump to a final and illogical conclusion
Just because you can't explain something doesn't mean you can call it illogical.
____________
|
|
ZanJerusalem
Disgraceful
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted January 26, 2008 05:42 PM |
|
|
¡Not very nice to call all the saints and the prophets for liars! 
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted January 26, 2008 06:20 PM |
|
|
Not very nice to call all liars prohpets and saints!
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
ZanJerusalem
Disgraceful
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted January 26, 2008 06:29 PM |
|
|
((Please don't))
Anyway, I'm not too sure about creationism, His Holiness seems positive towards the idea Theistic Evolution. It's no dogma, and he isn't saying that under the cloak of infallibility. (Ex Cathedra)
However, my conservative friends and seem petty convinced of non-evolutionary Creation, so I think I'm going to stick with OEC until someone convinces me of the opposite. Embracing TE feels like retreating in the face of Atheism, IMHO.
____________
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted January 26, 2008 08:01 PM |
|
|
Don't think of it as a battle. Think of it like this:
Belief systems are like cities. They are very different, but the people in them really have the same goals: Survival, Advancement, Helping others.
Accepting TE isn't like retreating, its like taking a bus through the Atheist city. You can always go back to the Christian city if you like. No one gets hurt, and everyone gets to see a bit more.
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted January 26, 2008 09:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Just because you can't yet fully explain something doesn't mean you should jump to a final and illogical conclusion based on no evidence.
That doesn't help you find out what the real answer is.
Look around your room man.. And if you can point out one thing that was made that doesnt need a creator then I will stop believing in God. A creation needs a creator, period.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted January 26, 2008 09:30 PM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 21:31, 26 Jan 2008.
|
"If you can not explain something does not mean to be illogical"It is true but religion proves about everything and those proven things are not true in the logical side.Can you explain a deity fully?
Please explain me how that essence is?I can not explain it and if everything is explainable,so do not exist things that can not be explained.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted January 26, 2008 10:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
...A creation needs a creator, period.
This will end up in an endless loop....Who created the creator then?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Frick
Known Hero
and eternal n00b.
|
|
posted January 26, 2008 11:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
...A creation needs a creator, period.
This will end up in an endless loop....Who created the creator then?
That should be one of the basics in christianity (maybe not in all the different "churces"): God has no creator, for he's truly eternal and omnipotent. I guess it's a thing about belief.
____________
Hey you, see me, pictures crazy, all the world I've seen before me passing by
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted January 27, 2008 01:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Just because you can't yet fully explain something doesn't mean you should jump to a final and illogical conclusion
Just because you can't explain something doesn't mean you can call it illogical.
Yes it does.
Something can be logical or illogical regardless of your ability to explain it...
Quote:
Look around your room man.. And if you can point out one thing that was made that doesnt need a creator then I will stop believing in God. A creation needs a creator, period.
A creator must be more complex than the creation, and therefore god is less likely to exist without another creator than anything I see in my room...
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted January 27, 2008 05:30 AM |
|
|
A big reservation I have about Christianity is the whole thing of God deciding who is good and who is evil. Can a person really be evil? This is why I'm against Capital Punishment. A person who is damned/killed/whatever doesn't get a chance to do good. People can become better, just as they can become good. There's so much Grey area.
For media examples, see Star Wars, Torchwood: They Keep Killing Suzie, 'Allo 'Allo with specific reference to Captian Hans Geering.
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted January 27, 2008 01:19 PM |
|
|
|
Is this pointless discussion still going on?
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted January 27, 2008 01:51 PM |
|
|
Clearly it is.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 27, 2008 03:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, a blind person has no logical reason to "believe" in colours.
why?
Quote:
Colours cannot possibly affect them and as such should be ignored.
really? who says that's how it should be?
the point I'm trying to make is that these two statements are purely subjective.
Quote:
I don't really see how you can think otherwise..
well then perhaps that's why you can't see how I can believe in God 
Quote:
Once an aboriginal man told me that a giant rainbow snake lived in this river valley.
There was no evidence, but he believed it.
I didn't.
How about:
"Once my brains and eyes showed me that the sky is blue. There was evidence, at least for me, and I accepted it as truth. The guy next to me who couldn't appreciate colors (not necessarily blind, but color-blind) didn't."
but then again I'm pretty sure all this 'reality' feels "real" to you the same as the giant rainbow snake seemed pretty real to the aboriginal man
Quote:
The fact that a creator is not only illogical but defies logic in the most basic sense of the word is another.
Prove me that God is illogical, or that what you say is logical. You can't prove it in the general sense because you can't prove that something is more logical than other, since it's subjective.
so next time please use more appropiate words like "The fact that a creator, in my opinion, is not only illogical but defies my logic [...]"
Quote:
We haven't experienced aliens first hand, no, but it could be argued using logical conjecture based on the measurable evidence surrounding us that aliens are likely to exist (whether or not this is true is up for debate, see other threads about the Sagan-Drake equation). In this sense there kinda is evidence for them, such as the number of stars etc.
Like I said (a lot of pages back), science is limited to our analogies.
i.e: we saw life on Earth (like ourselves) and we draw that analogy to outer space, like science does to all things. Fact is, it doesn't make it up any more probable in an objective thinking. But of course scientists believe aliens are much more probable since they are subjective. Science thinks that life based on other forms (excluding Carbon or Sillicon) is much less likely, here's why:
- there's no analogy to draw, since well science just loves analogies
what's funny (yeah funny) is that if we discover some new form of creature based on something else, spontaneously the probabilities get higher. Weren't they supposed to be in this way from the beginning if science explains so called 'truth'? I know you'll say it improves with time, changes opinions, etc, but the problem here is that it's completely subjective. When someone says "x is more probable than y", he should back it up of why he thinks so.
This is subjective. Understand why? because he should give you a math formula for calculating probabilities, without special case (which are biased). If he can't supply you a formula, and simply gives you his "logic", which can be flawed, you either:
1) accept his view, especially if his logic coincides with yours
2) reject his view, especially if the logics are different (i.e you think he has "no point" and is inconclusive)
---------------
for another thing, some atheists say that God could exist, but it's pointless to believe if He/She/It doesn't affect you. This would be fine if it was intended to be read as an opinion (i.e subjective), not as absolute as atheists want it. Face it, not everyone shares this view (occam's razor i think?). (by the way, Occam believed in God, so certainly this proves you didn't quite get his point exactly if you use his "razor" against God ).
---------------
Science is also based on beliefs. While religions usually have priests as those who must be trusted, science has scientists and those that perform "the research".
Seriously, when is the last time you performed an experiment or research to prove anti-matter? Relativity theory? Quarcs and other sub-atomic particles? ???
No, you read all these in newpapers, magazines, books or scientific agendas. Or perhaps you heard them from someone else (doesn't matter). Point is, you didn't do them yourself, so whatever it is, you're trusting the base source, which are those that wrote their research papers.
For example, let's take particle accelerator research. Obviously not everyone has such a huge and expensive device, so you will have to trust those that perform the experiments. If they write on their papers "The research shows..." then you instantly believe them, and try to understand their explanation.
Can't understand what they wrote there? No problem, not everyone's a math/physics geek, and certainly since these come from the words of a scientist, he must have surely 100% performed the experiment (no evidence of that), and he surely can be trusted. But the text can't be wrong, right, since it begins with "The Research shows...", then even though you might not understand what's written there, or simply is false, you still believe it.
How can it be false? Simple, there's no evidence supporting it's not. At least not for you. You didn't perform the experiment yourself. All the papers/videos or articles they presented could simply be false, that's no evidence. The best solution to this would be to go yourself personally to that location and perform the experiment yourself. HOWEVER, problems still arise:
1) the equipment could be hacked. It could be used to show you what they want you to see. Since you didn't build it you have no way of knowing it.
2) if you further insist of being an atheist that "does not believe" and does everything on evidence, you'll have to do this for absolutely everything man has ever "proven" and will probably not be able to it in your lifetime.
3) not everyone's a physicist (or whatever is required), so everything outside your "area of expertise" is based purely on trust and beliefs on those certain researchers/scientists. In this way, religion could be considered an "area of expertise" too
As an example, assuming you do not know physics (assuming!!), you certainly should perceive physicists as priests and not scientists, or vice versa.
So it seems science is based on beliefs much more than you think
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2008 08:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1) the equipment could be hacked. It could be used to show you what they want you to see. Since you didn't build it you have no way of knowing it.
ZJ-style paranoia much?
Quote:
2) if you further insist of being an atheist that "does not believe" and does everything on evidence, you'll have to do this for absolutely everything man has ever "proven" and will probably not be able to it in your lifetime.
I don't have to check everything. But I know that if I looked for evidence, I would find it. This is different from faith, which by definition has no evidence.
Quote:
3) not everyone's a physicist (or whatever is required), so everything outside your "area of expertise" is based purely on trust and beliefs on those certain researchers/scientists. In this way, religion could be considered an "area of expertise" too
Except that you could become a physicist and study the evidence. If you became a priest, you would study religious texts, but they are not evidence.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted January 27, 2008 10:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
...A creation needs a creator, period.
This will end up in an endless loop....Who created the creator then?
You'll see how the most high came to be, or has always been. Dont worry about it theres a lot we're not yet suposed to know.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted January 28, 2008 02:50 AM |
|
|
@The Death:
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, a blind person has no logical reason to "believe" in colours.
why?
Quote:
Colours cannot possibly affect them and as such should be ignored.
really? who says that's how it should be?
the point I'm trying to make is that these two statements are purely subjective.
They aren't subjective at all.
If someone is born blind and has no possibility of seeing ever, then why should they even think about colours if they are entirely unknowable.
What's the problem with this statement? Your asking "why?" and "really?" doesn't help much at all. I could quote each one of your statements and write "really? says who?" and it wouldn't achieve much in terms of the discussion except to irritate you.
Quote:
Quote:
Once an aboriginal man told me that a giant rainbow snake lived in this river valley.
There was no evidence, but he believed it.
I didn't.
How about:
"Once my brains and eyes showed me that the sky is blue. There was evidence, at least for me, and I accepted it as truth. The guy next to me who couldn't appreciate colors (not necessarily blind, but color-blind) didn't."
but then again I'm pretty sure all this 'reality' feels "real" to you the same as the giant rainbow snake seemed pretty real to the aboriginal man
I understand the concept of subjective belief, but regardless of what either me or him believe, their either is or isn't a giant rainbow snake in the valley, from an external reference point.
So it's actually irrelevant how real it seems to him, as that doesn't affect the overall outcome.
If the boogeyman seems 100% real to me, but isn't actually real, that doesn't make me right, that doesn't make it subjective, it doesn't make it a false reality...... it makes me a nutcase.
Quote:
Prove me that God is illogical, or that what you say is logical. You can't prove it in the general sense because you can't prove that something is more logical than other, since it's subjective.
so next time please use more appropiate words like "The fact that a creator, in my opinion, is not only illogical but defies my logic [...]"
No evidence to support your claim = illogical claim
It's quite simple.
And if you read the first line of the first post... I don't really feel like putting "in my opinion" after every passing comment.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted January 28, 2008 03:06 AM |
|
|
@The Death (continued)
Quote:
i.e: we saw life on Earth (like ourselves) and we draw that analogy to outer space, like science does to all things. Fact is, it doesn't make it up any more probable in an objective thinking. But of course scientists believe aliens are much more probable since they are subjective.
Diverse life on earth is sustained by our star on our planet. Agreed that there are very specific requirements, but do you think it is a reasonable argument that given the size of the universe and the number of stars that it is possible that ET life exists?
Now I'm not at all arguing for or against alien life. I'm simply saying that this is a reasonable claim.
But you label this an "analogy" like it's a bad thing, it's not. It's simply using sheer statistics.
The rest of your points, while interesting, aren't really relevant to God.
Quote:
for another thing, some atheists say that God could exist, but it's pointless to believe if He/She/It doesn't affect you. This would be fine if it was intended to be read as an opinion (i.e subjective), not as absolute as atheists want it. Face it, not everyone shares this view (occam's razor i think?). (by the way, Occam believed in God, so certainly this proves you didn't quite get his point exactly if you use his "razor" against God ).
Occam's razor is a principle. It doesn't really matter what Occam believed or liked or what his favourite food was, the principle remains the same, but anyway.
It just doesn't make much sense to me to believe in something that cannot affect you.
I could believe in a flying pixie that I can never see or have any form of communication with or have any evidence of. But I don't see the point...
I don't see your point in this paragraph.... no, not everyone shares this view. End of story?... not sure..
Quote:
Seriously, when is the last time you performed an experiment or research to prove anti-matter? Relativity theory? Quarcs and other sub-atomic particles? ???
Who said I care about any of those things?
Since when is it the wave/particle dualty vs god?
Science could be based upon slaughtering orphans and torture but that doesn't make God any more likely or appealing.
Quote:
No, you read all these in newpapers, magazines, books or scientific agendas. Or perhaps you heard them from someone else (doesn't matter). Point is, you didn't do them yourself, so whatever it is, you're trusting the base source, which are those that wrote their research papers.
What are you suggesting?
Deny anything someone in a white coat says?
Yes, you have to take people's word for things.
If you ask someone what the time is they could be lying, but they're probably not.
If you ask someone where the nearest 7/11 is and they tell you it's around the corner, it probably is. It might not be, but you're pretty safe to trust that it is.
Reproducible evidence, however, takes it one step further. Where's the next 7/11? Around the corner? Sure it is...
Go and check, it's there. Mmmkay. You could be lying or there could be some hacking or some ulterior motive or something equally paranoid.
Get someone else to ask... where's the nearest 7/11? Around the corner?
Ah! still there!
Rinse and repeat.
The 7/11 is around the corner. You write it down, problem solved. Then still you might think it's all LIES, but the rest of us are going to assume it's not and get on with our lives.
I mean, the sun might not come up tomorrow, but you have to live as if it will.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
