A question for everybody

[Guest GhostRanger]

BTTF:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me explain something to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You said everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I objected to it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You think I didn't read for comprehension and understand your use of hyperbole. I think that you don't understand what an "example" is. So I'm going to present you with 2 situations, and you can pick the one you think is most descriptive of your pathetic attempt at trying to climb out of a hole.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Situation 1:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you said everyone, you literally meant everyone. My response indicated that it clearly isn't everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Situation 2:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you said everyone, you meant the majority of people. I responded by giving you a list of at least 3 people who don't because it is my belief that the majority of people are not like that. Whether or not you take everyone to mean literally or as a hyperbole, I disagree with you - and I showed my disagreement by giving you an example list of 3 people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you pick - either way - I answered your question. And you did misrepresent me, and that's rude.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't prove the supernatural. Your point = nonsensical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But little do you know, Vicktor was thinking like a scientist, not like you. It does not mater if something is supernatural or not, from a science prospective, if it cannot be proven, it is not real (or atleast if there is no logical theory that ties back what is known on the issue to what we already know about he world). Stop being thick headed and accept others views sometimes, m'kay? Does not mean you have to belive or agree with him, but you can atleast see where he is going with this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your view is nonsensical as well because you are defining my view as mutually exclusive from scientists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me explain this to you Lionheart - even though I expected you to grasp this simple concept.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that for SCIENCE, you need physical facts and proof. I agree with that 100%! However, God is supernatural and is in a different realm of science. It has nothing to do with science AND it is not mutually exclusive. You can't prove God exists because it requires physical evidence and God is of the supernatural. The two fields are completely unrelated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's a good example:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A chef is someone who studies in the culinary field. A mechanic studies how to work on cars. A mechanic could never ask a chef to give him the recipe on how to properly cook the steering wheel so the horn works - because the fields are different. However, just because you can't cook the steering wheel to make the horn works, it doesn't mean you can't use mechanical knowledge to make the horn work. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't prove God exists because that requires proof the natural, and God is of the supernatural. It's not mutually exclusive though. Science discovers things of the natural world, while theology can discover things of the supernatural - together.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Asking for "proof" is nonsensical - because it is in a completely unrelated field of study.

[BlueLancer]

 

 

 

I agree that for SCIENCE, you need physical facts and proof. I agree with that 100%! However, God is supernatural and is in a different realm of science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's just your belief, we don't know if there is really a God or not. Some people believe there are many deities. Some believe divinity is everywhere in nature. You can't state something personal as a universal fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A chef is someone who studies in the culinary field. A mechanic studies how to work on cars. A mechanic could never ask a chef to give him the recipe on how to properly cook the steering wheel so the horn works - because the fields are different. However, just because you can't cook the steering wheel to make the horn works, it doesn't mean you can't use mechanical knowledge to make the horn work. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's a magnificent example, but in the field of spirituality, you can't have similar "experience" as a mechanic or a chef has. No matter how much you meditate or research theologic texts, you cannot be sure of God's existence. It always takes blind faith to believe in such a concept as "God" because it is man made and you rely on man made and written information instead of directly communicating with God (whether they are voices within ones head are subject to speculation)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science discovers things of the natural world, while theology can discover things of the supernatural - together.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never understood why people have trouble understanding this concept. No matter how religious or unreligious you are, why can't the two work together? At least on this forum, if there is an atheist, he dismisses all theology. A theologist will dismiss science as "fake", which is ridiculous. Sure, science is logical but if you are to assume a God exists, why is it impossible that God created evolution for example?

[Kwisatz]

BTTF:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me explain something to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You said everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I objected to it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You think I didn't read for comprehension and understand your use of hyperbole. I think that you don't understand what an "example" is. So I'm going to present you with 2 situations, and you can pick the one you think is most descriptive of your pathetic attempt at trying to climb out of a hole.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Situation 1:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you said everyone, you literally meant everyone. My response indicated that it clearly isn't everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Situation 2:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you said everyone, you meant the majority of people. I responded by giving you a list of at least 3 people who don't because it is my belief that the majority of people are not like that. Whether or not you take everyone to mean literally or as a hyperbole, I disagree with you - and I showed my disagreement by giving you an example list of 3 people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you pick - either way - I answered your question. And you did misrepresent me, and that's rude.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I quote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not a fundamentalist at all and I object to you saying everyone has to be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You object to my saying that everyone is a fundamentalist. That means that you interpreted my post as me saying that everyone is a fundamentalist. That is a misinterpretation to the nth degree. Everybody else was able to pick up on the fact that it was not meant literally. You didn't, despite the display of the bleeding obvious nature of my post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't even mean the majority of people, I meant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

it seems as though you primarily run across...

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I identified this some time ago. Stop trying to misconstrue everything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it makes you feel any better, you win. I believe everybody is fundamentalist. You, Captain Obvious, have pointed out that not everybody is. I am vastly incorrect in calling what is, in my opinion, your sweeping, presumptuous replies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Congratulations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, rather than double-posting or spamming up the thread, I would also like to note that the postwe who brought up God's inaction on the part of all the tragedy in the world today. Surely, if there was a God, would he help people? After all, since he created the matter, can he not manipulate it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then again, who did create the world, if he didn't? There is no evidence either way, and trying to concretely postulate it to any end seems rather pointless.

[Lionheart_0]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't prove the supernatural. Your point = nonsensical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But little do you know, Vicktor was thinking like a scientist, not like you. It does not mater if something is supernatural or not, from a science prospective, if it cannot be proven, it is not real (or atleast if there is no logical theory that ties back what is known on the issue to what we already know about he world). Stop being thick headed and accept others views sometimes, m'kay? Does not mean you have to belive or agree with him, but you can atleast see where he is going with this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your view is nonsensical as well because you are defining my view as mutually exclusive from scientists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me explain this to you Lionheart - even though I expected you to grasp this simple concept.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that for SCIENCE, you need physical facts and proof. I agree with that 100%! However, God is supernatural and is in a different realm of science. It has nothing to do with science AND it is not mutually exclusive. You can't prove God exists because it requires physical evidence and God is of the supernatural. The two fields are completely unrelated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's a good example:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A chef is someone who studies in the culinary field. A mechanic studies how to work on cars. A mechanic could never ask a chef to give him the recipe on how to properly cook the steering wheel so the horn works - because the fields are different. However, just because you can't cook the steering wheel to make the horn works, it doesn't mean you can't use mechanical knowledge to make the horn work. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't prove God exists because that requires proof the natural, and God is of the supernatural. It's not mutually exclusive though. Science discovers things of the natural world, while theology can discover things of the supernatural - together.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Asking for "proof" is nonsensical - because it is in a completely unrelated field of study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BTW there is an edit button so you dont have to double post, thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And thank you for proving me right. There is not proof for god, ergo god doesnt exist because there is no proof. You say that the fields of study matter, but really, they don't. Just because God is supernatural, does not mean that when a Scientist (an athiest scientist for that matter. Wouldn't wan't you to over examin the situation :P ) is debating about the existance, that it means they cannot have any aurgument because god does not pertain to science. God is a part of religion, which is in turn viewed by diffrent people diffrently. If this is so, why can't scientist view god (as part of a religion which can be viewed diffrently by diffrent people) as non existant because the lack of proof, if it is their point of view on things? Are you saying that a scientist's view that god could in some way have something to do with science is wrong?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I view the study of anthropology as a science. In this study, they study how humans work, interact, and do everything. As part of the science, it is possible to look into why humans belive and have religion, and because god is part of religion, the science can attempt to figure out why humans still belive in this deity even if there is no proof. This all shows that science and religion/god is still interlocked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: and so there is no being confused, here you go:

 

 

 

anÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâçthroÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâçpolÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâçoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâçgyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã¡ /ÃÆââ¬Â¹Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬â¢ÃÆÃâÃâænÃÆýÃâørÃÆââ¬Â°Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ÃÆââ¬Â¹Ãâ¹Ã¢â¬Â pÃÆââ¬Â°Ã¢ââ‰â¢lÃÆââ¬Â°Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢dÃÆàâââ‰â¢i/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[an-thruh-pol-uh-jee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãânoun

 

 

 

1. the science that deals with the origins, physical and cultural development, biological characteristics, and social customs and beliefs of humankind.

 

 

 

2. the study of human beings' similarity to and divergence from other animals.

 

 

 

3. the science of humans and their works.

 

 

 

4. Also called philosophical anthropology. the study of the nature and essence of humankind.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't prove the supernatural. Your point = nonsensical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But little do you know, Vicktor was thinking like a scientist, not like you. It does not mater if something is supernatural or not, from a science prospective, if it cannot be proven, it is not real (or atleast if there is no logical theory that ties back what is known on the issue to what we already know about he world). Stop being thick headed and accept others views sometimes, m'kay? Does not mean you have to belive or agree with him, but you can atleast see where he is going with this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your view is nonsensical as well because you are defining my view as mutually exclusive from scientists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me explain this to you Lionheart - even though I expected you to grasp this simple concept.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that for SCIENCE, you need physical facts and proof. I agree with that 100%! However, God is supernatural and is in a different realm of science. It has nothing to do with science AND it is not mutually exclusive. You can't prove God exists because it requires physical evidence and God is of the supernatural. The two fields are completely unrelated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's a good example:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A chef is someone who studies in the culinary field. A mechanic studies how to work on cars. A mechanic could never ask a chef to give him the recipe on how to properly cook the steering wheel so the horn works - because the fields are different. However, just because you can't cook the steering wheel to make the horn works, it doesn't mean you can't use mechanical knowledge to make the horn work. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't prove God exists because that requires proof the natural, and God is of the supernatural. It's not mutually exclusive though. Science discovers things of the natural world, while theology can discover things of the supernatural - together.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Asking for "proof" is nonsensical - because it is in a completely unrelated field of study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BTW there is an edit button so you dont have to double post, thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And thank you for proving me right. There is not proof for god, ergo god doesnt exist because there is no proof. You say that the fields of study matter, but really, they don't. Just because God is supernatural, does not mean that when a Scientist (an athiest scientist for that matter. Wouldn't wan't you to over examin the situation :P ) is debating about the existance, that it means they cannot have any aurgument because god does not pertain to science. God is a part of religion, which is in turn viewed by diffrent people diffrently. If this is so, why can't scientist view god (as part of a religion which can be viewed diffrently by diffrent people) as non existant because the lack of proof, if it is their point of view on things? Are you saying that a scientist's view that god could in some way have something to do with science is wrong?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I view the study of anthropology as a science. In this study, they study how humans work, interact, and do everything. As part of the science, it is possible to look into why humans belive and have religion, and because god is part of religion, the science can attempt to figure out why humans still belive in this deity even if there is no proof. This all shows that science and religion/god is still interlocked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: and so there is no being confused, here you go:

 

 

 

anÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâçthroÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâçpolÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâçoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâçgyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã¡ /ÃÆââ¬Â¹Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬â¢ÃÆÃâÃâænÃÆýÃâørÃÆââ¬Â°Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ÃÆââ¬Â¹Ãâ¹Ã¢â¬Â pÃÆââ¬Â°Ã¢ââ‰â¢lÃÆââ¬Â°Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢dÃÆàâââ‰â¢i/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[an-thruh-pol-uh-jee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãânoun

 

 

 

1. the science that deals with the origins, physical and cultural development, biological characteristics, and social customs and beliefs of humankind.

 

 

 

2. the study of human beings' similarity to and divergence from other animals.

 

 

 

3. the science of humans and their works.

 

 

 

4. Also called philosophical anthropology. the study of the nature and essence of humankind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anthropology doesn't work because you are asking for physical evidence of a God. Physical evidence comes from the natural world, God is supernatural - physical evidence can't exist. Asking for physical evidence of something that isn't physical is nonsensical.

[Lionheart_0]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't prove the supernatural. Your point = nonsensical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But little do you know, Vicktor was thinking like a scientist, not like you. It does not mater if something is supernatural or not, from a science prospective, if it cannot be proven, it is not real (or atleast if there is no logical theory that ties back what is known on the issue to what we already know about he world). Stop being thick headed and accept others views sometimes, m'kay? Does not mean you have to belive or agree with him, but you can atleast see where he is going with this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your view is nonsensical as well because you are defining my view as mutually exclusive from scientists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me explain this to you Lionheart - even though I expected you to grasp this simple concept.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that for SCIENCE, you need physical facts and proof. I agree with that 100%! However, God is supernatural and is in a different realm of science. It has nothing to do with science AND it is not mutually exclusive. You can't prove God exists because it requires physical evidence and God is of the supernatural. The two fields are completely unrelated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's a good example:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A chef is someone who studies in the culinary field. A mechanic studies how to work on cars. A mechanic could never ask a chef to give him the recipe on how to properly cook the steering wheel so the horn works - because the fields are different. However, just because you can't cook the steering wheel to make the horn works, it doesn't mean you can't use mechanical knowledge to make the horn work. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't prove God exists because that requires proof the natural, and God is of the supernatural. It's not mutually exclusive though. Science discovers things of the natural world, while theology can discover things of the supernatural - together.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Asking for "proof" is nonsensical - because it is in a completely unrelated field of study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BTW there is an edit button so you dont have to double post, thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And thank you for proving me right. There is not proof for god, ergo god doesnt exist because there is no proof. You say that the fields of study matter, but really, they don't. Just because God is supernatural, does not mean that when a Scientist (an athiest scientist for that matter. Wouldn't wan't you to over examin the situation :P ) is debating about the existance, that it means they cannot have any aurgument because god does not pertain to science. God is a part of religion, which is in turn viewed by diffrent people diffrently. If this is so, why can't scientist view god (as part of a religion which can be viewed diffrently by diffrent people) as non existant because the lack of proof, if it is their point of view on things? Are you saying that a scientist's view that god could in some way have something to do with science is wrong?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I view the study of anthropology as a science. In this study, they study how humans work, interact, and do everything. As part of the science, it is possible to look into why humans belive and have religion, and because god is part of religion, the science can attempt to figure out why humans still belive in this deity even if there is no proof. This all shows that science and religion/god is still interlocked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: and so there is no being confused, here you go:

 

 

 

anÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâçthroÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâçpolÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâçoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâçgyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã¡ /ÃÆââ¬Â¹Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬â¢ÃÆÃâÃâænÃÆýÃâørÃÆââ¬Â°Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ÃÆââ¬Â¹Ãâ¹Ã¢â¬Â pÃÆââ¬Â°Ã¢ââ‰â¢lÃÆââ¬Â°Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢dÃÆàâââ‰â¢i/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[an-thruh-pol-uh-jee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãânoun

 

 

 

1. the science that deals with the origins, physical and cultural development, biological characteristics, and social customs and beliefs of humankind.

 

 

 

2. the study of human beings' similarity to and divergence from other animals.

 

 

 

3. the science of humans and their works.

 

 

 

4. Also called philosophical anthropology. the study of the nature and essence of humankind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anthropology doesn't work because you are asking for physical evidence of a God. Physical evidence comes from the natural world, God is supernatural - physical evidence can't exist. Asking for physical evidence of something that isn't physical is nonsensical.

BUT THAT EXACTLY IT. Since it does not exist physicly, it does not exist to scientists! The naturual world is all that exists, therefore meaning god does not exists!

[Guest GhostRanger]

BUT THAT EXACTLY IT. Since it does not exist physicly, it does not exist to scientists! The naturual world is all that exists, therefore meaning god does not exists!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not being concerned with something, and not thinking it exists are two different things. I know plenty of scientists who believe in God without physical proof. I think you would be better to say that without proof, scientists don't think it exists in the physical world - and many scientists don't believe there is anything outside of the physical world since you can't have proof for non-physical things. But that doesn't mean science assumes something doesn't exist if it's not physical - because that is a choice that is made outside the realm of science and is based on the individual.

[Barihawk]

Bluelancer, while those examples may not seem logical today, would they not be possible by the Son of God? Believing in those things is the core of our faith.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I only think people are too zealous if they do things in the name of God that God does not want them to do. Like the Chrusades. I am sure that ticked off the Almighty something fierce.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

To respond to you: Science and religion aren't mutually exclusive as you suggest. You cannot prove the supernatural. Therefore, your entire point is nonsensical. Guess what else is new!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So religion is nonsensical since it can't be proven; someone wake up the pope.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't prove God exists because that requires proof the natural, and God is of the supernatural. It's not mutually exclusive though. Science discovers things of the natural world, while theology can discover things of the supernatural - together.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd like to know how you can discover things of the supernatural. The term discovery is pretty naturalistic; you can only discover what you observe and what you observe is that of nature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not being concerned with something, and not thinking it exists are two different things. I know plenty of scientists who believe in God without physical proof. I think you would be better to say that without proof, scientists don't think it exists in the physical world - and many scientists don't believe there is anything outside of the physical world since you can't have proof for non-physical things. But that doesn't mean science assumes something doesn't exist if it's not physical - because that is a choice that is made outside the realm of science and is based on the individual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't understand the reasoning behind the idea that belief in something that is supernatural is valid or a reasonable thing to do. If you wanted to make a set of everything we observe in the universe and put it into a set, then everything outside of that set is not natural. Why would some things not in the natural set be more plausible then others?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why would religion be more valid then gravity repelling matter, zebra with neon pink and blue stripes and matter travelling faster then the speed of light? The fact that one of the most basic premises in religion is that concepts like god are unobservable, means that it is impossible for religion to be in the set of all natural things. Whereas my propositions above might be possible but they are yet unobserved. If anything a pink and blue zebra would be more valid since it is actually possible to observe a zebra.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In your last sentence you are making a connection between something being physical and something existing. If something exists then it is able to be observed and hence it's physical. If something doesn't exist then it can't be observed and hence it is supernatural; it is a simple dichotomy to understand. If something supernatural existed you must have observed it in some manner, if you observed it then its natural and not supernatural.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

 

To respond to you: Science and religion aren't mutually exclusive as you suggest. You cannot prove the supernatural. Therefore, your entire point is nonsensical. Guess what else is new!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So religion is nonsensical since it can't be proven; someone wake up the pope.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That doesn't follow any reasoning at all...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd like to know how you can discover things of the supernatural. The term discovery is pretty naturalistic; you can only discover what you observe and what you observe is that of nature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I actually thought carefully about using that word, decided I couldn't think of a better one so i used it anyway. You're right - discovery is a bad word.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't understand the reasoning behind the idea that belief in something that is supernatural is valid or a reasonable thing to do. If you wanted to make a set of everything we observe in the universe and put it into a set, then everything outside of that set is not natural. Why would some things not in the natural set be more plausible then others?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is why I can't prove my religion is more plausible than another religion. I have logical reasons to believe so, but I can't prove it - and because of that, it is no more plausible than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why would religion be more valid then gravity repelling matter, zebra with neon pink and blue stripes and matter travelling faster then the speed of light? The fact that one of the most basic premises in religion is that concepts like god are unobservable, means that it is impossible for religion to be in the set of all natural things. Whereas my propositions above might be possible but they are yet unobserved. If anything a pink and blue zebra would be more valid since it is actually possible to observe a zebra.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm confused by your point. You seem to have already said my response. Religion is dealing with things you can't prove through observation like you can in the natural world - and so it's not a matter of which is more valid. Obviously you can prove things in the natural world, but you will never be able to prove a religious concept.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's say God comes down again in physical form and he is flying. Well, if he is in physical form - he is most likely manipulating physics to fly. What I would expect to happen is after he manipulated physics, scientists would be able to explain physically how it was possible for him to fly at that time. They could never though, explain how he was able to manipulate the physical laws - and therefore, they could never prove that he actually DID manipulate physical laws. It would most likely just be a new discovery in science that is a rare law of physics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In your last sentence you are making a connection between something being physical and something existing. If something exists then it is able to be observed and hence it's physical. If something doesn't exist then it can't be observed and hence it is supernatural; it is a simple dichotomy to understand. If something supernatural existed you must have observed it in some manner, if you observed it then its natural and not supernatural.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exists in the natural world, and exists in the supernatural world. Is that the clarification you're looking for?

[The Dark Lord]

Well, a lot of people who are atheist on these forums are very aggressive toward any form of spirituality. They go so far as to call someone an "idiot" if they have doubts about evolution, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Atheist: "Those who do not believe in the proof of evolution are all idiots!!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religious Person: "So, how am I an idiot if I have faith in a deity that created me and the Universe? I believe evolution is severely flawed; how can a fish that decides to move onto land in order to survive live when it hasn't fully developed lungs yet, and it still has gills?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Atheist: "I don't know. I just listen to that science teacher I had in 10th grade. He was so much smarter than me, he made me feel like an idiot when I made fun out of apes and he said that they were our ancestors."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religious Person: "Why do you believe him just because he was smarter than you? Wow, you must be an idiot because you listen to what others say just because they are more intelligent than you. I think you should think carefully before calling people idiots because they easily question something."

[Nadril]

That could be true Sera if most of those critising you for not beliving in evolution provided ample sources from many different areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I generaly tend to not get involved in the larger debates. I'm one of those that just does really care about religion (but, in no way am saying god exists/doesn't exist). I generaly will just point out something if I see it.

[BlueLancer]

Well, a lot of people who are atheist on these forums are very aggressive toward any form of spirituality. They go so far as to call someone an "idiot" if they have doubts about evolution, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Atheist: "Those who do not believe in the proof of evolution are all idiots!!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religious Person: "So, how am I an idiot if I have faith in a deity that created me and the Universe? I believe evolution is severely flawed; how can a fish that decides to move onto land in order to survive live when it hasn't fully developed lungs yet, and it still has gills?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Atheist: "I don't know. I just listen to that science teacher I had in 10th grade. He was so much smarter than me, he made me feel like an idiot when I made fun out of apes and he said that they were our ancestors."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religious Person: "Why do you believe him just because he was smarter than you? Wow, you must be an idiot because you listen to what others say just because they are more intelligent than you. I think you should think carefully before calling people idiots because they easily question something."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Answering to the obvious personal provocation, I'd like you to address the following questions:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Why do you still think somebody personally called you an idiot? Or do you fail to see the difference between "idiotic thinking" which is criticism and "idiot" which is an insult?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Why'd you think I'm an atheist or hate spirituality because I neither am an atheist nor hate spirituality?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Why do you still insist evolution is about "humans evolved from apes" (because they didn't)? How about reading the facts about evolution before you come up with your own theories, just like I spent a lot of time reading the Bible, Qur'an etc. to make sure I don't sound like a moron?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Why do you think proof has something to do with my 10th grade teacher (who did not even teach me anything about biological evolution)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Do you dismiss all logical proof in favor of a purely biased theological answer to everything you doubt, like evolution? Do you dismiss all the schoolbooks, studies made on evolution, the hundreds of thousands of books and publications on evolution, and just discard it all without even reading a few pages of obvious evidence?

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

This is why I can't prove my religion is more plausible than another religion. I have logical reasons to believe so, but I can't prove it - and because of that, it is no more plausible than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm confused by your point. You seem to have already said my response. Religion is dealing with things you can't prove through observation like you can in the natural world - and so it's not a matter of which is more valid. Obviously you can prove things in the natural world, but you will never be able to prove a religious concept.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's say God comes down again in physical form and he is flying. Well, if he is in physical form - he is most likely manipulating physics to fly. What I would expect to happen is after he manipulated physics, scientists would be able to explain physically how it was possible for him to fly at that time. They could never though, explain how he was able to manipulate the physical laws - and therefore, they could never prove that he actually DID manipulate physical laws. It would most likely just be a new discovery in science that is a rare law of physics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exists in the natural world, and exists in the supernatural world. Is that the clarification you're looking for?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are practically infinitely many religions so I fail to see how you can logically reason between them. What I'm trying to get at is that religion is in the same class as other supernatural things, such as gravity being a repulsive force rather then an attractive one and as such it viewed as sceptically as you would ghosts, neon coloured zebra or repulsive gravity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With your example of a flying God, how would it be possible to tell that it is manipulating the laws of physics rather then actually obeying the laws and our models just being incorrect? If we can recreate a model which explains how it can fly then we have shown the God to obey the laws of physics so it wouldn't be a miracle. To say that we wouldn't know how the God managed to fly is like saying we don't know why all the water particles in the ocean are moving around in the way that they are. Small perturbations in every day living cause massively divergent effects.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A counterargument to that would be the miraculous healing of diseases. There are many situations where people who are unlikely to live, manage to make recoveries which are attributed to miracles. These situations show us that we don't understand diseases and that they are more complex then we think. We need to revise our model of the disease in order to account for these miraculous healing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By the same token there are some models which are very good at explaining a disease. For example there are no reported miracles where someone has regained function in a limb that was destroyed by flesh eating bacteria or similar scenarios. There are many unsolved problems which don't require us to fall back to a supernatural explanation; it just requires more work to come to an explanation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't say something exists outside of the set of all things natural, since existence is a property exclusive of natural things. If something doesn't exist it means we haven't observed it, which means its not natural.

[insane]

You can't say something exists outside of the set of all things natural, since existence is a property exclusive of natural things. If something doesn't exist it means we haven't observed it, which means its not natural.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's an extremely circular argument, which again brings us back to basic beliefs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are practically infinitely many religions so I fail to see how you can logically reason between them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christianity is the only religion that accepts the fact that we are unable to save ourselves and that we need faith in God to save us Himself, because we are unable to. All other religions rely on some sort of Law following.

[Guest GhostRanger]

There are practically infinitely many religions so I fail to see how you can logically reason between them. What I'm trying to get at is that religion is in the same class as other supernatural things, such as gravity being a repulsive force rather then an attractive one and as such it viewed as sceptically as you would ghosts, neon coloured zebra or repulsive gravity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See insane's post for just a beginning to that point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With your example of a flying God, how would it be possible to tell that it is manipulating the laws of physics rather then actually obeying the laws and our models just being incorrect? If we can recreate a model which explains how it can fly then we have shown the God to obey the laws of physics so it wouldn't be a miracle. To say that we wouldn't know how the God managed to fly is like saying we don't know why all the water particles in the ocean are moving around in the way that they are. Small perturbations in every day living cause massively divergent effects.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is exactly my point! You cannot prove God to be supernatural, even if he came down in natural form and started changing the laws of physics, because we would be able to explain the laws of physics as something we didn't understand - there would NEVER be a way to show the God actually changed the laws. That is exactly my point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A counterargument to that would be the miraculous healing of diseases. There are many situations where people who are unlikely to live, manage to make recoveries which are attributed to miracles. These situations show us that we don't understand diseases and that they are more complex then we think. We need to revise our model of the disease in order to account for these miraculous healing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By the same token there are some models which are very good at explaining a disease. For example there are no reported miracles where someone has regained function in a limb that was destroyed by flesh eating bacteria or similar scenarios. There are many unsolved problems which don't require us to fall back to a supernatural explanation; it just requires more work to come to an explanation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are still making my point for me. We can't prove is something is a miracle, because if it happens in the natural world, it can be explained naturally. The miracle for a diseased person making it is God using the natural laws he created, and manipulating them so the person can live. It can be explained naturally because afterall, God created the natural laws that he is merely using. My point is just what you are saying - we can't prove the supernatural because we can only understand the natural side of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't say something exists outside of the set of all things natural, since existence is a property exclusive of natural things. If something doesn't exist it means we haven't observed it, which means its not natural.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's just a linguistic battle over the word "exists" which is why I'm redefining it. There is natural existence - and supernatural existence. Two different things - and our meaning of the word "exists" is natural.

[Astralinre]

Until you can prove that turning water into wine, walking on water, creating unlimited food, resurrecting dead people and curing blind people with your hands is logically possible, feel free not to post or also find me evidence about santa clause flying with Rudolph the reindeer and throwing presents down the chimney every christmas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a belief system which assumes the existence of an all-powerful God who created the universe, it's perfectly logical that he could manipulate that universe however he wanted. If God is powerful enough to create the laws of physics, surely he is powerful enough to supercede them?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, to a materialist, miracles are rubbish, but that's only because of presupposed materialism.

[BlueLancer]

 

Until you can prove that turning water into wine, walking on water, creating unlimited food, resurrecting dead people and curing blind people with your hands is logically possible, feel free not to post or also find me evidence about santa clause flying with Rudolph the reindeer and throwing presents down the chimney every christmas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a belief system ... it's perfectly logical

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's only logical as per your belief. Just because you believe something (which can't be proven) does not make it "real", it makes it your personal belief (and there's nothing wrong with that - as long as you don't state is as a fact but your belief).

[insane]

 

 

Until you can prove that turning water into wine, walking on water, creating unlimited food, resurrecting dead people and curing blind people with your hands is logically possible, feel free not to post or also find me evidence about santa clause flying with Rudolph the reindeer and throwing presents down the chimney every christmas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a belief system ... it's perfectly logical

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's only logical as per your belief. Just because you believe something (which can't be proven) does not make it "real", it makes it your personal belief (and there's nothing wrong with that - as long as you don't state is as a fact but your belief).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your argument is merely your opinion as well, since it is based on circular reasoning (you presuppose materialism, and then say Christ can't have done miracles because of the materialism, therefore materialism).

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

Until you can prove that turning water into wine, walking on water, creating unlimited food, resurrecting dead people and curing blind people with your hands is logically possible, feel free not to post or also find me evidence about santa clause flying with Rudolph the reindeer and throwing presents down the chimney every christmas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a belief system ... it's perfectly logical

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's only logical as per your belief. Just because you believe something (which can't be proven) does not make it "real", it makes it your personal belief (and there's nothing wrong with that - as long as you don't state is as a fact but your belief).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Astra isn't talking about "real" he's talking about logic. The point is that if you accept the axiomatic point of Christianity that God is all powerful, it is perfectly logical to believe those things can be done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The same is said of any type of religion or philosophy. Let's take Nietzsche, who is completely opposite from Christianity in his belief. His entire philosophy is completely logical, however, it breaks down if you accept his axiomatic principle that all actions are done for the attainment of power. It doesn't make his philosophy illogical because you can't prove that - you just have to decide whether or or not you think there is enough reason to believe so. The same goes for Aristotle's ethics - it only applies if you accept his axiomatic statement that the end of man is eudaimonia.

[How2PK]

Why must everyone either be religiously zealous and fundamentalist or fiercely atheistic and hostile towards any form of spirituality? Is there no happy medium? Is there nobody who is at least mildly tolerant of others' beliefs without being self-righteous and intrusive?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I am. But I tend to stay away from these topics. Because there's people who (think they) know so much about it, so it would be pointless for me trying to contribute.