I'm with you Tom...........
Printable View
I'm with you Tom...........
OK...............I have a question boys????
During the throw's of passion, when all I can seem to muster to say is "Oh God....Oh God!!!..........oooooooooohhhhhhhhh GGGGGGOOOOODDDD!!!!!
Does that count as out of body religious??????
LMAO
Not sure where you are going with this. I was just pointing out a part of my journey that I thought pretty enjoyable. Multiperson solipsism is a bit different than solipsism in that everyone has an equal chance to be god.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
It is, but does that make it part of my personal belief? I happen to believe in free will, which negates omnipotence. If God knows what I am going to do then there is no free will. This debate has actually raged in Christendom for centuries, and is based on only a few Scriptures that ignore a lot of Scriptures that counter it.Quote:
So how do you know god is omnipotent? It's a pretty basic part of Christianity isn't it?
Maybe we are the effort. Being that He is inherently beyond my understanding I accept that I cannot understand Him or His motives.Quote:
erm...but with this insight then you know you can't know if god had a reason for creating us, can you? Seriously, god does not want us to know jack shit. If god wanted us to know anything about anything it would make an effort. Right now it feels more like it's trying it's damndest to make it as confusing as possible. A little bit like it would be if god never said or did anything and all we're doing is guessing. Sometimes when things are mysterious, they're mysterious because there's nothing to find. You know, like a cigar might just be a cigar.
I think that what I accept is that my faith appears to be arbitrary to an outside observer. Going back to your experience with your grandmothers voice, if she started giving you advice on what would be happening in the future, and you started following it, it might appear to me that your actions were arbitrary. That does not make them so.Quote:
You're not exactly putting up a fight here. It's as if you've accepted that your faith is arbitrary. I'd have expected a little bit more here.
Some of the process I used to arrive at my reasoning has to be internal and cultural. I do not deny this. Does this make it arbitrary?
How? My insights have evolved my faith from believing what is taught in the pulpits of American churches to what I now believe. If I have more insights, then I will revise my beliefs. If someone ever manages to prove to me that I am wrong I will listen to them also.Quote:
But isn't the fact that you are Christian in spite of your insights, proof that your aren't willing to look at arguments and learn?
I agree, at least in principle. In fact, I would challenge anyone to prove to me that number 2 is supported in the Bible.Quote:
Again. You agree that we can't know but still make a leap of faith. But you deny it is a blind leap of faith. Ermmm.... does this make sense to anybody or am I just a bit slow.
edit: My problem with Christianity is that it is four distinct faiths.
1) The belief in the supernatural.
2) The belief in a personal omnipotent god which judges you when you die.
3) The stories in the Bible and the claims they make.
4) The moral and ethical guidelines and rules.
None of these are in any way connected and there's no reason to believe in one just because you believe in the other. If you believe in the omnipotent being, there's no way of knowing what it wants, is there? I mean, besides making baseless assumptions
One of the things that I have found to be unique about the Bible as a history is that it records the foibles and defeats of the kings as well as their triumphs. Never were the kings of Israel portrayed as being godlike in power and ability, and they lost battles and wars more than once.
Can you point out the problem with the moral and ethical guidelines and rules? It is the basis of most western laws after all. I prefer it to the strict Islamic interpretation of the Koran myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrall
It probably does not as you are pretty anchored to your body then, but it sure puts the challenge to your claim to be an atheist. I would ask why you call out to someone/thing you do not believe in at the most passionate moments of your life.
This is classic. Classic Tom indeed. ~applauds~Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
It counts. Sure does. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by thrall
A most thought-provoking question. Hmm...Quote:
I would ask why you call out to someone/thing you do not believe in at the most passionate moments of your life.
:wave:
Took a while to come up with an answer to this. Sorry for that.
Well, I'm impressed now. I could argue against humanities free will but I think we might need another thread for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
That's a fair point. So how does this relate to you? What happened to you that makes your faith less than arbitrary? If I may ask?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
Just to be perfectly clear here, we could imagine talking to my grandmother in my head and getting very valid advice. My Id could be in conflict with my Super ego represented by my grandmother. How do I know the voice of my grandmother isn't just my Super Ego reminding me about cultural constraints my Id would rather ignore? We have quite a collection of beings in our brains. Hearing voices in our heads is not particularly strange or supernatural. Neither is getting good advice in our heads. I could very well imagine that a person who is Christian will dress up their Super Ego as "god". I've given my ordinary appearance of Super Ego a physical look and sound, so I'm very aware of the capacities of our mind. It's just that my Super Ego looks like a smaller and usually miffed copy of me, with a whiny voice....but that's a side note.
My experience with my grandmothers voice was just wonky though. I heard a reply she usually said, but in a silent room without context. I always get this warm fuzzy feeling when I think of her. I still love her so much and she'll be with me always. But I still think she's pushing up daisies, even though she was both very Christian and hard core redder than red communist. I like the Voodoo belief in the afterlife. A person is still alive as a spirit as long as we keep their memory alive and tell stories about them. Rabbit, Rabbit, Rabbit….
I’d say you’re doing the same error here as any fundamentalist. You put the burden of proof on your opponents but formulate the test in such a way as to make it impossible for anybody to prove you wrong. But the problem is off-course that the same test which makes it impossible to prove you wrong also permits you from making a rational/logical leap of faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
But I wouldn’t call you a fundamentalist by any stretch. To me it sounds more like you have a very modern and enlightened view of the world and you just chose to call that Christianity. I’m guessing because it was your starting point. Nothing wrong with that. Labels are useful for understanding anything. But you seem to mix in arcane Christian concepts which doesn’t really seem to fit into your world view. Like, god created the universe for a reason and then you point out that we don’t know this?!? Your faith seems a bit unclear to me.
The fact that you use the, (to god) completely unrelated Bible and chose to use that as a base for your morals I’m guessing is also based on your upbringing. Am I missing something? Is there a link between the Christian notion of god and the Bible?
It actually sounds like we’re saying similar things but using different languages. My language is based on what I learned in philosophy class and your language seems to be based on what you’ve picked up through religious literature. To quote Lenin, “everything is connected to everything else”. Off-course the modern paradigm of thought spreads and is accepted even by those who oppose it.
He he Touche. You got me there. Yeah, it’s hard not to mix up Christians with Christianity and the Bible. Not to mention the Pope. Guilty as charged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
Well, I’d rather not. I don’t like the Bible as a moral and ethical guide because it is old. It uses arcane language aimed at a, (to us) alien culture and has a tendency to be a bit vague in a bad way. When it comes to ethical and moral treatises I think it’s good if who ever is writing it, tries to aim for clarity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
I’m well aware of situations where the writer is being very careful about hammering in for the time uncomfortable “truths” and therefore being vague about certain aspects. Which I certainly am aware might have been wise for the Bible and probably did Christianity a lot of good at its inception. But now we’re so far removed from the context of the Bible that for us it becomes nothing but a problem.
We could have endless debates about what the authors meant with almost every aspect. I read somewhere that in the USA alone there’s at least one new book every day being published which relates to interpreting or discussing the Bible. Since the context has changed so much you can’t read the Bible today and understand how it was the foundation of our legal system, or anything else in our culture today. I’d say you’re better off studying the history of ideas.
The fact that it is written as a story I have no problems with. Fictional or not. Often it is easier to understand moral issues when they’re put in a context and poetically embellished.
Thus Spoke Zarathustra is written in a similar style to the Bible but doesn’t even have nearly as many people trying to interpret it. Even though Nietzsche is a tad bit more contemporary and I would have though would be a smidgeon more relevant for people today.
My whole point is that it is hard to discuss a books moral and ethical message if it isn’t clear. Apart from that I have no problems with the Bible, whatever it is trying to say.
alright.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
so what if the names are also interchangeable with the person you are with?? Does that make them a God???? Or is it just and excepted phrase???
I think the concept of god and Christian thinking is very well anchored in our consciousness. So it's not a proof of the existence of god. It's only proof of how spread Christian faith is. Which if you apply the theories of group-think could be used as evidence against the existence of god.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
So could I, I am just pointing out the obvious discrepency between free will and omniscience. Though I can redefine omniscience in such a way that free will exists if I want to play Devil's Advocate.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
My faith is intensly personal, mostly because I was not looking for it. One of the reasons I like to point to C. S. Lewis is that his journey to faith was similar to mine. He described God as "The Hound of Heaven," and said that God loved Him enough to drag him "Kicking and screaming through the gates of heaven."Quote:
That's a fair point. So how does this relate to you? What happened to you that makes your faith less than arbitrary? If I may ask?
Just to be perfectly clear here, we could imagine talking to my grandmother in my head and getting very valid advice. My Id could be in conflict with my Super ego represented by my grandmother. How do I know the voice of my grandmother isn't just my Super Ego reminding me about cultural constraints my Id would rather ignore? We have quite a collection of beings in our brains. Hearing voices in our heads is not particularly strange or supernatural. Neither is getting good advice in our heads. I could very well imagine that a person who is Christian will dress up their Super Ego as "god". I've given my ordinary appearance of Super Ego a physical look and sound, so I'm very aware of the capacities of our mind. It's just that my Super Ego looks like a smaller and usually miffed copy of me, with a whiny voice....but that's a side note.
My experience with my grandmothers voice was just wonky though. I heard a reply she usually said, but in a silent room without context. I always get this warm fuzzy feeling when I think of her. I still love her so much and she'll be with me always. But I still think she's pushing up daisies, even though she was both very Christian and hard core redder than red communist. I like the Voodoo belief in the afterlife. A person is still alive as a spirit as long as we keep their memory alive and tell stories about them. Rabbit, Rabbit, Rabbit….
His journey and mine were similar because I had given up finding God, even though I had decided that Christianity was the faith that made the most sense, I was unable to make the leap of faith to believe. Then my life hit a low point, and I tried bargaining with God. Surprisingly enough, that did not work. I say surprisingly because there are a lot of testimonies about how God helps people out of jams like an indulgent father.
My life went from bad to worse, yet I struggled on. Then one day, God reached down and got my attention. He basically told me that He does not make deals to get people to follow Him, they either do it in the midst of trouble, or they do not. That is their choice, and mine. He drug me into His house, made me believe, than let me choose. Very personal thing, but not the sort of testimony that inspires others to believe, yet I do.
You are not the only one that has trouble getting my faith. I do not trust anyone to define it for me, thus it confuses all those who want to tell me what to believe. I try to follow the Bible because, to me, that is the book through which God most cleraly reveals Himself. You are talking about a being that I have as much trouble understanding as an ant would have understanding me.Quote:
I’d say you’re doing the same error here as any fundamentalist. You put the burden of proof on your opponents but formulate the test in such a way as to make it impossible for anybody to prove you wrong. But the problem is off-course that the same test which makes it impossible to prove you wrong also permits you from making a rational/logical leap of faith.
But I wouldn’t call you a fundamentalist by any stretch. To me it sounds more like you have a very modern and enlightened view of the world and you just chose to call that Christianity. I’m guessing because it was your starting point. Nothing wrong with that. Labels are useful for understanding anything. But you seem to mix in arcane Christian concepts which doesn’t really seem to fit into your world view. Like, god created the universe for a reason and then you point out that we don’t know this?!? Your faith seems a bit unclear to me.
The problem with fundamentalists, imo, is that they think they have the answers to all the questions. I know I do not, and that makes my faith even harder to define. I believe in God because of a personal experience I had, but he does not always answer my questions.
We are, the language is different is all. I am not defending Christianity as much as I am promoting the existence of God. Most of the accepted tenets of Christianity are not supported in the Bible.Quote:
The fact that you use the, (to god) completely unrelated Bible and chose to use that as a base for your morals I’m guessing is also based on your upbringing. Am I missing something? Is there a link between the Christian notion of god and the Bible?
It actually sounds like we’re saying similar things but using different languages. My language is based on what I learned in philosophy class and your language seems to be based on what you’ve picked up through religious literature. To quote Lenin, “everything is connected to everything else”. Off-course the modern paradigm of thought spreads and is accepted even by those who oppose it.
My interpretation of God is based on my understanding of the Bible, and of nature itself. I find myself in conflict with a lot of people who want to paint God in a different light than I see Him. I try not to accept something just because everyone lese does. This makes me quite a few enemies along the way.
You also tend to lump me in with what you think of as Christians, at least you used to as I know you do not think of me that way now.Quote:
He he Touche. You got me there. Yeah, it’s hard not to mix up Christians with Christianity and the Bible. Not to mention the Pope. Guilty as charged.
Maybe it is confusing because we try to read it the wrong way. There really are only a few "rules" in it, most of it is about our reaction to those rules.Quote:
Well, I’d rather not. I don’t like the Bible as a moral and ethical guide because it is old. It uses arcane language aimed at a, (to us) alien culture and has a tendency to be a bit vague in a bad way. When it comes to ethical and moral treatises I think it’s good if who ever is writing it, tries to aim for clarity.
I’m well aware of situations where the writer is being very careful about hammering in for the time uncomfortable “truths” and therefore being vague about certain aspects. Which I certainly am aware might have been wise for the Bible and probably did Christianity a lot of good at its inception. But now we’re so far removed from the context of the Bible that for us it becomes nothing but a problem.
We could have endless debates about what the authors meant with almost every aspect. I read somewhere that in the USA alone there’s at least one new book every day being published which relates to interpreting or discussing the Bible. Since the context has changed so much you can’t read the Bible today and understand how it was the foundation of our legal system, or anything else in our culture today. I’d say you’re better off studying the history of ideas.
The fact that it is written as a story I have no problems with. Fictional or not. Often it is easier to understand moral issues when they’re put in a context and poetically embellished.
Thus Spoke Zarathustra is written in a similar style to the Bible but doesn’t even have nearly as many people trying to interpret it. Even though Nietzsche is a tad bit more contemporary and I would have though would be a smidgeon more relevant for people today.
My whole point is that it is hard to discuss a books moral and ethical message if it isn’t clear. Apart from that I have no problems with the Bible, whatever it is trying to say.
Applying the theories of group-think usually ends up with me trying to swallow my tail.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
My answer to thrall was based more on the observation that despite her oppostition to God's very existence she still calls out to him. I recognize this as cultural conditioning more than an argument for God's existence. It just goes to show that cultural conditioning is one of the strongest forces at play in alll our lives, and serves as an example of how difficult it is to overcome bias when making a judgement.
We read the Bible through our cultural conditioning, and impose that on our interpretation of it, and thus try to fit God into what is comfortable for us. I strive, with what I hope is a bit of success, not to do this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrall
Would that make me God if I was with you when you do this?
As I told Tom, I think it is cultural conditioning, and a marvelous example thereof.
You seem reluctant to share with us your “intensely personal” reasons that permitted you to make a rational leap of faith, so I won’t push it. I’ve so far never seen or heard an explanation for belief in God that is in any way supported by anything rational. I always get this “secret club” vibe, where the key isn’t to understand anything, because there’s nothing to understand, only to convince oneself that one does, without testing it as much as you really would need to. Somebody saying that “you’ll understand it when it happens to you”, doesn’t fly with me. In this case, it to me implies that there’s nothing there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
Sorry, I don’t think I was clear enough. I was wondering about the link between God and the Bible. What phenomena or religious experiences have caused you to give any validity to the Bible? People have all through out history had religious experiences and only in recent times in geographically limited areas have they drawn the conclusion that it must be the being described in the Bible. This I would have thought would make it a lot more difficult to accept that any supernatural phenomena be linked to the Bible. It would need a very strong connection. So where is this connection? When God appears, does it refer to passages or something? What makes you so sure that your experiences can be linked to a specific book? Couldn’t the God be another religions God? Or as in the case of Buddhism, can’t the God be you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
Our discussions have taught me a lot about Christians and Christian perceptions of the world. But it has admittedly caused me to understand Christians less, because I still don’t see how somebody as enlightened as you manage to draw the conclusions you do. I still have a fair bit to go I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
I guess I was not clear enough here. I described the event that caused me to believe in the existence of God despite my doubts. This event is the part that is personal, not the chain of reasoning. I am willing to lay it out for you, though not to debate it because I will admit that I cannot prove God's existence. I just learned a bit about a few different scientific disciplines and decided that "Random Chance" has no more validity as an explanation than anything else. This is what opened the way for God to step in and prove his existence to me in a personal manner.
We all do. going from my education and reading to a belief in God was not an easy one. First I had to learn that science did not have the answers. The more I studied the details of creation, even of a simple cell, the less that I was able to believe in the concept that the long string of improbable chances could occur. Having blind faith in science is as silly as having blind faith in anything else. This did not immediately lead me to believe in God, but it opened the door to the possibility of something else.Quote:
Sorry, I don’t think I was clear enough. I was wondering about the link between God and the Bible. What phenomena or religious experiences have caused you to give any validity to the Bible? People have all through out history had religious experiences and only in recent times in geographically limited areas have they drawn the conclusion that it must be the being described in the Bible. This I would have thought would make it a lot more difficult to accept that any supernatural phenomena be linked to the Bible. It would need a very strong connection. So where is this connection? When God appears, does it refer to passages or something? What makes you so sure that your experiences can be linked to a specific book? Couldn’t the God be another religions God? Or as in the case of Buddhism, can’t the God be you?Our discussions have taught me a lot about Christians and Christian perceptions of the world. But it has admittedly caused me to understand Christians less, because I still don’t see how somebody as enlightened as you manage to draw the conclusions you do. I still have a fair bit to go I think.Quote:
This is a bit shakier to explain. I know that when I read the Bible I get closer to God. does this mean that this is the only way for God to interact with man? No. I never made that claim, and never will. God is capable of doing whatever he wants as far as talking to His creation. I believe a lot of His communication comes from the very foundations of creation. The Bible actually talks about this process in a few places, and this is why I make the connection between God and the Bible, not between God and the "Christian" interpretation of the Bible.
You obviously think you can prove god's existence. Since you believe it. I think that what you mean is that you don't know of how to translate that experience in a way so will make it as convincing to others as it was to you? "Proof" only means something which can be used to prove a case, for yourself or others. Without proof, we will believe nothing. Religious or not. Because without proof we will never have even thought the thought from which to take the leap of faith. There's other types of proof than scientific proof. The handy thing with scientific proof is off-course that the rules for how to judge it are a lot less vague.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
But still. You're not saying much.
Yeah, but what's the link? How does it work? What makes you believe the Christian Bible got it any more right than the Bhagavad Ghita? If liberally interpreted they're the same text. Since all gods are reincarnations of Brahma, they have exactly the same myth of creation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
I'm disappointed. Now your pulling this down to a kindergarten level again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
Yeah.....but that's not much of an argument for anything. Saying that science doesn't have the answers, doesn't really strengthen the case for theism does it? We've been over this before. You're treating it like there's a finite number of choices of faith. There isn't. And just because science doesn't have the answer now, doesn't mean it'll never have the answer.
...and it's also pretty arrogant to say that just because you can't understand a theory, that it doesn't have merit. Evolution isn't random and anybody saying it hasn't a clue. We had you eat your words before here on the Library.
I think your logical error is that you equate life on earth with this life. A bit like rolling a million sixes in a row on a dice. Sure, that's highly unlikely. But if anywhere along the line you would have rolled something else, we still would have life. It would just have looked different. There's no scientific reason to assume life springing up on earth is a particularly unlikely event.
Gravity effects matter on the molecular and atomic level differently than on the macro level. That's why you think that the function of cells are so improbable. We can't really apply common sense because we can't really understand it. [Insert quantum mechanic quote of your choice]. Since our last talk here I chatted some more with my micro biologist friend. There's nothing amazing or unlikely about it. It's just extremely hard to grasp if you don't have a degree in maths. A lot of it is admittedly still blank holes. We don't have a complete picture. But that isn't in the least a case for god and certainly not the Bible.
I often point to quantum physics as evidence that the universe has a sense of humor, and that it is playing a joke on everybody in it. Proof of God's existence is a bit hard to pin down, but evidence is another matter. Your idol Dawkins makes a convincing argument for the possibility of miracles, though he seems to think that understanding the universe is beyond our evolutionary ability. His arguments also lacked a fundamental understanding of the nature of the interaction between matter and energy on a quantum level. That is a fundamental problem with specialization of knowledge, and although I do not understand all the math and physics, I at least know enough to find some of his speculation a bit far fetched.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
Maybe the reason they all are the same is because they are all holdovers from our original ancestors after creation. If the story started as truth, then all the variations could easily be attributed to human differences. Did you ever play that game where on person whispers something to another, and then to another? the more people in that chain, the more different the final outcome is, and this is with something simple.Quote:
Yeah, but what's the link? How does it work? What makes you believe the Christian Bible got it any more right than the Bhagavad Ghita? If liberally interpreted they're the same text. Since all gods are reincarnations of Brahma, they have exactly the same myth of creation.
On to your question, I would have to say that the reason I chose the Bible is mostly cultural. The Bible is where I first looked for God, and when I started to get serious about Him it is where I searched deeper. One of the things that separates the Bible from other holy books is the internal consistency and claims. Does the Bhagavad Ghita make the claim to divine inspiration? Is there a god in it that actually claims to have created everything? If these are there, I must have missed them.
I am aware enough about math to understand the arguments that some scientists use to support that molecular biology is not as improbable as some suggest. I agree that certain chemicals can only combine in certain ways, but they ignore the fact that long chains of improbable events have to occur to make all of this work. Inside the cell we have chemical interactions that cannot proceed independent of each other that are individually improbable, and these scientists want me to accept that they occur by chance. The odds are against it. Sure, it is possible if we postulate certain improbable conditions, and make the argument that conditions were different then. Not impossible, but then they turn around and argue for the consistency of conditions to prove other portions of their theories, a bit confusing to me.Quote:
I'm disappointed. Now your pulling this down to a kindergarten level again.
Yeah.....but that's not much of an argument for anything. Saying that science doesn't have the answers, doesn't really strengthen the case for theism does it? We've been over this before. You're treating it like there's a finite number of choices of faith. There isn't. And just because science doesn't have the answer now, doesn't mean it'll never have the answer.
...and it's also pretty arrogant to say that just because you can't understand a theory, that it doesn't have merit. Evolution isn't random and anybody saying it hasn't a clue. We had you eat your words before here on the Library.
I think your logical error is that you equate life on earth with this life. A bit like rolling a million sixes in a row on a dice. Sure, that's highly unlikely. But if anywhere along the line you would have rolled something else, we still would have life. It would just have looked different. There's no scientific reason to assume life springing up on earth is a particularly unlikely event.
Gravity effects matter on the molecular and atomic level differently than on the macro level. That's why you think that the function of cells are so improbable. We can't really apply common sense because we can't really understand it. [Insert quantum mechanic quote of your choice]. Since our last talk here I chatted some more with my micro biologist friend. There's nothing amazing or unlikely about it. It's just extremely hard to grasp if you don't have a degree in maths. A lot of it is admittedly still blank holes. We don't have a complete picture. But that isn't in the least a case for god and certainly not the Bible.
As for your argument that life is something that was all but inevitable no matter what random events occur, where is the proof of that? That is asking me to totally through out the Laws of Thermodynamics and believe that entropy will always reverse to create life. You want me to believe that the laws of physics can be suspended, but not in a God that actually suspends them. Which of us is taking the larger leap of faith?
Tell your microbiologist friend to stop being so arrogant and take a look at the real world. there is a guy with no formal training that the United States Navy, as well as most other ocean going powers, to track and predict waves at sea. Most astronomical discoveries are made by amateurs without the training of the professionals. Mathematical advances are made everyday by people who do not have degrees. An education does not give him a better understanding of the way the universe works, despite what he was taught by his close minded professors who want to throw out other possibilities simply because the person advancing them does not have a degree in microbiology.
Soprry, sort of a soap box ther. I can actually walk into JPL in Pasadena and discuss the advances of quantum physics and astrophysics with PhD's that do not look down on me because I do not have a degree because they are smart enough to know that degrees are do not indicate intelligence, but a microbiologists wants to try and tell me that I cannot possibly understand simple statistics because I do not have a degree. I just tend to get my fur up when I run into that attitude, and it is not you I am upset about. I do not know what you know about math, but statistics are pretty straightforward and simple. You take all the variables, and all the possibilities, and you chrunch a few numbers, and the results come out.
But your idol Jesus has poopy ..... just kidding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
Dawkins arguments for a lack an understanding of quantum mechanics is that we all do. None of us have a clue. Just because you say that there is a creator and it knows, doesn't really add to your case does it? You have no way of verifying it with the diety, do you?
To me at least, you're now starting to make sense. But you at a stroke insert a massive dose of uncertainty into the Bible. How can we use religious texts to understand god better? If the Bible is later in the whispering chain, how does that increase the case for the Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
I don't think anybody knows the origins of the Bhagavad Ghita. It references wars about 3000 BC around Hampi. I think it's in Karnataka, India.That's about it. I think it's really cool that some of the buildings referenced are still standing and can still be visited today. They are very old. Since it explains the supernatural and dieties, I'd say it can be assumed that who ever wrote it, thought they did it on divine inspiration. I can't think of any religious text that wouldn't be considered as such. Don't forget that at the time all kings and anybody very famous for anything was considered a god of sorts. That goes for Europe to. So it needs plenty of critical reading.
A central theme in Hinduism is that everything is part of and a reincarnation of Brahman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman
So Brahman isn't just the creator of the universe, but also the universe itself and we are part of it. We are god. Brahman created itself BTW. Take that Escher. I personally find that their model that makes a whole lot more sense, than god being an external entity, but hey, that's me.
The truth is that we don't know how unlikely it is that life occurs. Our statistical population is one and it gives us a positive for life at every reading. Statistically we can't say much. And in none of the models except the creationist model is the laws of thermodynamics broken. As far as I know, nobody has said that life is inevitable, as Mars and the Moon has proven.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
"Inside the cell we have chemical interactions that cannot proceed independent of each other that are individually improbable, and these scientists want me to accept that they occur by chance. The odds are against it."
This is just wrong. It's just creationist propaganda. I'm no molecular biologist but pretty much the whole scientific community doesn't seem to feel the need to insert god anywhere here. The problem is that the people who have the training to understand this can't explain it to us without the training, because it's far too counter intuitive.
To me it made no sense at all. I saw some research on some muscle in mouse lungs in it might as well have been in Greek. it it was pretty electron microscope pictures. The thing is that I have taken the leap of faith that scientists aren't wilfully trying to trick me and when they make statements that go completely unchallenged by a world of lab coats, that it's as close to truth as I believe I'll personally get. The leap of faith required to believe in scientific theories isn't particularly great is it?
I find it strange that an enlightened person like you feel the need to question them. You don't even believe in a literal reading of the Bible, so I don't get the conflict? What's wrong with believing that God created the conditions for life to assemble through random occurrences? Alistar mcGrath, Dawkins biggest critic, a Christian and a molecular biologist sees no conflict between evolution and the Bible. Why do you?
Always when private people discover stuff their academic background researching the stuff in question always pops up. Like Einstein for example. But recently it's completely unheard of. Beside that pastor in the Australian outback who's discovered a shit load of stars, who is there? And his discoveries dropped off to near zero after Hubble was launched.
I can take a joke Tom, np.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
Nope, but the fact that he argues for the existence of miracles in one breath, and then against the few instances that we have of them being recorded from history is a bit wishy washy, imo.Quote:
Dawkins arguments for a lack an understanding of quantum mechanics is that we all do. None of us have a clue. Just because you say that there is a creator and it knows, doesn't really add to your case does it? You have no way of verifying it with the diety, do you?
In a way I agree with you. Which is one reason I kind of like the idea that the universe is a joke we cooked up among ourselves, and the biggest part of the joke is that we forgot.Quote:
To me at least, you're now starting to make sense. But you at a stroke insert a massive dose of uncertainty into the Bible. How can we use religious texts to understand god better? If the Bible is later in the whispering chain, how does that increase the case for the Bible.
I don't think anybody knows the origins of the Bhagavad Ghita. It references wars about 3000 BC around Hampi. I think it's in Karnataka, India.That's about it. I think it's really cool that some of the buildings referenced are still standing and can still be visited today. They are very old. Since it explains the supernatural and dieties, I'd say it can be assumed that who ever wrote it, thought they did it on divine inspiration. I can't think of any religious text that wouldn't be considered as such. Don't forget that at the time all kings and anybody very famous for anything was considered a god of sorts. That goes for Europe to. So it needs plenty of critical reading.
A central theme in Hinduism is that everything is part of and a reincarnation of Brahman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman
So Brahman isn't just the creator of the universe, but also the universe itself and we are part of it. We are god. Brahman created itself BTW. Take that Escher. I personally find that their model that makes a whole lot more sense, than god being an external entity, but hey, that's me.
My understanding of Scripture causes me to believe something similar. we are all part of God.
I do believe in scientific theories, I just do not know whose argument to believe. My point is that people who do have the training to understand these supposed arguments are making these counter claims. Why do their opponents then try to make the argument that I cannot understand because I do not have the training to comprehend the argument. I know from experience that I can learn the basics of even complex math rather quickly. someone trying to tell me their is no way I can understand is actually telling me that he is not as sure of his arguments as he claims, or that he does not want to take the time to make me understand.Quote:
The truth is that we don't know how unlikely it is that life occurs. Our statistical population is one and it gives us a positive for life at every reading. Statistically we can't say much. And in none of the models except the creationist model is the laws of thermodynamics broken. As far as I know, nobody has said that life is inevitable, as Mars and the Moon has proven.
"Inside the cell we have chemical interactions that cannot proceed independent of each other that are individually improbable, and these scientists want me to accept that they occur by chance. The odds are against it."
This is just wrong. It's just creationist propaganda. I'm no molecular biologist but pretty much the whole scientific community doesn't seem to feel the need to insert god anywhere here. The problem is that the people who have the training to understand this can't explain it to us without the training, because it's far too counter intuitive.
To me it made no sense at all. I saw some research on some muscle in mouse lungs in it might as well have been in Greek. it it was pretty electron microscope pictures. The thing is that I have taken the leap of faith that scientists aren't wilfully trying to trick me and when they make statements that go completely unchallenged by a world of lab coats, that it's as close to truth as I believe I'll personally get. The leap of faith required to believe in scientific theories isn't particularly great is it?
I am watching the reformation of theories about how solar systems form based on new findings from the Hubble. We are learning that most of the theories we had based on looking at our system are wrong, and that it is getting a little harder to explain why this system formed the way it did. Scientist hoped to find Super Jupiters, but we have been stumbling over them at such an astounding rate that we are learning that the ideas we had are wrong. I am not saying that the solar system we live in is inexplicable, just a bit more unlikely then we thought.
If we were wrong about that, what else can we be wrong about?
Who says I do? The conflict I have is with the teaching of evolution as a totally proven theory. The scientific community can be just as blind as anyone else when their beliefs are challenged, and they need to acknowledge that the answers are not as cut and dried as they are being presented. But that is actually another discussion, and we can take it up again later.Quote:
I find it strange that an enlightened person like you feel the need to question them. You don't even believe in a literal reading of the Bible, so I don't get the conflict? What's wrong with believing that God created the conditions for life to assemble through random occurrences? Alistar mcGrath, Dawkins biggest critic, a Christian and a molecular biologist sees no conflict between evolution and the Bible. Why do you?
The interesting thing about the new discoveries being made by amateurs is that they far out pace those of the professionals. There was a comment in one of the TED videos I watched (btw, thanks so much for that link, I love it) about a part time comet hunter that downloads data from the Hubble and uses it to look for comets. He has discovered 150 comets this way, more than people who have sophisticated search programs and are actually paid to do this.Quote:
Always when private people discover stuff their academic background researching the stuff in question always pops up. Like Einstein for example. But recently it's completely unheard of. Beside that pastor in the Australian outback who's discovered a shit load of stars, who is there? And his discoveries dropped off to near zero after Hubble was launched.
The fact is that a person without formal education is just as capable, and sometimes more likely, to make a discovery because he does not have to justify his ideas to someone else.
I think he argues against our understanding of whether it is miracles or not. A bit like, even if a miracle would shoot up and bite us in the ass, we might not register it as such. In the same way. If we see something mundane but in a way we're not prepared for we might register it falsely as a miracle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
What I said was that I didn't understand it. I wasn't talking about you. But I do very strongly doubt that without serious studies, it's possible to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
um...yeah. and we still have the Banach Tarski paradox to deal with. I think you're mixing up positive and negative attributes to arguments. The more uncertaintly you insert to a premise means just that. It doesn't add to any specific theory no matter how wide it's domain is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
Sure, the "god theory" has the handy attribute of fitting into any situation due to it's nature. It is supremely intelligent, has no mass, gives no energy readings, is invisible and at the same time all powerful. Me personally, I'd say that if that doesn't make you laugh, then I don't know what's wrong with you. As far as a scientific theory is concerned it's a bit like walking around with a bazooka and calling it "a key that fits any door".
So, the fact remains that there is still no reason to insert an omnipotent, or even mildly powerful ethereal being anywhere in any theory today. So you inserting doubt in now defunct old popular scientific theories doesn't really do much for Christianity I'm afraid. If it does to you, then that is proof that you're just seeing things you want to see.
The plain fact is that the more uncertainty you insert the harder it is for anybody to make a leap of faith. If you do anyway then .... well ... I'll refrain from making insults here.
No it isn't as blind as anyone else when their beliefs are challenged. That's what so nice about science. It is very important that scientists do come up with wonky theories which break from today's paradigm. But they are scientists. They are systematic and above all make sure they don't break any of the things we can prove. I'd say that you need to be a part of the scientific community to make sure you aren't forgetting any previous critical research. If nothing else you need to be attached to a university just to have access to their databases to be able to search earlier research. It's extremely valuable to know that nobody before you took your idea, ran with it and failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
There is more than just knowing or not knowing. There are known unknowns and there are things that you may not know that you don't know.
But without the scientific work that tells him what to look for he wouldn't have a clue. The discovery isn't the comets, but the method on how to find it. It's all about how you look at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
I can see that, and it goes along with another favorite quote of mine; "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke. My point is that for years science has argued that miracles as they are described in the bible are impossible. we are just now beginning to understand that they are actually possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
And where is that serious study? Science already thinks it has the answers, so it is not looking.Quote:
What I said was that I didn't understand it. I wasn't talking about you. But I do very strongly doubt that without serious studies, it's possible to understand.
As a scientific theory it does make me laugh. I always want to brain the people who try to make the theory fit their beliefs, even if it is as natural as breathing. I am not trying to argue that God is the answer here, just that that explanation makes a bit more sense to me than random chance. Scientists reject it as a theory only because they do not want to believe in God, which shows their prejudice, not mine.Quote:
um...yeah. and we still have the Banach Tarski paradox to deal with. I think you're mixing up positive and negative attributes to arguments. The more uncertaintly you insert to a premise means just that. It doesn't add to any specific theory no matter how wide it's domain is.
Sure, the "god theory" has the handy attribute of fitting into any situation due to it's nature. It is supremely intelligent, has no mass, gives no energy readings, is invisible and at the same time all powerful. Me personally, I'd say that if that doesn't make you laugh, then I don't know what's wrong with you. As far as a scientific theory is concerned it's a bit like walking around with a bazooka and calling it "a key that fits any door".
So, the fact remains that there is still no reason to insert an omnipotent, or even mildly powerful ethereal being anywhere in any theory today. So you inserting doubt in now defunct old popular scientific theories doesn't really do much for Christianity I'm afraid. If it does to you, then that is proof that you're just seeing things you want to see.
The plain fact is that the more uncertainty you insert the harder it is for anybody to make a leap of faith. If you do anyway then .... well ... I'll refrain from making insults here.
Sure, this opens new questions, but since science is about exploring questions, why not explore them? Can we find answers? I do not know, but I do know that there is no way we will if we do not look.
Now you are the one confusing things here. I said the scientific community can be just as blind as anyone else, and you rebut that science is about questioning. The thing that I know is that scientists are humans. I can go back through history, even recent history, that shows how scientist resist new ideas. This is only human, but it should raise a flag whenever it occurs. I personally have found that the more violently I react to a new idea, the more likely it is to be correct.Quote:
No it isn't as blind as anyone else when their beliefs are challenged. That's what so nice about science. It is very important that scientists do come up with wonky theories which break from today's paradigm. But they are scientists. They are systematic and above all make sure they don't break any of the things we can prove. I'd say that you need to be a part of the scientific community to make sure you aren't forgetting any previous critical research. If nothing else you need to be attached to a university just to have access to their databases to be able to search earlier research. It's extremely valuable to know that nobody before you took your idea, ran with it and failed.
There is more than just knowing or not knowing. There are known unknowns and there are things that you may not know that you don't know.
True, but amateurs have access to all the same information that scientists do. They can subscribe to all the scientific journals, read all the articles online, and everything that a regular scientists does. In this day and age information is readily available to anyone who looks for it. This enables even someone without a degree to understand everything that a PhD does.Quote:
But without the scientific work that tells him what to look for he wouldn't have a clue. The discovery isn't the comets, but the method on how to find it. It's all about how you look at it.
This is why I always take exception to people who try to tell me I cannot understand something without years of university training. Schools do not teach us how to think. In fact, they actually do the opposite, they teach us what to think. At least that is what happens here in the US, it might be different in Sweden.
This has been fun but it's not going anywhere.
1) You have failed in providing a link between the Bible and the Christian theory of god. All you did was say that it made you understand god better but couldn't be bothered to explain how.
2) You are unwilling to present your evidence why you believe in God.
3) You do everything you can to insert uncertainty into any theory, scientific or otherwise, which is totally valid. But the fact that you in spite of this make a leap of faith tells me that you know that your leap of faith is false. You say you believe in something which you in fact don't.
4) You have failed in limiting Christianity as a concept. If we don't know what it is we believe, then what do we believe?
We seem to share the same conceptual world Rhabbi. We accept the same same data. But you draw conclusions that you yourself deny you have the platform to draw. That is not a leap of faith. That is wilful delusion. It's a big difference. You do not believe in the Christian god Rhabbi. I don't know what you are but you are far too clever for that crap. You seem to wear it like a meaningless badge. It's great that the Bible is a source of inspiration and guidance in your life. That is the sum total of what our discussions have served to establish. If that is being Christian then yeah sure. Why not.