This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Okay, so let's get to the bottom of this

#101bratt100Posted 5/1/2013 8:30:04 AM
Suibom posted...
Swallowing bugs is ALWAYS a logical fallacy.


The Thai people's would disagree with you there, as insects have far more nutrients then meat itself.
---
"If the victim was a mute, then she shouldn't really be out alone."- OrangeWizard on rape
#102JonWood007(Topic Creator)Posted 5/1/2013 8:39:26 AM
Wow...that's the best description I heard of that fallacy I've seen.

That's also a major reason I reject a lot of religious interpretations of texts and stuff. The answer to complexity is often more complexity. If something doesn't work in religion, I often see people argue something even more complex to justify it (I see this a lot with Bible contradictions, people add in even more complex information to justify discrepencies). All the while there is a more simple explanation sitting right there that doesn't involve God.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#103bratt100Posted 5/1/2013 9:09:50 AM
As always.
---
"If the victim was a mute, then she shouldn't really be out alone."- OrangeWizard on rape
#104SilviiroPosted 5/1/2013 9:49:09 AM(edited)
^^This means we could not be sure of anything.

Precisely my point.

I don't recall saying it's nonsense, the point I was trying to make is it's not so blatantly obvious that humans are without excuse, which is what that romans passage is trying to push. This crap is complicated. I always seen the possibility of a creator as a possibility, but it's just one of many. My bone to pick was with the theist claims of "zomg it's so obvious and if you deny this then you're being stupid or willfully ignorant."

Just to clarify, I did not claim that it was obvious or that my interpretation of what I see is the only one. There are many people who I consider to be the smartest of mankind who disagree with me in this regard such as Feynman, and there are others of those who agree with me such as Dyson.

The universe doesnt look like it was made for us, which is what religions often claim.

I did not claim the universe was made for us either. Again, not saying that you are claiming I have, just clarifying.

Again, this is silly. The position of the moon changes as a result of time, but that doesn't prevent science from knowing the position of the moon. Science might be more difficult (and possibly so difficult to study as to be impractical), but to claim that science would just stop existing is nonsense.

A change in position is different than a change of physics. If in the month of April 1644 the celestial bodies were making perfectly circular orbits, in the month of April 1645 they were making elliptical orbits, and in April 1646 they all seemed to disappear except the sun, the moon, and precisely 4 stars which seemed to be moving back and forth in a straight line, there would be no way to make any sort of working science. Then of course there is the question of whether the physical system would allow for intelligent beings to apply it. For an example of seeming chaos, that does seem to have some kind of structure the more we study it, look at the way quanta behave. It took decades of research using things developed from the relatively easy to understand macroscopic universe, requiring the invention of calculus and the study of the wobble of dinner trays among other things, to even begin to understand them, and they still have independence of space and time.

And also note that there has been some recent experimentation (which I cannot find much data on) that suggests that some of physics may vary slightly throughout the universe. Were that to be proven it may conflict with my philosophy, we will see.

In other words, the claim that the universe could easily look different is totally unsubstantiated, and is only being posited because it (barely) works to justify his position. Then, to claim that such a universe would not have an "underlying mathematical structure" (i.e., that the universe can be so complex or random that mathematics couldn't be used to describe it), is ridiculous.

It isn't justification for my position, it is my position.

I would actually say that it is absurd. Positing a sentient creator to explain the elegance of the universe is stupid on its face. It's trying to "solve" a mystery with an even greater mystery.

Seems quite simple to me. God is the interaction within the universe. Anything more is a separate discussion.
---
"I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind." -- Ecclesiastes 1:14
#105linkkhalid89Posted 5/1/2013 10:08:52 AM
A change in position is different than a change of physics. If in the month of April 1644 the celestial bodies were making perfectly circular orbits, in the month of April 1645 they were making elliptical orbits, and in April 1646 they all seemed to disappear except the sun, the moon, and precisely 4 stars which seemed to be moving back and forth in a straight line, there would be no way to make any sort of working science. Then of course there is the question of whether the physical system would allow for intelligent beings to apply it. For an example of seeming chaos, that does seem to have some kind of structure the more we study it, look at the way quanta behave. It took decades of research using things developed from the relatively easy to understand macroscopic universe, requiring the invention of calculus and the study of the wobble of dinner trays among other things, to even begin to understand them, and they still have independence of space and time.

Again, more nonsense. If we can accurately determine what pattern this "chaos" entails, we can make predictions, and can engage in the scientific process.

And, once again, even granting this nonsense about a universe that precludes all mathematical structure, you've given absolutely no reason to believe that there can be, let alone easily can be such a universe.

It isn't justification for my position, it is my position.

Your claim that the universe could exist in such a way as to preclude a "mathematical structure" is justification for your belief that God exists. Let's not waste time debating semantics.
#106JonWood007(Topic Creator)Posted 5/1/2013 10:29:42 AM
Precisely my point.


I dont get how this would lead to God though.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#107Polish_CrusaderPosted 5/1/2013 1:33:12 PM
JonWood007 posted...
Key difference- the old testament prophets didnt have a savior. We do. We need to place our faith in jesus for our miracles. OT folks didnt have that. You cant compare apples and nuclear physics.


I fail to see the difference. Point is, people need proof.



Its a huge difference! Jonwood, this response of yours is a testament to your lack of general understanding of how the bible works between old and new testament. lol, its really amazing how you cant see the difference.

The birth and death of jesus took away focus from the law and onto faith. This is clearly explained in Romans 7:6. The bible says profess jesus as your savior and repent of your sins and you will be saved. The OT people didnt have any of this. The ONLY WAY for OT people to know God was through talking or visual signs. Faith was not really the main issue because of all the laws they had to follow. No matter what faith they had they either followed the law or they died. Jesus changed all of this. Now since the death of jesus, we no longer need to burn animals on rocks, or see fire come down from the sky, or god meet us up at mountains, because jesus paid the price for us so we dont have to do any of that.

The only exception to all of this that i can think of is Saul (prophet paul). He badly persecuted the church and killed many people, and jesus outright showed himself to him and the light was so bright it blinded him for days. The key difference with him however is that he was a chosen prophet, so god picked him out from birth for some reason. No many of us are chosen prophets so its unrealistic to expect the same treatment.

In the end, visions are nice and everything. But it is unwise to depend on them. Since we are not saved by what we see, but only what we believe in our hearts. So if you want to know something in your heart do not look to see something outside of your heart. Ask what is missing inside of you. That is the source of the problem. I did this many times. That was the beginning of how i came to love jesus and lean on him.
#108JonWood007(Topic Creator)Posted 5/1/2013 1:42:02 PM
Its a huge difference! Jonwood, this response of yours is a testament to your lack of general understanding of how the bible works between old and new testament. lol, its really amazing how you cant see the difference.


Only from an internal perspective. From an external perspective, nothing has changed. People who are unconvinced are still unconvinced. People who don't think there's enough evidence are not suddenly going to be convinced. To a nonbeliever, the new testament changed nothing.

The birth and death of jesus took away focus from the law and onto faith. This is clearly explained in Romans 7:6. The bible says profess jesus as your savior and repent of your sins and you will be saved. The OT people didnt have any of this. The ONLY WAY for OT people to know God was through talking or visual signs. Faith was not really the main issue because of all the laws they had to follow. No matter what faith they had they either followed the law or they died. Jesus changed all of this. Now since the death of jesus, we no longer need to burn animals on rocks, or see fire come down from the sky, or god meet us up at mountains, because jesus paid the price for us so we dont have to do any of that.


I fail to see how this means that nonbelievers don't need evidence.

The only exception to all of this that i can think of is Saul (prophet paul). He badly persecuted the church and killed many people, and jesus outright showed himself to him and the light was so bright it blinded him for days. The key difference with him however is that he was a chosen prophet, so god picked him out from birth for some reason. No many of us are chosen prophets so its unrealistic to expect the same treatment.


And don't you find it hypocritical that someone who has seen tells everyone else to believe without seeing?

In the end, visions are nice and everything. But it is unwise to depend on them. Since we are not saved by what we see, but only what we believe in our hearts. So if you want to know something in your heart do not look to see something outside of your heart. Ask what is missing inside of you. That is the source of the problem. I did this many times. That was the beginning of how i came to love jesus and lean on him.


And as a nonbeliever, I have no reason to even accept this saved/nonsaved stuff. Once again, this stuff is completely irrelevant to a nonbeliever who lacks belief due to a lack of evidence. No offense, but this is why you can't really get through to me very well. Speaking to one who does not believe like they believe does not get you anywhere.

I also resent the fact that Christianity seems to say that if you don't believe, something is wrong with YOU. As a former believer, I can say that this borders on a form of mental abuse. Christianity seems to teach you that if you don't believe, that it's something wrong with you. That you're rebellious, that something is missing from you, that you're doing something wrong. That's bullcrap and is something that grieved me greatly as I lost my faith. I've grown to resent such logic. It's simple, is there plain evidence available, or isn't there? If there's not evidence plain to me, I fail to see how my lack of belief is my fault.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#109Polish_CrusaderPosted 5/1/2013 1:55:29 PM
Your lack of belief is your fault because you fail to receive the mountain of evidence infront of you- the world around us.

People with less access to technology and evidence than you have believed and become great people because of it.

Tell me right now- if you saw a miraculous healing in the name of jesus that science could not explain, would you believe in jesus or not?
#110Polish_CrusaderPosted 5/1/2013 1:58:14 PM
To answer your question- there is no hyporcrisy at all.

Paul performed miracles, just as jesus did, and both of them said have faith above all.