Seek God in need...

[warri0r45]

I have never prayed in times of great need. Sometimes the outcome is good, others not so. God intervention has nothing to do with it.

 

 

 

+1 cool points for you?

 

 

 

You wouldn't know that till you prove God does not exist? You speak as if it was a fact.

 

 

 

~Defender~

 

 

 

Defender, people don't refuse to pray just because they think it will make them cool. If they do they are as pathetic as the kids at school aspiring to conform to the group of jocks. People refuse to pray because statistsically, it's nothing special at all. People get healed and people don't about 50/50 but somehow, those amputees never regrow a leg.

 

 

 

And we don't need to disprove god to confidently hold this position. Just like we don't need to disprove that praying to the flying spaghetti monster, the flying teacup, pink elephants, gremlins, troll, witches, warlocks or James Dean works. There are no facts in the supernatural world but that dosen't give us an excuse in an argument. What if the supernatural is just another level of reality? What if there's a super-supernatural with another level of deity? What if there's a super-super-supernatural? Or even another dimension in which this god of yours or another 24 exist? Parallel universe? Inside a wormhole? Perhaps Santa, the Zen spirit of Beetohoven, Yogi Bear and Alice Cooper's youthful facial appearance all exist on a fold in space time beyond the edge of the universe in the thirteenth dimension of a super-super-supernature. But do you hear me arguing "you can't prove that Santa, the Zen spirit of Beetohoven, Yogi Bear and Alice Cooper's youthful facial appearance don't exist on a fold in space time beyond the edge of the universe in the thirteenth dimension of a super-super-supernature and don't answer my prayers. You speak as if it's a fact." Well, whether you accept this fact or not, my little scenario has as much credence as does your god in terms of provability. Please, don't use the old 'you can't prove that god dosen't exist' stunt, because that is an IMPOSSIBILITY unless said god ever chooses to show himself to us. Proofs and known truths are reserved for the natural world, I'm afraid.

 

 

 

(forgive the slight facetiousness)

 

 

 

Hmmm... Methinks that you place too much value on inductive and abductive reasoning... And specifically on how they relate to the sciences.

 

 

 

If I were to tell you that all mooses are elephants, and all baboons are oceans, and therefor all mooses are oceans you would call me crazy. My reasoning is unfounded. Yet, if chaos is at the heart of everything, (think about quantum mechanics) and my reasoning capacity is in any sence of the word a thing, then chaos is at the heart of my reasoning (which I assume to be ordered). Furthermore if chaos is the heart of reason, then reason is unreasonable so I may as well stop trying to achieve anything through it and go live in a cave. My above argument is every bit as valid as this one: All ants are insects. All insects are animals. Therefor all ants are animals. That is to say that knowledge (Defined by Aristotle as justified true belief) is not possible.

 

 

 

That doesn't conform with my experience with reasoning. Technology, science, and medicine all seem to indicate that reasoning is ordered in several ways. The first is that if the same conditions hold, and I do the same thing, the same outcome will occure. This has been established to be true in a host of different circumstances. The fact that the computer that I am using to write this message is working stands as testiment to the truth of this observation about the ordering of reason. The other way that reasoning is ordered is that it appears to be the case that regardless of whether or not a sentient being is conciously focusing on an event that event will still obey certian principles and ordering. A dead tree will fall in a windstorm whether I watch it or not. In a sense reasoning superceeds interpretation of it.

 

 

 

With that in mind I confidently make the conclusion that if reasoning is ordered, then there is a basis for that reasoning. Reasoning is ordered, so it only follows that there must be a basis for that reasoning. I haven't established the necessity of diety, but I believe that this is ultima-facie grounds for holding the belief that that is a reasonable basis for reasoning being ordered. I'm not interested in proving that I'm right and you are wrong. I used to be, but now all I really care about is demonstrating that I can believe that there is a God and still have a brain. I'm giving an answer why I believe, no more.

 

 

 

Forgive my total absence of knowlege when it comes to philosophy. Mind dumbing it down a little? How was all of that tied in with what I posted? o_0

 

 

 

@ Bold. Of course. Do you think I was calling theists stupid? I hope not, because that couldn't be further from the truth. :?

[warri0r45]

Hmmm... Methinks that you place too much value on inductive and abductive reasoning... And specifically on how they relate to the sciences.

 

 

 

If I were to tell you that all mooses are elephants, and all baboons are oceans, and therefor all mooses are oceans you would call me crazy. My reasoning is unfounded. Yet, if chaos is at the heart of everything, (think about quantum mechanics) and my reasoning capacity is in any sence of the word a thing, then chaos is at the heart of my reasoning (which I assume to be ordered). Furthermore if chaos is the heart of reason, then reason is unreasonable so I may as well stop trying to achieve anything through it and go live in a cave. My above argument is every bit as valid as this one: All ants are insects. All insects are animals. Therefor all ants are animals. That is to say that knowledge (Defined by Aristotle as justified true belief) is not possible.

 

 

 

That doesn't conform with my experience with reasoning. Technology, science, and medicine all seem to indicate that reasoning is ordered in several ways. The first is that if the same conditions hold, and I do the same thing, the same outcome will occure. This has been established to be true in a host of different circumstances. The fact that the computer that I am using to write this message is working stands as testiment to the truth of this observation about the ordering of reason. The other way that reasoning is ordered is that it appears to be the case that regardless of whether or not a sentient being is conciously focusing on an event that event will still obey certian principles and ordering. A dead tree will fall in a windstorm whether I watch it or not. In a sense reasoning superceeds interpretation of it.

 

 

 

With that in mind I confidently make the conclusion that if reasoning is ordered, then there is a basis for that reasoning. Reasoning is ordered, so it only follows that there must be a basis for that reasoning. I haven't established the necessity of diety, but I believe that this is ultima-facie grounds for holding the belief that that is a reasonable basis for reasoning being ordered. I'm not interested in proving that I'm right and you are wrong. I used to be, but now all I really care about is demonstrating that I can believe that there is a God and still have a brain. I'm giving an answer why I believe, no more.

 

I don't think a single word of that made any sense. You literally talked yourself in illogical circles.

 

 

 

Reason is unreasonable, so some form of a god has to exist? The universe has properties that we can understand, so some form of a god has to exist? Non sequiters, anyone?

 

 

 

I mean, I'm not an atheist, but there's no flaw in warri0r's logic. Just because something supernatural (i.e., beyond what is natural to us, and thus impossible to understand) can't be disproven is no reason to jump to the conclusion that it exists.

 

 

 

*Sighs* Let me break it down.

 

 

 

Let's assume that there is nothing supernatural.

 

It follows from that that nature is all that exists.

 

Nature is governed by principles which are random in nature (ie. chaotic)

 

Examples include quantum mechanics which govern how individual atoms and molecules interact.

 

It also follows that since nature is all that exists my mind is a part of nature.

 

My mind functions based on chaotic principles.

 

My mind preforms reasoning, an ordered series of events focusing on a goal. (this is an example).

 

Therefore my mind is both chaotic and ordered in nature.

 

Therefor it is not the case that nothing supernatural exists.

 

 

 

The same argument form was how it was discovered that the square root of two is irrational. It's called reductio ad absurdum or reducing to absurdity. It is based on the premise that a thing can not be in possession of both a quality and it's logical negation. In this case, my mind can not both possess rationality and irrationality.

 

 

 

The weakness of my argument is that I do not go into the reason why I believe that it is intrinsically necessary that something supernatural exist in order to explain how the mind can be rational in a world based in part on irrationality. I am too tired to go into that tonight. Maybe tomorrow after work I will... or later... depending on when I get done with everything else I'm already doing.

 

 

 

Perhaps if you look at the bold outside of quantum mechanics and rather in the fields of chemistry or biochemistry you'll recognise many chemical interactions are not random and rather ordered and predictable. It seems you're saying everything in nature is chaotic i.e. unordered. I really don't think so from what I've learnt.

[Led-Zeppelin]

I don't. If someone close to me is seriously hurt, I may say a prayer to myself, but not to god. It will be wishful thinking in my own part... Hope. But a prayer? No.

[Mercifull]

I have never prayed in times of great need. Sometimes the outcome is good, others not so. God intervention has nothing to do with it.

 

 

 

+1 cool points for you?

 

 

 

You wouldn't know that till you prove God does not exist? You speak as if it was a fact.

 

 

 

~Defender~

How would I know then if praying was a contributing factor or not then? Is it possible to devise a test to see if for example praying helps patients or not? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4681771.stm

 

 

 

I speak as if its factual that God does not exist because there is no evidence to the contrary.

 

 

 

p.s What are "cool points"?

[Guest]

p.s What are "cool points"?

 

 

 

Kinda like "E-Cred" but definitely not as "cool!" 8-)

[nine naked men]

Our school holds a Chapel service every week where we hold Communion and pray and everything, and yeah, I pray and hope that people get better, but I don't expect them to. I don't know why, but miracles seem so... Movie-like? I've seen plenty of movies where a miracle happens in the blink of time and, hurrah, everyone is saved, so for it to happen in real life seems so unrealistic.

 

 

 

That's just my view on the subject, but I still pray, even if I expect nothing to happen.

[Satenza]

.

 

 

 

The same argument form was how it was discovered that the square root of two is irrational. It's called reductio ad absurdum or reducing to absurdity. It is based on the premise that a thing can not be in possession of both a quality and it's logical negation. In this case, my mind can not both possess rationality and irrationality.

 

 

 

 

Can you elaborate on the part in bold, since i don't really know what you're saying. Seems like you're saying that because you find the mind to be rational it can't be irrational at the same time and vice-versa. Thats not the case though, since i can be both rational in one thought and irrational in the next. Which i guess would lead the mind to become an absurdity and be able to possess the function of rationality and irrationality at the same time. Which would therefore lead to there being no reason any supernatural quality must exist.

[Mazpot]

IMO god doesn't exist.

 

There's no proof expect for some STORIES from a long time ago.

 

The ideals of the bible are imo stupidly hard to follow for example it is stated that if a man who is married looks at another woman his eyes should be taken out. Yet apparantly the bible teaches forgiveness?

 

Biggest load of rubbish I ever wasted my time reading

[Nadril]

IMO god doesn't exist.

 

There's no proof expect for some STORIES from a long time ago.

 

The ideals of the bible are imo stupidly hard to follow for example it is stated that if a man who is married looks at another woman his eyes should be taken out. Yet apparantly the bible teaches forgiveness?

 

Biggest load of rubbish I ever wasted my time reading

 

 

 

Thank you for your unique and different viewpoint on the situation.

[destro3979]

IMO god doesn't exist.

 

There's no proof expect for some STORIES from a long time ago.

 

The ideals of the bible are imo stupidly hard to follow for example it is stated that if a man who is married looks at another woman his eyes should be taken out. Yet apparantly the bible teaches forgiveness?

 

Biggest load of rubbish I ever wasted my time reading

 

 

 

if you looked into it in more depth

 

the whole married man thing was in the old testament and in the new testament they pretty much got rid of most of the old rules and made everything forgivable

 

 

 

you can look into it more if you want but thats all up to you :)

[TotalTalker]

I dont know whether im going to read the bible, and to me its quotes. But I would never mean to dis-respect it.

[Zealot]

I'll try to make what I am saying somewhat more clear.

 

 

 

Years and years ago, in ancient Greece, there was a very brilliant man by the name of Aristotle. Some of the things which he is remembered for include the foundations of the science of Biology, Logic, and contributions to other arias of human knowledge.

 

 

 

One of the things which he said is that it is not possible for a thing to possess at the same time both a quality and the logical negation of that quality. Basically if you have both 1 and -1 in the same equation they cancil one another out. And this, Aristotle suggested, goes for all types of qualities. For example, you can not have a house which is both the color red (defined as only the color red, no other colors present) and the color green (defined as only the color green, no other colors present). It can only be one or the other, at least at any given time, from any given perspective.

 

 

 

That is the principle of noncontradiction. If Aristotle is to be believed, this is something that all fully functional human beings (and most other living things on the planet) know without ever having to learn about it. It goes deeper then knowledge and is in fact, the keystone of knowledge. If it is possible for a thing to both possess a quality and it's logical negation (for example for God to both exist everywhere and nowhere by the same deffinition of exist) then it may be possible for any given object to possess qualities which are logical negations of one another. If this is the case then I can never know anything because I can not trust that things will not change suddenly and without warning... Or even more insidious, only selectively be true. People who act as if this is the case get locked up in a padded room for their own protection, and the remainder of people on the planet call them insane.

 

 

 

Anyway... I made the argument that all knowledge, which is to say any time that you believe a thing to be true, and that belief is justified by evidence, must be based on rational thought.

 

 

 

I did not go into different types of justification, and perhapes that will help. There are three types of reasoning according to the American Semiotician Charles Sanders Peirce. The first is deductive reasoning which can be defined as a mode of reasoning in which, if both premises are true, the conclusion must be true. This is an example of deductive reasoning. The first two lines are the premises and the last line is the conclusion.

 

 

 

All trees are plants.

 

All plants are living things.

 

Therefore all trees are living things.

 

 

 

Induction is the second type of reasoning. It is reasoning from an instance of a rule and the outcome of that rule to the rule itself. It can also be defined, like deduction, based on what can be known about the conclusion. In inductive reasoning if the premises are true then it is possible that the conclusion is true, but it is not assured. The inductive form of the same argument that I gave a second ago is this:

 

 

 

All trees are living things.

 

All plants are living things.

 

Therefore all trees are plants.

 

 

 

The final type of reasoning is called Abduction by Peirce. Aristotle mentioned it, so I am told, but did not write about it. Anyway, abduction is reasoning from a rule and the outcome of that rule to an instance of what happened. It is the predominant reasoning used in detective work, medicine, and in most of the historical sciences. As with the other modes of reasoning, it is possible to define it based on the outcome. In abductive reasoning the truth of the premises makes possible the truth of the conclusion. However it does not make it probable in and of itself. An example is:

 

 

 

All plants are living things.

 

All trees are plants.

 

Therefore all trees are living things.

 

 

 

There are consecutively three types of knowledge: deductive, inductive, and abductive. (they have other names but I will call them these because I can't remember, and this should be easier to follow anyway) Deductive knowledge is never mistaken. (it can not be justified if one of the premises is false) Inductive knowledge is generally correct. Abductive knowledge may be correct, but requires exploration using other modes of reasoning, and trial and error as confirmation. For example, if a mechanic believes that it is the battery that is causing the car to not start he will first attempt to charge it, then replace it, then replace other parts until the car will start)

 

 

 

Anyway, all of these processes are rational. That is to mean that a system has been put in place and is followed by your mind either conciously or subconciously in determining the truth or falsity of a belief or claim. There is no other means in which a person can actually think and ever get anywhere in the landscape of the intellect. What that precludes is a foundation for thought which is in any sence random because of how systematic these are.

 

 

 

I said that quantum mechanics does not work. I say this because often when nerve cells interact they only release a very small number of neuro transmiters. (forgive me for being vague. I am no neurologist and do not want to overstep what I actually know to be true.) As I understand it the number is so small that quantum mechanics can not predict the outcome of the reaction... It can not be assured that the second brain cell will get the message if that is all that is going on. I recognize that some spontanious ordering does tend to happen... In geology the SiO3 tetrihedrons organize themselves to form a variety of different minerals at different temperatures... Carbon forms either diamonds of graphite under different circumstances... Both are amazing, but nowhere near as complicated as the trillions of interactions in your brain which appear to give rise to thought (unless you are a dualist and regard the brain and mind as seperate entities... which I am because that is the simpler conclusion and in my assessment the more probable conclusion).

 

 

 

Quantum mechanics can not explain how I can think. Therefore there must be something else which can because I do think. That means that there is something more fundamental to the nature of reality then just the material and form which it takes. Supernatural. It appears to make more sense. And if there is anything supernatural at all, it seems the simplest conclusion is that at the very least there is a Creator.

[The Observer]

Well, if I really am in need or if I did something really awful, I talk to God.

[Rebdragon]

Quantum mechanics can not explain how I can think. Therefore there must be something else which can because I do think. That means that there is something more fundamental to the nature of reality then just the material and form which it takes. Supernatural. It appears to make more sense. And if there is anything supernatural at all, it seems the simplest conclusion is that at the very least there is a Creator.

 

I'm sorry, I got through most of your post, but you lost me there.

 

 

 

Is it not impossible for order to come from disorder? Is it not possible that evolution could create this without the need for some "creator"? Sorry, it just seems like you're jumping to conclusions here, that, or I just don't get your train of thought completely. Probably the latter :-w .

 

 

 

Also, what is the direct connection you are drawing between neurotransmitters and quantum mechanics :-s ? Anyone care to explain this? I mean, I know how nerve cells work... but I've never heard anyone mention quantum mechanics when talking about nerve interaction.

[warri0r45]

Quantum mechanics can not explain how I can think. Therefore there must be something else which can because I do think. That means that there is something more fundamental to the nature of reality then just the material and form which it takes. Supernatural. It appears to make more sense. And if there is anything supernatural at all, it seems the simplest conclusion is that at the very least there is a Creator.

 

 

 

I prefer to exhaust every train of thought or theory before I conclude a supernatural entity. If that means I'll never come to the conclusion of a supernatural entity then so be it. I'm more comfortable with knowing I don't know than making a leap and saying the supernatural does exist. Accepting ignorance and not arguing through it is what keeps science alive. If quantum mechanics can't explain how you think, why not try and explain thought through something different?

 

 

 

To be honest you've lost me with much of what your saying. I'm clearly not as astute as you when it comes to philosophy.

[Satenza]

It would be more helpful if you answered me point by point, rather than re-educate me on Aristotle, no matter how interesting it is :P It seems like you're relying on absolute's and ignoring degree's of different properties.