PDA

View Full Version : if you die tonight...



chronox
22nd October 2004, 05:08 PM
do you have any assurance that you will go to heaven? If not I suggest you go to this website and read the letter from a Christian witnessing the truth about Jesus and His teachings. Most of us think that it is easy to go to heaven... well the Bible tells us a different story...

http://zoki.filetap.com

marks_linux
22nd October 2004, 05:14 PM
what? - cheers for the nice cheery thought to bide us over the weekend though ;(

CrystalCowboy
22nd October 2004, 05:29 PM
well the Bible tells us a different story...
http://zoki.filetap.com



...
As you read the letter you will notice that the author indicates Scriptures from the Bible to prove what he is saying.
...

Some Mistakes of Moses by Robert Green Ingersoll (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002BLNBW/qid=1098461966/sr=1-9/ref=sr_1_9/002-7909129-4061654?v=glance&s=books)
Self-Contradictions of the Bible by William Henry Burr (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573922331/qid=1098462209/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-7909129-4061654?v=glance&s=books)

jale2ice
22nd October 2004, 07:02 PM
how do people know that there is a heaven or hell? Were they reincarnated and brought back to teach us?

blammo
22nd October 2004, 07:09 PM
If you can't get to heaven, you need to check the firewall and make sure the port is open. Firestarter is a good tool to configure this. Hope this helps!

bob
22nd October 2004, 07:27 PM
Got my ticket to Heaven. Bought it on Ebay - extra for shipping & handling, though....

StoneBrooks
22nd October 2004, 07:44 PM
The firewall is a good place to start. I would also double check your NAT tables. Are you shure the cable is plugged in?

03giant
22nd October 2004, 08:16 PM
the server might be down. can you ping heaven? maybe it needs a reboot.

Jman
22nd October 2004, 11:15 PM
Apparently this witness refuses me sometimes. Doesn't make me put much faith in their hosting provider... Luckily there are mirrors:
Primary Mirror http://zoki.atspace.com
Secondary Mirror http://web.tri-isys.com/akasha
Tertiary Mirror http://www.geocities.com/b0x07

No, I don't have any assurance that I will go to heaven. I just try to do good and try to have faith.

blammo
22nd October 2004, 11:42 PM
I understand that the ISP's in heaven just increased their bandwidth to 4 terabytes per second. Can anyone tell me if this is true?

superbnerd
23rd October 2004, 12:53 AM
Would it be like heaven if you could upload yourself to the internet and live forever more. There was an episode on X-Files about that.

You really shouldn't bring up faith based religions in a tech forum because, one, faith and science don't mix (not yet anyway, I'm working to change that) and, two, most techies have thier own religions like gnome or vi or linux vs kde or emacs os os any proprietary os respectively. Faith based religions are largely irrelavent becuase they come form and apply to those in traditional culture. Geeks don't fit into traditional culture and thus don't fit into faith based religions. A religion after all is just an extensions of a particular culture and therefore is relative only to that culture. Please let it stay thier. It has no place in the hyper-artificial hacker culture.

Knowledge may offend some, and this thread will probably be shutdown, but it needs to be said. Travel around the world and experience different religions and cultures and you will realize that everything is relative to its space-time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime). What is wrong in Christianity may be right in Islam or Hiduism, but may have been right in Christianity in the past. Universial truths (oxymoron), like standards, only exist to those who use and abide by them.

Optimistic
23rd October 2004, 01:14 AM
Travel around the world and experience different religions and cultures and you will realize that everything is relative to its space-time. What is wrong in Christianity may be right in Islam or Hiduism, but may have been right in Christianity in the past. Universial truths (oxymoron), like standards, only exist to those who use and abide by them.

There are at least two ways to talk about ethics/belief systems, descriptively and normatively. The descriptive cliams have the following form: Culture X believes Y is right. The normative claims take on the following (radically different) form: Y is right no matter what Culture X says.

So, are you speaking descriptively or normatively? It is true that at the descriptive level certain cultures/religions disagree--but this is so obvious it is nearly pointless to mention. The normative quesiton is quite a bit different.

Relativisim in any normative sense is self-defeating and quite ridiculous. Consider the following (non-ethical) case:

Relativism is true.

Now, is this cliam true? If it is objectively true, then Relativism is false. If it is Relatively true then all it really says is that Relativist believe that Relativism is true--but we already knew that. The conclusion: Relativism is either false or wholly unconvincing and irrational.

Similar conclusions can be reached in the ethical realm. Culture X believes Y. Culture W believes not-Y. Therefore, by the Relativist standard, Y is both true and false (moral and immoral) at the same time. It is impossible for something to be Y and not-Y at the same time, so normative Relativism is false or irrational.

What is almost as bad as the obvious logical flaws is that the strict moral Relativist must give up the notion that humans have made moral progress. For the Relativist must admit that Culture X at time T, is just a different Culture from Culture X at time T+ with different beliefs and there is no standard by which to measure either one. So, if you think that America has not progressed morally since the days of slavery or Germany has not progressed since the days of the Holocost, then be my guest and be a moral Relativist.

I don't know why so many people are attracted to Relativism. I think it is because it breeds tolerance of other cultures. What the Relativist fails to understand is that absolutist positions can still be tolerant. Plus, we shouldn't always have to be tolerant anyway (that African culture that believes that AIDS can be cured by raping virgins is simply wrong, cultures that don't allow women to vote are not as good as those that do, etc.). And, just because we are critical of one aspect of a culture, it doesn't mean that we are intolerant of the entire culture.

Sorry for going on and on. I'm a philosopher and one of my areas is Applied Ethics, so I have to listen to my students make these claims all the time; it has become a habbit to show them the error of their ways.

To answer the original question: I couldn't care less about heaven or god. As far as I'm conerned there is no reason to believe in either one.

superbnerd
23rd October 2004, 01:25 AM
You certainly are opimistic.

Actually, America has not progress morally. they have stop slavery but now persecute Islam and homosexuals...Thye don't progress, just change.

If you paid close attenstion to wha I said, religions are relative to their respective space-time. I included a link to explain space-time. I t may be hard to understand, but once you understand it you will realize that everything is indeed relative to its space-time and the curlture at that space-time. It may help to think in four dimensions with time as the fourth.

If you understand spce-time, you understand that relativity does not disprove itself becuase any one event is like its own world compared to another event that occured at the exact same location but at a different time. Space-time itself, once understood (I certainly don't yet fully understand it) is enough to detroy religions' idea of absolutes .

Let me just ask one innocent question ;) "What is right and what is wrong?"

StoneBrooks
23rd October 2004, 01:27 AM
Try this:


yum install Me2Heaven

Or you may need to remake the rpm file.

venson
23rd October 2004, 01:47 AM
Actually this is much more basic than what people seem to assume.

Do "modprobe faith" If your computer can't find the module, you must install the driver for Religion (religion.sf.net).

imdeemvp
23rd October 2004, 02:03 AM
i got my ticket long time ago....long story to tell!

Optimistic
23rd October 2004, 02:40 AM
Yes, I understood what you said perfectly well superbnerd. But, you are simply mistaken. Physics has nothing to do with culture Relativism. And, yes, I understand the 4D position quite well--written a few papers on it actually for a metaphysics seminar back in graduate schoool. While I find your condensending remarks humorus I must say that my interest in this thread is fading fast. But, I'll answer your last question anyway.

Not to sound too much like G.E.Moore, but here is a list of things that are wrong (no matter what culture you happen to be from or what that culture says):

1. It is wrong to murder 2 year old human children for fun.
2. It is wrong to hurt my cat Charlie.
3. It is wrong to own slaves (unless they are rational and agree to be slaves, I suppose).

The list could be extended of course (in fact, there are an infinite number of proposition like these), but why waste the time...

If you get a chance, you might enjoy an Introduction to Ethics class.

Actually, when it comes right down to it, I tend to fall into the realm of moral skeptic, but better a skeptic than a Relativist I always say.

The Elements of Moral Philosophy by James Rachels is a nice introduction to a lot of these types of issues, if you are interested.

chronox
23rd October 2004, 02:46 AM
hmmm... I can prove to you that the Bible is real without any miracle... look at your monitor... close your eyes... and say to yourself "I Dont believe in monitors!" and slap it with your hands... did it disappear? No right? Your unbelief that change reality... so is the Bible... even if you believe it or not it doesnt matter because its real... its up to you to accept this TRUTH or not... God has given you freewill... but be careful with it because it might send you to heaven or hell for eternity... God Bless!

CrystalCowboy
23rd October 2004, 02:49 AM
I'm taken care of. Got me one of these:
http://www.goohf.com/goohfs.jpg

crackers
23rd October 2004, 03:45 AM
I can prove to you that the Bible is real without any miracle...
What you have "proven" is that a printed Bible has a physical existence, nothing more. The contents of that printed book is a completely different matter. And, then there's the differing versions of supposedly the same book that, in many cases, have large contextual differences.

imdeemvp
23rd October 2004, 04:10 AM
does oxigen exist all over the planet? does it contain the same chemical base? it can be altered....but it is OXYGEN no matter what.

now has anyone ever seen, felt, or touched oxygen?


have large contextual differences.

the terms are still the same....just like linux is linux and the kernel is the kernel, i can also qoute many scientist that after being so skeptical, they had a change of heart!

Dog-One
23rd October 2004, 04:30 AM
Anyone heard of String Theory?

An element of String Theory that I find facinating is that the force of gravity may actually be a strong force though we can't yet detect it as such. String Theory suggests that gravitational force is predominately being bleed away into another dimension (parallel universe if you will). Taking this a step further, things that have been called miracles, things like ghosts, paranormal activity can now be described in an unformal scientific manner. Bottom line, if String Theory is true or even close to being true, the issue of Nurture or Nature gets orders of magnitude more complex.

We humans are such a small part of all that is around us (in both time and space), can't we all get along and enjoy what is without judgement.

Varkk
23rd October 2004, 04:53 AM
If you can't get to heaven, you need to check the firewall and make sure the port is open. Firestarter is a good tool to configure this. Hope this helps!

Yeah, but which ports do we need to open, also is it TCP or UDP? Do I need to open it to all or just specific IPs?

blammo
23rd October 2004, 06:54 AM
It is lost here! There is no standard port to your soul! As many ports as there are, and the number is infinite... is as many people as there are. The 10,000th milestone that was reached by this forum is of no consequence. Here does not sit the norm! We do not worship an invisible God, but instead we worship a living God. A God who is all knowing and all caring, who feels the need, but also knows the torment! He listens to our grief, and he will take it upon himself to ease us of this. I think he lives in Helsinki, but who knows, he's probably got a luxury home in California too!

superbnerd
23rd October 2004, 07:50 AM
@chronix

hmmm... I can prove to you that the Book of Mormon is real without any miracle... look at your monitor... close your eyes... and say to yourself "I Dont believe in monitors!" and slap it with your hands... did it disappear? No right? Your unbelief that change reality... so is the Book of Mormon... even if you believe it or not it doesnt matter because its real... its up to you to accept this TRUTH or not... God has given you freewill... but be careful with it because it might send you to heaven or hell for eternity... God Bless!

As you see, this is flwaed logic (I know Christians don't believe in science and logic...). You can substitute "Bible" for any religious book and prove it is the one and only absolute truth (again, an oxymoron).

@Optimistic

I don't know how I sounded condensending. I really tried nor ro this time. but people keep teling me I am :confused: And I have taken an intro to ethics class. but of course my simple understanding is no match for a learned philosopher like youself, so why not educate me :rolleyes:
Are you disagreeing on a purely logic basis or on my view of religion?

(I know you've lost interest, but just play along) Lets take it a step further. Say we develop the means to travel to other planets and discover intelligent life. Lets assume that they have their own religion, as religions are just extensions of culture. Ought we convert them to our particular religion because ours is the truth? Do we really have the right and moral grounds to attempt to change thier way of life? Furthermore, assuming we believe Christianity, how can we say Jesus died for them when they were not even on this planet. Jesus died for the sins of man, nothing else.

Why is it wrong to kill a human child and not a bug? Is thier life not a valuable as ours? Is it not a sin to murder a one day old ant? Is not the ant just as innocent?

Would it be wrong to eat your cat Charlie if one was starving? Are animal cosidered equals to humans? The Bible doesn't think so.

Were the Christians who owned slaves immoral? Was what they did wrong even though they used the Bible to justify it? Is it intrinsicly wrong to own another? What if the slave is better off with you as its master than it would be on its own? Why is it not wrong to own dogs?

Again I ask, "What is right and what is wrong?"

Ths first thing we must understand is that religions don't define absolute truth becuase they are so many religions which contradict each other. Nor does God defie truth becuase Allah contradicts Him (Yes, they are the same schizoifrenic god). Was it moral for God to order the Jews to practice genocide on several races? Was it moral for God "harden Pharoah's heart" in order to prove a point? Who hold God accountable? Are God's (aka mans') whims the truth? What if god orders us to strap bombs on ourselves and destroy schools or other civilian targets, oh wait, he already has?

Optimistic
23rd October 2004, 05:42 PM
Are you disagreeing on a purely logic basis or on my view of religion?
Mostly the logical basis, but the two are related.


Lets assume that they have their own religion, as religions are just extensions of culture. Ought we convert them to our particular religion because ours is the truth? Do we really have the right and moral grounds to attempt to change thier way of life? Furthermore, assuming we believe Christianity, how can we say Jesus died for them when they were not even on this planet. Jesus died for the sins of man, nothing else.
Good thought experiment, I guess it would depend on what they were doing to one another. If they were living peacfully, I see no reason to convert them--certainly not to Christianity. Like I said above, I'm an Atheist so I don't even believe in Jebus or the whole sin thing.


Why is it wrong to kill a human child and not a bug? Is thier life not a valuable as ours? Is it not a sin to murder a one day old ant? Is not the ant just as innocent?
Sometimes it is wrong to kill a bug. If you take pleasure in the distruction of life, you are being immoral. No, however, their life is not as valuable as ours: most bugs can't feel pain, and no bug can plan a future--both of which are important for moral standing.


Were the Christians who owned slaves immoral?
Yes.
Was what they did wrong even though they used the Bible to justify it?
Yes.
Is it intrinsicly wrong to own another? What if the slave is better off with you as its master than it would be on its own? Why is it not wrong to own dogs?
No, I would not say it is intrinsically wrong (but many disagree with me on this point). I would say that slavery is wrong when the slave does not consent to be a slave, i.e., I think that it is okay for a rational agent to decide to be a slave. But, my view, which stems from left-libertairianism, is controversial. It is not wong to own dogs because they are not rational, and while dogs do have some moral standing (they can feel pain, so we should consider that when interacting with them), they do not have full moral standing (they can't plan a future).


Ths first thing we must understand is that religions don't define absolute truth becuase they are so many religions which contradict each other. Nor does God defie truth becuase Allah contradicts Him (Yes, they are the same schizoifrenic god)
Yes, I agree 100%. Religions don't define the truth. The truth is independant of religions.


Are God's (aka mans') whims the truth?
I don't know. I'll bet we've gotten some things right over the years.

A delimma (the Euthyphro problem): Is an action right because God commands it or does God command certain actions because they are right?

If we take the left side of the delimma, then rightness becomes arbitrary for God couild have said anything and it would have been just as right. This is unacceptable.

If we take the right side of the dilemma, then there is an independant standard of rightness which God appeals to and he commands actions with that standard in mind. This one makes more since, but notice than God is no longer necessary for morality--the standard of rightness is independant.

The Relativist says that there is no standard, everything is relative. This view has certain logical problems that I find unacceptable.

The Absolutist says that there is an independant standard by which we can judge--the trick is figuring out what it is. I fall in this camp, but it doesn't mean that I know what is right and wrong in every case, but I do pretty well for the most part (I hope). Some general guidelines that I think are on the right track: Respect the autonomy of others. Consider the amount of pain your actions might cause compared to the amount of pleasure, and act accordingly. Don't hurt my cat. Don't treat rational agents as a means, but only as an end in themselves. Because I don't really know what the standard is (it might be too complicated for any human to know) I am considered to be a moral skeptic, by my pears. My moral skepticisim, makes me a pluralist, i.e., I don't think that there is a single moral maxim that will work in all cases. Sometimes we should think about the consequences of our actions, other times we should just respect the right's of others no matter what the consequences are.

Take care,

O

sailor
23rd October 2004, 06:50 PM
Atheism is a belief in it self, for your own sake call yourself an agnostic. When the time is right you will know what/what not to do. Religion unfortunantely is hard to discuss just as is politics. This thread will continue to go nowhere, so lets dicuss it when we know the truth...:)

crackers
23rd October 2004, 06:54 PM
This thread will continue to go nowhere so lets dicuss it when know the truth...:)
Okay, now you've really put your foot in it. What's "truth?" ;)

sailor
23rd October 2004, 06:55 PM
we will know when we die...:p

(I figured you would pick up on the fact we can't discuss it if we are all dead) :p

crackers
23rd October 2004, 08:12 PM
Doh! Boy, am I slow this afternoon... :o

Prometheus
24th October 2004, 01:19 AM
Wow, this thread is starting to make my head spin.... I'm all for theoretical games and such, but good god you're all starting to sound like Michio Kaku meats my Psycho Econ professor... *shivers* dont even wanna think about that one...

I'm pretty sure that no matter what we argue, say, or believe, this argument is going to go on for a very long time yet... and as far as im concerend, i know what i believe, and it good enough for me. Yeah, there are other beliefs out there, but which one is right? I dont know, and i dont think anybody else knows for sure either. Sure, you believe one is more right or correct than another, but i dont think anybody honestly knows with 100% certainty that god says, "yup, your religion/belief is right, all you other beliefs, well, you're screwed. Have fun down there." I just dont think it is in the realm of any human to have that knowledge, nor ability to determine such things.

But i digress, i think we should just let the beliefs stand, and if we wish to pursue more theoretical arguments (which are alot of fun btw, i really enjoy them and discussing them with people), may i suggest a little less sensitive argument? I was in no way offended by this thread so far, but i think if we continue, it may get to that point. Thus far, it is been very tactfully done, but i think we walk a fine line. Just a word of caution.

Well, thats about enough of my ramblings, back to the more interestering arguments...

superbnerd
24th October 2004, 02:40 AM
No one need be ofendied by discussion. If that were the case, their faith was shaky from the beginin and its best that they come to question such false beliefs. If you are sensitive to the truth and its many forms then don't read this thread. Its as simple as that.

i dont think anybody honestly knows with 100% certainty that god says, "yup, your religion/belief is right, all you other beliefs, well, you're screwed. Have fun down there." Thats why it takes faith, and for the science based, it take hypothisizing and theorizing.


I just dont think it is in the realm of any human to have that knowledge, nor ability to determine such things. That brings us to our subject - Determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will). It challenges the idea of free will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will) based on causality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality). (Que for all shaky believers to leave.) Most religions rely on the idea of free will to be true because without it there is no moral responsibility. Other than the need for a begining, determinism cannot really be countered. In fact, indeterminism has a fatal flaw
If non-determistic interpretations of quantum mechanics are correct, and uncaused events occur, these events are not the products of human cognition. Rather, the actions of a person influenced by these events would be attributable to a truly independent quantum mechanism, not the person's own free will. Of course Chrisitans would readily accept that as say, demonic possesion, but then Chrisitain believe mental illnesses are demons as well.

Now to explain determinism's critque, the need for a first cause (aka God). Of course this also brings up te problem of infinity becuase that first cause would also need a first cuase and so forth. (Of course Christians don't even bother to think this far for fear of the truth. Second que for shaky believers to leave if you haven't already.) To answer this we must step into God's realm. God created everything out of nothing, ex nihilo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation#Creation_ex_nihilo). Of course we know matter cannot be created or destroyed, so that leaves us with only one possible solution - nothing is everythind. Or rather everything is nothing. This solution is the perfect answer as it explains everything (nothing).

Prometheus
24th October 2004, 03:27 AM
Wasn't offended, thus the reason for

I was in no way offended by this thread so far

superbnerd
24th October 2004, 03:32 AM
I did not mean to imply you were the shaky faithed one. It was a general warning.

Dog-One
24th October 2004, 04:09 AM
What if free will doesn't exist?

What if everything in the universe plays by laws of physics, quantum mechanics, String Theory, ... ,universal law?

What if we consider that God is really only the laws that govern our universe?

What if every event has to happen according to physical laws?

What if humans, being composed of atoms, quarks, electrons, the stuff of the universe, really only do exactly what they are supposed to do, like every other biomechanical machine that exists? "I think therefore I am." Maybe we all just are. Thoughts, actions, everything--just play the part in the giant movie of the universe.

Do we have to have a purpose in life? Would it really make any difference if we did not?

What if I've gone crazy? Should I switch back to Windows?

Maybe things happen for a reason and maybe, just maybe things happen because that is the only outcome that can take place. Humans tend to think in terms of what is possible, probably because they really don't know enough to eliminate all possibilities save one in all cases. Wouldn't it be nice if we all knew all the answers. Would that be a religon? What would we call it?

superbnerd
24th October 2004, 04:17 AM
(Hands waving above head)You can't say that. I am afraid...don't know how to behave. All hope is gone. I'll just drown myself in sorrow.

You don't have the right to speak truth! What about the children?

jw100
24th October 2004, 04:46 AM
You certainly are opimistic.

Actually, America has not progress morally. they have stop slavery but now persecute Islam and homosexuals...Thye don't progress, just change.

If you paid close attenstion to wha I said, religions are relative to their respective space-time. I included a link to explain space-time. I t may be hard to understand, but once you understand it you will realize that everything is indeed relative to its space-time and the curlture at that space-time. It may help to think in four dimensions with time as the fourth.

If you understand spce-time, you understand that relativity does not disprove itself becuase any one event is like its own world compared to another event that occured at the exact same location but at a different time. Space-time itself, once understood (I certainly don't yet fully understand it) is enough to detroy religions' idea of absolutes .

Let me just ask one innocent question ;) "What is right and what is wrong?"



It's not innocent question.. GOD will tell if you ask it right..

Dog-One
24th October 2004, 04:52 AM
They were questions not answers, mostly. ;)

But even so, people love movies, they watch them constantly. So if life is really a movie, why not enjoy it for what it is and while it lasts.

People are what they are. Can they be changed? I don't know. If you're the right person to change them, then yeah maybe.

For me, I have no problem whatsoever with people thinking differently than me. People need to find what it is that works for them. Somewhere along the line, someone may just hit on the right answer--they'll probably take it to the grave with them, but hey, maybe not.

Predetermination certainly is no excuse for irresponsibility--you won't find me killing Optimistic's cat Charlie. Isn't going to happen.

And do I think the universe had a beginning? No. Do I think it will have an end? No. Did the universe start from nothing? If it in fact had no beginning, then it couldn't very well have a start now could it. I love the idea of infinity, especially in all directions all at the same time, just blows people's minds. :)

crackers
24th October 2004, 05:20 AM
I personally like Chaos Theory. Sprinkle liberally with String theory and classical quantum phenomenum. Add half a cup of philiosophy. Add mysticism to taste. Stir well and bake.

Make sure it's done - you wouldn't want to go off half-b...

No, I can't finish it. :D

03giant
25th October 2004, 01:44 AM
personally, i believe religon is nothing more than a past time for those that feel they might need something to occupy more of their time or to bring some sanity and control to their own lives.

sailor
25th October 2004, 07:34 PM
bring some sanity and control to their own lives.

So you see it kinda like "goal setting" or "positive thinking"...I can see how someone would view it this way. This kinda how I viewed religion when I was in my agnostic days.
I converted to a Catholic a couple years ago and it certainly has done me no harm, quite the opposite I have gained much that I hoped for. It makes no sense to trash religion because it benefits both those who believe and those who do not.

03giant
25th October 2004, 09:42 PM
So you see it kinda like "goal setting" or "positive thinking"...I can see how someone would view it this way. This kinda how I viewed religion when I was in my agnostic days.
I converted to a Catholic a couple years ago and it certainly has done me no harm, quite the opposite I have gained much that I hoped for. It makes no sense to trash religion because it benefits both those who believe and those who do not.
yep. religion is good for some and others it is not. for me its not. it is really a personal decision.
where it gets dangerous, is when some try to "push" their own personal decisions on religion (or lack there of), rather than accepting someone might see something differently. there is much more in our lives to do than to dwell on the ins and outs of religion and the existence of a god according to the mass variety of individual beliefs and books about the subject.

advisor
25th October 2004, 09:52 PM
It makes no sense to trash religion because it benefits both those who believe and those who do not. Islam is really benefiting the infadels. Christianity is really benefiting the homosexuals. Mormon, until reacently, really benefited blacks. Cathlocism really benefited Galileo and science. Indeed, I don't know why anyone would think religions harm people. In thier history they have done nothing but help society and end wars.

Sicily1918
25th October 2004, 10:24 PM
Now to explain determinism's critque, the need for a first cause (aka God). Of course this also brings up te problem of infinity becuase that first cause would also need a first cuase and so forth. (Of course Christians don't even bother to think this far for fear of the truth. Second que for shaky believers to leave if you haven't already.) To answer this we must step into God's realm. God created everything out of nothing, ex nihilo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation#Creation_ex_nihilo). Of course we know matter cannot be created or destroyed, so that leaves us with only one possible solution - nothing is everythind. Or rather everything is nothing. This solution is the perfect answer as it explains everything (nothing).Except that you cannot use that argument for anytime before the Big Bang. If you're talking about a being that created reality, I highly doubt that that being's bound by any physical laws of this reality. It'd be easier to explain the physics that go on inside a singularity.

Religion/faith/etc.: teaches us moral values (vague, yes -- specific to whatever religion), spirituality (once again, specific), what we are doing, etc., etc.Science: attempts to explain how our world (i.e., the universe) works, using observable, measurable laws and theories of this world, for this world.

You cannot realistically mix them together... it just don't work... other than to be pretty funny... hehehe, "explains everything (nothing)." :D

As far as matter not being created/destroyed, what about proton decay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay)?

sailor
25th October 2004, 10:34 PM
where it gets dangerous, is when some try to "push" their own personal decisions on religion
And that is where all things get dangerous, I agree. As a Catholic I am very aware of my church's failings in that regard but those times are past. The relgion is not at fault it is those who claim to be of that faith and misuse it who are to blame.


Islam is really benefiting the infadels
Not sure how you come to that conclusion. Who are th infidels and how do they benefit?

advisor
25th October 2004, 11:15 PM
You cannot realistically mix them together... it just don't work
faith and science don't mix (not yet anyway, I'm working to change that) He apparently know something we don't.


As far as matter not being created/destroyed, what about proton decay?You should read about thermal dynamics (http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/thermodynamics.html). The matter is not destroyed, just changed.
Decay:
To pass gradually from a sound, prosperous, or perfect state, to one of imperfection, adversity, or dissolution.


Not sure how you come to that conclusion. Who are th infidels and how do they benefit? I guess you missed my sarcasm :rolleyes: Infidels, like gentiles to Jews, are those that are who do not believe in that particular religion. To Muslims, everyone else is an infidel.

Sicily1918
26th October 2004, 11:16 PM
You should read about thermal dynamics (http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/thermodynamics.html). The matter is not destroyed, just changed.But the proton decays into a positron (positive electron), which ought to cancel out the electron(s). Granted, the canceling sends out so much energy that I guess it's still just a change, and the pion becomes gamma waves, so eventually the universe will be composed of free-floating energy and black holes... until they, too, disappear. Marvelous... :)

sailor
26th October 2004, 11:30 PM
I guess you missed my sarcasm Infidels, like gentiles to Jews

doh.......:p

imdeemvp
27th October 2004, 08:53 AM
To Muslims, everyone else is an infidel.
that does not make them right in any way, just more hateful towards others.....

chronox
28th October 2004, 04:21 PM
lets just put it this way... when you see a "painting" you know that there is a "painter" same thing with a "building" there is a "builder" the same with "creation" there is a "creator" if you look around you... they werent made that way randomly... Earth and the Universe itself is organized from atom to gravity... your human body... think...

Optimistic
28th October 2004, 05:29 PM
lets just put it this way... when you see a "painting" you know that there is a "painter" same thing with a "building" there is a "builder" the same with "creation" there is a "creator" if you look around you... they werent made that way randomly... Earth and the Universe itself is organized from atom to gravity... your human body... think...

Yes, let's think. What justification do you have from infering intelligence from orginization and structure. I'll admit that if you were to find a watch on the beach or a house i the woods it would be a okay to infer that humans (or some intelligent creature had been around). What justifies that inference? We have seen humans build houses, and make watches. The question is: is the Universe like a watch? The Universe is well-structured like a watch but there are lots of things we can find which are well-structured: bee-hives and my cat for example. So, maybe the Universe is like them. Bee hives are made by lots of bees and those bees are not intelligent, they just act on instinct. So, maybe there are lots of gods, they all of little jobs to do and all of them are unintelligent. Or, maybe the Universe is like my cat, maybe the universe was 'born' instead of 'made'.

"But wait a second Optimistic, you don't have any reason to suppose that the universe was made by lots of stupid bee-gods, and you certainly don't have any reason to suppose that the Universe was born like (well-structured) animals are born."

And to that I say, "Of, course I don't have any good reasons--that's my point. For my inferences are just as faulty as yours are. I have just as much reason to think that there are lots of stupid bee-gods or that the Universe was 'born' as you have for belivig that the Universe was completely designed by a single intelligent god--no good reasons whatsoever."

Things to remember about design arguments: they support polytheism just as well as monotheism, suppose that the argument works--what do we know about god? Well, we know he is just smart enough to make a Universe. How smart is that? I'm not sure. Do we know what church to go to? No, Do we know that he cares about us? No. Do we know that there is a heaven? No. Do we even know that he is still around? No, for he might have made the universe and then left the way an artists paints something and then leaves it in a museaum for all to see.

Things to think about with respect to proofs for god's existence: Even if the proof works, does it establish what you really care about? For example, suppose there must be a god because there must have been a first-cause to the Universe (can't get something from nothing right?). Well, what does that argument show? Not much, not much at all.

Why do you want a proof anyway? Why not just adopt Abraham or Job as your model for religious faith. Is it rational? No, but that's not the point. In the fight between the religious and the skeptic, the skeptic will always win--so why fight?

A good book you might like: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion by David Hume. It is quite old and there is no copyright, in fact it is right here:

http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm

03giant
28th October 2004, 07:57 PM
i will say this, throughout history, man has always had a misunderstanding of what things were. the belief was, the world was flat. that was proved wrong. once the earth was thought to be the center of the universe. well, we all know the story for that one now. it was once thought that the atom was the smallest building block. i could go on, but i think it is plain to see that what ever all of us think, we are probably wrong.

think of it this way:
until it is proven, it neither is or is not.
until it is defined, it neither is or is not.
gods have yet to be proven to be in existence or not, so one doesn't know.

chronox
29th October 2004, 06:31 AM
so which would you believe? the "big bang theory" where everything just exploded and creation happend? everyday something explodes... does it create? no it destroys... when you see a creation... for example your monitor... you dont need to see the "creator" of the monitor to prove that your monitor exists right? you just need a brain to do so... think carefully... to prove that God exists is simple... just LOOK around you... look at the mirror... if there is a creation there is a creator...

radu5er
29th October 2004, 08:21 AM
... but i think it is plain to see that what ever all of us think, we are probably wrong.

think of it this way:
until it is proven, it neither is or is not.
until it is defined, it neither is or is not.
gods have yet to be proven to be in existence or not, so one doesn't know.




I believe it is called faith...either you have faith or you do not. Having faith or not having faith does not make someone "good" or "bad". We have free will to decide what we believe. Some believe only what can be proven in terms of human existance and others believe there are other forces that come into play that can neither be proven nor understood by creatures of our intellect.

But the fact that we can discuss these things and make our own decisions regarding them can not be a bad thing. And the fact that these discussions can take place here on this type of forum should give almost everyone hope for humanity...weather you have faith in something that can neither be seen nor proven or if you only believe what can be proven by man's methods.

CrystalCowboy
29th October 2004, 06:25 PM
so which would you believe? the "big bang theory" where everything just exploded and creation happend? everyday something explodes... does it create? no it destroys... when you see a creation... for example your monitor... you dont need to see the "creator" of the monitor to prove that your monitor exists right? you just need a brain to do so... think carefully... to prove that God exists is simple... just LOOK around you... look at the mirror... if there is a creation there is a creator...
Yes, look at your monitor. Most of us don't actually have to travel to the monitor factory to see them churning off the assembly lines in order to believe that those factories exist. But if we felt we needed to, we could in fact make that trip.

Now look in the mirror. Probably you see a human being. They don't come from a factory, so they are not like monitors. That in itself means your analogy is inappropriate. But let's look a little further. We know that baby human beings come from mommy and daddy human beings. We could go visit the obstetrics ward of the local hospital to verify this.

Can we see this creation you claim occured? No. We would just have to take your word for it. Then we might ask probing questions, like "Who created God?". Probably you would stammer nervously and change the subject. This is a sign that you have not thought your questions through to their logical conclusions. Because first you would be trying to convince us that stuff can't just come into existence, it has to be created by someone. Then you would be telling us that this requirement does not apply to your invisible friend in the sky with magical powers. Your solution is no solution.

AliOop
29th October 2004, 07:19 PM
A timely subject. I guess after years of calling myself an agnostic -because I didn't want to offend anyone?- its time I come out of the closet. I don't beleive. There, I've said it.

Optimistic
29th October 2004, 07:24 PM
so which would you believe? the "big bang theory" where everything just exploded and creation happend? everyday something explodes... does it create? no it destroys... when you see a creation... for example your monitor... you dont need to see the "creator" of the monitor to prove that your monitor exists right? you just need a brain to do so... think carefully... to prove that God exists is simple... just LOOK around you... look at the mirror... if there is a creation there is a creator...

Read my above-post carefully. Yes, it is true that creation entails a creator. The question is: do you have any reason to believe that the world around you is a creation? The answer: No, you don't. There is no reason to believe that the world around us is a creation.

sailor
29th October 2004, 07:37 PM
We know that baby human beings come from mommy and daddy human beings.

but where did the first mommy come from or the first daddy? Was the chicken or the egg first?
What about.....arrrgh * my head just exploded*

hugo
29th October 2004, 08:25 PM
I find it's better not to think about such things. Philosophy doesn't help me find employment. Unless I was a philosopher. Then maybe I could get a job at McDonalds just like this kid I knew at MSU.

CrystalCowboy
29th October 2004, 08:28 PM
but where did the first mommy come from or the first daddy? Was the chicken or the egg first?
What about.....arrrgh * my head just exploded*
1) Since monitors and watches do not come from mommy and daddy appliances, they are useless and misleading as an analogy for the origin of humans and other living things.

2) There is plenty of evidence that humans evolved from earlier primates, which evolved from earlier mammals, which evolved from earlier reptiles, etc. down to the first living cells. The November 2004 issue of National Geographic has a nice article on this. There is some evidence for the "RNA world hypothesis" preceding the development of cells. It happened a long time ago, with things too small to leave traditional fossils, so the evidence is indirect.

3) As to how the first living thing came into existence, and why there is a Universe at all instead of nothing, these are genuinely difficult questions which may never be fully resolved.

4) There is no evidence whatsoever for a creator God. An argument from ignorance (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/welcome.php) is not evidence.

5) "Making **** up" is not as intellectually honest as admitting that we just don't know.

Optimistic
29th October 2004, 08:39 PM
I find it's better not to think about such things. Philosophy doesn't help me find employment. Unless I was a philosopher. Then maybe I could get a job at McDonalds just like this kid I knew at MSU.

This is a pretty bad misconception. Philosophers have a pretty easy time finding jobs, it just depends on what you want to do. If you just want a four-year degree that teaches you some trade, then yes, philosophy isn't the best major--great minor though. (Why not just go to a trade school? Why waste the time with a liberal education?) But, if you want to go on with you education philosophy is one of the best choices. Philosophers consistently out preform nearly every other major on standardized tests (GRE, LSAT, MCAT). You chances of getting into med school are actually better if you study philosophy then if you study biology--how crazy is that? Want to go to law school, philosophy is even better yet. I actually know guy that got a job at a computer company because he was a philosopher. Thy needed someone to test the logical structure of some system they were working on, so they needed a logician. Hospitals need ethicists to advise doctors, business will sometimes hire philosophers for advice, direction, etc. Washington employes a number of philosophers in their think tanks.

What can I do with a philosophy degree? Pretty much whatever you want. Why? Philosophy teaches you how to be a very careful thinker and quite a good writer. How many places need people like this? Lots.

hugo
29th October 2004, 09:24 PM
This is a pretty bad misconception. Philosophers have a pretty easy time finding jobs...
Just poking fun, I was a history major for a semester, I know all about the values of a liberal education. Didn't mean to offend anybody.

Psquared
29th October 2004, 09:39 PM
Read my above-post carefully. Yes, it is true that creation entails a creator. The question is: do you have any reason to believe that the world around you is a creation? The answer: No, you don't. There is no reason to believe that the world around us is a creation.

I've never been one who could find or accept "proof" of the existence of God - any God. I do not believe that logical positivism is sufficient or appropriate to prove the existence of a creator, or for that matter, a creation. The scientific method is simply not up to the task. The closest I have ever come to a reasonable, rational and logical argument for the existence of the Christian God is in the book, "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis.

As an Anglican I was taught that the argument for the Christian Faith stood on a three-legged stool. The three legs of the stool are reason, scripture and tradition. Take one of them away and the stool falls over. Emphasize one over the other and the stool is unstable.

For CS Lewis, and most Anglicans, the entire thing revolves around Christ. Was he a person, was he the Son of God, was he God incarnate, did he perform miracles, was he crucified and did he rise from the dead and ascend into Heaven? Is there really a Holy Trinity comprised of Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

Again, there is no empirically verifiable proof of these things - anymore than there is of Creation, the Flood and Jonah being swallowed by a whale.

What I have come to believe is this Jesus was either who he said he was or he was an egomaniacal liar or insane - or both. There is no other way around it. If he is the first we have every reason to believe what he said, but if he is the latter you have to disregard everything. You cannot even in good faith say he was a prophet or a "good man."

Now this can devolve into an argument over the "record" of what Jesus said about himself and about God. Is it accurate, have the words been twisted and the true record hidden by the Catholic Church? (a la "The DaVinci Code") There are certainly arguments to be made from the translations and the lack of an original document, however, there is a consistency to the story regardless of certain discrepancies and differing translations.

I have heard it argued that Jesus did not rise from the dead, but instead his body was stolen to make it look like he rose from the dead. I have to ask why? What was the benefit of doing so? What would the disciples have gained? They were petrified of the Romans and of Herod - they thought they were next. Would they really have tried to steal the body? How did they benefit from such skullduggery? Everyone of them was stoned, gored by wild animals or crucified. During that time not a one of them broke down and admitted such a thing. Would they have died like that for a lie? That is harder for me to believe than the story of Christ and the story of God. I know human nature too well. Somebody would have broken the silence, or someone would have told on them.

2000 years of a consistent story and consistent translations and deaths of many believers is enough for me to accept the story is true. I can't prove it mind you, but in my heart it rings true and I believe it.

CrystalCowboy
30th October 2004, 12:07 AM
2000 years of a consistent story and consistent translations and deaths of many believers is enough for me to accept the story is true. I can't prove it mind you, but in my heart it rings true and I believe it.
Then you also presumably accept the Hindu stories as well, and those of any other tradition that survives long enough. Of course the Jewish stories were around well before those of Christianity. Islam has been around since about 600 CE or so, Buddhism since about 600 BCE. Hint: Not all of these traditions are compatible with each other.

It is a fallacy that the popularity of an idea is proof of its truth.

It is a fallacy that the age of an idea is proof of its truth.

It is a fallacy that the fervor of a believer is proof of the truth of what he believes in.

When we remove the fallacies from your argument, there is practically nothing left.

For those who might want to bone up on logical fallacies, you might try Stephen's guide to the logical fallacies (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/welcome.php)


The point of an argument is to give reasons in support of some conclusion. An argument commits a fallacy when the reasons offered do not support the conclusion.

These pages describe the known logical fallacies.




What I have come to believe is this Jesus was either who he said he was or he was an egomaniacal liar or insane - or both. There is no other way around it.

Your belief does not make it so. Going a step further, this is the fallacy of the false dichotomy. There are certainly other interpretations. Try this one on: Jesus was a myth. Perhaps there really was a person named Jesus who lived in Gallilee ~ 2000 years ago who went around telling other people how to live their lives. Perhaps not. Even accepting this unproven assertion, there is no proof that accounts of the words and actions attributed to him in stories written decades later are accurate.

Supposing I did accept that Jesus actually existed, and said the things attributed to him.
Matt 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. (http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4380943)
There you have it, if he really said that he is a liar. The second coming is clearly described as happening within the generation of his immediate audience, ~ 2000 years ago.

Psquared
30th October 2004, 02:06 AM
Crystal - if you re-read my post I very clearly said there is no way to prove (or disprove for that matter) the existence of God. You are certainly correct, my believing it does not make it so, but I was not making a proselytic argument but rather a statement of what I believe and why. In the end it is a matter of faith. As Hebrews says, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (Heb. 11:1)

I do believe in an invisible and non-physical realm simply because I have experienced it and have read and heard the testimony of others who have as well and I have found that the experiences are similar. Jung referred to this as the "collective unconscious" that expresses itself in dreams, visions and sometimes physical manifestations. I believe that this is one way that God speaks to us. He also speaks to us through the kindness and compassion of others.

Even though I cannot prove it, that is what I believe.

Christianity differs from all of the worlds religions on this single basis: God came to man incarnate as Jesus and offered himself in sacrifice. Faith in him is the only prerequisite. In every other religion man must strive for the divine by works. We must "do" things to earn eternal life. In Christianity it is a gift. Our good works are acts in response to Grace. We give thanks by the way we live in relationship with God, our neighbors and ourselves.

By the way, the passage from Matthew you quoted has given rise to theological debate for centuries. The word in Greek for generation can also be translated as "race" although the passage in Matt 16:28 is similar. I agree it is a mystery, but one statement does not negate the story. I have read some theologians opine that Jesus was referring to the destruction of the Temple of Solomon, his Transfiguration or perhaps his ascension.

Anyway, it does not bother me at all - anymore than trying to comprehend the Holy Trinity. How can three be one? Perhaps Jesus was referring to "death" as the final state when we enter eternity - to live with God forever. It is interesting that this phrase only appears in Matthew.

chronox
30th October 2004, 04:23 AM
you see some people see things "as they want to" and not see the reality because its not what they want... but then again reality "NEVER" changes no matter what... either we believe or not... I'm not forcing anyone to believe since God has given you freewill to choose... I opened this topic up for those who are interested and not to argue about God... because there is no need to argue for there is only one reality... that is that he exists and there is nothing we can do about it... God Bless!

advisor
30th October 2004, 02:53 PM
@chronox
You completely missed superbnerd's and every one elses' points. You cannot prove God exist. Superbnerd, however, overed a solution.
To answer this we must step into God's realm. God created everything out of nothing, ex nihilo. Of course we know matter cannot be created or destroyed, so that leaves us with only one possible solution - nothing is everythind. Or rather everything is nothing. This solution is the perfect answer as it explains everything (nothing). You claim there is a reality and a god, but there simply need not be, not when everything is nothing. You are living a dream...wake up.

sailor
30th October 2004, 08:29 PM
You claim there is a reality and a god, but there simply need not be, not when everything is nothing. You are living a dream...wake up.

You completely missed superbnerd's and every one elses' points. You cannot prove God exist. Superbnerd, however, overed a solution.

I think it follows you can't prove he/it/thing does not exist either?


Originally Posted by superbnerd
To answer this we must step into God's realm. God created everything out of nothing, ex nihilo. Of course we know matter cannot be created or destroyed, so that leaves us with only one possible solution - nothing is everythind. Or rather everything is nothing. This solution is the perfect answer as it explains everything (nothing).

and on it goes round and round...:p

Ug
30th October 2004, 09:11 PM
Oh dear god (no pun intended). I can't believe I'm reading this thread. Yet at the same time I'm writing an essay on whether knowledge is justified true belief. :p

sailor
30th October 2004, 09:38 PM
Truth is self evident, knowledge is merely belief.

ya think it is time to close this thread?...:p

Ug
30th October 2004, 09:41 PM
Not yet. It hasn't gotten really violent yet. So no harm I suppose.

Chas.H
30th October 2004, 10:10 PM
Since, anthropologically speaking, there are a number of different belief systems, each with there own, sometimes very different, qualifications to avoid their idea of hell then it is logical to assume that one cannot meet all of the qualifications and therefore everyone will end up there.

Jman
31st October 2004, 02:13 AM
but where did the first mommy come from or the first daddy? Was the chicken or the egg first?
What about.....arrrgh * my head just exploded*
For Christians it depends on which creation story you are talking about. In the first they were created at the same time, in the second man came first. :)

These discussions are usually interesting. Add a little theology to a lot of science and philosophy and personal beliefs and watch the discussion go. Unfortunately most often I have even more questions after reading stuff like this...

Dog-One
31st October 2004, 04:06 AM
ya think it is time to close this thread?...:pY'all be cool and remember to respect the views of others when posting. Learning from each other is what a forum is all about.

What you say about giving this thread other 48 hours or maybe a week Ug, then we close it?

By then everyone can jump over to the election thread and say their peace on what the next four years will bring. ;)

CrystalCowboy
31st October 2004, 08:05 PM
I have thought more on the analogy of the monitor and have come to fresh insights.

Monitors are created in factories by people (or to designs made by people, and by machines made by people... follow the links back far enough and you get to people).

People are created by people. You can verify this by reading textbooks and watching pR0n.

The conclusion is obvious: people created everything, including God.


Psquared: Yes, you acknowledged that you could not prove God's existence. BUT then you went ahead and offered your reasons for believing, almost all of which were fallacious. If you think it's fair to toss up fallacies on a forum, I certainly think it's fair to shoot them down. I did not offer examples of the various fallacies I mentioned because undoubtedly you have no trouble recognizing them - in the other person's beliefs.

Sailorsgh: "I think it follows you can't prove he/it/thing does not exist either?" I've got an invisible friend in the sky with magical powers - and it's up to you to disprove it? Ha ha ha ha ha. What a sense of humor.

Psquared
1st November 2004, 12:47 AM
Crystal - what you have offered up is an absolute truth - that God does not exist. So prove it to me. I want to hear your proof of the negative.

03giant
1st November 2004, 01:54 AM
I believe it is called faith...either you have faith or you do not. Having faith or not having faith does not make someone "good" or "bad". We have free will to decide what we believe. Some believe only what can be proven in terms of human existance and others believe there are other forces that come into play that can neither be proven nor understood by creatures of our intellect.

But the fact that we can discuss these things and make our own decisions regarding them can not be a bad thing. And the fact that these discussions can take place here on this type of forum should give almost everyone hope for humanity...weather you have faith in something that can neither be seen nor proven or if you only believe what can be proven by man's methods.
I am not sure what your point was. My point was not a matter of "good or bad", but rather proof of existence. Just as it cannot be proven that time will go on forever. If one has faith in something that has yet to be proven, that is fine. I feel some need and want that in their lives. That is good, just as one that has other opinons can be good. If you think about it, a beleif is not good or bad, but really the effects of theose beleifs upon the individual and others can be good or bad. That is all relative as well.

I am not bashing any personal choice in religon, faith or discussion, nor would I expect anyone to bash my personal beliefs and desicions. Though one can have a discussion and debate without bashing, like we all seem to be doing here.

Optimistic
1st November 2004, 02:26 AM
Crystal - what you have offered up is an absolute truth - that God does not exist. So prove it to me. I want to hear your proof of the negative.

It is not the responsibility of the Atheist to prove the negative, it is the responsibility of the ones making a positive existential claim. Why? Well, how would you prove that unicorns don't exists? Look around the entire universe and discover that there are no unicorns? Or, in order to prove a negative claim like that we would have to show that is it impossible for the thing to exist because of its very nature (like the existence of a round square). Here is what a proof like that might look like with respect to God:

1. If God exists, then God exists necessarily.
2. It is possibe that God does not exist.
C. Therefore, God does not exist.

Now, this proof requires a commitment to S5 modal logic (which includes the rule: if it is possible that x is necessary, then x is necessary)--if you find that controversial, then you won't like the proof. I like S5 just fine, but I still think that the-above proof is weak.

So, what is an Atheist? If you ask me, it is just a person who lives there life as if they are in a godless universe. Do I have to have a proof to be an Atheist? No. Could you call me Agnostic because really I don't know? I suppose, but I wouldn't call myself that.

radu5er
1st November 2004, 10:35 AM
I am not sure what your point was. My point was not a matter of "good or bad", but rather proof of existence. Just as it cannot be proven that time will go on forever. If one has faith in something that has yet to be proven, that is fine. I feel some need and want that in their lives. That is good, just as one that has other opinons can be good. If you think about it, a beleif is not good or bad, but really the effects of theose beleifs upon the individual and others can be good or bad. That is all relative as well.

I am not bashing any personal choice in religon, faith or discussion, nor would I expect anyone to bash my personal beliefs and desicions. Though one can have a discussion and debate without bashing, like we all seem to be doing here.


My point (poorly made perhaps) was that some things cannot be proven by man's methods. Just because something can not be proven does not mean that it does not exist. Because ancient humankind did not have the knowledge to prove that the earth was a sphere didn't change the fact that it was.

And as you so correctly stated, "...whatever all of us think, we are probably wrong". Our beliefs about God and the hereafter probably are not entirely correct, but the intricacies of these things may well be beyond the capabilities of our limited human understanding. Many other things also cannot be proven or disproved. I believe that there are mysteries beyond the comprehension of the human mind and that is where faith comes into play.

You are also quite correct in that while a belief itself is neither good nor bad, the effects can be. Untold numbers of people have been and continue to be persecuted in the name of religious and ethnic causes since before history was recorded.

As you and I both said, the discussion of these issues taking place on this forum is generally being conducted with respect for the opinions of all those involved. I certainly had no intention of "bashing" your or anyone's personal opinion and if I gave that impression I offer my most sincere apologies.

CrystalCowboy
1st November 2004, 04:01 PM
Crystal - what you have offered up is an absolute truth - that God does not exist. So prove it to me. I want to hear your proof of the negative.
Could you please point out where you think I have offered absolute proof? I've reviewed every post I made in this thread and I can't find any such claim, unless you're counting my treatment of the "analogy of the monitor" which I presumed would be easily spotted as a parody.

I have also hinted that for an extravagant claim such as the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing supernatural being, the burden of proof is clearly on the claimant. "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence".

Ug
1st November 2004, 04:28 PM
Its wrapping up time kiddies. :) You have another 10 posts til we close up shop.

sailor
1st November 2004, 05:35 PM
just to stimulate more thought...
The real question may be "What is God?"
Is God a being or an event or a collective part of all of us?
I would like to believe that God is a part of all of us. All of us together, toward a common goal would achieve things that would be Godlike.
and don't you think the goal is obvious? ...Love...

CrystalCowboy
1st November 2004, 06:02 PM
Summing up time, eh?

Atheism: it's better than a poke with a sharp stick. For that matter, it's better than being burned at the stake or blown up by a suicide bomber.

Live long and prosper.

03giant
1st November 2004, 06:03 PM
radu5er:
i am not sure how I missed that we were on the same page. sometimes i can be quite slow... :o no harm done.
All this talk about proof reminds me of my old math teacher. the first day of class he asked us to prove a dot. That was an intereseting day....

so, in response to the post that started this great disscusion:
i do not feel the need to be saved. there is nothing in my mind that i need saving from, as religon to me is something to occupy ones wandering mind. that is my beleif, as others have there beliefs. but if one wants to be saved, or beleve in something/anything, let them seek and live their own beliefs in a peaceful and none intrusive manor, as they may become better people themselves. it is when a personal choice in beliefs are pushed or forced among others, that there will be conflict without a positive outcome.

wow, never thought i would coversate about this, let alone in a Fedora forum. i think it be time to move on to the technical stuff... :)

Psquared
1st November 2004, 08:04 PM
I have thought more on the analogy of the monitor and have come to fresh insights.

Monitors are created in factories by people (or to designs made by people, and by machines made by people... follow the links back far enough and you get to people).

People are created by people. You can verify this by reading textbooks and watching pR0n.

The conclusion is obvious: people created everything, including God.

Maybe to you, but not to me. Philosophically Christianity is a closed system. It's proof comes from itself and it cannot be proved externally. That is a legitimate system.


Psquared: Yes, you acknowledged that you could not prove God's existence. BUT then you went ahead and offered your reasons for believing, almost all of which were fallacious. If you think it's fair to toss up fallacies on a forum, I certainly think it's fair to shoot them down. I did not offer examples of the various fallacies I mentioned because undoubtedly you have no trouble recognizing them - in the other person's beliefs.

Fallacious? Because you or someone else say they are? Your saying it does not make it true. Unless you are proposing some absolute truth. But you are not doing that are you? The evidence is circumstantial and we deal with circumstantial evidence all the time. Scientifically, the question is does it make it more likely than not? The idea of the big bang or evolution are based upon theory, conjecture and assumptions - many of which have not been tested and proven. The basis for such things is circumstantial evidence.

Taken to the extreme your view is that there is only matter and energy. That there is only this material world and nothing else. Is that truly what you believe?


Sailorsgh: "I think it follows you can't prove he/it/thing does not exist either?" I've got an invisible friend in the sky with magical powers - and it's up to you to disprove it? Ha ha ha ha ha. What a sense of humor.

Now you are making fun of people.

Its time to close this thread.

CrystalCowboy
1st November 2004, 08:27 PM
Fallacious? Because you or someone else say they are?

Did you check out the site I suggested on logical fallacies? (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/welcome.php) From the link:


The point of an argument is to give reasons in support of some conclusion. An argument commits a fallacy when the reasons offered do not support the conclusion.

Really. Go to the site and read some of it. Or read a book or take a course on formal logic.


Googlefight (http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=mithra&q2=mothra&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us)
mithra 83 700
vs
mothra 82500

chronox
4th November 2004, 12:43 PM
sometimes the truth hurts so much that we don't accept it... but no matter how hard we try... we cant change what is real... and what is that reality? that reality is... God exists... and His wrath is upon us unless we repent... believe it or not... hell will be our place for ETERNITY unless we do something about it... once again... its HARD to enter heaven... not like most of us think... the Bible tells us that it is so hard that only FEW will find it... which of us are those few? do you want to be one of those few people? once again for those WHO ARE INTERESTED only... visit:

http://zoki.filetap.com

its about a Chrisitian witnessing the TRUTH about Jesus and His teachings... may God Bless us all!