Old 07-6-2009, 05:42 PM   #41
Squeek
let it snow~
FFR Veteran
 
Squeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 33
Posts: 14,457
Send a message via AIM to Squeek
Default Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Since you're away for several hours, let me sum up a lot of key points I think you may have overlooked.

1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by afro
My point still stands that you're taking God as a given. By taking that as a given, you're starting with a leap of faith and attempting to build logic around it. That's not bad in and of itself, but to claim that the entire thing is logical for that is wrong. You started with a seed of faith, but you overlooked that somewhere along the way.
I want to elaborate on this, because it's one of the things that makes trying to prove "God" so ass-backwards. In science, we begin with formulating a hypothesis as to how something works, and then we do thousands of tests to try to confirm it, and then if it gets confirmed we call it a theory until someone can disprove it or someone can tell us it's true always and forever.

In religious science, you begin with the 'facts' and work your way backwards. However, instead of applying thousands of tests, you apply slippery-slope logic that makes assumption after assumption to "PROVE" that God exists.

2) I think Reach went into far too great of an explanation when it comes to pretty pictures and music benefiting our survival.

First of all (and this is going to be a huuuuuuuuge assumption), let's assume that not every culture on Earth speaks English. I know, it's a leap of faith, but bear with me for a second. Now, let's assume other cultures actually want to communicate with each other. Hmm. They don't all speak English! How do they communicate with each other? Oh.

Another way to look at this is to understand that cultures tend to look at their culture and think it is great and worth passing on. Clearly worked for the Renaissance folks, since everything they painted has been idolized to this very day.

Pictures are a way of passing on your culture long after it has been destroyed, or communicating with people you have no hope to communicate with. You can describe with thousands of words what you're trying to describe, but since our cultures are so vastly different, we will probably not pick up on what exactly you mean by bright multicolored round disappearing object, even if we do understand the translation, whereas drawing a simple little circle in the sky with small lines coming out from it clearly shows you mean the Sun.

3)
Quote:
Originally Posted by windsurfer
If you can go through and show the illogically of what the religion preaches, the fruit of the religion then I don't see how it is too hard to discern either way. Judge things by their fruits. Judge the validity of what the religion says.

I can see what you are saying. [Generic statement without a given basis] But logically looking through some of the evidence for and against the major religions of the world and Christianity certainly stands up to the test. [/] But religion will never be agreed on by logic alone.
First of all, I did judge Christianity and I deemed it illogical. So many things in Christianity don't make sense, and when I asked a priest / youth group leader, they told me that "god works in mysterious ways" and "you just have to have faith".

That wasn't good enough for me. And clearly, it's not good enough for you if you're reading apologetics.

How can Jesus be his own father? If Jesus and God are the same person, why does Jesus ask God for forgiveness? If Jesus is his own father, then does that mean he committed a sin by impregnating his mother with himself?

You don't have to answer any of that, because I'm sure you can come up with some convoluted answer to all of it. That's not the point I'm trying to make here. The point is that none of it makes sense, and it's not supposed to. Trying to explain miracles takes away the fact that it's supposed to be a miracle. This same phenomenon happened on the anti-Bible episode of Bullshit. A guy tries to explain how Moses could have parted the Red Sea by stating that they probably crossed the Reed Sea during low tide. But that removes the fact that it was a miracle!

When you remove miracles from religion, then it's no longer a faith. Just stop trying to prove that God exists and take everything at face value.

But since that won't work, please post these "proofs" of Christianity. Not just the Big Bang one either, though that was fun to debunk. I sincerely hope there's more than just "we don't know so God did it" in all of them. And I sincerely hope none of them are as dumb as the only other one I've heard, which is that the Great Flood carved the Grand Canyon.
Squeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-6-2009, 05:49 PM   #42
Latentsanity
FFR Veteran
FFR Veteran
 
Latentsanity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 33
Default Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by windsurfer-sp View Post
If God made time then he is outside of time.
This doesn't work entirely the way you'd like it to. 'Time', at least the way we perceive it, is just a way of explaining the order in which things will happen/did happen, not an actual thing. If God created the universe, then two things must be true: 1) There was a point at which God existed and 2) At that point, the universe did not yet exist.

Sounds pretty sequential to me.

The only way this could avoid using the concept of time as we know it is if, along with the creation of the universe, God also made 'time', which, by virtue of it suddenly coming into existence, retroactively had to include God's previous presence in the timeline.

However, this brings up the issue of how long God had existed before the creation of the universe. If God was never created, and had always existed, that means that there is an unquantifiable—but, notably, non-zero—length during which God existed before the 'creation' of time which, again, doesn't jive with the entire scenario.

The other option is that 'time', like God, has always existed, which seems far more likely, if you're going with that conception of God.
Latentsanity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-6-2009, 06:06 PM   #43
Flaming_Dingleberry
Everybody gets one.
FFR Veteran
 
Flaming_Dingleberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Fuckin space bro
Posts: 1,003
Default Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Latentsanity View Post
This doesn't work entirely the way you'd like it to. 'Time', at least the way we perceive it, is just a way of explaining the order in which things will happen/did happen, not an actual thing. If God created the universe, then two things must be true: 1) There was a point at which God existed and 2) At that point, the universe did not yet exist.

Sounds pretty sequential to me.

The only way this could avoid using the concept of time as we know it is if, along with the creation of the universe, God also made 'time', which, by virtue of it suddenly coming into existence, retroactively had to include God's previous presence in the timeline.

However, this brings up the issue of how long God had existed before the creation of the universe. If God was never created, and had always existed, that means that there is an unquantifiable—but, notably, non-zero—length during which God existed before the 'creation' of time which, again, doesn't jive with the entire scenario.

The other option is that 'time', like God, has always existed, which seems far more likely, if you're going with that conception of God.
You can't put events in a time-line before there was time. Saying He had a never-beginning existence is about as reasonable as saying God existed before time... and who knows what that was like? Maybe God was there, doing his God thing for "no time", which (being beyond all human minds' comprehension) is what humans refer to as "all time" or "never had a beginning" and such. Of course I'm just thinking out loud. I'm just treating it as if the two theories are plausible, and this is apparently what came of it.
Flaming_Dingleberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-6-2009, 06:46 PM   #44
MrRubix
FFR Player
FFR Veteran
 
MrRubix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New York City, New York
Posts: 8,023
Default Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

The problem is that you're still using God to fill in gaps with the "God outside of time" argument.

"I don't know how this would be possible, but God is so awesome that he just MAKES it possible."

I mean, how can you disprove something like that? "God is so powerful that if we don't have an answer to something, we must assume it's beyond human comprehension and that it's something God did."

I just fail to see why people use "God" as a way to describe what they don't know. WHY must it be some sort of magic man behind the fabric of spacetime? Instead of using evidence to support or reject a hypothesis, it's as if the hypothesis is assumed to be true, and the evidence needs to be reworked and warped until the hypothesis seems reasonable, or evidence is simply made up altogether for the sake of insisting the hypothesis is true.

Then again, plenty of theists I talk to aren't really concerned with truth. Pick their claims apart with physics/evolutionary processes/etc, and it's almost always the same: "That makes sense but I still believe in God," which either means "I can't really explain to you why I believe in God despite your claims" or "I don't actually understand your claims." Usually people can't elaborate on the former because it's always something like "I've just believed it my whole life and it 'feels' right" without really considering the implications of such a statement.

When pursuing a higher level of understanding or truth, sometimes we have to put aside what we think we know and critically put old evidence against the new, and bridge the gaps where possible, revise where things were mistaken, and so forth. Does this mean I am open to an entirely new view of the universe? Potentially -- but it would be if new evidence presented itself that made something else overwhelmingly clear, while still being consistent with all the other evidence.

My question is why people choose to rely on "faith" in things like Christianity... but I digress.

(I don't really care, either, if this goes against the "no religion" request in the OP -- feel free to disregard this post if you want, then)
__________________




This signature is now diamonds.

Last edited by MrRubix; 07-6-2009 at 07:00 PM..
MrRubix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-6-2009, 10:02 PM   #45
Latentsanity
FFR Veteran
FFR Veteran
 
Latentsanity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 33
Default Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaming_Dingleberry View Post
You can't put events in a time-line before there was time. Saying He had a never-beginning existence is about as reasonable as saying God existed before time... and who knows what that was like? Maybe God was there, doing his God thing for "no time", which (being beyond all human minds' comprehension) is what humans refer to as "all time" or "never had a beginning" and such. Of course I'm just thinking out loud. I'm just treating it as if the two theories are plausible, and this is apparently what came of it.
The main issue with both of our theories is that the only way either of us can possibly 'prove' ours to be correct is to assert that what we believe is true, and then try and explain events from the point of view of someone who sees that theory as fact, and see which seems more logically possible. Of course you can't put events in a time-line before there was time, but my assertion was that there wasn't any point at which there was no time. Similarly, I suppose assuming that God exists outside of time leads to the conclusion that God created time, etc. Circular reasoning either way, but discussing something that is essentially explicitly stated as being beyond comprehension probably leads to a lot of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRubix View Post
Then again, plenty of theists I talk to aren't really concerned with truth. Pick their claims apart with physics/evolutionary processes/etc, and it's almost always the same: "That makes sense but I still believe in God," which either means "I can't really explain to you why I believe in God despite your claims" or "I don't actually understand your claims." Usually people can't elaborate on the former because it's always something like "I've just believed it my whole life and it 'feels' right" without really considering the implications of such a statement.
The main reason people will continue to believe in God is because to any person who doesn't know for certain whether or not there is a God, there is really nothing to lose by believing in God. If God exists, and needs you to believe in his existence to avoid eternal damnation, people who believed in God win, and get to not be burnt to a crisp. If God doesn't exist, whether or not you believed in a God is irrelevant. From a strictly numerical standpoint, even if the odds of God existing are so incredibly small, the post-life average outcome for someone who believes in God is positive, while that of a non-believer is negative.

Of course, this all falls apart when you consider that there are multiple religions, many of which think the other religions are wrong, and will condemn you to fiery punishment if you picked the wrong one. Oh well.
Latentsanity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-6-2009, 10:43 PM   #46
Squeek
let it snow~
FFR Veteran
 
Squeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 33
Posts: 14,457
Send a message via AIM to Squeek
Default Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Quote:
The main reason people will continue to believe in God is because to any person who doesn't know for certain whether or not there is a God, there is really nothing to lose by believing in God. If God exists, and needs you to believe in his existence to avoid eternal damnation, people who believed in God win, and get to not be burnt to a crisp. If God doesn't exist, whether or not you believed in a God is irrelevant. From a strictly numerical standpoint, even if the odds of God existing are so incredibly small, the post-life average outcome for someone who believes in God is positive, while that of a non-believer is negative.
Except for the fact that the Bible says believing in God isn't good enough and that you need to do a hell of a lot more work to get into Heaven.

So, the real comparison is:

Living life for yourself not caring about invisible space men.

Living life in fear of going to Hell, making sure you don't piss off invisible space men.
Squeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-6-2009, 10:45 PM   #47
MrRubix
FFR Player
FFR Veteran
 
MrRubix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New York City, New York
Posts: 8,023
Default Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Actually, the real truth is that if you don't worship me as the Almighty Creator, you go to a fiery hell for all eternity.

Skeptical? If you don't believe me, why believe anyone else? What have you to lose by believing in me, now? You're going to be sorry when you go to Hell forever because you didn't take my warnings seriously!




What I am about to say will come across as extremely presumptuous, narrow-minded, and disrespectful to most people, but it's something I know to be true: Everyone in this world who is religious is going to be in for a surprise when they die and find out there's nothing. Unfortunately, they won't realize it. Depressing and bitter, perhaps, but I do feel some power in "knowing" what will happen to us in death. The thing is, plenty of religious types feel just as strongly and believe in afterlife with the utmost sincerity. However, I sadly think the evidence leans heavily away from their views.

I wonder, Reach, if you fear death at all? I understand it's an "illogical" fear to some extent, since a death leading into nonexistence means you no are no longer able to even care once you stop functioning. However, as a living human right now, who is able to think, breathe, and experience emotion, I feel fear in the fact that time is short and our lifespans are unpredictable.
__________________




This signature is now diamonds.

Last edited by MrRubix; 07-6-2009 at 10:53 PM..
MrRubix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-7-2009, 12:11 AM   #48
Afrobean
Admiral in the Red Army
FFR Veteran
 
Afrobean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the moon
Age: 32
Posts: 13,262
Send a message via Skype™ to Afrobean
Default Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by windsurfer-sp View Post
Logic is logic though? If logic propped up around a belief is illogical then you can attack the logic and the person is left with an illogical belief. If the person has a logical belief that holds up to the rigor of logic then surely that belief is logical?
No, because you're just applying logic after taking a belief as a given. Taking an unproven belief as a given, then attempting to prop it up with the best reasoned logic you can manage doesn't make the original belief logical. The original belief is still unproven, unverifiable, unmeasurable. It is STILL something that requires faith, not something which follows logically.

Quote:
How does the ability to comprehend the beauty of art honestly help natural selection?
It doesn't. That's why I said it happened accidentally. Being more intelligent helped our species survive, and with the increased intelligence came an understanding of the abstract that wasn't previously graspable.

Quote:
Also if our logic is accidental how can we believe what we obtain from the logic to be true? Therefore a belief in accidental logic is illogical.
It was evolved accidentally. It did not give us an evolutionary edge, but the increased intelligence that we developed led to it. I guess if you look at the big picture, our abstract understanding that evolved has given us an "evolutionary edge" (without it we never would have gotten society so far), but looking back at our ancestors who first started tipping toward more intelligent, their original basis of reasoned logic didn't directly help them. The original seeds of intelligence led them to use and create basic tools (the origin of technology), to interact in a group better (the origin of language). I'd figure that logic followed language some time later and simply was the natural order of us being curious about the nature of causality, the nature of the universe. Even animals show curiousity of things they are unsure of, we're just the only ones who try to discover, reason, and explain the causality behind it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by windsurfer-sp View Post
It honestly dosn't strike anyone that as far as we empirically know we are the only ones in the universe who have a sense of beuaty? We are the only ones who find delight in pondering about how our universe works? Where we came from and why? Making fun of Creationists....errr, opps.
It's not that surprising to me. The planets are spread too far out that they're too difficult to reach even another planet that is unable to sustain our sort of life. I saw a special a while back where people were guessing that it was possible that there was life on one of the moons of Jupiter or something, but even then they're just saying it's theoretically possible that they could support the same sort of life we have ONLY at the bottom of the deepest of our oceans.

But I digress. The reason we are the only one we know of is that the closest Earth-like planet is simply too far away. There could well be intelligent life on other planets, they could even be venturing out into space, but we are only barely getting out into our own solar system. Forgive the pun, but the chances that we'd stumble across each other any time soon are astronomical.

It could also be that other intelligent life in the universe may be far behind. In science fiction, aliens are often portrayed as more advanced than we are, but if we're only just barely reaching out into space, I think it's even more likely that other life forms in the universe haven't even begun reaching out into the vastness of the universe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by windsurfer-sp View Post
If God made time then he is outside of time. This leads us to him being outside of time (making him not fully comprehensible to us) but we know that him being out of time and the universe means he just is. If he is not in time then he has no beginning and therefore can't be made.
What you're describing would be a being existing in the 5th dimension I'd say. He could infinite within our own visible dimensions, even time, but he would be finite within his own. However, I'd say that causality ceases for no man, even a 5th dimensional one. So where is his source? He may be infinite within our own dimension, but he does have a "beginning" in another. Maybe this god that created our universe in this third dimension was created by a god which is infinite in his own dimension, separated by a dimension or two.

And it's turtles all the way down.

ps on the topic of fear of death and the religious beliefs of the afterlife, I've always found it really funny that a religious person would be afraid to die. If I believed the sorts of things that religions tell about an afterlife, I'd be excited to die. You know those crazy extremists blowing themselves up in the middle east? That makes sense to me. They believe in this amazing afterlife, and they're getting themselves a quick one-way ticket there (or... they believe they are getting a one-way ticket there). But people elsewhere, no, they're afraid to die. It's as though they don't truly believe the stuff, because if they did, they should be in a hurry to get there. If Heaven is so great, why doesn't everyone go enlist in the military and volunteer for dangerous missions? Why doesn't everyone become a firefighter, constantly entering extremely dangerous situations to save others? Even the Christians who have had the "near death" experiences of their brains beginning to shut down aren't like this. No, they write books and live out a long life profiting from their experience. If they believe so readily, what are you doing sitting around here. If what you believe is true, this life doesn't mean ****.
__________________

Last edited by Afrobean; 07-7-2009 at 12:13 AM..
Afrobean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-7-2009, 01:15 AM   #49
windsurfer-sp
FFR Veteran
FFR Veteran
 
windsurfer-sp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aussie (Oi Oi Oi)
Age: 29
Posts: 1,973
Send a message via AIM to windsurfer-sp
Default Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Ok, so this has boiled down to a full blown religious debate. I orginally wanted to avoid this as there is so much being said and it makes really hard to sort of give quality replies to every point made, which is sad because part of me would love to try and properly answer them. The fact is I don't have the time to do so, nor do I personally have all the answers.

These sort of threads have generally gotten me down as it is kind of overwhelming, but from them I have left with questions and all I can do is trust God that the answers are out there and in general over time I seem to come across them. Yes, I can see how can that be seen as starting off with an answer and trying to find evidence to fit the answer and not looking at the evidence and finding an answer.

I think the biggest factor to how any of these arguments play out is simply whether or not you are willing to believe in anything beyond materialism. Just as many Christians will try and say they are willing to look at the physical evidence, many skeptics will try and say they believe miracles are possible.

If you are unwilling to believe that there is potentially more in this world then protons nuetrons and electrons then please do not bother posting again. You will simply stop any potential progress this thread can make.
__________________
Orbb fan club.
White text society.
windsurfer-sp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-7-2009, 01:28 AM   #50
Squeek
let it snow~
FFR Veteran
 
Squeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 33
Posts: 14,457
Send a message via AIM to Squeek
Default Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by windsurfer-sp View Post
If you are unwilling to believe that there is potentially more in this world then protons nuetrons and electrons then please do not bother posting again. You will simply stop any potential progress this thread can make.
The hypocrisy of this statement is overwhelming.

Watch this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rebuttal
If you are unwilling to believe that there is potentially more in this world than God then please do not bother posting again. You will simply stop any potential progress this thread can make.
Wow what did I just do there?

Aside from that, the entire time you're talking in Universal terms, you're under the assumption that humans are IT. That there's nothing else in the Universe. There are billions of planets and an uncountable number of stars, but Earth is the ONLY PLANET with intelligent life, mirite?

I know there's absolutely no proof that there are any other forms of intelligent life in the Universe, but there's also no proof against it. This is the standard "does god exist" result, but I'm purely speaking statistics here. Statistically speaking, with all the possible sources of life, it is beyond my comprehension that humans are the one and only form of intelligent life in the Universe.

Last edited by Squeek; 07-7-2009 at 01:34 AM..
Squeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-7-2009, 01:47 AM   #51
windsurfer-sp
FFR Veteran
FFR Veteran
 
windsurfer-sp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aussie (Oi Oi Oi)
Age: 29
Posts: 1,973
Send a message via AIM to windsurfer-sp
Default Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeek View Post
Except for the fact that the Bible says believing in God isn't good enough and that you need to do a hell of a lot more work to get into Heaven.
Ask Jesus to forgive you of your sins that are stopping you from entering heaven. Squeek, quote from the bible in context if you want to make a claim about the bible.

John 14:6 "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Afrobean
It was evolved accidentally. It did not give us an evolutionary edge, but the increased intelligence that we developed led to it. I guess if you look at the big picture, our abstract understanding that evolved has given us an "evolutionary edge" (without it we never would have gotten society so far), but looking back at our ancestors who first started tipping toward more intelligent, their original basis of reasoned logic didn't directly help them. The original seeds of intelligence led them to use and create basic tools (the origin of technology), to interact in a group better (the origin of language). I'd figure that logic followed language some time later and simply was the natural order of us being curious about the nature of causality, the nature of the universe. Even animals show curiousity of things they are unsure of, we're just the only ones who try to discover, reason, and explain the causality behind it.
You haven't answered my point. If our logic only came from random mutations then it is no more reliable then a computer program wrote by closing your eyes and hitting the keyboard. Why should we trust anything we believe if our logic is just random nothingness.

Also is there not a point to be made that out of all our species we seem to be the only ones with any real sense of self awareness? Does a Gorilla see himself as I? I can see that we in many ways have evolved from apes or what have you, but there is something that just seems special. Or is there nothing that we can't explain through evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Afro
If what you believe is true, this life doesn't mean ****.
John 10:10 "The thief comes only to steal, slaughter, and destroy. I have come that they may have life, and have it abundantly."

Christianity would argue that your barely even living on this Earth until you are in relationship with God. Jesus came so that we could have an abundant life, why would we wish to leave quickly? Whats the rush to get to a party that wont end, if you want to use that analogy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRubix
However, as a living human right now, who is able to think, breathe, and experience emotion, I feel fear in the fact that time is short and our lifespans are unpredictable.
To me this feels like an argument you could make for us as human beings having a soul, having something eternal in us. The use of the word "I". Only you can call yourself "I", your "I" to me is just a "you". Can "I" really disappear, to me an "I" is eternal. Excuse the crap wording and thought process, but there is something to be thought about there. If someone wants to try and better what I was saying please do

Squeek, two things regarding point 3 of your post. Judging concepts through the people who try to convey them is like trying to judge a car through someone's description. Someone may know a Ferrari is a good car but they may not know how. They may not be able to explain how, but it dosn't mean its a bad car.

Secondly, I agree that trying to rationalize miracles through science or discounting them completely ruins the point of faith. But if you can believe that someone created the universe then it isn't much of a stretch to believe that he could alter the natural laws that the something created. That in no way proves Chrisitan miracles but it certainly helps start the process.

I guess the word prove does not mean physically show that xyz happened or how xyz happened, just demonstrate that its possible and likely given proper assumptions.
__________________
Orbb fan club.
White text society.
windsurfer-sp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-7-2009, 01:49 AM   #52
windsurfer-sp
FFR Veteran
FFR Veteran
 
windsurfer-sp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aussie (Oi Oi Oi)
Age: 29
Posts: 1,973
Send a message via AIM to windsurfer-sp
Default Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Squeek, whats the point in discussing things of a spiritual nature if you refuse to belive that spiritual things could exist?

Thats what I am trying to say.
__________________
Orbb fan club.
White text society.
windsurfer-sp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-7-2009, 03:21 AM   #53
Squeek
let it snow~
FFR Veteran
 
Squeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 33
Posts: 14,457
Send a message via AIM to Squeek
Default Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by windsurfer-sp View Post
Ask Jesus to forgive you of your sins that are stopping you from entering heaven. Squeek, quote from the bible in context if you want to make a claim about the bible.

John 14:6 "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Yeah, and Jesus is really, really strict too.

Luke 18:18-30 summary: Sell everything you own. If you don't, you can't get into heaven.
Oh also, you have to follow me (aka be my disciple, you'll see where I'm going with this next).

Luke 14:26 summary: Hate everybody. Hate your parents, hate yourself, etc. Hate everything and everyone. If you don't, you can't be my disciple (and, by proxy, you can't get into Heaven. This couples well with the next one!).

Luke 10:25 summary: Love everybody. Love god, love your neighbors, etc. Love everything and everyone. If you don't, you can't get into Heaven.

Hmm. Jesus is making this hard already. But it gets worse.

Matthew 5:20 summary: Unless you're better than the Pharisees, you can't get into Heaven. Now this is a fun one. Pharisees are always talked about in churches despite the fact that nobody has a damn clue who the hell they are. So, let me just paste their laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_Mitzvot

Pharisees obeyed these laws religiously (if you'll ignore the pun). If you can't obey those laws and more, you can't get into Heaven.

People cite John 3:16 all the time as if it's the only time Jesus ever mentioned how to get into Heaven. I'm not surprised, since the other 7 times he mentions getting into Heaven are absolutely insane and do not coincide with this "one" way at all. But this is the word of God, after all! Not only that, but Jesus himself! Why do so many people ignore the other 7 rules? Nobody's getting to Heaven at all! It's kind of depressing. If only people would read the Bible, they would see that they're not obeying the word of God.

But I digress. This has gotten far too outside of the confines of this thread.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not a scientist nor do I follow science. I practically failed science in high school and college. I don't really know a damn thing about quantum physics. I just cite actual scientists who have explained these things. I'm not a good philosopher either. I really can't wrap my head around things like cosmology and infinitely expanding Universes. It doesn't make sense to me. However, it makes a hell of a lot more sense than just filling in the gaps of science with "God did it", especially when those gaps are constantly filled with better explanations, leaving less and less wiggle room for "God". Look, you've already confined him to the start of the Big Bang. How much more ground do you have to lose before you think critically and examine the facts without the bias of trying to fit "God" into them all?

Now onto the next post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by windsurfer-sp View Post
Squeek, whats the point in discussing things of a spiritual nature if you refuse to belive that spiritual things could exist?

Thats what I am trying to say.
Windsurfer, what's the point in discussing things of a scientific nature if you refuse to believe that scientific things could exist?

That's what I am trying to say.

Neither side of a Christian/Science argument is going to listen to the other side. You think we're stupid for blindly following science, we think you're stupid for blindly believing in religion.

The only difference is that science is not closed-minded. Anyone and everyone can disprove anything they want to. If you don't like the Theory of Evolution, then find evidence that disproves it. It's that simple! But if I don't like the idea of Intelligent Design, no amount of evidence will convince you that you're wrong. It's kind of a double standard in your favor, but the funny part is that science still has never lost to religious claims.

I would still love to see more apologetics since my google searches are only turning up pages that link to books and not actual examples.

Last edited by Squeek; 07-7-2009 at 04:52 AM..
Squeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-7-2009, 06:12 AM   #54
Afrobean
Admiral in the Red Army
FFR Veteran
 
Afrobean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the moon
Age: 32
Posts: 13,262
Send a message via Skype™ to Afrobean
Default Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by windsurfer-sp View Post
You haven't answered my point. If our logic only came from random mutations then it is no more reliable then a computer program wrote by closing your eyes and hitting the keyboard. Why should we trust anything we believe if our logic is just random nothingness.
I never said "logic is just random nothingness". I said that HUMAN'S logical nature developed as our intelligence increased. It wasn't a primary feature of the intelligence, but it developed nonetheless, and even though it didn't prove useful in the early days of the beginning of mankind, once civilization really got going, it proved to be more important than anything else.

Just because evolution gives us something accidentally doesn't mean it's not a fundamentally good thing. Actually, that's the whole ****ing point of evolution. Random mutation creating useful traits that get passed on to progeny. The fact that a trait's origin is random chance doesn't mean it's not a good trait, not just in the case of human's logical nature, but for all evolved traits.

Quote:
Also is there not a point to be made that out of all our species we seem to be the only ones with any real sense of self awareness? Does a Gorilla see himself as I? I can see that we in many ways have evolved from apes or what have you, but there is something that just seems special. Or is there nothing that we can't explain through evolution?
There is nothing I know of that cannot be explained through evolution. All other animals, as far as I know, do not have a sense of awareness that we do. It is a byproduct of having the intelligence we naturally do, coupled with being brought up in society. No other animals have a social system like ours and no other animals are as intelligent. What you define as "something special", presumably, a soul, I recognize as just the fact that our brain is advanced far beyond all other animals and social learning builds us into the people we are. You would say that we are selfaware because we have a spark of divinity, I say it is because we are intelligent. Your explanation requires an unverifiable belief, my explanation follows logically on the basis of evolution.

Quote:
Christianity would argue that your barely even living on this Earth until you are in relationship with God. Jesus came so that we could have an abundant life, why would we wish to leave quickly? Whats the rush to get to a party that wont end, if you want to use that analogy.
What's the rush? Isn't Heaven supposed to be eternal bliss? A neverending state of euphoria? Do you know the **** people do just to have a few seconds, a few minutes, a few hours of these sensations on Earth? Compare this life to an eternity of blissful euphoria and this life is just a pile of ****. Don't give me anything about how this life is good with God or whatever, because nothing in life could compare to an eternity of that, except I guess being ****ed up on ecstasy all day long every day (but even that won't last anywhere near as long as forever). If that is truly coming for all who are good in this life, best to live this life as good and quickly as possible.

Quote:
I guess the word prove does not mean physically show that xyz happened or how xyz happened, just demonstrate that its possible and likely given proper assumptions.
ABSO****INGLUTELY NOT

Especially when you're talking about LOGIC, something is not PROVEN just by explaining a way in which it is POSSIBLE or LIKELY GIVEN OUTLANDISH ASSUMPTIONS. Something being possible DOESN'T MEAN ****, and REQUIRING AN OUTLANDISH ASSUMPTION for something to just be considered "likely" is ****ing stupid and NOT a proof of ANYTHING.

Holy ****, man, really? To prove is not to merely show it is possible. What the ****. It is possible that I am actually an alien from Jupiter. Therefore, it is proven I am an alien. WHAT Ok stop. Let's start again with an outlandish, unverifiable assumption. I was born in the year 1800. Therefore, I am over 200 years old. Am I 200 years old really? No, because the outlandish assumption is in fact TOTALLY ****ING WRONG and HAS NO BASIS IN REALITY.

Seriously, I am just totally losing my mind here. How the hell can you seriously say "the word prove does not mean physically show that xyz happened or how xyz happened, just demonstrate that its possible and likely given proper assumptions." I really want to know what makes you think that pointing out the possibility of something is in ANYWAY comparable to proving it.
__________________
Afrobean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-7-2009, 07:33 AM   #55
Reach
FFR Simfile Author
Sectional ModeratorFFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
Reach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Canada
Age: 33
Posts: 7,462
Send a message via AIM to Reach Send a message via MSN to Reach
Default Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Quote:
To me this feels like an argument you could make for us as human beings having a soul, having something eternal in us. The use of the word "I". Only you can call yourself "I", your "I" to me is just a "you". Can "I" really disappear, to me an "I" is eternal. Excuse the crap wording and thought process, but there is something to be thought about there. If someone wants to try and better what I was saying please do
Why is an I eternal? An I exists as long as any particular being exists. Also, how do you get from A) We're cognitively self aware of our existence to B) We have souls. Our self awareness comes from the complexity of our physical brains, so I fail to see the link.

Quote:
But if you can believe that someone created the universe then it isn't much of a stretch to believe that he could alter the natural laws that the something created. That in no way proves Chrisitan miracles but it certainly helps start the process.
So God tinkers in the mix, if you will? There's no divine plan or absolute perfect elegance to the laws of the universe - Instead God goes around making little changes here and there, as if he has made little "oopsies!' that he has to correct? Doesn't that sound a bit ridiculous to you? It does to me. So basically, he's a screw up?

Alternatively, he practices favoritism by tinkering to help certain people and not others. Hell, sometimes really bad things happen! Does he purposely tinker to make bad things happen? Why would he do that? When a plane crashes and everyone dies except one why does he tinker to save only one person? Does he like them more than the others? He is too weak to save the others? Was killing everyone else part of his plan, and if so, isn't that cruel?


This is a logical disaster you've gotten yourself into. The physical laws of the universe can never, ever be broken. This severely limits our choices in this scenario. Assuming God exists, he can 1) only be revealed through what is natural, so God is the universe itself, or 2) God cannot possibly reveal himself directly - He created the universe to do exactly what it has always done and does not intervene.

To expect anything else is to throw your new found infatuation with logic out the window.


Quote:
You would say that we are selfaware because we have a spark of divinity, I say it is because we are intelligent
I would agree - even Chimpanzees show evidence of self awareness, as well as the ability to construct and utilize tools...and now let's compare their brains to ours: http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...s/allman1a.jpg

It's that gigantic piece of neural tissue that makes us special. Obviously that much more tissue allows us to take our self awareness to an entirely new level.


Also, to support this why don't we look at what happens when our brains don't develop properly or don't develop into the right size (Too small).

If it doesn't develop properly: See: http://www.judiciaryreport.com/images/fas-brain.jpg FAS - the child is mentally retarded with very little mental capacity, very little self awareness of cognitive abilities we consider normal.

Too small: See microcephaly. Same thing. As brain size decreases, so does intelligence, and so does self awareness and other human like traits.


Also, as an interesting exercise, note the similarities between the human skull and the chimp skull. Note the recession of the mandibular jaw, and the compression of the maxillary jaw to decrease biting power and increase skull space available for brain. Also, check out this picture of an ape without hair: http://www.boingboing.net/hairlessmkb0416.jpg
__________________

Last edited by Reach; 07-7-2009 at 07:35 PM..
Reach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-7-2009, 07:45 AM   #56
MrRubix
FFR Player
FFR Veteran
 
MrRubix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New York City, New York
Posts: 8,023
Default Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

I cringe when I see the word "random" in these debates.

Again, as I said in another thread, evolution IS. NOT. RANDOM.
__________________




This signature is now diamonds.
MrRubix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-7-2009, 08:14 AM   #57
MrRubix
FFR Player
FFR Veteran
 
MrRubix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New York City, New York
Posts: 8,023
Default Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Windsurfer your "religious logic" falls apart because you're simply making illogical jumps that aren't supported by anything. Yes, I am "me," but why does that make me eternal? Why jump to the "logical" conclusion of a God when most of your reasoning is gap-filling? Why are you taking in the Bible when, as Reach said, much of it is demonstratively false?

It feels like, to me, you're taking an approach of "It doesn't matter how much evidence against God you find, there's always that chance everything else that you can't disprove is true and so God must exist."

"I guess the word prove does not mean physically show that xyz happened or how xyz happened, just demonstrate that its possible and likely given proper assumptions."

Neither of those views are "logical." A "proof" does not rely on something that is "likely," because a proof means something is necessarily true.

Even at that, if we are to go by what is likely, it's like saying science has a near-100% chance of being right, and religious types have a near-0% chance of being right. I don't quite think religious types understand how much evidence is blasting back against them.

For any claim or "logical linkage" you make in favor of God, you can't get upset when people bring up evidence against it. If there's evidence against something, you can no longer say it's a proof. Using God to fill in the gaps of everything has absolutely no logical basis.
__________________




This signature is now diamonds.
MrRubix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-7-2009, 06:32 PM   #58
Flaming_Dingleberry
Everybody gets one.
FFR Veteran
 
Flaming_Dingleberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Fuckin space bro
Posts: 1,003
Default Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

This thread is just too much now.

So...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Latentsanity View Post
The main issue with both of our theories is that the only way either of us can possibly 'prove' ours to be correct is to assert that what we believe is true, and then try and explain events from the point of view of someone who sees that theory as fact, and see which seems more logically possible. Of course you can't put events in a time-line before there was time, but my assertion was that there wasn't any point at which there was no time. Similarly, I suppose assuming that God exists outside of time leads to the conclusion that God created time, etc. Circular reasoning either way, but discussing something that is essentially explicitly stated as being beyond comprehension probably leads to a lot of that.
Yeah, I was treating the entire concept as if it were a riddle created by the Cracker Jack Company, there's nothing to prove, I don't even believe in what I was explaining. It was a hypothetical analysis of how everything might have started if both theories (1. God was forever 2. time was not) were plausible, which I myself doubt very much. Trying to actually prove anything about God is ridiculous, and I'm ending my religious contribution to this thread right there.
Flaming_Dingleberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-8-2009, 01:24 AM   #59
windsurfer-sp
FFR Veteran
FFR Veteran
 
windsurfer-sp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aussie (Oi Oi Oi)
Age: 29
Posts: 1,973
Send a message via AIM to windsurfer-sp
Default Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Alright, at the very top of this thread in big letters I wrote "I do not want this thread to turn into a religious thread or a creation versus evolution." When it started out this way, naively and egotistically I thought, its cool I can handle it. As it has been made clear I can't.

As I have said earlier though, an unbiased thinker will not take my lack of ability to properly demonstrate the validity of Christian beliefs as a sign that they are invalid.

I am happy to keep aiming for the moon and falling short. The fact is I can potentially handle trying discussing a single front of discussion at a time. I can't handle an all out assault from every direction. Thats why I asked for this not to turn into a religious thread.

I still think there is truth in what I believe and I am very interested in critically thinking about it. I would love to make some more threads in the future on very small and narrow topics in the hope that we will not get things out of hand.

Should I bother doing so? Are people actually interested in being open minded and discussing the validity of certain thoughts?

Edit: Would I be wrong in saying that most of the posts in this thread have not tried seeing any validity in what has been discussed? It does feel like there has been next to no effort to try and think about things from the other point of view (mine), no effort to try and find some positives in my arguments.
__________________
Orbb fan club.
White text society.

Last edited by windsurfer-sp; 07-8-2009 at 01:28 AM..
windsurfer-sp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-8-2009, 01:59 AM   #60
Squeek
let it snow~
FFR Veteran
 
Squeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 33
Posts: 14,457
Send a message via AIM to Squeek
Default Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

To be fair, asking for this not to become a religious thread is like shouting "THERE IS NO GOD" and asking for people not to tell you that you're wrong.

And asking us to see things from your point of view is rather... odd. I mean, you're telling us to assume "ok WHAT IF there was an omniscient omnipotent invisible being in the sky" when, to us, that's a rather large assumption to make and is outside of our scope of reasoning. For those of us who operating in the world of logic and proof, even making this huge assumption is like giving you an 'in', if you will.

It's the same problem I was having with the Metaphysics thread, though I didn't post it. The person there is trying to make an argument wherein you cut two people's brains in half and split them among each other in trying to argue that your sense of self is lost when you do this. When you keep forcing yourself to use "what if"s in order to try to win an argument, it sounds to me like you're grabbing for straws at that point.

But I'll play your game regardless.

What if it were God? Then anything and everything can be God. Then there's no point in doing any scientific examinations of anything anymore, because it's easier to just assume it's God's doing.

It's the same as the slippery slope legal argument. If you make one thing illegal, you can make anything illegal. If we say God did one thing, then God can do everything. Which is why we'll never admit, even in assumptions, that there has ever been a God doing anything.

Last edited by Squeek; 07-8-2009 at 02:02 AM..
Squeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution