Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Challenge


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
170 replies to this topic

#16    Kira

Kira

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,183 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2002
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Leicester England.

  • Sexiest,
    Prettiest,
    Bloodthirstiest,
    Elf Member of the
    Six Worst Men of the Apfelschnaps.



    Thanks TO xx

Posted 09 July 2004 - 03:36 PM

Norman:
QUOTE
But there is only 1
major belief that is the truth. And that is christianity
.


Ahhhh just to interject here you cannot prove that either way... and saying it is being entirely contradictory to what you started this thread for....

QUOTE
Greetings. I am Norman. Please let us start a discussion about spirituality.
Who in here believes in God, and who does't? Bring it on folk!  Share your
thoughts:


whistling2.gif  

We do what we do because of who we are. If we did otherwise, we would not be ourselves.

#17    Liutas

Liutas

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 17 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2004

Posted 09 July 2004 - 03:46 PM

Burnside, Seraphina, or any other atheist reading this define proof for me. What would be considered proof of the existence of god (or gods)?


#18    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,484 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 July 2004 - 07:35 PM

QUOTE
However, if I say there is gold in china, all I have to do is look for one piece of gold and that will assure me that there is indeed gold in china. Therefore, in the
same way, no one can say that there is no GOD, because you do not really know
if there is a God.


I don't know from gods, but I do know science and logic.  You can look all you want for gold in China, you can say it's there as loudly as you want, but until such time as you actually find a nugget containing a significant percentage of the Au element (gold), you will not have empirical evidence of it, and therefore you will not have proof of it.  You will have faith that it is there, but not proof.  (This all assumes the geologic impossiblity of gold in China, of which I have no idea wether it is possible or not).

In other words, what you are attempting to do is what is called a Reduction Argument.  It basically goes: Given A, B, C, then If A does not equal C, B must equal C.  It is a logically correct argument, however (and this is the part that most overlook) the assumption is that both A and B are of equal standing.  In other words, if C is Fruit, then Both A and B must be a type of fruit.  If C is Book, both A and B must be a type of book.      The only way that you can logically eliminate either A or B is if they both follow the exact same rules of structure and order.

So how does this relate to your example.  Like this:  Your examples assumes that your argument A (gold) is the equivalent of your argument B (God).  If one can disprove the impossiblity of gold in China by the discovery of a single nugget of gold (which is true, and I am assuming you meant that you have metaphorically discovered such a thing), then one can disprove the impossibility of God by finding one single 'nugget' of God (also true).  But this nugget of God MUST possess the same structure and order of the nugget of gold.  It must be measurable, classifiable, and verifiable.  They are not, however, and therefore you example is moot.

QUOTE
See, the Bible says that God prooves Himself through His creation and wise thinking. Do you really think that the human eye- so complex and so well designed, and all the wonders of the universe, our brains our ability to love and hate, and
the starts and the oceans...


This is another common argument referred to as Irreducible Complexity.  Another popular example (asides from cars and paintings) is the pocketwatch example, where if you find a pocketwatch on the beach, you would assume that it was man-made, because it is too complex to have come about by sheer chance.

But this is another false argument because it makes a significantly incorrect assumption.  Complexity is NOT the sign of natural intelligence.  Read that again.  Complexity is NOT the sign of natural intelligence; SIMPLICITY is the sign of natural intelligence.

I'll explain.  Let's say you go down to the river shore.  Look at all the pebbles on the bank and pick one up.  Your assignment is to replicate this stone.  To do this, you will have to measure all the imperfections, all the many dimensions, the different densities, all the color variations, everything that makes this pebble what it is.  Why are there so many different factors?  They are there because the pebble is a product of numerous accidents; the sheer result of a hundred different possibilities coming to pass exactly as they did.  But let us say that you found a different pebble.  This one is perfectly spherical.  It is an even glossy black.  It is of equal density throughout.  Replicating this one is simple.  Volume=Pi*Radius cubed.  A note for color, another for density, and you're done.

Which of the two pebbles would you suspect of being natural, and which man-made?

Now, to the second fallacy in your argument.  You belief that the eye is so darned perfect.  Its design is such that there is a blind spot in the back.  We can only see an incredibly narrow range of light, less than insects and other mammals.  The nerves actually have to switch over sides before they get to the brain.  I won't even get into all the flaws that eventually cause us to loose our sight.  Well designed?  No, I could have designed a better eye, and I'm not claiming that I made the universe and all creation.

QUOTE
However, humans believe in what they can see.


No.  Some do, but some are very aware of the extreme limitations and biases that our senses have to work with.  Ask any police officer who has had to write up witness accounts.  People see the exact same event, but they hear different things, they feel different ways, and yes, they even see different events.  This is why subjective evidence is not the same as imperical evidence.  Humans are simply not trustworthy enough sources of data.

QUOTE
Gravity can be tested... yes. So can God. If you die right now, for any reason, I assure you that you will meet GOD. This is genuine proof.


Holy Cow!  If we had been in the same room when you made this statement, I would have slowly backed away to the door!

That aside, you make the same mistake you did before.  The theory of gravity has been tested, retested, independentaly verified, used for predictions, and meets every single pre-requisite for scientific methodology.  You equate this to "If you die, you'll see God."?  No, Proof is imperical data that is both repeatable and falsifiable.  We have absolutely no way to confirm that a dead person has met God.  This doesn't even meet the description of evidence, much less proof.

QUOTE
science is like a box that limits reality. Science can be prooven yes. But so can everything else outside of the box


You nailed it right on the head.  Science indeed limits reality.  It strips it clean of subjectivity, or emotional bias, of psychological dependence.  It purifies data down to most imperical form possible.  With this data, it then proceeds to understand the rules of reality.  The data makes the rules, not us.

You make the claim that you respect all religions.  I have my doubts.  You do sound like you tolerate them, but it isn't the same thing.  If all you do is hum happily to yourself "they're wrong, I'm right." you have not shown them any respect whatsover.  In much the same way, you disrespect my belief in scientific methodology.  You do so by using it without even a decent understanding of the arguments.  To my mind, your idea of research is to read articles that you already know you will agree with, and repeat what you have read.  I have my doubts as to wether you even understand your own arguments to any depth.

You could probably justly accuse me of not having respect for your beliefs.  You might be correct, but you would be missing the point.  I have full respect for those who arrive at their beliefs, whatever they may be, through a full understanding of all the data involve, both positive and negative.  People who willingly research both sides and come to a conclusion based on what they know and what they beleive (and understand that the two are not the same), these people have my respect.

You...the arguments that you presented are facil and have been responded to decades ago.  That you were unaware of the easily discovered arguments against these indicates that you are willingly to follow, but not study.  I cannot respect a faith followed only due to academic laziness.


#19    RyuujinBlueZ

RyuujinBlueZ

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 71 posts
  • Joined:07 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 July 2004 - 08:13 PM

Aquatus, can you be my god?  w00t.gif

Kidding, but that was...amazing. I loved the counter. I'd add to it, but I'd probably just hurt your case. So all I'll do is agree with you completely.

Research things, Norman. Most of the points Aquatus made I learned way back in seventh grade.

Hopefully, you'll have learned them. Maybe you've even done what Aquatus said, taking the info you've read and putting it with your beliefs. However, I really don't think you understand that what you believe and what is fact are generally two different things.

If you'll recall my first post in this topic, I stated that my beliefs are still being defined. That's because I know, for a fact, I don't know anything. At very least not enough to to imperically outline a final set of beliefs.

So I work with what I've got, and trust in that nifty little animal instinct.

Sure, maybe I'm scary as all hell sometimes. Maybe I seem like a terrible person for what I feel is right and wrong, but hey...that's your problem.

And maybe, just maybe, people look down on you because of what you believe. Because it's illogical, silly, foolish...whatever.

I hope they don't, no one should have to put up with being put down.

Including myself, and my atheist "kin".

You walk by me every day, but you have no idea.
I sit there, in the corner all alone.
If I got up, would you know then?
What would be your last thoughts,
As I slit your throat and drank of the sight of your blood.
Would you think, "Who is this person?"
Or would it be, "I should have kept walking, today."

#20    Me_Again

Me_Again

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,151 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2004
  • Location:Somewhere under the rainbow<<<Michigan

  • She don't blush 'cause she's so damned free
    When she makin' love it's like surgery
    -Prince, 'I Love U In Me'

Posted 09 July 2004 - 11:12 PM

I like the topic of logic, without getting into drawn out detail. Everyone has the chance to be everything, this is my logic. It may not be completely understood by you, reading this; However, when you know something it doesn't take proof, in my opinion anyway. The only time I need proof is when I don't understand something.
I already know; Therfore, I don't need the proof. So my question to the topic starter (Norman).  Why are you searching for opinions from others truths? Judge not and be not judged, by the way GOD doesn't judge anyone! Life is not a competition, life is experience...

Yellow Smiley offers me X
Like he's drinkin’ 7-Up
I would rather drink 6 razor blades
Razor blades from a paper cup
He can't understand, I say 2 tough
It's just that I've seen the future and, boy, it's rough
-Prince, 'The Future'

#21    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,484 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 July 2004 - 11:34 PM

QUOTE
However, when you know something it doesn't take proof, in my opinion anyway. The only time I need proof is when I don't understand something.
I already know; Therfore, I don't need the proof.


The simple fact of the matter, your opinion notwithstanding, is that any claim that you have to 'know' anything has to, by definition, be backed up by proof.  If you do not have proof, then you do not 'know' it; you 'believe' it.  What you choose to believe in is entirely up to you and nobody can say that you are wrong or right about it, but when you claim that you 'know', you have given others the right to demand how.  This is little more than an exercise in semantics, but definitions are of extreme importance when in a debate.  Belief and knowledge are not interchageable.  They each have their own requirements, regardless of what your personal views on them might be.


If ever I could have been considered a follower of a religion, it would have been Buddhism.  I'll tell you the story that convinced me it was worthy of my study, but (in true Buddhist fashion) I will let you figure out the lesson.

QUOTE
A young boy was walking in the mountains, when he happened to come across a fountain where three monks were bathing.  The boy watched them for a little while, then approached and asked one of them "Isn't that water cold?".
The monk looked at the young boy, then reached down for his bucket and emptied the pail over the young boy's head.


I would like to hear your thoughts.


#22    BurnSide

BurnSide

    Through the Looking Glass

  • Member
  • 25,390 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Everywhere.

  • “Experience is not what happens to you. It is what you do with what happens to you.”

Posted 09 July 2004 - 11:46 PM

QUOTE (aquatus1 @ Jul 9 2004, 07:34 PM)
A young boy was walking in the mountains, when he happened to come across a fountain where three monks were bathing.  The boy watched them for a little while, then approached and asked one of them "Isn't that water cold?".
The monk looked at the young boy, then reached down for his bucket and emptied the pail over the young boy's head.

Buddhism is the only religion that has ever made sense to me. It's much more credible than, say, Christianity.

I like this story. I would hazard a guess to the lesson being you cannot ask for your answers in life, but rather must expirence life and discover your own answers.

Am i close?


#23    Me_Again

Me_Again

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,151 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2004
  • Location:Somewhere under the rainbow<<<Michigan

  • She don't blush 'cause she's so damned free
    When she makin' love it's like surgery
    -Prince, 'I Love U In Me'

Posted 10 July 2004 - 12:32 AM

Thank you, finally someone else wants to hear my thoughts besides ( me again lol)
In my "logic"... Belief and knowledge ARE interchangable. I can go through life knowing that I don't have the power to change or I can go through life knowing I have the power to change. You see I don't really need any proof, because through my experiences I know my own truth. By claiming to know, I see where others would demand proof; However before they get their proof they first must know.  In science, first you must experiment to find the proof, and scientific proofs change. Change is something that can be proven. Just as a seed changes into a million different things. First it knows whats its going to change into and then it becomes. In spirituality, first I know the proof and then I experience. The human language is a master in disguise and sometimes people get tangled in its weave.
Just to let you know It really IS all that simple, to me anyway and thanks for listening.
Oh my impression of the story...
Don't ask about something you already know
cause you never know what the outcome could be

Yellow Smiley offers me X
Like he's drinkin’ 7-Up
I would rather drink 6 razor blades
Razor blades from a paper cup
He can't understand, I say 2 tough
It's just that I've seen the future and, boy, it's rough
-Prince, 'The Future'

#24    Fluffybunny

Fluffybunny

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,136 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Male

  • "Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."
    Thomas Paine

Posted 10 July 2004 - 01:13 AM

QUOTE (Norman @ Jul 9 2004, 07:20 AM)
But there is only 1 major belief that is the truth. And that is christianity.

You are absolutely right Norman...just one, and only one true religion.  The rest of them are all wrong and will spend eternity in hellfire for picking the false religions...

I am so glad you came along to set everyone straight, really. The fact that you are willing to be so resolute in the face of no supporting evidence shows how true  your religion is…what bravery you have!

Don't worry about having respect or consideration for anyone else’s beliefs; since they are all false you have every right to tell them how wrong they are. Don't forget to throw in the hellfire and damnation, that will put them in their place. You have the upper hand in this argument, you have the one true god on your side, and don’t forget to tell all of the heathens that either!

Just remember Norman, no matter how much logic or critical thinking the atheists throw at you, just ignore it altogether. Logic doesn’t mean anything when you know you are a follower of the one true  religion. Logic and critical thinking will just land these heathens in a lake of fire! You know what is best for these people; tell them what they should be doing in their own lives! It is going to be up to you to save these heathens, they obviously can’t think for themselves otherwise they would realize that you are right; that you know who the true god is…Since they can’t seem to think for themselves, the burden of their very souls lands on your shoulders Norman… It is a very heavy burden I am certain, but since you know the one true god, you can save all of these sinners!

Go Brother! Preach the WORD!


Too many people on both sides of the spectrum have fallen into this mentality that a full one half of the country are the enemy for having different beliefs...in a country based on freedom of expression. It is this infighting that allows the focus to be taken away from "we the people" being able to watch, and have control over government corruption and ineptitude that is running rampant in our leadership.

People should be working towards fixing problems, not creating them.

#25    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,484 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 July 2004 - 01:47 AM

Me_Again, I am having a bit of trouble deciding wether or not you are being serious.  Your thoughts are scattered all over the place and don't really tie into each other very well.

When I am referring to logic, I am referring to a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration, i.e.  the science of the formal principles of reasoning ( I do believe that is the dictionary definition).  In other words, it is a method by which the validity and credibility of an argument can be established, to say nothing of the fallacy.

You seem to use it to refer to your own personal philosophy.  Please do not hijack scientific terminology used to define specific concepts.

QUOTE
I can go through life knowing that I don't have the power to change or I can go through life knowing I have the power to change. You see I don't really need any proof, because through my experiences I know my own truth.


This is refered to as a postulate.  This is a statement of faith made without corroborating evidence and therefore inherently personal and externally unverifiable.  In other words, truth and faith are perfectly valid as a belief system.  Nobody can tell you that you are wrong, and likewise, nobody can tell you that you are right.  Proof is not a requirement of a belief system.

QUOTE
By claiming to know, I see where others would demand proof; However before they get their proof they first must know. In science, first you must experiment to find the proof, and scientific proofs change.


I have trouble understanding this.  Not because it is complex or simple, but because it doesn't make sense.  Knowledge implies more than simply being aware of the end result.  A person who knows and a person who guesses correctly can both be right about the end result, but only the person who knows is able to explain to you exactly why it will happen the way it happens.  The reason they can do this is because they have evidence which indicates that this is the way it has happened before, and experience has shown that this is the way it will likely happen again.  Imperical data, again, by definition, does not rely on anybody knowing or believing in it.  It stands alone, and it measures the exact same way for anybody who chooses to test it.  Interpretation of the measure may vary, but the measures remain the same.

You seem to be under the impression that you can freely interpret any scientific terminology and use it however you wish.  I would advise against this.  It will rapidly destroy your credibility.  If you believe in something without any proof to back it up, that's faith.  If you understand the working principles behind a phenomena, can replicate and predict this phenomena, that's knowledge.  Don't confuse the two.

QUOTE
--I would hazard a guess to the lesson being you cannot ask for your answers in life, but rather must expirence life and discover your own answers.

--Don't ask about something you already know cause you never know what the outcome could be


Wow, two almost polar opposite answers.


#26    jpalz

jpalz

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,964 posts
  • Joined:10 Jul 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Santiago, Chile; warm in my house ;)

  • When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down.

Posted 10 July 2004 - 03:02 AM

QUOTE (Student&Alive @ Jul 9 2004, 04:55 AM)
Ok norman, give my some conclusive proof of the christian God.I was once a strong christian norman.But then I saw that people kill other people because of beliefs,What motivated bin laden? Words in a book written 2000 years ago, what motivated the crusades? words in a book written 2000 years. whats motivating bush? Idioism and the belief that Gods sending him messages, and I quote
"First god told me to strike at bin laden,Then the al queda and now saddam"-President Bush 2004.If theres a God out there norman who loves us all oh so much why does he tell us to hate and judge? I would be willing to take my chances betting he's not. Im not stating there is no "God" but far more likely It's a being of a higher consciouness. Not a figure of fantasy in a book. I think if the all knowing loving God as the bible portrays him is so real then why is he condemning people to hell.

People go to Hell because they choose to, not because God wants to condemn them.

Posted Image
I've looked for you. Now you've come to see me. And I thank you for it - John Paul II's last words.
To be young and not a revolutionary is a contradiction, even biological
It's time to kick *** and chew bubble gum... and I'm all outta gum
My blog! :D

#27    jpalz

jpalz

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,964 posts
  • Joined:10 Jul 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Santiago, Chile; warm in my house ;)

  • When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down.

Posted 10 July 2004 - 03:14 AM

QUOTE (BurnSide @ Jul 9 2004, 03:13 PM)
There will NEVER be any proof. There has never been any proof.

However, some will argue that the holy Bible is all the proof they need, and they will argue that the Church is witness to everything the bible says, and that's all they need.
Proof is not a book written by a bunch of kids 2000 years ago, not is it the spoken word of a power hungry organisation. And it is definately not a 'feeling' you get in your head.

I personally cannot accept these as proof.
But there will always be Religion. People need it to justify their lives because they cannot accept that we are animals, whos sole purpose on the earth is to have sex, bare children and die and rott away in the ground.

Why don't other animals have religion? Because they're not intelligent enough to delude themselves.
Why are there so many different religions, instead of just one? Because all evolutions of man are the same, they need religion to justify themselves, so they make up gods to worship.

Religion is murder. It is a cult. You blindly follow what some random dude says because he hears voices. Men kill for their gods when, wait, isn't that AGAINST their religion?
Hell, the very religion doesn't make sense. If something this big is gonna be made up, don't make it contradict itself with teachings on how bad it is to have sex and inbred, when the religion clearly states that every human being on earth is inbred from 2 humans who suddenly popped one day into existance.

*sigh* It's the most irrational, silly thing on the planet. But if you need it to get through your day, good for you.

Burn. Sex is bad when you just order your relationship with another person only in that. In the end, if you live it that way you become a slave of yourself, a slave of sex. Love is based in accepting the other person the way he is, even is he (or she) doesn't satisfy you sexually. And as to why people say it's bad to have sex before marriage... well, your sexuality is one BIG gift you have, and if you're going to spend the rest of your life living with another one, you wouldn't want to spoil that gift, right? Well, same with sexuality. Think of it as a birthday cake for someone you love, ONLY for that person. You wouldn't give other people slices of that cake, right?
Of course that if it happens, that you had sex before marriage, it doesn't mean that there is no way you're gonna be happy with your wife.

Well, just that.

PS: I registered here because I read your topic on Silent Hill games. I love them, and the scare the s**t outta me. laugh.gif  

Posted Image
I've looked for you. Now you've come to see me. And I thank you for it - John Paul II's last words.
To be young and not a revolutionary is a contradiction, even biological
It's time to kick *** and chew bubble gum... and I'm all outta gum
My blog! :D

#28    BurnSide

BurnSide

    Through the Looking Glass

  • Member
  • 25,390 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Everywhere.

  • “Experience is not what happens to you. It is what you do with what happens to you.”

Posted 10 July 2004 - 03:29 AM

Glad you like the topic, post your response!

The part about sex, i'm aware that sex after marriage is fine in the religion, i'm saying that it shouldn't be that way because the sole purpose in life that humans have is just the same as all animals, basic instinct, have sex, die. That's it. If god created us to bare children, we shouldn't need to get married to do so, especially since marriage is a relatively new concept not even dating back to Jesus' days. None of it adds up.


#29    jpalz

jpalz

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,964 posts
  • Joined:10 Jul 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Santiago, Chile; warm in my house ;)

  • When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down.

Posted 10 July 2004 - 03:46 AM

One last thing BurnSide. If the only purpose in life is just to have sex, have children and die, then what is the purpose of, for example, charity organizations? They would be just worthless. Why fighting for something? For nothing.  

Posted Image
I've looked for you. Now you've come to see me. And I thank you for it - John Paul II's last words.
To be young and not a revolutionary is a contradiction, even biological
It's time to kick *** and chew bubble gum... and I'm all outta gum
My blog! :D

#30    BurnSide

BurnSide

    Through the Looking Glass

  • Member
  • 25,390 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Everywhere.

  • “Experience is not what happens to you. It is what you do with what happens to you.”

Posted 10 July 2004 - 04:42 AM

Of course, i fail to mention the value of human life!

Don't missunderstand me, i value human life and every man and woman deserves to have a good life. But in the end, we do die, so if you look at it that way there really is no purpose to charity organisations because it's impossible to real save lives.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users