The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by bluegospel I think it constitutes fiscal irresponsibility.

Red herring. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument at hand. You said we've done all that can be done to find life on other planets, and the lack of evidence says it's not there to be found. Not wanting to search and saying we've already finished searching are totally different statements.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Actually, the human soul is the easiest thing to prove, but you can only prove it to yourself. You know that you exist because you have sensation. Yet you can't prove to me that you have sensation.

I can prove I have sensation because I have nerves. If I cut the nerves, I lose sensation. If I can't prove that to you, that's just because you're willfully ignoring the obvious. I can present the evidence to anyone, but I can't make them be rational about it.

Or are you proposing that the "soul" is nerves?

Originally Posted by bluegospel Also, you can't even prove to anyone, including yourself, that what you see exists, except that you have sensation of it. Therefore, sensation--that is, life--supercedes matter.

Wrong. I can prove that the things in front of me exist, because I can share that sense data with others, and they can independently verify the data.

Originally Posted by reed9 Hmm, I'd have to look back, but I may have confused some of bluegospels posts with yours. Were you disputing the facts of evolution?

To be precise, I was disputing the way facts are interpreted and used to fit the theories.
My post was about the fact, that while no one can question the "possibility" of the chemical reactions creating DNA, proteins and all that (cause who can question THAT?), the conditions needed for such reactions to take place are so "unusual" and complicated that the probability of their "naturally happening" in the world as we know it is rather negative, than anything positive.
Then even if such conditions WERE to be found somewhere, against all odds, there would be needed nothing less than intelligent guidance to lead the process to the result such theories expect to produce. I mentioned then, that it would be OK if these theories allowed the existence of God or divine creatures, for these would then handle it.
Yet as the existence of such powers is the very matter being denied, I just don't know what "scientific" way out of this problem they can suggest.
This is but one grave enough obstacle which they're tending to forget, excited as they are with their breath-taking and no doubt very smart theories.

So here is the case when all existing scientific knowledge is rather AGAINST the suggested theory than IN FAVOUR of it, which is obstinately ignored because they love their theories better. This is not what I understand to be "scientific approach".

Originally Posted by SL00b Jewish people? It's their cultural history you're talking about here.

Yea I thought so, too...
Well, anyway, if you find such Jewish people, perhaps in a local synagogue, you can ask them. Just if I go ask them and then report back here, it will not convince, right?

If the Bible did say something about gravity or life on other planets, then that would be pretty impressive wisdom for its age.

I'm tending to doubt it now.

Originally Posted by reed9 How would you know if the robot had "experience" like people? Why couldn't a robot be created that can experience like a human or animal? Because humans (and animals?) allegedly have souls? Then that's just begging the question, you have to assume the conclusion in the premise. What exactly is experience? (Or qualia as philosophers call it.) What is consciousness? We don't have any good answers to these questions, so to assume the negative seems premature.

Well, like it or not, that's the one fundamental question that science will never be able to answer. Science is one of numerous good ways to look at nature. Yet even science has it's shortcomings.

Originally Posted by bluegospel View Post I think it constitutes fiscal irresponsibility.

Originally Posted by SL00b Red herring. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument at hand. You said we've done all that can be done to find life on other planets, and the lack of evidence says it's not there to be found. Not wanting to search and saying we've already finished searching are totally different statements.

Let me rephrase that: Does it make sense to drain the whole ocean to find one of the most endangered species if that's what you have to do to find it? And why haven't we made mining attempts as well, to validate what we think about the earth's layers--drilled to the core of the earth? What's in question here is less reasonable because you know in the first case there's an endangered species, and it's much less demanding to drill than to explore space.

I can prove

only to yourself

I have sensation

because I have nerves.

Your nerves only tell me about electric signals that set off mechanical motion. There's no evidence you have sensation--that you're aware of anything.

Or are you proposing that the "soul" is nerves?

The soul is what you are in the context of eternity. Your nerves are part of your physical composition. Your soul has a degree of control over many of your nerves--if you will to stand to your feet or to sit down you can do it through your nerves, similar to flipping an electrical switch. But your nerves don't explain what's inside of you that allows you to will to do many of the things you like.

Wrong. I can prove that the things in front of me exist, because I can share that sense data with others, and they can independently verify the data.

You can't verify that "others" have any sensation at all. Just because their language agrees with what you observe doesn't prove anything. They're just another "thing in front of you." Scientifically, this is fact. You can't prove anything to anybody except this one thing to yourself--you're a living, seeing, moving, breathing soul.

I think I'll just leave this here…

Originally Posted by kostya To be precise, I was disputing the way facts are interpreted and used to fit the theories. My post was about the fact, that while no one can question the "possibility" of the chemical reactions creating DNA, proteins and all that (cause who can question THAT?), the conditions needed for such reactions to take place are so "unusual" and complicated that the probability of their "naturally happening" in the world as we know it is rather negative, than anything positive. Then even if such conditions WERE to be found somewhere, against all odds, there would be needed nothing less than intelligent guidance to lead the process to the result such theories expect to produce. I mentioned then, that it would be OK if these theories allowed the existence of God or divine creatures, for these would then handle it. Yet as the existence of such powers is the very matter being denied, I just don't know what "scientific" way out of this problem they can suggest. This is but one grave enough obstacle which they're tending to forget, excited as they are with their breath-taking and no doubt very smart theories. So here is the case when all existing scientific knowledge is rather AGAINST the suggested theory than IN FAVOUR of it, which is obstinately ignored because they love their theories better. This is not what I understand to be "scientific approach".

Right. So my statement stands.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Well, like it or not, that's the one fundamental question that science will never be able to answer. Science is one of numerous good ways to look at nature. Yet even science has it's shortcomings.

I would never deny that science has limitations. (Whether this is one of them I don't think we can know yet.) What I dispute is that we can have meaningful knowledge of the universe outside the limitations of science.

Originally Posted by kostya It is the interpretation that lets the Bible explains itself. It also implies, that if some concept commonly thought to be "Christian" contradicts the Bible, it has to be dropped as something preventing the clear understanding.

This just sounds like a dodge. You're basically saying whatever you can figure out to rationalize away the problems with the Bible is the truth. That would be called motivated reasoning.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Humans might someday create a very life-like robot whose processing mechanics simulate the human brain. Yet we'll never invent a robot that can experience the human or any animal-like experience. ... You can't verify that "others" have any sensation at all. Just because their language agrees with what you observe doesn't prove anything. They're just another "thing in front of you." Scientifically, this is fact. You can't prove anything to anybody except this one thing to yourself--you're a living, seeing, moving, breathing soul.

If a very life-like robot were invented, how could you prove to yourself that you were not such a robot?

Originally Posted by reed9 What I dispute is that we can have meaningful knowledge of the universe outside the limitations of science.

Again, this makes little sense. As a newborn you immediately begin a lifelong learning process, which begins, not scientifically, but purely by natural inclination--curiosity, observation, exploration. Science requires methodology, which is taught--it's an invented methodology for discovering natural principles. Yet, as a newborn, as an infant and toddler we know nothing of scientific method, and yet even at this level of development we're discovering things about the universe. And yet you're saying you "can't have meaningful knowledge of the universe outside the limitations of science?"

Originally Posted by ntubski If a very life-like robot were invented, how could you prove to yourself that you were not such a robot?

Because I have sensation. A robot is defined as an invented machine, not born of woman. Besides, I have understanding that if I told you, you could never understand, not being submitted, or unless yor were to submit to God.

In other forums, such trolling unrelatedness isn't tolerated. I wish someone did something to put this out. It promotes hate. None of the real religions are stated: Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc... Christianity is in itself not an original religion: It took bits and pieces from other living religions and then separated themselves into denominations, but these believers believe that they are the sole followers of the denominations / sects, but not the religion: Lutherans, Protestants, Catholics are ALL Christians, yet they almost always NEVER acknowledge it, due to difference in opinions and different interpretations of the Christian bible and other religious works.

Agnostics don't know what to believe, for it's from the Greek words meaning "related to not-knowing".

Deists believe that God exists, but doesn't necessarily believe in Jesus Christ or Holy Ghost.

Atheists believe there's no gods of any kind.

Theists are devoted believers in Christianity.

Deist = from the Latin for "god", De(us) + -ist
Theist = from the Greek for "god", The(os) + -ist
Deus is from Theos: The Romans copied a lot of stuff from the Greeks, even religion, and its affiliated words!

Firm believer? in what? Anybody could be a "firm believer" of any religion.

Religion doesn't just involve Christianity!!!

PS I suggest that such a controversial piece be taken off this "LINUX" AKA "computer related" forum, unless someone forgot, for it is totally inappropriate to post non-related posts. If it's a poll related to computers, then that's OK, but not religion.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by trien27 I suggest that such a controversial piece be taken off this "LINUX" AKA "computer related" forum, unless someone forgot, for it is totally inappropriate to post non-related posts. If it's a poll related to computers, then that's OK, but not religion.

If you observe this particular forum--it's not supposed to be Linux-related, and most of the threads here are not Linux-related. This IS the "general" forum. If you don't want to review religious threads you're free not to. What are you afraid of, anyway?

Originally Posted by bluegospel Again, this makes little sense. As a newborn you immediately begin a lifelong learning process, which begins, not scientifically, but purely by natural inclination--curiosity, observation, exploration. Science requires methodology, which is taught--it's an invented methodology for discovering natural principles. Yet, as a newborn, as an infant and toddler we know nothing of scientific method, and yet even at this level of development we're discovering things about the universe. And yet you're saying you "can't have meaningful knowledge of the universe outside the limitations of science?"

You misunderstand me. I mean we cannot have knowledge of things that are outside the realm that science is competent to explore. Not that every piece of knowledge has to come from a rigorous experiment. But "curiosity, observation, exploration" are the beginnings of science. The rest is an edifice built to limit human frailties, our cognitive biases. To the extent that people are prone to seeing patterns and agency that don't exist, our less than rigorous explorations of the world are not reliable. That's why we are rightfully skeptical of anecdotal evidence. Of course our perceptions are not totally divorced from reality. We would expect that we evolved to have some ability to perceive what is true. But our perceptions are absolutely fallible. Or my personal favorite illusion.

Apart from that, it would be interesting to hear the reasons and proofs to support one's scientific theory. But one mustn't expect that such proofs will be accepted without some criticism. You see, I have some prerequisite understanding of science

Reason 1 http://weeklyworldnews.com/alien-alert/6766/puma-punku/

Seems to me a perfectly good cause for religion could be outside control of the masses.

Fun reading

http://listverse.com/2011/02/21/top-...ncient-aliens/

Pretty good work for stone age man. Don't you think?

Attachment 7888