Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Protests over a cartoon... wtf.
( ) 3 Votes
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201401 is a reply to message #188804] |
Mon, 29 May 2006 02:17   |
 |
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Religion has as much "evidence" as science does. Religious text that explain things , Religious leaders who have personal knowledge relating to God and documented "experiments" that can only qualify if they have no scientific explanation.
The only difference is who you choose to believe, as you have no personal knowledge of almost anything science or religion claims.
|
Religious texts, that all disagree with each other and were written by men, something everybody can do (see book of mormon). Scientific explanaitions must abide by the laws of physics to be considered, however, everybody can claim that he has spoken to God. It's nothing but an empty statement that everybody can say. I would say there is a difference between those two types of "evidence". One is intuition and the other is real evidence.
Where exactly are you going here? Are you claiming that a Big Bang never happened or that "God" started the Big Bang?
| Quote: |
Please don't contradict yourself in the same sentence. You can not prove how something "can", you can only prove how something "did".
True, the experiments give an explanation as to how life "can" start, but it in no way proves how life "did" start.
Another possibility (without invoking the word "God") is that we spontaneously generated. After all, if the universe can do it, so should we be able to. Or, we were not created, but we always existed, in some other form than we had now. There is not always a chemical reaction required to change forms (ie. evolution), so perhaps humanity came to exist through reasons of that.
|
How is that a contradiction? Before the experiment, there wasn't any proof that it could have happened that way, now there is. The next step is proving that it did. It was proven that life can start from chemicals...how is that a contradiction?
Yes, I've never claimed otherwise. However, it is the only possible way that has been proven to work. There is no proof or evidence whatsoever that life can start spontaneously, but there is that is started out of chemicals. You're not only assuming that life can start spontaneously, but you're assuming as well that the same rules that apply to the universe apply to a single planet inside the universe...that's extremely far-fetched especially considering that we've found a much more plausible way.
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201402 is a reply to message #201295] |
Mon, 29 May 2006 02:18 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Sun, 28 May 2006 23:46 |
What about heat death and gravity death?
|
Don't we need to know how the universe is shaped in the first place in order to know what will happen to it?
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201415 is a reply to message #188804] |
Mon, 29 May 2006 05:09 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Scientific explanaitions must abide by the laws of physics to be considered, however, everybody can claim that he has spoken to God. It's nothing but an empty statement that everybody can say. I would say there is a difference between those two types of "evidence". One is intuition and the other is real evidence.
|
Everybody can claim they "know" molecules exist. However, I doubt that even you have seen a molecule with your naked eye. It's nothing but an empty statement that everyone can say. It's only considered "intuition" by you, because you don't recognize the evidence, as evidence.
| Quote: |
Religious texts, that all disagree with each other and were written by men, something everybody can do (see book of mormon).
|
Have you ever studied in the field of philosophy? Every single book out there contradicts another one in some form or another, and this field is given much more credit than even some scientific fields.
| Quote: |
Where exactly are you going here? Are you claiming that a Big Bang never happened or that "God" started the Big Bang?
|
Oh, I believe that the Big Bang occurred, but can you prove that "God" had no hand in it?
| Quote: |
How is that a contradiction? Before the experiment, there wasn't any proof that it could have happened that way, now there is. The next step is proving that it did. It was proven that life can start from chemicals...how is that a contradiction?
|
You stated:
| Quote: |
Science has proven how life here started and evolved.
|
So I counter with a request for this proof. You then come up with:
| Quote: |
Life can start through chemical reactions which has been done in an experiment...
|
So I make mention of how that doesn't prove how we got here, simply that it's one way life can begin.
You follow up with:
| Quote: |
proves how life can start out of the chemicals the world was made of,
|
There is the contradiction, with the back story. Once again, you can not Prove this is how we got here, simply that a chemical reaction is one possibility. That is not proof.
| Quote: |
that's extremely far-fetched especially considering that we've found a much more plausible way.
|
Ah, but plausible does not equate to definitive.
| Quote: |
you're assuming as well that the same rules that apply to the universe apply to a single planet inside the universe...
|
Any reason why it shouldn't? Both are based on the "rules" of physics (I wonder how those rules developed, anyways), so why should one be exempt? Oh yes, so that it can fit in the THEORY of how the universe began.
[Updated on: Mon, 29 May 2006 05:10] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201425 is a reply to message #188804] |
Mon, 29 May 2006 08:48 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Everybody can claim they "know" molecules exist. However, I doubt that even you have seen a molecule with your naked eye. It's nothing but an empty statement that everyone can say.
|
You can measure molecules and "see" them through instuments...can you do that with any of your supernatural nonsense? Didn't think so...so much for "empty statement".
| Quote: |
Have you ever studied in the field of philosophy? Every single book out there contradicts another one in some form or another, and this field is given much more credit than even some scientific fields.
|
So? They still need to abide by certain laws, which religious nonsense doesn't...everybody can say something and tell people that it's the truth, shown by the book of mormon.
| Quote: |
Oh, I believe that the Big Bang occurred, but can you prove that "God" had no hand in it?
|
Tell me...why should God have a hand in it? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The whole idea of God was to explain things that people couldn't. If you think that there is a starting point, an unmoved mover, then give me one reason why that should be God instead of the universe itself. It's completely superfluous.
| Quote: |
Quote:
How is that a contradiction? Before the experiment, there wasn't any proof that it could have happened that way, now there is. The next step is proving that it did. It was proven that life can start from chemicals...how is that a contradiction?
You stated:
Quote:
Science has proven how life here started and evolved.
So I counter with a request for this proof. You then come up with:
Quote:
Life can start through chemical reactions which has been done in an experiment...
So I make mention of how that doesn't prove how we got here, simply that it's one way life can begin.
You follow up with:
Quote:
proves how life can start out of the chemicals the world was made of,
There is the contradiction, with the back story. Once again, you can not Prove this is how we got here, simply that a chemical reaction is one possibility. That is not proof.
|
Oh that was directed at my first statement...I have no idea why you would say that then considering I corrected myself already.
| Quote: |
Ah, but plausible does not equate to definitive.
|
No, but I'll go with the most plausible solution until a better emerges...you can go on and believe in your stuff, but live with it being irrational.
| Quote: |
Any reason why it shouldn't? Both are based on the "rules" of physics (I wonder how those rules developed, anyways), so why should one be exempt? Oh yes, so that it can fit in the THEORY of how the universe began.
|
You're assuming that the same rules that apply to the surrounding, the universe, apply to the material things inside the universe, of which you have no clues and no reason to believe whatsoever. It's utterly far-fetched, whereas life starting through the chemicals of which the universe is made of has been proven to work and seems by far more plausible...
lol
[Updated on: Mon, 29 May 2006 08:51] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201455 is a reply to message #188804] |
Mon, 29 May 2006 13:24 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
You can measure molecules and "see" them through instuments...can you do that with any of your supernatural nonsense? Didn't think so...so much for "empty statement".
|
Wrong. You can trust that what the instrument is showing you is true. But you have no way of verifying that yourself. You have no ability to see it with the naked eye (even then, you have to assume there is nothing wrong with your vision), so you have to trust what someone else tells you is there, be that a scientist, or the microscope manufacturer.
| Quote: |
So? They still need to abide by certain laws, which religious nonsense doesn't...everybody can say something and tell people that it's the truth, shown by the book of mormon.
|
Tell that to Descarte, who attempted to decide whether or not we truly exist. There were no conventional "laws" in place there. Yet, his "experiment" is highly regarded, be it ultimately true or not.
With the idea of Philosophy still having to abide by certain rules, what about those who argue that God exists? The are all part of the same field, and by your definition, they follow those same rules. Therefore, by your definition, God must also exist.
| Quote: |
Tell me...why should God have a hand in it? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The whole idea of God was to explain things that people couldn't. If you think that there is a starting point, an unmoved mover, then give me one reason why that should be God instead of the universe itself. It's completely superfluous.
|
The whole idea about God was to explain things that people couldn't? Sure, people invoked God when there was something unexplained (even the laws of our contry do this with complete legal backing, but that aside) however that doesn't mean it was what God was "created" for. It's just what he is used (incorrectly) for.
| Quote: |
Oh that was directed at my first statement...I have no idea why you would say that then considering I corrected myself already.
|
Wrong, it was aimed at your last statement. Hence why I said contradiction AND HISTORY. Meaning everything that was stated leading up to the contradiction.
| Quote: |
No, but I'll go with the most plausible solution until a better emerges...you can go on and believe in your stuff, but live with it being irrational.
|
LOL, I think I'll stop arguing with you then. Obviously you have no ability to think outside conventional means, and just go with "what's best"... or should that be "what's best for what I believe". Convenient, isn't it.
| Quote: |
You're assuming that the same rules that apply to the surrounding, the universe, apply to the material things inside the universe, of which you have no clues and no reason to believe whatsoever. It's utterly far-fetched, whereas life starting through the chemicals of which the universe is made of has been proven to work and seems by far more plausible...
|
You have no reason to believe otherwise. And as you seem to enjoy stating, you have nothing but "intuition" to go on with the idea that the rules of the universe itself do not apply to what is in the universe.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201472 is a reply to message #188804] |
Mon, 29 May 2006 15:47 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Wrong. You can trust that what the instrument is showing you is true. But you have no way of verifying that yourself. You have no ability to see it with the naked eye (even then, you have to assume there is nothing wrong with your vision), so you have to trust what someone else tells you is there, be that a scientist, or the microscope manufacturer.
|
Ya and you can't trust anything you see through your glasses...wow I can't believe you actually said that. Scientists won't lie to me since they have to respect the laws of physics and their metier...and if one of them should be lying, I can always consult others. I have no idea where you're going with this...are you telling me that molecules and atoms don't exist for sure or what? This is getting even more ridiculous than believing in God.
| Quote: |
Tell that to Descarte, who attempted to decide whether or not we truly exist. There were no conventional "laws" in place there. Yet, his "experiment" is highly regarded, be it ultimately true or not.
With the idea of Philosophy still having to abide by certain rules, what about those who argue that God exists? The are all part of the same field, and by your definition, they follow those same rules. Therefore, by your definition, God must also exist.
|
We're talking about science here, not philosophy...philosophical ideas don't have to follow any rules, but that's not what we're arguing about. I understand why you would like to change the subject tho..
| Quote: |
The whole idea about God was to explain things that people couldn't? Sure, people invoked God when there was something unexplained (even the laws of our contry do this with complete legal backing, but that aside) however that doesn't mean it was what God was "created" for. It's just what he is used (incorrectly) for.
|
What do you think God was created for then? Way to dodge my question concerning God being superfluous btw...
| Quote: |
Wrong, it was aimed at your last statement. Hence why I said contradiction AND HISTORY. Meaning everything that was stated leading up to the contradiction.
|
I'm not going to read through this thread again, but my latest statement was that science has proven how life can start from the chemicals that earth was made up of, so I still don't know what you're trying to say, since I see nothing wrong with it.
| Quote: |
LOL, I think I'll stop arguing with you then. Obviously you have no ability to think outside conventional means, and just go with "what's best"... or should that be "what's best for what I believe". Convenient, isn't it.
|
I have no idea to think outside of conventional means? It's completely logical to go with the most realistic explanation and I'll believe that. I can always change my opinion, however. Give me a good reason why God and not the universe should be the starting point and I'll believe that.
| Quote: |
You have no reason to believe otherwise. And as you seem to enjoy stating, you have nothing but "intuition" to go on with the idea that the rules of the universe itself do not apply to what is in the universe.
|
It's simple logic. On the one hand we have a menthod that works, but we can't prove if it actually happened that way since we can't travel back in time, on the other we have a method that is completely based on assumptions for which we don't even have clues. With which would you go?
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201479 is a reply to message #188804] |
Mon, 29 May 2006 17:14 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Ugh.. You're almost as bad as nodbugger.
| Quote: |
Ya and you can't trust anything you see through your glasses...wow I can't believe you actually said that. Scientists won't lie to me since they have to respect the laws of physics and their metier...and if one of them should be lying, I can always consult others. I have no idea where you're going with this...are you telling me that molecules and atoms don't exist for sure or what? This is getting even more ridiculous than believing in God.
|
Way to miss the point. All you have to go on is what one scientist says, and is backed up by another. Guess what, Religion is the same way.
| Quote: |
We're talking about science here, not philosophy...philosophical ideas don't have to follow any rules, but that's not what we're arguing about. I understand why you would like to change the subject tho..
|
Actually, we were talking philosophy. Remember this exchange?
| Quote: |
Quote:
| Quote: |
Have you ever studied in the field of philosophy? Every single book out there contradicts another one in some form or another, and this field is given much more credit than even some scientific fields.
|
So? They still need to abide by certain laws, which religious nonsense doesn't...everybody can say something and tell people that it's the truth, shown by the book of mormon.
|
I bring up philosophy, and you counter with that they need laws. THEN you switch your position and say they don't need laws, trying to pin me with changing the topic. Sorry, won't work.
| Quote: |
What do you think God was created for then? Way to dodge my question concerning God being superfluous btw...
|
Who says God was "created" for a reason? And I appologise for not speaking up about your comment regarding God creating the universe being beyond what is required or sufficient. I didn't realize you were arguing only what was the easiest answer. Though some things are starting to make sense.
| Quote: |
I'm not going to read through this thread again, but my latest statement was that science has proven how life can start from the chemicals that earth was made up of, so I still don't know what you're trying to say, since I see nothing wrong with it.
|
Fine, I'll explain it again...
You can not prove something DID occur, by saying that it CAN occur. Science has proven that life CAN begin through a chemical reaction, but it does not prove it DID happen back during the coalescence of the primordial ooze.
| Quote: |
I have no idea to think outside of conventional means? It's completely logical to go with the most realistic explanation and I'll believe that. I can always change my opinion, however. Give me a good reason why God and not the universe should be the starting point and I'll believe that.
|
I think you mean "the most convenient explination". Here's a question for you: if the universe is not subject to the laws of physics (after all, it created itself - refer to my initial post relating to this point), why did it not start in a completed form? Why did it have to go though the stages of the big bang before it could even form?
I have no reason to even begin to try to explain why or why not God may be the starting point. Ignoring the idea that all that compressed matter had to come from somewhere. Ignoring the idea that the universe was not always there (Remember that thing called the big bang, while on the topic?). And, ignoring that the universe runs in (as far as we can tell) a perfect format.
| Quote: |
It's simple logic. On the one hand we have a menthod that works, but we can't prove if it actually happened that way since we can't travel back in time, on the other we have a method that is completely based on assumptions for which we don't even have clues. With which would you go?
|
A method completely baed on assumptions for which we don't have any clues... you mean like:
Electricity, Light storing information, Transportation of matter through the air, etc.
Or a method that works, such as:
The Earth being flat, any other pre-evolved solution. Remember that just because it works, doesn't mean it's right, or the best.
Oh, and just something to point out, not necessarily related to this argument.
| Quote: |
Scientists won't lie to me since they have to respect the laws of physics and their metier
|
Such as those scientists who argue that Global Warming is real, and those who argue it is not. Such as those scientists who argue that breaking the speed of light is impossible, and those who say it is possible. Such as scientists who state that Dinosaurs became extinct as a result of a meteorite/insert one of the numerous theories here.
Because there are two or more sides to this story, someone must be lying.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201518 is a reply to message #188804] |
Tue, 30 May 2006 02:40 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Way to miss the point. All you have to go on is what one scientist says, and is backed up by another. Guess what, Religion is the same way.
|
Guess what, scientists have to abide by certain laws, Religion's don't. Way to miss the point..
| Quote: |
Actually, we were talking philosophy. Remember this exchange?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Have you ever studied in the field of philosophy? Every single book out there contradicts another one in some form or another, and this field is given much more credit than even some scientific fields.
So? They still need to abide by certain laws, which religious nonsense doesn't...everybody can say something and tell people that it's the truth, shown by the book of mormon.
I bring up philosophy, and you counter with that they need laws. THEN you switch your position and say they don't need laws, trying to pin me with changing the topic. Sorry, won't work.
|
Sorry, I must've read "science" instead of "philosophy" the first time...that doesn't change, however, that you have no reason to bring philosophy into this when we're talking about science vs religion.
| Quote: |
Who says God was "created" for a reason? And I appologise for not speaking up about your comment regarding God creating the universe being beyond what is required or sufficient. I didn't realize you were arguing only what was the easiest answer. Though some things are starting to make sense.
|
So you agree that God is superfluous?
| Quote: |
Fine, I'll explain it again...
You can not prove something DID occur, by saying that it CAN occur. Science has proven that life CAN begin through a chemical reaction, but it does not prove it DID happen back during the coalescence of the primordial ooze.
|
That's what I've been saying all along after I corrected myself...
| Quote: |
How is that a contradiction? Before the experiment, there wasn't any proof that it could have happened that way, now there is. The next step is proving that it did. It was proven that life can start from chemicals...how is that a contradiction?
|
| Quote: |
It proves how life can start out of the chemicals the world was made of, so unless you have another plausible way (that doesn't include magic), I'll believe that, thank you.
|
| Quote: |
Life has evolved through mutation and selection.
Life can start through chemical reactions which has been done in an experiment...I'll get more material tomorrow if you haven't heard of that before.
|
Do you see anything wrong with those statements?
| Quote: |
I think you mean "the most convenient explination". Here's a question for you: if the universe is not subject to the laws of physics (after all, it created itself - refer to my initial post relating to this point), why did it not start in a completed form? Why did it have to go though the stages of the big bang before it could even form?
|
The universe hasn't changed, it's still universal...just the ingredients, which are subject to the laws of physics, have.
| Quote: |
I have no reason to even begin to try to explain why or why not God may be the starting point. Ignoring the idea that all that compressed matter had to come from somewhere. Ignoring the idea that the universe was not always there (Remember that thing called the big bang, while on the topic?). And, ignoring that the universe runs in (as far as we can tell) a perfect format.
|
You've been arguing over the last few pages and all of a sudden you're too good to explain yourself? Haha...looks more like someone can't explain something.
| Quote: |
A method completely baed on assumptions for which we don't have any clues... you mean like:
Electricity, Light storing information, Transportation of matter through the air, etc.
Or a method that works, such as:
The Earth being flat, any other pre-evolved solution. Remember that just because it works, doesn't mean it's right, or the best.
Oh, and just something to point out, not necessarily related to this argument.
|
There was never any evidence supporting those pre-evolved solutions, so good job making an analogy that doesn't apply.
| Quote: |
Such as those scientists who argue that Global Warming is real, and those who argue it is not. Such as those scientists who argue that breaking the speed of light is impossible, and those who say it is possible. Such as scientists who state that Dinosaurs became extinct as a result of a meteorite/insert one of the numerous theories here.
Because there are two or more sides to this story, someone must be lying.
|
The existance of molecules isn't debatable...
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201537 is a reply to message #188804] |
Tue, 30 May 2006 06:18 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Guess what, scientists have to abide by certain laws, Religion's don't. Way to miss the point..
|
Guess what, Religion does.
| Quote: |
Sorry, I must've read "science" instead of "philosophy" the first time...that doesn't change, however, that you have no reason to bring philosophy into this when we're talking about science vs religion.
|
Except when, Philosophy has as much backing as science does as a means to explain things.
| Quote: |
So you agree that God is superfluous?
|
Of course God is being beyond what is required or sufficient. That doesn't prove one way or the other as to his existance. Using molecules to explain the makeup of something is just as superfluous.
| Quote: |
That's what I've been saying all along after I corrected myself...
|
It's not poilte to change positions mid-argument, without announcing it, while still tying everything into the first argument.
So I can assume then, that you concede that science has not proven how we were created? In which case, God doing the creation is still very much a avalid argument.
| Quote: |
The universe hasn't changed, it's still universal...just the ingredients, which are subject to the laws of physics, have.
|
Last I checked, the Universe is always changing. Going from a small concentration of matter, to a nearly-ever expanding thing. If it wasn't subject to the laws of physics, then physics would never be able to measure it, as the variables would not be constant.
| Quote: |
You've been arguing over the last few pages and all of a sudden you're too good to explain yourself? Haha...looks more like someone can't explain something.
|
You got me there. It's near impossible to explain something to someone who is ignorant of anything not told to him by someone else. (Oh wait, that almost sounds like a religion!)
| Quote: |
There was never any evidence supporting those pre-evolved solutions,
|
Exactly! Perhaps there is hope for you yet!.. For the most part, anyways.
You may have missed the reference,though, so I'll explain it for you.
There was no evidence to support them, yet they were held as Scientific truths! The idea of the world being flat, worked.. so it was used.
However, there is evidence fot pre-evolved solutions such as what was used back when the basic computers were used. They worked, so it was used, before evolving into the computers we know today, and before evolving into the computers of tomorrow.
Infact, most comercial products had a pre-evolved form, that changes into something better over time. Yet, there is more than enough evidece, as the product exists in the first place.
| Quote: |
The existance of molecules isn't debatable...
|
Then you should be able to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Oh, and you can't refer to what some scientist said in some book. If Religion is restricted from using its text as "proof", then so is science. Both rely on the person reading to choose to believe the person or not, as there is no way of independantly verifying the item in question without relying on something outside your realm of control.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201544 is a reply to message #188804] |
Tue, 30 May 2006 07:24 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Guess what, Religion does.
|
Like what? That God exists? Well that's basically what religion means, so it's not a rule...everybody can start his own religion packed with utter nonsense and make it as unrefutable as any of the major ones.
| Quote: |
Except when, Philosophy has as much backing as science does as a means to explain things.
|
Philosophy can help science, but it won't prove stuff, just like religions won't...science however can.
| Quote: |
Of course God is being beyond what is required or sufficient. That doesn't prove one way or the other as to his existance. Using molecules to explain the makeup of something is just as superfluous.
|
What? How do you explain the makeup of the ozone layer for exemple without them?
| Quote: |
It's not poilte to change positions mid-argument, without announcing it, while still tying everything into the first argument.
|
I'm so sorry...I said it wrong the first time and corrected myself in the following 3 or 4 times, so I would have guessed my position was quite clear.
| Quote: |
Last I checked, the Universe is always changing. Going from a small concentration of matter, to a nearly-ever expanding thing. If it wasn't subject to the laws of physics, then physics would never be able to measure it, as the variables would not be constant.
|
The ingredients, not the Universe.
| Quote: |
You got me there. It's near impossible to explain something to someone who is ignorant of anything not told to him by someone else. (Oh wait, that almost sounds like a religion!)
|
Aren't you someone else?
| Quote: |
Exactly! Perhaps there is hope for you yet!.. For the most part, anyways.
You may have missed the reference,though, so I'll explain it for you.
There was no evidence to support them, yet they were held as Scientific truths! The idea of the world being flat, worked.. so it was used.
However, there is evidence fot pre-evolved solutions such as what was used back when the basic computers were used. They worked, so it was used, before evolving into the computers we know today, and before evolving into the computers of tomorrow.
Infact, most comercial products had a pre-evolved form, that changes into something better over time. Yet, there is more than enough evidece, as the product exists in the first place.
|
They were mis-labelled as scientific truths.
I don't know where you're going with your pre-evolved forms, but if there is evidence for them, then they are a serious possibility, if there is not (like with a flat earth or God), then believing in them is irrational.
| Quote: |
Then you should be able to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Oh, and you can't refer to what some scientist said in some book. If Religion is restricted from using its text as "proof", then so is science. Both rely on the person reading to choose to believe the person or not, as there is no way of independantly verifying the item in question without relying on something outside your realm of control.
|
If I wanted and was smart enough, I could teach myself what I need to prove the existance of molecules...can you do the same with the religious text?
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201549 is a reply to message #188804] |
Tue, 30 May 2006 07:49 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Like what? That God exists? Well that's basically what religion means, so it's not a rule...everybody can start his own religion packed with utter nonsense and make it as unrefutable as any of the major ones.
|
Rules relating to what is acceptable as religious text, rules as to what qualifies (as least in the Roman Catholic faith) as a "miracle".
As for making up your own religion, that is true. However, science can, and has, done the same thing. You just need to falsify every, just as you would need to falsify every with a fake religion.
Besides, we're not arguing the quality of a religion, but the idea of the existance of God himself. You can have an infinite number of wrong religions without being wrong about the existance of God. A religion is just one interpretation of someone's idea of God.
| Quote: |
Philosophy can help science, but it won't prove stuff, just like religions won't...science however can.
|
Right. Thank you for proving my point.
| Quote: |
I'm so sorry...I said it wrong the first time and corrected myself in the following 3 or 4 times, so I would have guessed my position was quite clear.
|
Not when you keep relating it back to your first post in attempting to refute my point.
| Quote: |
The ingredients, not the Universe.
|
Ah, so you're saying that the universe is it's own package, and the matter is simply expanding to fill the universe.
Ok, prove it.
| Quote: |
Aren't you someone else?
|
That I am. Nice avoidance of the arugment though. Although, I thank you for conceding that my points have the same validity as a scientist.
| Quote: |
They were mis-labelled as scientific truths.
I don't know where you're going with your pre-evolved forms, but if there is evidence for them, then they are a serious possibility, if there is not (like with a flat earth or God), then believing in them is irrational.
|
Hind-sight is 20/20 isn't it? They weren't mislabled at the time they were proclaimed to be true. They were honestly thought to be the correct answer.
Pre-evolved means how something existed before today. This includes anything and everything.
| Quote: |
If I wanted and was smart enough, I could teach myself what I need to prove the existance of molecules...can you do the same with the religious text?
|
I highly doubt that as you can not see molecules with the naked eye. It has nothing to do with intelligence, but simple genetics. Humans can not see something that small, just as People can not see God.
But lets take your point anyways. I can prove the existance of religious text, I just need to go to my local book store and purchase one.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201708 is a reply to message #188804] |
Wed, 31 May 2006 03:15 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Rules relating to what is acceptable as religious text, rules as to what qualifies (as least in the Roman Catholic faith) as a "miracle".
|
Please...which rules? Apparently sci-fi novels are acceptable as religious text, so don't get me started.
| Quote: |
As for making up your own religion, that is true. However, science can, and has, done the same thing. You just need to falsify every, just as you would need to falsify every with a fake religion.
|
Not to the extent of what's possible with religion. If a scientist falsifies something, others can still tell you if it's either plain wrong (something you can't do with fake religions) or how realistic it is (compare evidence, something you can't do with fake religions either).
| Quote: |
Besides, we're not arguing the quality of a religion, but the idea of the existance of God himself. You can have an infinite number of wrong religions without being wrong about the existance of God. A religion is just one interpretation of someone's idea of God.
|
That's true indeed, but after all the idea of a God is irrational if you can't support it with something.
| Quote: |
Right. Thank you for proving my point.
|
That science is more trustworthy than religion because it can actually back the stuff up it proclaims? Nice.
| Quote: |
Not when you keep relating it back to your first post in attempting to refute my point.
|
Uhm when did I do that?
| Quote: |
Ah, so you're saying that the universe is it's own package, and the matter is simply expanding to fill the universe.
Ok, prove it.
|
I'll let wikipedia speak here: In cosmological terms, the universe is thought to be a finite or infinite space-time continuum in which all matter and energy exist.
| Quote: |
That I am. Nice avoidance of the arugment though. Although, I thank you for conceding that my points have the same validity as a scientist.
|
If you can back your point up, sure. Can you?
| Quote: |
Hind-sight is 20/20 isn't it? They weren't mislabled at the time they were proclaimed to be true. They were honestly thought to be the correct answer.
|
There wasn't anything even resembling proof to support those theories, so they weren't the truth, thus were mis-labelled. It's irrelevant what they thought...
| Quote: |
Pre-evolved means how something existed before today. This includes anything and everything.
|
Thanks for the info.
| Quote: |
I highly doubt that as you can not see molecules with the naked eye. It has nothing to do with intelligence, but simple genetics. Humans can not see something that small, just as People can not see God.
|
It can still be measured and it's existance proven...good luck doing that with God!
| Quote: |
But lets take your point anyways. I can prove the existance of religious text, I just need to go to my local book store and purchase one.
|
That's not the point...the point is proving or even getting evidence that your religious text isn't bogus without using it.
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201730 is a reply to message #188804] |
Wed, 31 May 2006 05:54 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Please...which rules? Apparently sci-fi novels are acceptable as religious text, so don't get me started.
|
I can't tell you which rules Scientology uses, so I can't help you there.
Two rules that the Roman Catholic church uses, off the top of my mind, are: Is that the Text must have been written by someone close to Jesus. And, in order for something to qualify as a "miracle" is must have no scientific explanation.
| Quote: |
Not to the extent of what's possible with religion. If a scientist falsifies something, others can still tell you if it's either plain wrong (something you can't do with fake religions) or how realistic it is (compare evidence, something you can't do with fake religions either).
|
Not the point. It can still be falsified, and held as a scientific truth. The idea of a religion being false has nothing to do with the existence of God.
| Quote: |
That's true indeed, but after all the idea of a God is irrational if you can't support it with something.
|
So was the existence of the light bulb. But after close to 1000 attempt at proving it, it was finally done. There have not even been that many religions created (as far as I can tell).
| Quote: |
That science is more trustworthy than religion because it can actually back the stuff up it proclaims? Nice.
|
That Philosophy, which is on the exact same level as Religion, can be used to back up science. The idea of being unable to prove things as being an acceptable form of backup.
| Quote: |
Uhm when did I do that?
|
You: Talking about us being created through a chemical reaction.
Me: Can't be proven.
You: Life can be created through a chemical reaction
Me: Can't prove it happened to us.
You: But life can be created through a chemical reaction
Me: Can't prove it happened to us.
That entire exchange was relating back to your first post. I keep talking about it can't be proven that it happened to us, and you keep arguing with my by talking about who life can be created through a chemical reaction. The same argument in instance three as it is in instance 1. If you had not been attempting to argue with me on that respect, you would not have continuously related your response with my argument.
| Quote: |
I'll let wikipedia speak here: In cosmological terms, the universe is thought to be a finite or infinite space-time continuum in which all matter and energy exist.
|
That's nice. But I said to prove it. Telling me what someone else thinks is the truth, with his own evidence to back it up is evil, remember? After all, Religion does that, and Religion is bad!
| Quote: |
If you can back your point up, sure. Can you?
|
I have as much ability to back up my points, as you do yours.
| Quote: |
There wasn't anything even resembling proof to support those theories, so they weren't the truth, thus were mis-labelled. It's irrelevant what they thought...
|
Ok, so lets see the argument here.
You: Religion got it wrong, therefore God is false!
Me: Science has got it wrong as well.
You: That doesn't count! It was mislabelled!
| Quote: |
It can still be measured and it's existance proven...
|
You keep saying it, yet you never actually do it.
| Quote: |
good luck doing that with God!
|
Never said it could be done, or was required to be done.
| Quote: |
That's not the point...the point is proving or even getting evidence that your religious text isn't bogus without using it
|
It was the point though, or at least how you stated it.
| Quote: |
If I wanted and was smart enough, I could teach myself what I need to prove the existance of molecules...can you do the same with the religious text?
|
Remember this?
Let me highlight the "point" for you.
| Quote: |
prove the existance of molecules......can you do the same(prove the existance of )with the religious text?
|
Whether or not the religion I may or may not belong to (when did I state I was religious?) is bogus has no effect on the existence of God.
[Updated on: Wed, 31 May 2006 05:55] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201735 is a reply to message #188804] |
Wed, 31 May 2006 06:20 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
I can't tell you which rules Scientology uses, so I can't help you there.
Two rules that the Roman Catholic church uses, off the top of my mind, are: Is that the Text must have been written by someone close to Jesus. And, in order for something to qualify as a "miracle" is must have no scientific explanation.
|
We're not talking about the rules of a single church, we're talking about rules that determine what we can call religion in general. Scientology is an exemple for even a sci-fi novel being sufficient.
| Quote: |
Not the point. It can still be falsified, and held as a scientific truth. The idea of a religion being false has nothing to do with the existence of God.
|
...and it can be refuted, something you can't do with false religions.
| Quote: |
So was the existence of the light bulb. But after close to 1000 attempt at proving it, it was finally done. There have not even been that many religions created (as far as I can tell).
|
If there were no clue or evidence that it could work, the belief would be as irrational as the belief in God. I don't know what the stages were, but I'm guessing there were clues from the start.
| Quote: |
That Philosophy, which is on the exact same level as Religion, can be used to back up science. The idea of being unable to prove things as being an acceptable form of backup.
|
Acceptable for what?
| Quote: |
That entire exchange was relating back to your first post. I keep talking about it can't be proven that it happened to us, and you keep arguing with my by talking about who life can be created through a chemical reaction. The same argument in instance three as it is in instance 1. If you had not been attempting to argue with me on that respect, you would not have continuously related your response with my argument.
|
I'm saying that it's the only way that has been proven to work, thus believing in it is logical.
| Quote: |
That's nice. But I said to prove it. Telling me what someone else thinks is the truth, with his own evidence to back it up is evil, remember? After all, Religion does that, and Religion is bad!
|
It's the friggan definition...next thing you'll tell me is that I can't know what a chair is.
| Quote: |
I have as much ability to back up my points, as you do yours.
|
Ability, yes. Too bad you didn't even make a point.
| Quote: |
Ok, so lets see the argument here.
You: Religion got it wrong, therefore God is false!
Me: Science has got it wrong as well.
You: That doesn't count! It was mislabelled!
|
How thick are you? You can't blame science for something that isn't science.
| Quote: |
You keep saying it, yet you never actually do it.
|
I however could...you don't have that possibility with religion.
| Quote: |
Never said it could be done, or was required to be done.
|
It is, if you want to prove something.
| Quote: |
It was the point though, or at least how you stated it.
Quote:
If I wanted and was smart enough, I could teach myself what I need to prove the existance of molecules...can you do the same with the religious text?
Remember this?
Let me highlight the "point" for you.
Quote:
prove the existance of molecules......can you do the same(prove the existance of )with the religious text?
Whether or not the religion I may or may not belong to (when did I state I was religious?) is bogus has no effect on the existence of God.
|
My point is that I could prove the existance of molecules while you can't prove the existance of God.
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201750 is a reply to message #188804] |
Wed, 31 May 2006 07:58 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
We're not talking about the rules of a single church, we're talking about rules that determine what we can call religion in general. Scientology is an exemple for even a sci-fi novel being sufficient.
|
There is no universal law governing Science, so why should religion be saddled with it?
| Quote: |
...and it can be refuted, something you can't do with false religions
|
That's nice. Tell me again how a false religion proves God doesn't exist?
| Quote: |
If there were no clue or evidence that it could work, the belief would be as irrational as the belief in God. I don't know what the stages were, but I'm guessing there were clues from the start.
|
Ugh, I believe I mentioned this before. There are clues or evidence that suggest God exists, you just refuse to believe them as cluse or evidence.
| Quote: |
Acceptable for what?
|
Philosophy backs up science, as per your statement.
Philosophy is the same as religion. Dealing with the currently unprovable.
Religion backs up the existance of God.
If Philosophy is acceptable for backing up science as truth, then Religion should be acceptable as backing up God as truth.
| Quote: |
I'm saying that it's the only way that has been proven to work, thus believing in it is logical.
|
Logical does not equal truth, just aa illogical does not equal untruth.
| Quote: |
It's the friggan definition...next thing you'll tell me is that I can't know what a chair is.
|
That's nice. So you are choosing to believe what someone else told you it is. A definition is only what the current generation makes it. Definitions change over time, and only prove what is real right now.
Remember: The definition of the earth, not that long ago was that it was a flat piece of rock, where you could fall off the edge if you went to far. It must have been true, as "It's the friggan definition"
| Quote: |
Ability, yes. Too bad you didn't even make a point.
|
Well, nothing I can do about your inability to grasp things.
| Quote: |
How thick are you? You can't blame science for something that isn't science.
|
See my point above. I didn't blame science for somthing that isn't science. I blame you for thinking that science is always right, all the time, and any wrong of science is somehow different that a wrong of religion.
| Quote: |
I however could...you don't have that possibility with religion
|
How many times do I have to say it. If you can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, then prove it. I've been waiting for you to do this the entire time, yet all you do is make mention of your ability to do it.
| Quote: |
It is, if you want to prove something.
|
And if I don't need to prove it?
| Quote: |
My point is that I could prove the existance of molecules while you can't prove the existance of God.
|
Once again, if you can prove it, then prove it. I never claimed to be able to prove the existance of God, nor can it be proven that he doesn't exist.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201801 is a reply to message #188804] |
Wed, 31 May 2006 10:28 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
There is no universal law governing Science, so why should religion be saddled with it?
|
?!There are universal laws of physics..
| Quote: |
That's nice. Tell me again how a false religion proves God doesn't exist?
|
It doesn't bring it up...you're the one who said that religious text is supposed to be proof for God, so I just went along and showed how easy it is to make that stuff up, thus it can't be called proof.
| Quote: |
Ugh, I believe I mentioned this before. There are clues or evidence that suggest God exists, you just refuse to believe them as cluse or evidence.
|
It's hearsay.
| Quote: |
Philosophy backs up science, as per your statement.
Philosophy is the same as religion. Dealing with the currently unprovable.
Religion backs up the existance of God.
If Philosophy is acceptable for backing up science as truth, then Religion should be acceptable as backing up God as truth.
|
Philosophy isn't the only thing that backs up science, clues and evidence do, too. Religion however doesn't try to prove anything.
| Quote: |
Logical does not equal truth, just aa illogical does not equal untruth.
|
Nope, I'm just telling you why I believe the way I do.
| Quote: |
That's nice. So you are choosing to believe what someone else told you it is. A definition is only what the current generation makes it. Definitions change over time, and only prove what is real right now.
Remember: The definition of the earth, not that long ago was that it was a flat piece of rock, where you could fall off the edge if you went to far. It must have been true, as "It's the friggan definition"
|
The appropriate definition would be more like the place where we humans live; which hasn't changed at all.
| Quote: |
Well, nothing I can do about your inability to grasp things.
|
OK let's go back in time and look what your arguement was:
| Quote: |
I have no reason to even begin to try to explain why or why not God may be the starting point.
|
Nothing I can do about your inability to explain things..
| Quote: |
See my point above. I didn't blame science for somthing that isn't science. I blame you for thinking that science is always right, all the time, and any wrong of science is somehow different that a wrong of religion.
|
If science actually manages to prove things, then why shouldn't I believe it? For the 5th time or so...don't call it science, since it was neither proven nor was there any evidence of it's truthfulness, which is exactly what science isn't about.
| Quote: |
How many times do I have to say it. If you can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, then prove it. I've been waiting for you to do this the entire time, yet all you do is make mention of your ability to do it.
|
Are you retarded? So if someone says "I could throw a stone through that window" your response will be "HAY I WONT BELIEVE YOU UNTIL YOU DO IT!!!", right?
| Quote: |
And if I don't need to prove it?
|
Then it's your intuition and irrational. Live with it..
| Quote: |
Once again, if you can prove it, then prove it. I never claimed to be able to prove the existance of God, nor can it be proven that he doesn't exist.
|
Read above...I'm still waiting for a reason to believe in God BTW.
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201896 is a reply to message #188804] |
Wed, 31 May 2006 15:16 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
?!There are universal laws of physics..
|
One Law of Physics: Nothing can travel faster than the documented speed of light (186,000 miles (299,300 kilometers) per second.)
However, Now, however, physicists are coming closer to finding out how, in some situations, light may actually travel faster than that
Not much of a law if it can be broken.
| Quote: |
It doesn't bring it up...you're the one who said that religious text is supposed to be proof for God, so I just went along and showed how easy it is to make that stuff up, thus it can't be called proof
|
Nope, I didn't. What I said was:
| Quote: |
The clues that people have about God, are the religious text, and the world around them.
|
Clues do not equal proof. Clues equal a suggestion of something.
What about it is hearsay? Unless you're suggesting that makes it wrong, in which case science falls under the same category.
| Quote: |
Philosophy isn't the only thing that backs up science, clues and evidence do, too. Religion however doesn't try to prove anything.
|
No the only thing, but it is one thing.
| Quote: |
Nope, I'm just telling you why I believe the way I do.
|
Ok, so you believe in something simply based on the idea of it being illogical to you... ok then. I can't actually believe I'm going to reference Star Trek here, but by all Vulcan accounts, all human logic and intuition is illogical... however, that never made it wrong.
| Quote: |
Nothing I can do about your inability to explain things..
|
Yes, quoting something that has nothing to do with your argument is going to work.
My choice not to explain something has nothing to do with my ability to.
| Quote: |
If science actually manages to prove things, then why shouldn't I believe it? For the 5th time or so...don't call it science, since it was neither proven nor was there any evidence of it's truthfulness, which is exactly what science isn't about.
|
All you can do is possess the belief that science is not lying to you. You have no way to independently verify everything that is told to you, so you must rely on faith that it is correct.
Other than that, it was deemed science back then. Stating it wasn't science now, doesn't change that fact of what it was back then.
| Quote: |
Are you retarded? So if someone says "I could throw a stone through that window" your response will be "HAY I WONT BELIEVE YOU UNTIL YOU DO IT!!!", right?
|
Finally resorted to blatant avoidance, huh? I can't blame you. And please don't start mixing belief with proof. Of course I believe he could throw the stone, just as I believe in the existence of molecules. However, that does not mean I can prove it until I can independently witness it.
| Quote: |
Then it's your intuition and irrational. Live with it..
|
Kind of like your inability to prove the existence of molecules then, I take it?
| Quote: |
Read above...I'm still waiting for a reason to believe in God BTW.
|
Ah, finally you're one the right track. No longer looking for proof in God, just a reason to believe. I applaud that.
Simplistic Reason: Something had to create the universe, why not God? Or, if the universe could have always been there, why not God?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201996 is a reply to message #201518] |
Wed, 31 May 2006 20:30 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 30 May 2006 05:40 |
Sorry, I must've read "science" instead of "philosophy" the first time...that doesn't change, however, that you have no reason to bring philosophy into this when we're talking about science vs religion.
|
I've intentionally held back posting so you and warranto could continue your exchange unhindered. But this is a pretty outstanding point regardless of what is written on pages 6/7.
Philosophy literally is the unsung root of ALL epistemological discussions; especially this one. You can bring a priest and a biologist into the same room, and give them the one big philosophical question (the likes of which have been discussed in one form or another throughout this thread): "How do you know what you know?"
The problem is, neither the biologist or the priest can answer this question in its entirety. If you ask the biologist how he knows that DNA is comprised of phosphate groups, ribose sugars, and millions of amino acid combinations, he'll tell you that he knows this through evidence. Well, that's all well and good, but ask the question again. "How do you know that evidence is accurate"? The answer of course, is more evidence. The regression is pretty obvious. Eventually you'll get to a point where the biologist needs to prove the so-called "laws" that govern the universe. This is where science fails in lieu of agnostic philosophy. I'll come back to this in a moment.
Similarily, if you ask the priest how he knows that God exists, he'll use a similar but less relatible logic. He might tell you that he knows that God exists because "the watch must have a watchmaker". Or he might say that God must exist because, by definition God is the highest possible idea; of perfection. Thus, because we are able to consider the idea, the form must exist. He might even say he knows God exists based entirely on intuition and sensorial feelings. Compared to science, these proofs are pretty fleeting. But if you keep asking the big question "why", the priest hits the same road block; however clearly a lot faster then the biologist.
The point I'm trying to make here is that what you think you know is not necessarily what is truth. Your integrated knowledge, and mine, and warranto's, are all the byproducts of a combination of consistency and potential rational predictions. We say that there is a world outside our front doors because it was there before. But is it? Science, and not necessarily religion are both in the absolute dark when it comes to predicting the future with 100% certainty. David Hume was the guy who took this to the extreme. You exist in the absolute present. Therefore what happens now is knowable. But this is a contradiction. The past tense "happens" suggests that there is an ability of the mind of comprehend what has happened to it in the past and accurately predict the future in relation to that event. Well, science has been doing this for the... existence of science. And they've almost always been wrong. We thought that quantum mechanics was absolutely predictable based on mathematic models. Turns out, the very premise is ludicrous. What happens in the not-now is absolutely 100% INDEPENDENT of the immediate-now. That means that even though the sun rose today, we have no real evidence suggesting it will tomorrow. The only reason we say that it will, is because it has every day beforehand. This is technically an incorrect statement. We ASSUME the sun will rise tomorrow because it rose today, and supposedly yesterday and so on. The point is, in the same scale science does the same thing.
These "laws" of science that define reality are not laws. They're consistent theories. For example, in 2D space a triangle, in theory, has 180 degrees and three side; "Angle Side Triangle Theorem". It's an idea that is demonstratible consistent, so we call it "proved" so we don't have to say that it's only "99.99999999999% probable". Turns out though, according to just about every modern epistemologist (and some ancient ones) that technically, such a thing that says a triangle is to be 180 degrees and 3 sided is not necessarily true for the not-now. However, it's so unlikely that we don't even consider it an option. That does NOT mean, however, that it is impossible. This is extremely important, because epistemologically speaking, science and religion are precisely the same.
For every proposition stated by a biologist or priest, there is a basis extrapolated from reality. Neither man has the ability to prove his position absolutely. To science, we might call them laws of the universe, to religion, it might be God. Point is, neither are provable. They're only "likely". Thankfully, thanks to both science and religion, the "law of causality" and "law of conservation of energy" suggest that the universe has not existed forever, but began at one point.
Interesting enough, the concept of an infinite number of bangs and crunches has no demonstratable sciencific probability attached to it. Mostly because the nature of such an event is untestable; like most of string theory. So while it is certainly possible that such an event could take place, it is also possible that the universe merely started once. We have more conclusive evidence to suggest this then not based on science's "laws". This, interestingly enough, provides us with more of rational and probable reason to suggest that something caused our universe to exist in the first place. Just so happens some people call this God. That's about as far as we can go though, because I'd sure like to know how it is a priest or a cleric knows what they claim to know came from God in terms of morality or ritual worship criteria. Also for the record, I'm 23.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202033 is a reply to message #188804] |
Thu, 01 June 2006 03:43 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
One Law of Physics: Nothing can travel faster than the documented speed of light (186,000 miles (299,300 kilometers) per second.)
However, Now, however, physicists are coming closer to finding out how, in some situations, light may actually travel faster than that
Not much of a law if it can be broken.
|
Well that's a light pulse, not "real" light...but like Java said proof only means 99.999999% possibility.
| Quote: |
Nope, I didn't. What I said was:
Quote:
The clues that people have about God, are the religious text, and the world around them.
Clues do not equal proof. Clues equal a suggestion of something.
|
...and I've already said numerous times why the text can't realistically be considered a clue.
| Quote: |
What about it is hearsay? Unless you're suggesting that makes it wrong, in which case science falls under the same category.
|
Do you know who wrote the New Testament?
...and once again Science can be self-tought, Christians have to fully rely on what those 4 guys wrote.
| Quote: |
No the only thing, but it is one thing.
|
Yes, and therefore you can't put them in the same category.
| Quote: |
Ok, so you believe in something simply based on the idea of it being illogical to you... ok then. I can't actually believe I'm going to reference Star Trek here, but by all Vulcan accounts, all human logic and intuition is illogical... however, that never made it wrong.
|
I can't actually believe it, either...
| Quote: |
Yes, quoting something that has nothing to do with your argument is going to work.
My choice not to explain something has nothing to do with my ability to.
|
Then don't argue..
| Quote: |
All you can do is possess the belief that science is not lying to you. You have no way to independently verify everything that is told to you, so you must rely on faith that it is correct.
Other than that, it was deemed science back then. Stating it wasn't science now, doesn't change that fact of what it was back then.
|
1. I could walk the steps that lead to the scientific conclusion on my own.
2. Just because it was deemed science back then doesn't make it science...lol.
| Quote: |
Finally resorted to blatant avoidance, huh? I can't blame you. And please don't start mixing belief with proof. Of course I believe he could throw the stone, just as I believe in the existence of molecules. However, that does not mean I can prove it until I can independently witness it.
|
I don't have to prove things over and over again that have been proven before. Yes, it's not 100% certaintly, it's 99.9999%, which we call proof.
| Quote: |
Kind of like your inability to prove the existence of molecules then, I take it?
|
I can get there with 99.9999% certaintly....how close can you get with your belief?
| Quote: |
Ah, finally you're one the right track. No longer looking for proof in God, just a reason to believe. I applaud that.
Simplistic Reason: Something had to create the universe, why not God? Or, if the universe could have always been there, why not God?
|
If God can exist as a starting point, then why not the universe? Follow your logic further and you'll see that someone must have created God. Or, why should God have always been there? What makes you think that something that superfluous exists?
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202034 is a reply to message #202013] |
Thu, 01 June 2006 03:57 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| mision08 wrote on Wed, 31 May 2006 23:49 |
Stop feeding the troll!
|
Don't make me be mean to you again and make you snap like yesterday:
| mision08 wrote on Wed, 31 May 2006 14:31 |
Go fuck yourself. You little cumtwat. I hope you fall on your head, leaving you with slurred speech and a lame leg.
|
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202039 is a reply to message #188804] |
Thu, 01 June 2006 04:56 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Well that's a light pulse, not "real" light...
|
Actually, it'sa full-fledged beam of light.
| Quote: |
...and I've already said numerous times why the text can't realistically be considered a clue.
|
Ah yes, because a scientist, for some reason, has more credibility that people who claim to have witnessed it first hand.
| Quote: |
Do you know who wrote the New Testament?
...and once again Science can be self-tought, Christians have to fully rely on what those 4 guys wrote.
|
So what about that is so bad?
I mean, you rely on what people wrote before your time, nearly every day. In fact, schools are founded on that idea.
| Quote: |
Yes, and therefore you can't put them in the same category.
|
Both deal with the unprovable, and the superfluous. Both are used to attempt to prove something without being able to present "proof". Yup, sounds like a different category to me.
| Quote: |
1. I could walk the steps that lead to the scientific conclusion on my own.
2. Just because it was deemed science back then doesn't make it science...lol
|
First, I don't see you walking the steps to prove evey single scientific discovery ever made. And if you can't do that, your argument here holds no water.
Second, just because it was deemed science back then, MAKES it science. The only difference was that the science was wrong.
After all, the idea that the sun revolved around the earth has some very convincing "proof".
| Quote: |
I don't have to prove things over and over again that have been proven before.
|
Except is hasn't been proven. Some guy, some where, showed a group of people some pictures and called it "molecules". Unless you can prove differenty, you have no choise but to simply believe what you were told, and go about your day.
| Quote: |
If God can exist as a starting point, then why not the universe? Follow your logic further and you'll see that someone must have created God. Or, why should God have always been there? What makes you think that something that superfluous exists?
|
Ah, so to follow my logic, then some all powerful being must have created all things, and somewhere along the line we decided to worship the being that created the universe, instead of the actual primary creater itself. Well, I guess religion got it wrong, and that God still exists, just not as was previously believed.
And please, explain to me WHY qualifying as being beyond what is required or sufficient is so wrong?
| Quote: |
....how close can you get with your belief?
|
There is a reason it is called a belief, meaning there is no proof for it.
| Quote: |
Yes, it's not 100% certaintly, it's 99.9999%, which we call proof.
|
Wrong. Any integer less than 100% is a belief. If it is "proof", it MUST be 100%, or eles there is room to call it into question. And, if it can be questioned, then it can not be a proof. Now, 99.9999999% is the closest thing to "proof" that a belief can get to, but it is not qualified proof.
Unless you actually want to suggest that something that is proven still possesses the ability to be dispoven....
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202045 is a reply to message #188804] |
Thu, 01 June 2006 06:09 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Actually, it'sa full-fledged beam of light.
|
I could care less how you call it...end of the day it's not full-fledged light.
| Quote: |
Most physicists, however, say that while a beam may travel faster than light, such a beam cannot carry a signal, that is, information. A signal is a sudden change in the character of light waves within the beam -- for example, a change in the wavelength, the length of the wave.
|
| Quote: |
Ah yes, because a scientist, for some reason, has more credibility that people who claim to have witnessed it first hand.
|
Scientists have evidence for their theories, you've got 4 guys that heard a fantasy story and decided to write a book.
| Quote: |
So what about that is so bad?
I mean, you rely on what people wrote before your time, nearly every day. In fact, schools are founded on that idea.
|
What I learn in school are either proven things, opinions or theories about what happened before our time...religion is only founded on one of those 3, just with no evidence.
| Quote: |
Both deal with the unprovable, and the superfluous. Both are used to attempt to prove something without being able to present "proof". Yup, sounds like a different category to me.
|
That's only a part of it...I'm not going to rephrase Java's post for you.
| Quote: |
First, I don't see you walking the steps to prove evey single scientific discovery ever made. And if you can't do that, your argument here holds no water.
Second, just because it was deemed science back then, MAKES it science. The only difference was that the science was wrong.
After all, the idea that the sun revolved around the earth has some very convincing "proof".
|
First, it's possible, if you see it or not.
Second, I guess lightning is nothing but a God's anger...it was deemed that back then!
| Quote: |
Except is hasn't been proven. Some guy, some where, showed a group of people some pictures and called it "molecules". Unless you can prove differenty, you have no choise but to simply believe what you were told, and go about your day.
|
I could possibly come to the conclusion that there are things that are like the ones we call molecules myself.
| Quote: |
Ah, so to follow my logic, then some all powerful being must have created all things, and somewhere along the line we decided to worship the being that created the universe, instead of the actual primary creater itself. Well, I guess religion got it wrong, and that God still exists, just not as was previously believed.
And please, explain to me WHY qualifying as being beyond what is required or sufficient is so wrong?
|
Too bad you don't know your own logic...there would be no primary creater if everything had to be created by someone else.
OK I'll explain it: It's not wrong, there's just no point in believing it.
| Quote: |
There is a reason it is called a belief, meaning there is no proof for it.
|
There is a reason why some things are more realistic than others...once again, how close can you get to the 99.999%?
| Quote: |
Wrong. Any integer less than 100% is a belief. If it is "proof", it MUST be 100%, or eles there is room to call it into question. And, if it can be questioned, then it can not be a proof. Now, 99.9999999% is the closest thing to "proof" that a belief can get to, but it is not qualified proof.
Unless you actually want to suggest that something that is proven still possesses the ability to be dispoven....
|
I said we call it proof, because there is no such thing as 100% proof.
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202052 is a reply to message #188804] |
Thu, 01 June 2006 06:39 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
I could care less how you call it...end of the day it's not full-fledged light
|
All you did was show me where it says the beam of "LIGHT" can't carry information. It's still light, just not one you can transport information along.
| Quote: |
Scientists have evidence for their theories, you've got 4 guys that heard a fantasy story and decided to write a book.
|
Heard? From a credible source. And that's only the main four books. What about all the others included who witnessed the things themselves?
| Quote: |
What I learn in school are either proven things, opinions or theories about what happened before our time...religion is only founded on one of those 3, just with no evidence.
|
Ok, we'll change the scope of things then.
Religion is founded on at least 2 of those things, then. There is no evidence for history text to state who did what (maybe that someone mentioned did exist, but not that it was them who did the act). You have to rely on what they were told by other sources of information. That, in itself, is less credible than the bible, as the majority of the New Testament is written by people who witnessed it themselves.
| Quote: |
That's only a part of it...I'm not going to rephrase Java's post for you.
|
Java's post has nothing to do with what I said, although it doesn't discount what was mentioned.
| Quote: |
First, it's possible, if you see it or not.
Second, I guess lightning is nothing but a God's anger...it was deemed that back then!
|
I'm not talking about what's possible, I'm talking about what's proven.
As for lightning being God's anger, that was Religion back then, but it was also wrong. Using what I said in a completely irrelevant context doesn't help your argument. I stated what science believed made it science, not that the belief itself was true. Turning that into an argument about the belief itself being true does nothing to assist your side.
| Quote: |
I could possibly come to the conclusion that there are things that are like the ones we call molecules myself.
|
Based on what, that evil thing called intuition? You have no proof that what he says is real, so you can't rely on evidence. Nor can you expect your "guess" to be the correct one.
| Quote: |
Too bad you don't know your own logic...there would be no primary creater if everything had to be created by someone else.
OK I'll explain it: It's not wrong, there's just no point in believing it.
|
Oh, I know my own logic, I was just waiting for you to say something like you did. As such: You are correct! There would be no primary creator if everything had to be created by someone else. So, where does it begin? It the universe has the ability to "always-exist", then the idea that a different being also "always-existing" could also be possible.
As for your second argument there, thank you for admitting it's not wrong. However,, it does not make it nonexistent. If the qualification of superfluous makes something wrong... see back to what I said about using the existence of molecules to explain things.
| Quote: |
There is a reason why some things are more realistic than others...once again, how close can you get to the 99.999%?
|
99.999% is too subjective to adequately answer. Besides, there is a reason Religion is called a "belief"
| Quote: |
I said we call it proof, because there is no such thing as 100% proof
|
So, you're willing to hold something that could be disproven, as a valid truth?
Gee, that sounds a lot like your argument against religion.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202075 is a reply to message #188804] |
Thu, 01 June 2006 10:37 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
All you did was show me where it says the beam of "LIGHT" can't carry information. It's still light, just not one you can transport information along.
|
Whatever...it's still not the usual light that we know, that's all I'm saying.
| Quote: |
Heard? From a credible source. And that's only the main four books. What about all the others included who witnessed the things themselves?
|
Who says it's crediable? Besides, I think this is more going into the direction of supporting/disproving Christianity...if can tell you why the whole Christian faith doesn't make any sense, if you want to head into that direction.
| Quote: |
Religion is founded on at least 2 of those things, then. There is no evidence for history text to state who did what (maybe that someone mentioned did exist, but not that it was them who did the act). You have to rely on what they were told by other sources of information. That, in itself, is less credible than the bible, as the majority of the New Testament is written by people who witnessed it themselves.
|
It's only theory that's said to be the truth tbh. Did the Evangelists witness Jesus' life themselves? Like I've said, if you want to discuss Christianity, then I'm going to try to disprove it as a whole next time. If you'd rather talk about God in general without the religions, then we should just drop this.
| Quote: |
Java's post has nothing to do with what I said, although it doesn't discount what was mentioned.
|
He explains how you can't really put religion and philosophy in the same shelf.
| Quote: |
I'm not talking about what's possible, I'm talking about what's proven.
As for lightning being God's anger, that was Religion back then, but it was also wrong. Using what I said in a completely irrelevant context doesn't help your argument. I stated what science believed made it science, not that the belief itself was true. Turning that into an argument about the belief itself being true does nothing to assist your side.
|
It being possible is all I need to prove my point.
I used that to show how a pheonomenon of nature was mislabeled as something religious, just like world being flat was mislabeled as science.
| Quote: |
Based on what, that evil thing called intuition? You have no proof that what he says is real, so you can't rely on evidence. Nor can you expect your "guess" to be the correct one.
|
No, because every step had been walked before, so why should it be impossible to do the same?
| Quote: |
Oh, I know my own logic, I was just waiting for you to say something like you did. As such: You are correct! There would be no primary creator if everything had to be created by someone else. So, where does it begin? It the universe has the ability to "always-exist", then the idea that a different being also "always-existing" could also be possible.
As for your second argument there, thank you for admitting it's not wrong. However,, it does not make it nonexistent. If the qualification of superfluous makes something wrong... see back to what I said about using the existence of molecules to explain things.
|
A different being could also be "always-existing", but why should there be such a thing if it works perfectly without?
I've never said it was wrong...I'm just saying that there's no point in believing into something that superfluous.
| Quote: |
99.999% is too subjective to adequately answer. Besides, there is a reason Religion is called a "belief"
|
You're saying that the existance of God is as realistic as the existance of molecules?
| Quote: |
So, you're willing to hold something that could be disproven, as a valid truth?
Gee, that sounds a lot like your argument against religion.
|
I'm willing to hold something that is 99.9999% sure as the truth, since that's as close as it'll get.
lol
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Nov 18 17:37:16 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01604 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
