|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 11, 2013 04:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Does omnipotence include to be able to create a triangle that has the sum of its internal angles not 180 degrees or is that automatically excluded.
I didn't know Euler was omnipotent. 
And I think you underestimate the meaning of Wittgenstein, because language is full of words that create their own reality. Take the simple "Magic". Language DOES create things - heaving them from the state of non-existence into the set of things that may POSSIBLY exist. Or just take the even simpler "god", which is, ironically enough, a prime example.
God and his attributes are WORDS ONLY. The whole concept - a being creating everything, omnipotence, omniknowledge, perfection, and so on, all this are words created purely by imagination and in complete ignorance of the reality.
Or take "fate". Or "destiny". What we are actually talking about is the controversy of free will against determined fate - a very old philosophical discussion, but BOTH are based on a completely imaginary concept, one on the impression of people spontaneously and freely deciding and deciding arbitrarily, randomly or even reasoned, but DECIDING, while the other concept is the opposite, humans just following a course of events some power already "fated" or "destined" for them, doubtlessly impressed by events SEEMINGLY not random and looking somewhat steered (we know those when we admit, that things happen in life you wouldn't believe if they would be presented in a TV show).
The question is of course not, which one of these two is right; the question is, whether both are wrong, because both are based on mere imagination-based assumptions: the truth may lie somewhere in between. Risk factors for becoming a serial killer, maybe biological deficiencies... fated? Nope, but maybe in some cases in hindsight explainable.
The problem is, that logic works only with well-defined terms and arguments, and GOD isn't one.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 11, 2013 04:47 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 16:48, 11 Apr 2013.
|
You got me on Euler, I'm not a math guy. That's what they thought us in elementary school, a triangles' internal angles sum is always 180 degrees. And I run away from math since high school.
Quote:
God and his attributes are WORDS ONLY
If I understand you correctly, what you mean is since these are words only and inexecutable by category, there is no way to build a truly logical argument even AGAINST them (and eventually against people who believe in them). Yet, what I mentioned was, even if you take these attributes in an executable manner (omniscient so being beyond our capacity to understand and omnipotent so being able to trick our five senses for instance), it is enough to deduce a God that is unpredictable, therefore the deduction leads us to an unknowable, meaningless universe.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 11, 2013 05:19 PM |
|
|
Well, no, it's just the difference between religion/fantasy and science - or better, the, let's call it "intuitive method" of gaining insights and the scientific method, and it's no happenstance that the language of science IS mathematics.
Religion covers the areas of insights that science doesn't, and naturally that area was way bigger THEN than now, so it's no happenstance either that scientific methods and insights clash with those gained "intuitively".
I've been arguing that it makes no sense to apply logic on these intuitively gained insights and come to any conclusion.
If you base that logic on the Omnipotence attribute, you can turn it around and say, that if God is omnipotent he can change evil into good, suffering into happiness and whatnot to reach the desired result. We may even WANT to suffer in another reality - or maybe this is purgatory or even Hell (Jehova's Witnesses believe, since the devil tried to tempt Jesus with the offer to bestow Jesus with the present of the whole Earth to reign over, that the devil actually must OWN the earth, otherwise he couldn't offer it to Jesus, and in my opinion, what interpretations of the Bible concerns, they have quite a point there), and we are already suffering for our sins.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 11, 2013 05:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Religion covers the areas of insights
Dude, just look at your own example:
Jehova's Witnesses believe, since the devil tried to tempt Jesus with the offer to bestow Jesus with the present of the whole Earth to reign over, that the devil actually must OWN the earth, otherwise he couldn't offer it to Jesus, and in my opinion, what interpretations of the Bible concerns, they have quite a point there
This is no "insight." This is proclaiming factual historical events and interpreting them with logic. Religion is not spiritualism. It has factual claims on what this universe is, how it works and according to which rules we should live in it.
And if we're talking about positive sciences in specific, yes math is the language to PRODUCE them but you don't need math to understand the conclusions they arrived at.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 11, 2013 06:06 PM |
|
|
|
I don't see a point in your last post (you may edit that post in order to save one of your limited options).
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 11, 2013 06:17 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 18:28, 11 Apr 2013.
|
I see nothing to edit.
Either one of us uses the word insight by thinking it is something else or you are making religion something it isn't.
1.
an instance of apprehending the true nature of a thing, especially through intuitive understanding: an insight into 18th-century life.
2.
penetrating mental vision or discernment; faculty of seeing into inner character or underlying truth.
When you say "Religion covers the areas of insights that science doesn't" you sound like those saying that they are of different fields and they don't contradict, while in fact they do contradict. Intuition is something that works on stuff that you have first-hand experience on, like deciding if your best friend is cheating on his wife or not, if your mother is upset that day and so on. Those are things to have an intuitive insight on. Not how the universe is created.
And what on earth do you mean by saving limited options?
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 11, 2013 06:47 PM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 11, 2013 08:24 PM |
|
|
Well. Science doesn't explain the "big picture". There may be theories, but we don't know what the universe is, whether there is eomething else beyond the material world, and so on. We even have still no idea, for example, what's going on within our planet, and some deep drilling produced different results from what the experts were expecting due to their theories. Some scientific theories are in fact treated in a way that makes me think "religion", because they are so vigorously defended, even if there are contradicting data.
Religion has always tried to explain "the big picture". You might say, that a religion is not a theory, but a vision.
In my opinion it is natural for humans to try and get a simple understanding of what they are living in, then as well as now, and it is no happenstance that religion loses influence the more influence science gains.
Science produces impressive results, but science cannot and doesn't even want to deliver that simple understanding, even though some have made science to their religion, believing that is the solution for everything.
In short: religion is just the mortar we use to fill the gaps in insights about our existence and the world we live in.
Those gaps have become less through the millennia and centuries, but the biggest of them all are still yawning wide open.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 11, 2013 08:42 PM |
|
|
@Jolly
I disagree about what you said about religion. Religion tries and tried in past to explain the world, the universe based on belief.
It is by no means a mortar that still fills in the gap of knowledge or and insight, it replaces knowledge.
Theists do not agree on evulotion, do not agree on the age of the earth, do not agree on so many things.
Religion receeded over the centuries because science explained things better. Science cannot produce "Warmth" the way religion does but that does not mean that religion still holds any usefulness. Everything you enjoy in religion is something I can do aswell without religion.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 11, 2013 09:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@Jolly
I disagree about what you said about religion. Religion tries and tried in past to explain the world, the universe based on belief.
Where science takes the known data and tries to explain "the world" it's what you call belief as well, because "theories" have to fulfill certain prerequisites to be called so, and "cosmology" falls in the realm of "speculation based on some data". You might say the same about religion.
Quote:
It is by no means a mortar that still fills in the gap of knowledge or and insight, it replaces knowledge.
Theists do not agree on evulotion, do not agree on the age of the earth, do not agree on so many things.
That's only a few PEOPLE who have no faith because they believe - like you - these scientific insights might harm their religion. That's not the case, however, because evolution and age of the earth do not really contradict the Bible. Instead they contradict only the interpretations of some of them (which, transferred to the scientific world is a known phenomenon; scientists have interpretations of data as well, and if data are gained that contradict their interpretations, the same things happen: they doubt the contradicting data, since they are in love with their interpretations.
Quote:
Religion receeded over the centuries because science explained things better. Science cannot produce "Warmth" the way religion does but that does not mean that religion still holds any usefulness. Everything you enjoy in religion is something I can do aswell without religion.
You really have no idea, do you? Science explains NOTHING. It's just a method that produces a lot of practically useful results. But so many people who call themselves not religious have esoteric believes - people WANT to believe in SOMETHING.
And be it scientific progress.
And even the reason is obvious: we want to KNOW what's going on, because we don't like being clueless, and that's why we like to believe where we can't know.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 11, 2013 09:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That's not the case, however, because evolution and age of the earth do not really contradict the Bible.
That's 20th century PR. Age of Earth issue can be argued, but back in the day it took some real effort for ORDINARY religious people to accept that earth was millions of (they hadn't reached billions then) years old and Bishop Usher's dating was taken seriously by the mainstream of believers for a long long time. Evolution may not contradict with theism necessarily but the story of Adam and Eve (hence the bible) does. Of course you can say that it's symbolical etc etc but even if it's symbolical, there is no first couple at all according to evolution, so it has to be dadaist or something.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 11, 2013 09:59 PM |
|
|
|
On the contrary, evolution clearly states that there MUST be a first. A first mutation that started the line of homo development.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 11, 2013 10:11 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 22:11, 11 Apr 2013.
|
Yes, a single cell. Not a human couple.
Has Elodin hacked into your account 
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 11, 2013 10:26 PM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 22:33, 11 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
Religion receeded over the centuries because science explained things better. Science cannot produce "Warmth" the way religion does but that does not mean that religion still holds any usefulness. Everything you enjoy in religion is something I can do aswell without religion.
Quote:
You really have no idea, do you?
And what ounce of belief makes yoz think that? You are just pseudo scientific bigot who understands nothing from science.
Quote:
Science explains NOTHING.
Oh really? Are you living in wonderland? Science, through the scientific method EXPLAINS things. With the scientific method, you can deduct things, make a hypothesis, conduct experiments and subsequently you can say something about it.
Like the snowing world is not a giant meat-ball but a snowing giant rock. Religion claimed to "KNOW" and concluded that oru world is a plain. Then it concluded that it is the center of the universe and so on.
Science explained things better because it disproved those things and yadda, yadda yadda.
Quote:
It's just a method that produces a lot of practically
No snow. Science is no method, the scientific method is a method. Science is a term. People can explain things correctly through the Science by the scientific method.
Quote:
useful results. But so many people who call themselves not religious have esoteric believes - people WANT to believe in SOMETHING.
And be it scientific progress.
How amaizing? Did you conduct resarch on every snowing dude on the planet to say that? I dont want to believe in anything I am content with the fact that Science and nobody on this snowing planet can explain what was before our universe. Nobody can "Explain" anything without proof.
Got that? Scienctific books are nothing but a list of proofs that were conducted by the author or others.
Or maybe, you think that Science explains things and not people. Really? I have yet to see a snowing term explain things.
People explain things in case you nitpick every snowing word semantically.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 11, 2013 10:31 PM |
|
|
Bit more complicated, because there is mutation and natural selection, so what happens is that one specimen "mutates" and passes the mutation to their offspring. Then it's a question of whether these offspring are sexually attractive and have the necessary survivability.
Now, considering that people wouldn't understand genetics a couple thousand years ago, I find the explanation, that god made adam and the eve from part of adam not that bad. Think of adam as the mutation, reproducing with a non-mutation that gets mutated children and then, if adam pairs with one of his daughters - voila.
So in fact there is nothing wrong here.
Now, the thing here is that I'm defending religion, which should tell you something, namely, that I'm not ecstatic about Seraphim's and your line of argumentation.
And since we are at evolution. It seems that religion has been a necessary survival trait. That is, the FUNCTION that religion had, has been. So the real question is, what function DID religion have -and has something been taking its place or CAN take its place in order for it to become redundant.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 11, 2013 10:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I am content with the fact that Science and nobody on this snowing planet can explain what was before our universe.
Well, that's a pity, but it's your loss, so happy content-being.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 11, 2013 10:54 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:11, 11 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
Now, considering that people wouldn't understand genetics a couple thousand years ago, I find the explanation, that god made adam and the eve from part of adam not that bad. Think of adam as the mutation, reproducing with a non-mutation that gets mutated children and then, if adam pairs with one of his daughters - voila.
At this level of selective thinking anything can represent anything, which is basically what I criticized in the first place.
Quote:
Now, the thing here is that I'm defending religion, which should tell you something, namely, that I'm not ecstatic about Seraphim's and your line of argumentation.
Well, we're not 100 percent on the same track with Seraphim but at least we are both consistent you on the other hand, have been quite inconsistent for the last few days. Maybe, it's because you're obsessed with always saying the last word, I don't know... At least we do have a point of view.
Quote:
And since we are at evolution. It seems that religion has been a necessary survival trait. That is, the FUNCTION that religion had, has been. So the real question is, what function DID religion have -and has something been taking its place or CAN take its place in order for it to become redundant.
Religion had many functions. In modern times its many functions are replaced by many things. Secular law maintains social order, philosophy and art lets you achieve meaning in life, deepening your character and finally weed gets you stoned (no pun intended). Of course to some people, these are not enough so they still believe and personally I don't think they care that much if it's the truth or not.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 11, 2013 11:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Now, considering that people wouldn't understand genetics a couple thousand years ago, I find the explanation, that god made adam and the eve from part of adam not that bad. Think of adam as the mutation, reproducing with a non-mutation that gets mutated children and then, if adam pairs with one of his daughters - voila.
At this level of selective thinking anything can represent anything, which is basically what I criticized in the first place.
No, what you actually do is conceding defeat. It's just that your and Seraphim's line of thought don't lead to anything. In my opinion you can't prove anything by claiming if God existed he would be evil, because if God existed he would DEFINE evil.
Quote:
Well, we're not 100 percent on the same track with Seraphim., but you've been quite inconsistent for the last few days. Maybe,it's because you're obsessed with always saying the last word, I dont know, at least we are consistent and we do have a point of view.
That's the problem, the only thing you are consistent with is thatz you have a point of view that makes not much sense.
Quote:
Religion had many functions. In modern times it's many functions are replaced by many things. Secular law maintains social order, philosophy and art lets you achieve meaning in life, deepening your character and finally weed gets you stoned(no pun intended).
Well that's Rome for you, and that's no modern times.Quote:
Of course to some people, these are not enough so they still believe and personally I don't think they care that much if it's the truth or not.
Truth is another of those WORDS that assume so much, because if you think about it, TRUTH makes something necessary that is absolute - like God. What is truth? How things REALLY are? But what point of view is necessary to REALIZE how things really are? Truth needs an all-knowing mind.
Long way to go, young Yedi.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 11, 2013 11:30 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:38, 11 Apr 2013.
|
I never even said God WOULD be evil, I just said if God is beyond our reason he is unpredictable so he COULD be evil too. And my reasons and Serhapim's were quite different. You were misdirectionally stuck with the idea of being tested back then, guess you skipped it.
Rome and modern times can have a lot in common, so what? (Besides, they don't smoke weed )
I guess you think a little highly of yourself, what defeat? You defending the Bible at the level of Intelligent Design pseudo-science talking weirdos and me pointing it out is defeat? You're smart JJ, I'll give you that, but not THAT smart. BS is BS no matter how resourceful you present it.
And digging the snow out of every commonly used words' semantics don't give you the higher ground you assume it does.I don't think they care if it's true or not is a very clear statement. Trying to blur it with vague tactics like "truth, what is truth, does truth exist, does existence exist? etc etc" shows you'll go all the way down the line instead of admitting your reasoning is flawed.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 11, 2013 11:40 PM |
|
|
The bible does not necessarily contradict evolution, nor the world/universe being billions of years old. Let me explain. Even if we take the 7 days to be literal..and not figurative, it doesn't contradict it. Right about now, quite a few people are raising their eyebrow in Spock style..asking "What drugs is Mytical on, and why is he not sharing." but..as much as I am NOT a christian..there is a logical reason why it does SEEM to contradict it, but doesn't.
The reason is Eden itself. Let me start at the beginning. Ok so god made man..Adam. No time frame is given between that and when he made Eve (well no SPECIFIC time frame. Remember until they ate from the tree of knowledge they were IMMORTAL. One day was just like another, and time was not really kept. So it could have been hours..or it could have been EONS. Now Eve is in the picture, and again..no specific time frame is given before the serpent tempts her. Could be hours, could be billions of years. Outside of Eden..time was continuing to pass..and just about anything could have happened. Heck the dinosaurs could have built spaceships and all went to Andromeda .. or evolved into beings of light (just examples people). We are not given any time frame for Eden. We do not know how long Adam or Eve spent there. Since they didn't have to keep track of time (being immortal), and one day was the same as the next.
It is only AFTER they are kicked out of Eden that the 'generations' are kept. Which is supposed to be what...6,000 years or so. The problem here is .. Cain and Abel. Where did they get their wives from? The land of Nod. Not 'their sisters', or anything .. they went to another land .. called Nod..and got wives. Why? How? If no other beings but they existed..this would be impossible. My hypothesis is, if the bible is to be believed that this is what happened to Neanderthals. So in theory both are possible. We could be of both divine and 'evolved' origin. Which a being that could tell the future would have set in motion a long long time ago.
Plausible? Probably not. However, it is a theory which would explain a bit. One unfortunately can not be tested or proved. Just something to consider.
____________
Message received.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
