Karma

[AnnaG]

AnnaG

Yes ,and they stand tall and ALLONE

... in rubber rooms with striped sunlight. lol (Or should, anyway).

 

[Cliffy]

That's pretty much my impression, too. But there will always be people that have their own definitions of things that don't coincide with the rest of the planet. That rather makes me wonder about the people who wrote/write texts like the Quran, the Bible, etc. Were they using the standard definitions or their own deviated definitions?

When I was talking to people from various religions I noticed that they had unique vocabularies, using many words that they defined differently than most people, almost a secret code. So I did listen to the feelings being expressed and saw that basically all were saying the same things at the core of their beliefs. If one can get beyond the differences to those common beliefs, then you have something worth thinking about. It is basically just dogma that separates many religions and creates conflict. That is why I really don't have any use for religion.

 

[AnnaG]

Yeah. The most obvious difference I can think of offhand is the word "proof": a-religious people and religious people have different definitions for it.

 

[In Between Man]

By definition, God is excluded from science.

I lift the cup on that. Show me where it says that.

I trying to play nice, but quite frankly, I find your comment very rude and ignorant.

Definition of Science from a reasonable source.

Science is the search for causes and ultimately the truth. And there are two types of causes intelligent and non-intelligent. When you eliminate intelligence as a possible cause when investigating the evidence, your not sticking with the true definition of science.

When those scientists let their personal preferences or unproven philosophical assumptions dictate their interpretation of the evidence, they do exactly what they accuse my people of doing - they let their ideology dictate their conclusions. When that's the case, their conclusions should be questioned, because they may be nothing more than philosophical presuppositions passed off as scientific facts.

 

[In Between Man]

I agree. Nothing can come from nothing. Something cannot create itself from nothing.

Thank you!

Now that you've realized that, chew on this. If there was an "critical imbalance" as you said, whatever "was" reaching explosion had to have its own cause. And that, its own cause, and so forth and so forth. Why? Because were talking about the suggestion of something natural, blind, impersonal.

What makes more sense is that whatever "was" had no cause. Scratch your head, that would have to be some pretty powerful "thing" wouldn't it?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I lift the cup on that. Show me where it says that.

It says that in SJP's post, and it's correct, and neither rude nor ignorant. It's not possible to do science if you can at any point say, in effect, "and here a miracle occurs." It doesn't explain anything. Science is not, as you claim, a search for causes and ultimately for truth, the search is for patterns and useful explanations, and if causes and true statements emerge from that, that's good, but it's not the focus. Science looks for naturalistic explanations and descriptions, on the assumption that the universe is consistent and, at least in principle, comprehensible, though we may not be bright enough to comprehend it all. Implicitly you're supporting the intelligent design argument, which is utterly bankrupt, there's no evidence for it and it explains nothing.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Thank you!

Now that you've passed level one, chew on this. If there was an "critical imbalance" as you said, whatever "was" reaching explosion had to have its own cause. And that, its own cause, and so forth and so forth. Why? Because were talking about the suggestion of something natural, blind, impersonal.

What makes more sense is that whatever "was" had no cause. Scratch your head, that would have to be some pretty powerful "thing" wouldn't it?

If you agree that nothing can come from nothing, a rather ambivalent phrasing that I take to mean in this context that everything must have a cause or nothing would ever happen, then you cannot in the next paragraph argue that there is an uncaused agent that caused everything else. All you're doing is arbitrarily stopping the chain of causes at a deity as the uncaused first cause, which does not make more sense. Moreover, it's simply not correct that no event happens without a cause, random events happen in the quantum world all the time.

 

[AnnaG]

Thank you!

Now that you've realized that, chew on this. If there was an "critical imbalance" as you said, whatever "was" reaching explosion had to have its own cause. And that, its own cause, and so forth and so forth. Why? Because were talking about the suggestion of something natural, blind, impersonal.

What makes more sense is that whatever "was" had no cause. Scratch your head, that would have to be some pretty powerful "thing" wouldn't it?

You don't seem to understand what nothing is. If there ever was nothing, it would still be here. Nothing is nothing; no thing. Something cannot be created from nothing.So the universe always has been and did not need to be created.

 

[jambo101]

Karma to me is all those car dealerships going bankrupt after screwing a lot of their customers for all those years.:lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I lift the cup on that. Show me where it says that.

I trying to play nice, but quite frankly, I find your comment very rude and ignorant.

Definition of Science from a reasonable source.

Science is the search for causes and ultimately the truth. And there are two types of causes intelligent and non-intelligent. When you eliminate intelligence as a possible cause when investigating the evidence, your not sticking with the true definition of science.

There is never any reason not to play nice, alley, even if you disagree with somebody. To me, rudeness and name calling indicates low self esteem, low self worth. Anybody who resorts to personal insults has self esteem issues big time.

So you should always try to play nice.

Now, as to the definition of science and scientific method, you are labouring under some misapprehension, there is no place for God in science, by definition. It says the following in the link that you posted.

“A scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use these reproductions to make useful predictions”

Science tries to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way. This automatically excludes any super natural explanation, since by definition, supernatural is never reproducible.

Indeed, reproducibility is the hallmark of science. In scientific experiments, accuracy is desirable, but reproducibility is a must. There can be no reproducibility when you attribute something to God. By definition, God is excluded from science.

 

[AnnaG]

There is never any reason not to play nice, alley, even if you disagree with somebody. To me, rudeness and name calling indicates low self esteem, low self worth. Anybody who resorts to personal insults has self esteem issues big time.

Or else they're pointing out the facts about someone.

So you should always try to play nice.

So making snide comments about conservatives, Christians, etc. is playing nice? roflmao

Now, as to the definition of science and scientific method, you are labouring under some misapprehension, there is no place for God in science, by definition. It says the following in the link that you posted.

“A scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use these reproductions to make useful predictions”

Science tries to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way. This automatically excludes any super natural explanation, since by definition, supernatural is never reproducible.

Indeed, reproducibility is the hallmark of science. In scientific experiments, accuracy is desirable, but reproducibility is a must. There can be no reproducibility when you attribute something to God. By definition, God is excluded from science.

Gods reproduce miracles all the time. Where've you been?

 

[In Between Man]

It says that in SJP's post, and it's correct

I hadn't forgotten about this discussion, in fact it's popped in and out of my mind ever since. Just to remind you, SJP stated that "God is excluded from the definition of science", to which you agreed. But I believe there is a failure to make a distinction there. If your trying to claim "God is excluded from the definition of science", the connotation to the average reader is "Science has proven God doesn't exist" - which it hasn't.

*For future debating*, I have to insist that you, *with all respect*, agree to the following terms:

#1) God's non-existence, or existence for that matter, is a philosophical assumption - not a scientific fact.

It's not possible to do science if you can at any point say, in effect, "and here a miracle occurs."

Agreed. Science's scope is confined to the natural. God is beyond the scope of detection with the scientific method, which by no means proves his non-existence.

#2) Jesus existed. Jesus was born, he lived, and he died. I simply cannot, and will not tolerate such a lame excuse to wiggle out of conversation about who Jesus allegedly was and what he supposedly said.

#3) Truth is absolute. Either God exists or he doesn't. If anything needs to be put to rest in this world - it is this. It's not necessary to pose the question to you about HOW it's even possible to have a relatively existing God, because I know you are smart enough to know better.

Now, I may not be in any position to impose terms, but I think, no, I know, that no other vocal non-believer here is even remotely capable of making strong arguments while agreeing to these very reasonable terms. That's why I'm asking you. I sincerely hope you do agree, but I have questions about whether or not you will. I'll catch your reply tomorrow.

 

[Cliffy]

You insist! How arrogant is that?

There were hundreds of Jesus around that time (it was a common name) but none of them are recorded as having done anything like what the bible attributes to him. Jesus the Christ, on the other hand, has been proven to be a mythical figure based on more ancient mythological beings of Egyptian, Persian and Indian origin.

There are no absolute truths otherwise we would all agree on what the truth is. Unfortunately, everybody has there own version and yours is just one in billions. The bible is a collection of myths and fables, stories to educate people 2000 years ago about how to live their lives. It has very little relevance today except to a bunch of people who refuse to let go of the past and live in the present. Same with the Koran.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Let me consider your demands one by one, alley.

#1) God's non-existence, or existence for that matter, is a philosophical assumption - not a scientific fact.

I have no problem with that. I have always said, it is impossible to prove if God exists or not, it is a meaningless concept as far as science is concerned. So yes, assumption about existence or non existence of God is just that, an assumption (although in my opinion, non existence is a reasonable assumption, existence is not).

#2) Jesus existed. Jesus was born, he lived, and he died.

Again, I have no problem with that. It is not conclusively proven that Jesus existed, but I have no problem conceding that Jesus the man existed, mainly because it is not really relevant to any philosophical, religious discussion. So I am ready to concede that Jesus the man (but not Jesus the God) existed.

#3) Truth is absolute. Either God exists or he doesn't.

Now this is where we part company. Truth is absolute? Whose truth? Who decides what is the absolute truth? Is that your prerogative? Is it mine? The Pope’s? That of the Islamic Mullahs and ayatollahs? If it is mine, then I say Applism is the absolute truth and anybody who does not embrace Applism is doomed to Hell, to eternal torture and damnation forever.

Unless you specify who is the ultimate judge, the ultimate arbiter as to what truth is absolute and what isn’t, it is meaningless to talk of absolute truth.


Same applies to the question as to whether God exists or he doesn’t. Since we don’t know the truth here, and the truth is unknowable, then we cannot categorically say that God exists or he doesn’t.

It maybe that God sometime exists and sometimes doesn’t. A prefect example of this is the festival of Lord Ganesh, which is celebrated in India in September, it is very wide spread. They make statue of Ganesh out of clay. When it is made, it is just that, a statue. At the start of the festival, it is considered that God enters the statue and the statue in effect becomes God. At the end of the festival, it is considered that God has left the statue and the statue is just that, a clay figurine. So the statue is God sometimes, not God sometimes.

Or it may be that there is an entity which sometimes behaves like God and sometimes behaves like the Devil. After all, why should God and Devil be two different beings, why can’t they be one and the same entity?

In that case, we really cannot say with any certainty that God exists, it will be more a case of God partially existing.

So I cannot buy into this proposition.

 

[AnnaG]

#1) God's non-existence, or existence for that matter, is a philosophical assumption - not a scientific fact.

Same for any gods.

Agreed. Science's scope is confined to the natural. God is beyond the scope of detection with the scientific method, which by no means proves his non-existence.

There's no proof that gods aren't beyond the scope of detection of any sort, let alone scientific detection.

#2) Jesus existed. Jesus was born, he lived, and he died.

So did Sherlock Holmes. The Sherlock Holmes Biography

I simply cannot, and will not tolerate such a lame excuse to wiggle out of conversation about who Jesus allegedly was and what he supposedly said.

The Bible makes claims about all sorts of strange impossible things, so what it claims that this Jesus said is just as legitimate. Kids grow out of believing in Sanata Claus and the Easter Bunny, too. There's lots of documentation about those critters, also.

#3) Truth is absolute. Either God exists or he doesn't.

Some are, some aren't. Rocks being hard in comparison to human toes is an absolute truth. Existence is dependent upon the terms of what existence is. Is there a physical manifestation? No. Is there a mental one? For some people. An emotional one? Again, for some people there is. Sherlock Holmes exists in books and movies and stuff. Was there ever an English detective by the name of Sherlock Holmes as defined by A C Doyle in the 1800s? No.

If anything needs to be put to rest in this world - it is this. It's not necessary to pose the question to you about HOW it's even possible to have a relatively existing God, because I know you are smart enough to know better.

Perhaps instead of saying "relatively existing" people should say "psychologically existing" because obviously gods exist in people's heads.

Now, I may not be in any position to impose terms, but I think, no, I know, that no other vocal non-believer here is even remotely capable of making strong arguments while agreeing to these very reasonable terms. That's why I'm asking you. I sincerely hope you do agree, but I have questions about whether or not you will. I'll catch your reply tomorrow.

I'm not even a non-believer and I question a couple of them as you stated them.

 

[AnnaG]

You insist! How arrogant is that?

There were hundreds of Jesus around that time (it was a common name) but none of them are recorded as having done anything like what the bible attributes to him.

There were about 20 of them that have been scientifically proven.

Jesus the Christ, on the other hand, has been proven to be a mythical figure based on more ancient mythological beings of Egyptian, Persian and Indian origin.

You can't prove something like that. It's like proving Santa doesn't exist. One can reason out a suggestion but one cannot prove it as a fact.

There are no absolute truths otherwise we would all agree on what the truth is.

So you think your toes are harder than rocks?

 

[In Between Man]

You insist! How arrogant is that?

With all respect I said! Dexter and I go way back bud, before you even knew what a forum was...

There were hundreds of Jesus around that time (it was a common name) but none of them are recorded as having done anything like what the bible attributes to him. Jesus the Christ, on the other hand, has been proven to be a mythical figure based on more ancient mythological beings of Egyptian, Persian and Indian origin.

Josephus, wrote in Antiquities of the Jews, "And there arose about this time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed we should call him a man; for he was a doer of marvelous deeds, a teacher of men who receive the truth with pleasure". Also, Josephus documented how a man named Ananus brought before the Sanhedrin "a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others".

About 20 years later, Tacitus, a Roman historian, wrote a book surveying the history of Rome. In it he described how Nero (the Roman emperor) "punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called)." He went on to write that "their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus". Even though Tacitus, Josephus, and other historians from the first and second centuries a.d. were not followers of Christ, they did have something to say about Him - and they even verified that Jesus was a real person. Who was so famous that He even attracted the attention of the Roman emperor himself!

REFERENCES
Antiquities of the Jews(Section 8 and 20)
(Annals 15:44)

There are no absolute truths otherwise we would all agree on what the truth is. Unfortunately, everybody has there own version and yours is just one in billions. The bible is a collection of myths and fables, stories to educate people 2000 years ago about how to live their lives. It has very little relevance today except to a bunch of people who refuse to let go of the past and live in the present. Same with the Koran.

If truth was absolute we would all agree on it??? Our feelings don't have ANYTHING to do with it!!! Truth is real just like existence. REALITY is happening and its beyond anyone's control. Either Cliffy went on the forum today or he didn't. There's no middle answer!

I've already proven the truth is absolute here and here(post#101).

In addition, read these and understand them:

Law of Identity
Law of non-contradiction
Law of the excluded middle

And as for your assertions that the bible if fully concocted, I'm going back to that thread to see if you ever posted any evidence for that claim. I highly suspect you didn't.

 

[In Between Man]

Let me consider your demands one by one, alley.
...I have no problem with that...

I am extremely pleased SJ, that you are brave enough to acknowledge the first two terms! I'm surprised.

Now this is where we part company. Truth is absolute? Whose truth? Who decides what is the absolute truth?

Whose truth? NO ONE'S!!! The truth is simply the truth!!! It's reality, it's what happens, occurs, transpires...

As I told Cliff, I've already proven truth is absolute here and here(post#101).

Plus the absolute laws of logic that we all utilize everyday in our discernment of the world around us!

It maybe that God sometime exists and sometimes doesn’t. A prefect example of this is the festival of Lord Ganesh, which is celebrated in India in September, it is very wide spread. They make statue of Ganesh out of clay. When it is made, it is just that, a statue. At the start of the festival, it is considered that God enters the statue and the statue in effect becomes God. At the end of the festival, it is considered that God has left the statue and the statue is just that, a clay figurine. So the statue is God sometimes, not God sometimes.

Even if a real God did dwell in the statue periodically, it would still mean that that particular God exists, and he exists at other times. He has to be somewhere when no in the statue, thus its not relative. Plus, your postulating a false God to begin with! It ain't real in the slightest! Ganesh absolutely does not exist!

So I cannot buy into this proposition.

Then I will be forced to limit the amount of time I spend reading and digesting your "art", and the amount of time I spend researching and developing my rebuttals to your posts. But hey, 2 out of 3 ain't bad, so I'll toss you some real substance you can marinate on once and awhile. ;-)

 

[In Between Man]

Rocks being hard in comparison to human toes is an absolute truth.

If that is an absolute truth, why isn't all truth absolute then?

Existence is dependent upon the terms of what existence is. Is there a physical manifestation? No. Is there a mental one? For some people. An emotional one? Again, for some people there is. Sherlock Holmes exists in books and movies and stuff. Was there ever an English detective by the name of Sherlock Holmes as defined by A C Doyle in the 1800s? No.Perhaps instead of saying "relatively existing" people should say "psychologically existing" because obviously gods exist in people's heads.

Thoughts and opinions don't make anything exist because imaginationland isn't a real place. Therefore, Sherlock Holmes doesn't exist, even in the minds of people. Millions of gullible children don't just think of, but believe in Santa Claus. Does this make him exist? I've seen atheists actually use this as an example before.

I'm not even a non-believer and I question a couple of them as you stated them.

I thought you were an atheist. No?

 

[Cliffy]

You proved the truth is absolute only to yourself. You certainly didn't convince anybody else. I could post a thousand pages of stuff debunking the bible as anything other than a work of fiction but you wouldn't read them. But in case you have the stomach for it you could start with Anna's post #126 on the apostle of God thread and watch:
YouTube - Zeitgeist [Religion] The Greatest Story Ever Sold (1of 3)