Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 160
  1. #37

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God



    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    Easy.
    Please let the board know when you have attained your Nobel Prize.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    Look at something as fundamental as energy. Scientists have no idea what energy is.
    Assuming you're correct ... so what? Because scientists don't know what something is doesn't mean a transcendent, timeless, sentient being exists that governs everything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    Rationalism falls short of answering the many simple and childlike questions people ask
    Doesn't mean a god (or gods) did it.
    All Hail Legatron: The Lions Game In Gifs

    Read more at my blog: http://brafootball.wordpress.com/201...-game-in-gifs/





  2. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    19,994
    Aka, we're trying to keep things civil around here.

    Snarky quips about if someone you disagree with has a Nobel Prize isn't going to help your cause.

    As for your post, I don't feel the exercise in trying to point out why someone's faith is illogical is any different than a devout Catholic trying to proselytize. Both acts are futile, neither will convince the other of their perceived failings and the underlying notion of superiority is very telling as to the lack of strength in the logic.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  3. #39

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Aka, we're trying to keep things civil around here.

    Snarky quips about if someone you disagree with has a Nobel Prize isn't going to help your cause.

    As for your post, I don't feel the exercise in trying to point out why someone's faith is illogical is any different than a devout Catholic trying to proselytize. Both acts are futile, neither will convince the other of their perceived failings and the underlying notion of superiority is very telling as to the lack of strength in the logic.
    I think snark, when used properly, can have great meaning. When someone says "easy" to me in response to my asking someone to prove, with natural and scientific evidence, the existence of god, that deserves many kinds of responses, and I think one of them could be snark. This conversation is not "easy." And my reply is more truth than snark. If Sirdowski can say, "Energy!" and solve the question of god and the universe in time for dinner, then he DOES deserve a Nobel Prize. The fact he (and anyone touting his beliefs) hasn't got one yet suggests his reasoning is flawed and his confidence, ill-founded.

    Also, HR, I have never been trying to convince you of anything. Perhaps what I have been trying to do is prove is the illogicality of belief, and you, in a way, have helped me do that.

    You said "faith is the absence of logic."

    You claim to "believe" in a god.

    When someone believes something without good evidence, s/he is believing it on faith.

    By your own logic, your belief is illogical.

    That doesn't even mean your belief is wrong; because if we find out there is a god, or gods, when we die, you will have been proven right. But the fact remains--again, through reasoning I drew from your own words--that, currently, your faith-based position is not based on reason, evidence, or anything supportable through testable, scientific means.
    All Hail Legatron: The Lions Game In Gifs

    Read more at my blog: http://brafootball.wordpress.com/201...-game-in-gifs/




  4. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    10,040
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    Constantine wasn't even a Christian IIRC. He just went along with it to unite the empires.

    No, he didn't just go along with it. Historians debate if he became a Chrisitan but
    he was the first Roman emperor with a cross in his diadem.

    He got a dream from God. He had a big fight coming
    up to save his empire and God spoke in the dream and told him to carry crosses into
    the battle and he would win. Just think, for 300 years the emperors killed anyone
    with a cross and he orders his soldiers to carry them into battle.

    They did and the won and that's when Constantine saved the church then organized
    it. Yes, he did it in part to save his empire but it was the strongest empire in the
    world during his reign. Not sure if Constantine became a Christian but he gathered the
    pope and bishops at the Nicea Council where the Nicene
    Creed comes from and the church was organized and some believe the books of the
    Bible were organized there as well. There's no proof that Constantine approved or
    disapproved the organizing of the books into the Bible. The first Bible as is today
    was published by the PUritans.

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine...andt/nicea.htm


    The book of Genesis was written by Jews in captivity in Babylon and it survived all
    those centuries. Mathew, the first book of the new testament, was not the first book
    written but was the first book to go into the New Testament.

    Luke was the first book written in the New Testament but it makes sense to put
    Mathew first because it gives Christ's lineage going back to King David. That's
    important because he came as the Messiah exactly the way the Old Testament
    said the Messiah would come.

    Jews in the old testament kept strict records of their family's names that lasted
    for centuries. In fact one had to be a member of Aaron's tribe to be a priest in
    the temple. All the names from that tribe were written on the walls of the temple.
    When the disciples marvelled over all those names Christ said don't marvel for they
    will all come down and the temple will be destroyed.

    It was 70 years later and the deciples, or most of them saw the temple destroyed
    by the Romans. Today, orthodox Jews want to build a third temple on the same spot
    where the big mosque with the golden dome is. It's called the Temple MOunt and
    its the most hotly contested piece of real estate in the world today.

    The Israeli gov't wont let the Jews put a temple there because it will start WW 3
    but the book of Ezekial says a temple will be built in the end times. The Jews even
    have a name for it and call it Ezekial's Temple.

    More info is at www.templemount.com
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 05-21-2013 at 08:38 PM.
    Pic of a natural act: UBER RAVENS FAN!




  5. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,906
    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    Please let the board know when you have attained your Nobel Prize.
    I apologize if I came off as pretentious, it was not my intention.

    The whole of your points can be summed up by saying you are confusing the necessity of logic with the sufficiency of logic.

    Assuming you're correct ... so what? Because scientists don't know what something is doesn't mean a transcendent, timeless, sentient being exists that governs everything.

    Correct. The point is, we get so carried away with all that science has unraveled, that we forget that at a fundamental level (mass-energy, gravity) our edifices we have built are floating on unknown, and potentially, irreducible matters of fact. What I mean by that is, the past two thousand years have been spent understanding how these things work. We have yet to analyze what they are, precisely because they just are. We just accept them as blunt fact. We have to. Mass-energy, just is. Gravity, just is. We are finding more and more about the interactions of these elements (mass-energy, gravity) but what are they? This is even more startling when looking at organisms. What is life? Yes we know it's these amino acids and this protein in this cell, but the actual emergent property "life" that is when these things come together. But why? This is what's so particularly damaging about saying science is the only authority on these matters, because in reality, science just gives us concrete facts, and tells us nothing about them, other than, "because". To go further would be to ask science to prove science. Let's say for example, we founded another branch of science, explaining "how" for all of science, called "super science." We would eventually exhaust "super science" to the point of needing a "super, super science.", and so on for a "super super super science" , ad infinitum. This is the danger of logic. It is a formal system and is thus limited to the rules of a formal system.



    Doesn't mean a god or gods did it.
    Correct. But again, here is the problem with your appealing to logic. How exactly is the idea that the universe was a nothing that turned into a something (the big bang) more logical than saying that everything came from a deity? Stephen Hawkins pioneered it, but the majority of scientists have faith in - because that's exactly what it is based on, faith- that the universe is a nothing that turns out to be a something, and that the universe created itself. Hawkins himself actually takes it one step further, he believes -or has faith in- the notion that the law of gravity formed the universe. What a marvelous contradiction, since the law of nature gravity,* by definition, presupposes the existence of the nature in which it purports to describe.* All scientific law in the last resort says that if you have X you will get Y. If only you can find any X. For those who belive in a God, that is where they find their X. Science however has chosen in this one particular instance, they don't need an X to get Y.



    When it comes to these kinds of debates, I've come to the point where my only intention is for others to entertain and realize the fact that this is much more of a debate than many would have you believe; and in particular, "we must not mistake the necessity of reason for it's sufficiency."
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  6. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    19,994
    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    I think snark, when used properly, can have great meaning. When someone says "easy" to me in response to my asking someone to prove, with natural and scientific evidence, the existence of god, that deserves many kinds of responses, and I think one of them could be snark. This conversation is not "easy." And my reply is more truth than snark. If Sirdowski can say, "Energy!" and solve the question of god and the universe in time for dinner, then he DOES deserve a Nobel Prize. The fact he (and anyone touting his beliefs) hasn't got one yet suggests his reasoning is flawed and his confidence, ill-founded.

    Also, HR, I have never been trying to convince you of anything. Perhaps what I have been trying to do is prove is the illogicality of belief, and you, in a way, have helped me do that.

    You said "faith is the absence of logic."

    You claim to "believe" in a god.

    When someone believes something without good evidence, s/he is believing it on faith.

    By your own logic, your belief is illogical.

    That doesn't even mean your belief is wrong; because if we find out there is a god, or gods, when we die, you will have been proven right. But the fact remains--again, through reasoning I drew from your own words--that, currently, your faith-based position is not based on reason, evidence, or anything supportable through testable, scientific means.
    Exactly.

    It's based on faith.

    Your premise that faith ought to be proven by logic / science is fatally flawed from the start.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  7. #43

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    I apologize if I came off as pretentious, it was not my intention.
    Don't worry about it, Sirdowski, I was actually about to come back on to make clear to everyone that I really don't want to attack anyone here for what they do or don't believe.

    I'm glad we can agree on the "correct"ness of my general responses to you from before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    the past two thousand years have been spent understanding how these things work. We have yet to analyze what they are, precisely because they just are. We just accept them as blunt fact. We have to. Mass-energy, just is. Gravity, just is. We are finding more and more about the interactions of these elements (mass-energy, gravity) but what are they? This is even more startling when looking at organisms. What is life? Yes we know it's these amino acids and this protein in this cell, but the actual emergent property "life" that is when these things come together. But why?
    All questions that we all want answers to. "Why" is a tough question for anyone to answer. It might actually be impossible. But because we do not know the "why" does not give us license to invent one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    This is what's so particularly damaging about saying science is the only authority on these matters, because in reality, science just gives us concrete facts, and tells us nothing about them, other than, "because". To go further would be to ask science to prove science.
    Science has already proved itself. Pardon the snark/truth (once again), but if you know of a reliable method of examining and understanding the world in an objective way that is NOT science, please tell me/the board what it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    This is the danger of logic. It is a formal system and is thus limited to the rules of a formal system.
    Whatever the problems and/or limitations of "logic" ... again, if you know of any other reliable, objective system by which we can understand the world, please tell it to us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    How exactly is the idea that the universe was a nothing that turned into a something (the big bang) more logical than saying that everything came from a deity?
    Four problems with your question:

    1) The big bang theory does not say something came from nothing. It is, in fact, a great deal more complex than that, and starts with the fact that scientists use the word "nothing" differently from how we laypeople use it (much how they use the word "theory" differently).

    2) Atheism and the big bang theory are completely unrelated to each other (so actually, I have no need to resolve your question). Atheism is a rejection of god claims. That is it. That's all. The only way to be a bad atheist is to accept a god claim. Which means ...

    3) If the big bang theory were to be proven wrong tomorrow, I still wouldn't believe in a god. Because crossing out one answer does not mean another answer is true unless there are only two possible answers. "Big Bang" and "Magical timeless intelligence" have not been demonstrated as the only two possible answers.

    4) The vast majority of scientific and natural evidence points to the fact that a big bang phenomenon did occur. There is zero evidence for the existence of a magical timeless intelligence, let alone one (if you buy into the Abrahamic religions) that cares about our sex lives, can read our minds, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    the majority of scientists have faith in - because that's exactly what it is based on, faith- that the universe is a nothing that turns out to be a something, and that the universe created itself.
    1) Again, you are incorrect in the sense you're applying the word "nothing." Scientists mean that word differently than we do. There are no examples in nature of absolute nothing.

    2) Scientists do not need faith. Scientists follow evidence. Evidence suggests a big bang phenomenon occurred.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    All scientific law in the last resort says that if you have X you will get Y. If only you can find any X. For those who belive in a God, that is where they find their X. Science however has chosen in this one particular instance, they don't need an X to get Y.
    You're saying every reaction needs an action to have caused it.

    So, what caused god?

    Oh, ... nothing caused god?

    So, more accurately, every reaction needs an action except for the pet causes you like. (Classic example of special pleading, a logical fallacy.)
    Last edited by akashicrecorder; 05-21-2013 at 08:56 PM.
    All Hail Legatron: The Lions Game In Gifs

    Read more at my blog: http://brafootball.wordpress.com/201...-game-in-gifs/




  8. #44

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Your premise that faith ought to be proven by logic / science is fatally flawed from the start.
    It indeed would have been if that were ever my premise!

    My assertion was that faith is what people say when they are being illogical. I never said you can prove faith with logic. Either you misunderstood me or are scrambling/deflecting here.

    If we both agree that your faith-based belief is illogical, then we are done here because we both agree.
    All Hail Legatron: The Lions Game In Gifs

    Read more at my blog: http://brafootball.wordpress.com/201...-game-in-gifs/




  9. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    6,879

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    Science has already proved itself. Pardon the snark/truth (once again), but if you know of a reliable method of examining and understanding the world in an objective way that is NOT science, please tell me/the board what it is.
    In what way?
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  10. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    19,994
    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    It indeed would have been if that were ever my premise!

    My assertion was that faith is what people say when they are being illogical. I never said you can prove faith with logic. Either you misunderstood me or are scrambling/deflecting here.

    If we both agree that your faith-based belief is illogical, then we are done here because we both agree.
    It's perfectly logical. To me.

    That individualism is the premise of faith and where yours is flawed, IMO.

    Again you're arguing logic where none exists. Just because you find faith illogical doesn't make it so to another person.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  11. #47

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    In what way?
    Science is observing, hypothesizing, testing, and concluding.

    The fruits of science govern your daily life.
    All Hail Legatron: The Lions Game In Gifs

    Read more at my blog: http://brafootball.wordpress.com/201...-game-in-gifs/




  12. #48

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    It's perfectly logical. To me.

    That individualism is the premise of faith and where yours is flawed, IMO.

    Again you're arguing logic where none exists. Just because you find faith illogical doesn't make it so to another person.
    Your own words: "faith is the absence of logic." Must I find the quote from a dozen or so posts ago?

    You have faith. You have an absence of logic.

    If you're going to be this intellectually dishonest, there's no point to continue dialoguing.
    All Hail Legatron: The Lions Game In Gifs

    Read more at my blog: http://brafootball.wordpress.com/201...-game-in-gifs/




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland