Hi Stan,
I'm not sure that I understand your claim about the future. As for beginnings to space and time, well God can't possibly provide an answer: if you can't explain God's existence other than to say he/she is eternal, you may as well save time and just say the Universe is eternal.
Faith is believing what you know ain't so - Mark Twain
The preachers deal with men of straw, as they are men of straw themselves - Henry David Thoreau
The way to see faith is to shut the eye of reason - Benjamin Franklin
The teaching of the church, theoretically astute, is a lie in practice and a compound of vulgar superstitions and sorcery - Leo Tolstoy
Stan,
Correct me if I am wrong, but I did not deny that the Bible had an influence on western cultural development. My criticism was based on the claim that the Bible was the basis for western cultural development. In all areas of western culture, you can find roots way before the biblical writings.
Faith is believing what you know ain't so - Mark Twain
The preachers deal with men of straw, as they are men of straw themselves - Henry David Thoreau
The way to see faith is to shut the eye of reason - Benjamin Franklin
The teaching of the church, theoretically astute, is a lie in practice and a compound of vulgar superstitions and sorcery - Leo Tolstoy
Originally Posted by Stanislaw
Can I just point out somthing sure God is kind and benevoulent but hes also a pretty harsh task masters ( by human standerds ) and theres good reason for this. Also belivieng in God includes putting your faith to test Im mean look at Job ( wait it is Job in english who lost all 12 of his chikedren and had disatser after disaster occur to him in a year so he went from a rich succesful man to practically a begger with no family?). And then there is the belief that if they die as children they go straight to heaven no questions asked, some would call tha a mercy.
But stan mathamtics? That wasnt the christians it was the antient muslims hence algebra being called algebra after Al-Gaber ibn Hayan. But yeah christianity is reponsible for the spread of alot of things but just at this moment other than the printing press fabioulous arctechture I cant really think right now but I do know christianity and even all the major abrahamic religiouns have all played big and even massive roles in getting us where we are today and I think thats somthing all the people who nessereily belive in them should rember that no matter what you actually think about them the ideas of the people before us our 'intellectual heritage' as it were is responsible for more than you might like to think.
My mission in life is to make YOU smile
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The time has come," the Walrus said,"To talk of many things:
Forum Rules- You know you want to read 'em
|Litnet Challange status = 5/260
|currently reading
All this is the biggest load of sophistry I have ever seen on any internet forum.
The poll was scientific to within some small degree of accuracy. Most theists in the U.S. are christians. 47 + 40 divided by 40 = 47 per cent of theists, mostly christians, believe humans evolved. There is no one who claims that humans evolved from present day monkeys. Your claim was that less than one per cent of christians in the U.S. believe humans evolved from a monkey. Obviously, this means a common ancester.
Thus your "guess" is wrong. Polls show that a sizeable minority, not less than one per cent, of christians in the U.S. believe humans evolved from a monkey-like ancester (essentially a monkey).
Your "guess" has been proven wrong. Period. In black and white. The fact that you can't even admit this means that you have a problem that I, as a non-psychiatrist, cannot help you with.
I cannot deal with overt dishonesty like this. If all christians are as dishonest as you are then I've no doubt it is a false religion.
I will be ignoring your posts from now on.
Last edited by JGL57; 02-19-2007 at 04:38 PM.
this thread is going to become interesting once zeppelin returns.
You mean I have excelled at something? Is there an award for this category?
Not necessarily.
Oh OK, if it makes you feel better, here: my guess was silly and inaccurate.
OK - I said something careless (which means you and I may be more alike than we may wish to admit) - it's not the first time nor will it be the last.
(I pretty much doubt you could help me even if you were a psychiatrist. My absurd belief in an invisible deity already qualifies me for the insane asylum.)
On the contrary: I believe with unequivocal certainty that everything I say is true.
You mean you hadn't figured this out before talking to me?
Two possible responses:
1. Promise?
2. Is this called a forfeit?
Wow - is this another compliment? You two really need to stop. I actually thought the thread was quite interesting whether I was around or not.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
OK. Then by that channel of thinking, that giving limitless time CANNOT make the IMPOSSIBLE happen, then I will chose to put no faith in any principle of science based on chance. When science wishes to disprove claims of anything supernatural taking place, the first thing they do is calculate the odds of it happening by mere chance. "Eliminate the 'chance factor', and maybe we have solid fact with which to work." That seems to be the major maxim, and I do not disagree. But it is fine to allow infinite tries to make chance take place, but not something you do not wish to believe in anyway. OK. Just so we know where we stand.
<Oh, and how much Science has been put to a search for Atlantis, which was in a book written by Plato, I believe?>
The point was not how little Science has wasted on this, but how much. I see countless references to it by very serious scientists, they try to pinpoint the location, (including the lastest, South China Seas), they rave over the Bimini Road, etc. Did anyone ever research and see if Plato ever traveled at all?
I have messed around enough. Good luck, folks!
Some of us laugh
Some of us cry
Some of us smoke
Some of us lie
But it's all just the way
that we cope with our lives...
Well...thats where the blind faith comes in...some say God, Some say Nirvana, some say nothing.
Well, I'll give that, it was poorly worded, I didn't exactly say what I meant, the Greek, and pre-greek influences are clear, even in Biblical interpretations.
---------------
Stanislaw Lem
1921 - 2006, Rest In Peace.
"Faith is, at one and the same time, absolutely necessary and altogether impossible"
<OK. Then by that channel of thinking, that giving limitless time CANNOT make the IMPOSSIBLE happen, then I will chose to put no faith in any principle of science based on chance.>
If something happens based on chance, then it disproves its impossibility does it not? If something is impossible, it simply cannot happen, no matter what mix of chance and infinity your recipe concocts.
<When science wishes to disprove claims of anything supernatural taking place, the first thing they do is calculate the odds of it happening by mere chance.>
If something happens in nature, no matter how wild the probability of it happening, then, in my book, it ceases to be considered supernatural. In fact, I think the term supernatural seems to me to be a nonsense term. I've just looked it up in the dictionary, and fail to understand what it can mean: "of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal." How can something in the natural world be above or beyond nature? Its existence in our world must make it natural. Being unexplained by natural law or phenomena says more about our own understanding/ignorance of the natural world then it does about the natural world itself. So it appears to me that the term supernatural is merely used to describe ignorance. Peoples of the past must have described all kinds of natural phenomena as supernatural.
<"Eliminate the 'chance factor', and maybe we have solid fact with which to work." That seems to be the major maxim, and I do not disagree.>
I don't really know what you are talking about here.
<But it is fine to allow infinite tries to make chance take place, but not something you do not wish to believe in anyway. OK. Just so we know where we stand. >
I'm confused about this too I'm afraid. What do you mean about infinite tries and chance taking place? Chance doesn't take place. Chance is a calculation based on things that take place. Infinite tries do not an impossibility make. Supposing we say that God both exists and doesn't exist at the same time. This is obviously a contradiction in terms. No matter how much time you allow, I'm afraid it will still be a contradiction in terms.
Science, as I understand it, takes the most efficient explanation for physical events. So the most sufficient explanation that requires the least amount of improbable factors will be favoured. Any physical explanation of the Universe will be more probable than a religious explanation. If only because reference will be made to evidences of what we empirically already have discovered. Any explanation relying on deism or theism, is dependent on postulations that cannot be weighed up in terms of probability. Therefore, the argument that God made the Universe is as sound as all and any argument, no matter how ridiculous. I may as well say that xfgmnsad made the Universe. It will have as much meaning.
Faith is believing what you know ain't so - Mark Twain
The preachers deal with men of straw, as they are men of straw themselves - Henry David Thoreau
The way to see faith is to shut the eye of reason - Benjamin Franklin
The teaching of the church, theoretically astute, is a lie in practice and a compound of vulgar superstitions and sorcery - Leo Tolstoy
Exactly. This should end the argument.
That depends upon a number of factors. Many experts once contended that manned flight was "impossible."
Something that happens once, in violation of the known laws of nature cannot be defined as "natural." If we had precise records of the sun for the last 5000 years and only once was it recorded that it traversed the sky from west to east, we would call that "supernatural." What you're suggesting is based on ignorance of perhaps an unknown law, but when things occur in opposition to known laws without any way to explain them, it seems perfectly logical to call them "beyond natural" events because they are aberrations.
But infinity opens up the door for an inconsistent result of an experiment. Inductive reasoning tells us that because 1000 rocks thrown at 1000 windows shatter said windows that it's a pretty safe bet to say that rocks thrown at windows shatter them. However, who is to say that on the 10,345th try that the same rock thrown does not break a window? Now you have an exception. That's the nature of inductive logic: you're working with probability. An infinite number of tries opens up the possibility for exception.
But since your example deals with logic as applied to the system of language, you have provided an example that is not comparable to the idea that infinity makes the existence of God possible.
Science is reassuring to us because it speaks in a limited language that we can understand. Because it is limited by the humans that create/implement it, of course it seems more reasonable because - for the most part (at least until we start discussing some of the odds for evolutionary development) - it gives us facts and numbers we can comprehend. The idea that a Supreme Being created the universe actually gives the simplest answer - it is science's answer that requires astronomical numbers and coincedences. The term "improbable" is used to describe plenty of things we can't conceive of - but many people throughout history could not conceive of many of the most basic tools we have the advantage of today. Nonetheless, science possesses it's own catelog of facts that are less than verified, and require a certain amount of faith in that they present some rather improbable numbers and statistics to prove its points - many of which are based on the speculative nature of inductive reasoning.
Science seems more believable simply because it has limits, like we do. Once we start dealing with a Being that has always existed and is all powerful, well, we wish to dismiss that because we can't conceive of it so it must not be true. How much of our modern technology could a medieval peasant conceive of?
Oh darn. Was I supposed to stop now?
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
As if it is really that difficult to be honest in spite of our inclinations and predispositions. Who does not want to be the best? Who does not want to rely on their own understanding? I think it is so very presumptuous of any man or woman to think that they have the answer to the origination of the cosmos. Some believe in a transcendent God, while others believe in the miracle of life unintended. Either way they are both clearly walks of faith. Some shroud themselves in religion, while others do the same with the covering of science; both clearly human constructs create to provide answers to questions that cannot be answered. But still, the argument continues, and the clash magnifies the human condition of the purely imperfect. In truth, I comes down to the reality that mankind longs to clean on to some understanding, even if the pursuit divides. Do we not all need to stand strong against an opponent? Our existence is the mark of a momentary lifespan riddled with unsatiation.
Theism is based on beliefs and faith...things that cannot be proven in the physical universe. Any shred of evidence given off by science is more concrete than creationism because it can be proven in the physical realm. God is imaginary...it does not physically exist...it's a conjecture. I can't believe this is even an argument.
"feed powdered cattle to cattle" and "gullibility" has to do with the validity of evolution?
Scientific theories are treated as indisputable fact by those who make science and its agents their god and priests. Some post here. Some of us are not so gullible.
This is nonsense. Could you please provide one example of anyone that says science is god or that the folks that dedicate their lives to better understanding the universe are its priests? Please, what tripe!
What was the last science course you had, and where did you take it? Here's what they teach at the University of Rochester, but its pretty much the same everywhere:
I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
Now where does it say that scientific theories are to be treated as indisputable facts.
Posting Permissions
