The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by AnanthaP Questions. Whats the context of eternity? Humans have 9 sockets (including nose, mouth etc and excluding pores). Are any of these used to join the spirit to the body?

God help me! I have a DEVIATED septum? Does that mean I'm cursed?

Whats the context of eternity?

I don't know. I would guess God is the context of eternity. But then you'll probably ask what's the context of God, which answer is the question itself is false because (in answer to the other part of your question. . .)

Humans have 9 sockets (including nose, mouth etc and excluding pores). Are any of these used to join the spirit to the body? windows_xp_2003 AnanthaP is offline Add to AnanthaP's Reputation Report This Post

Col 1:17--He existed before anything else, and he holds all things together.

Using the Bible to prove that the Bible is correct is circular logic. Equally, using your own "knowledge" of a personal link to your God is something that no one can prove or disprove.

I have seen a number of requests to close this or to merge it with the big thread. If this can stay on topic and respectful, I will leave it alone for now. Whether you think bluegospel is trolling or not, I cannot see clear evidence of that so I ask that you stop accusing him of that - remember disagreement or sticking to your guns irrationally != trolling. Personally, I think we are experiencing the marvel of the internet: 2 sides who will never agree or agree to disagree. Or maybe I am just perverse.

Carry on.

Technically, any life "works" through interacting particles (or waves if you like, depending on how you want to formulate this). Therefore, if there is no medium, there are no interactions between entities consisting of it, and thus no life. The opposite is, in my opinion, more of a philosophical question (that probably cannot be answered easily): if there is matter, is there life? In other words, if there are ingredients, how can we know if there is life--what is life? This question is still open (because we only know Earth-like life, and not whether there may be other kind of life or not), so it is rather impossible to definitely say yes or no to the OP's question. If we define that life is something more than simply two basic particles interacting with each other, with nothing else in the whole universe, then yes--we have just created (however imaginary) universe with matter but no life. But if we accept that those two particles "live", ....here we go again.

Put short, until the question of "what exactly is life" can be definitely answered, there is no definite answer to the question "which is superior, matter or life". I'd say, based on what I wrote above, that matter is by no means "inferior" to life (see original post), but it still leaves the problem half open.

scientia est potentia, underlining the fact that humans are no gods (consider the opposite!)

Originally Posted by XavierP I cannot see clear evidence of that so I ask that you stop accusing him of that - remember disagreement or sticking to your guns irrationally != trolling.

Clear evidence? The guy spent spent several pages gloating about his page counts and saying "it sure is nice that people hate me". It's clear enough that I started limiting my own participation.

Originally Posted by XavierP Whether you think bluegospel is trolling or not,

Trolling or not, I'd love to see some real arguments. If the only thing "believer" can come up with is "circular logic", then it is rather disappointing. Religion is a topic with a lot of potential, so there should be at least some people with ability to prove their point without resorting to various "dirty tricks".

On other hand, maybe I'm expecting too much....

Do you see all the stars? And yet you know they're there. And whatever you do seem to see, you do not really see, as it is. You see but the light reflected and interpreted by your mind. So ultimately you can only prove, and that only to yourself, that you can perceive—that you have sensation. And this only can you prove, and only to yourself, as your mind interprets it.

Originally Posted by bluegospel And yet you know they're there.

Actually, if you see the star, it doesn't mean it is there. Stars die and light has limited speed. Stars that are really far away can be dead for for thousands or millions of years and we will remain unaware about that.

Originally Posted by bluegospel And this only can you prove, and only to yourself, as your mind interprets it.

Well, using that logic I can declare you to be a figment of my imagination, and you won't be able to do anything about it. You also won't be able to prove that you exist, that you're a human, and that you're a christian - because it will be always possible that the whole world (including you) is a very convincing hallucination.

Unfortunately, such position cannot be used for anything useful (aside from supporting agnostics), so it normally recommended to assume that some information can be trusted.

Also, this argument is completely unrelated to religion and origin of life. Any other arguments?

this argument is completely unrelated to religion and origin of life.

Very much to the contrary. It's been held here, quite tenaciously, you can only go by what has been proven, in which case, since nothing can be proven except one's own sensation of one's own existence--and that only to oneself. It follows necessarily, by your own logic, either that "self," is the only real thing, or that God gives you sensation of a world full of real things.

Originally Posted by bluegospel It follows necessarily, by your own logic, either that "self," is the only real thing, or that God gives you sensation of a world full of real things.

Completely wrong. If you assume such position, the the only one thing guaranteed to exist is you and nothing else. Anything else is unknown, cannot be trusted and may not really exist, and there's absolutely no reason to think that there a "god" that gives you sensations. You won't even know for sure if there's even the universe. A god is guaranteed to exist in such model only if you are that god. However, you'll have to prove that you're the god, which will be impossible because nothing is certain aside from your existence, and your own existence can be proven only to yourself.

Such position is a dead end for everybody except "strong agnostics" who believe that truth about existence of god is unknowable. If you want to get anywhere, I'd advise to try different viewpoint.

Any other arguments?

My favorite parable, from a fairy tale, is "the blind men and the elephant."

None of the blind men knew what an elephant was, nor was it ever possible any of them to begin to do so, because none of them could see it. However, that didn't stop any of them from arguing incessantly about the "unassailable truth" of their chosen perspective.

"Were you there when the foundations of the earth were laid? Teach me! Surely you know!!"

If your interpretation of Biblical quotes like that one, is that God is impatiently brushing aside as irrelevant everyone who does not think as you do, then perhaps that other quote about "the log in your own eye" might be much more about you than you care to suppose.

There is nothing in the oh-so-brief seventy-odd if-we're-lucky years of human lifetime that puts us anywhere close to ever being in the position of "knowing" ... anything at all.

However ... all of us have heard, and none of us somehow can deny that we have heard, that "still, small voice." It never came thundering from a preacher's sermon. It comes, instead, "to us." We can use our intellect to push it aside. We can try our best to ignore it. (Or, we can wrap it in endless layers of religious garbage.) But then, and sometimes in our darkest and most wretched moments, something within us all instinctively cries out in answer to it: "Abba! (Father!)" It isn't a rational thing. It isn't in our Bibles or our Q'orans our our Torahs or anything else ... it's just ... there. And it has always been there, in every man or woman who ever lived.

"And then there was an earthquake. But, God was not in the earthquake. There was a pillar of fire, but God was not in the fire. Then, in the darkness of the cave, he heard a tiny voice whispering into his ear, and he fled from the cave in mortal terror. It was the voice of God."

Seriously... does a "God" like the one you folks love to describe, seriously and in any way whatsoever require "a book?" No, nor does a deity require a human spokesman. Any image that you might possibly glimpse is nothing more than a reflection; a shadow.

"The wisdom of Man is the foolishness of God."

Over and over and over again, it is repeated... "... and lean not to your own understanding."

Such position is a dead end for everybody except "strong agnostics"

If you would be honest with yourself, you would see my immediately previous statement is perfectly valid, and that contrary to what you have said, there are only two valid options: 1) self is the only real thing, or 2) some "force" (for the sake of argument) outside of yourself makes you sensible of your existence and environment.

Very well put Sundial.

I think I actually agree with everything said here.

I make just one addition:

nor does a deity require a human spokesman.

He honors men, by his sovereign prerogative, by allowing and commissioning them to speak in his behalf. And he graces such as these, and the human race as well, yes, by a holy writ.

Originally Posted by bluegospel If you would be honest with yourself,

I am completely honest with myself. And I see your previous statement as perfectly invalid. If you only known that you exist, and you cannot trust your own senses, then you can't claim that anything except you exists. It is impossible to use that position to prove anything, and trying to twist logic of that idea won't help you.

Originally Posted by bluegospel 2) some "force" (for the sake of argument) outside of yourself makes you sensible of your existence and environment.

Wrong. If "self" is the only real thing, then there is an infinite number of possible scenarios explaining "outside" (maybe you're a the only thing that exists and are simply dreaming about our world, who knows?), and absolutely no way to test any of them for being "true". You can invent any hypothesis, but if you claim it to be "true", you need to prove it, which will be impossible if existence of "self" is the only thing you can be certain about.

Anyway, this discussion got too boring and predictable, and you are not a really skilled opponent, so I'm leaving.

As far as I can tell, you have failed to "prove the Christ" to anybody. Try better/stronger arguments next time.

Wrong. If "self" is the only real thing

If you had read what I said without haste, it's not, "if 1, then 2." It's "either 1 or 2."