The scariest thing I've read in a while.

[Relictivity]

I would like to know how one can use their heart to find God. Mine is functioning extremely well. It pumps blood at a very steady rate (I have low blood pressure, actually), and I have yet to encounter a problem with it. So, since I have a healthy heart, may I ask what am I missing to activate my heart radar to Jesus? I keep hearing that you have to "use your heart" but I lack instruction. To think that I believed the heart was a muscle that pumped blood! Why didn't Biology ever teach me that it could lead to my salvation? Thanks for letting me know the truth, Relictivity.

(please let this make you understand how silly "use your heart" sounds in a debate)

Perhaps it would be better if I used the word 'conscience', because it seems that heart is getting confused between the two meanings of the word. In other words, your supposed to use your conscience in order to determine what is correct and not.

Lol, well, if it sounds silly, that's ok. But I don't refute it.

*Reply to bleed4m3*

Not particularly, I could go find out whether they were divinely inspired with my conscience I suppose, but I have more important questions bugging me that I would like to spend my time thinking about. Who God divinely inspired is near the bottom of my list, considering I know that he inspired the necessary people to get the world on the right path.

Lol, if you are doing it upon what human's say, your not doing it right. Your supposed to involve God when determining who to trust and not to trust. That's supposed to be an active relationship.

Again, I told you, it states directly in the Bible that the Earth isn't just 6000 years old... it definately could be billions of years old, and just as easily, God could be involved in it.

Lastly, writing it in the Bible isn't the thing that's important. The important thing is that people feel that it is right through the spirit - that is the indicator we are supposed to watch for.

Now back to LA video project (erp) =P.

*Reply to btb*

Yah, that's kinda what it gets down to, you either trust faith or you don't.

 

[sonickid01]

Nah, actually, I make a different statement - that everything must be obtained with at least a fraction of faith - even logic itself... ah wait, you said that later on XD. Well as for observation, that is the same as experience, would you not say? Well, experience is part of the process of faith - it is the process of confirming your faith. You only receive it once you have it though. In other words, observation/experience is part of faith, and thus, yes, it derives itself.

From my understanding you've just repeated your previous circular proof of faith's equal validity to naturalism. Regardless, it doesn't take take faith in an experiment to be able to accept logic. In regards to the thought experiment with the child, an experiment can be carried completely objectively. A scientist is entirely able to do an experiment to try and confirm something he inherently doesn't predict is true. He does not need to have faith his experiment is true or untrue; in fact the best experimenters are completely objective.

Observation is not the same as experience; an experience is given with the context of being internal or auto-interpreted from the start. Observation is concrete and not analyzed immediately. You can observe and experience or experience observations but they are not the same.

Will post more later, short on time now.

 

[Relictivity]

From my understanding you've just repeated your previous circular proof of faith's equal validity to naturalism. Regardless, it doesn't take take faith in an experiment to be able to accept logic. In regards to the thought experiment with the child, an experiment can be carried completely objectively. A scientist is entirely able to do an experiment to try and confirm something he inherently doesn't predict is true. He does not need to have faith his experiment is true or untrue; in fact the best experimenters are completely objective.

Observation is not the same as experience; an experience is given with the context of being internal or auto-interpreted from the start. Observation is concrete and not analyzed immediately. You can observe and experience or experience observations but they are not the same.

Will post more later, short on time now.

However, the problem is, we don't naturally learn how to be scientists, and the technique scientists USE takes experimentation. Coming from nothing, the only way we can grow is expirimenting, and the only way we will be willing to grow, is to take faith that performing the experiment will do less harm than good. Once we get logic, we limit this a bit - which isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially when you think about things like drugs, you'd want to limit yourself on things like that, but in terms of things where you will never be able to get an answer in another manner, you really have to try it yourself.

Ah, well, what is the use of information if you do not analyze it. That is why experimentation is important, despite how dangerous it can be, it is the only way to make progress in an arena that hasn't been explored, or in an arena that requires personal exploration in order for understanding. Religion falls in the second - unless you have personal experience, one cannot understand it. Thus the importance of experimentation, and not just observation. Observation does not result in the same amount of useful information that experimentation does.

 

[MetalGearSamus]

However, the problem is, we don't naturally learn how to be scientists, and the technique scientists USE takes experimentation. Coming from nothing, the only way we can grow is experimenting, and the only way we will be willing to grow, is to take faith that performing the experiment will do less harm than good. Once we get logic, we limit this a bit - which isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially when you think about things like drugs, you'd want to limit yourself on things like that, but in terms of things where you will never be able to get an answer in another manner, you really have to try it yourself.

No, at our most basic (when we are babies) we "experiment" by doing and seeing what results from it, whether that be crying when we're hungry, touching what is unfamiliar (stoves, blankets, pets, etc.), or attempting to imitate others speech. There is no "faith" in anything, we just do and see. It's how we first learn. Science is simply a more detailed process with specific intentions to discover certain things. There is no "faith" that experiments will work the way we want them. We do not expect our predictions to be right, in fact they are more often then not wrong, we preform the experiment to learn what happens when we test "X."

Also, I fail to see your reason be hind "logic is limiting" seeing as it is derived from observation in the universe and would thus be a tool for deriving other things from said universe.

Ah, well, what is the use of information if you do not analyze it. That is why experimentation is important, despite how dangerous it can be, it is the only way to make progress in an arena that hasn't been explored, or in an arena that requires personal exploration in order for understanding. Religion falls in the second - unless you have personal experience, one cannot understand it. Thus the importance of experimentation, and not just observation. Observation does not result in the same amount of useful information that experimentation does.

Even though observation is a key part of experimentation and they are both fundamentally linked? I'm not sure I see your point in this paragraph, would you mind making it a little clearer?

 

[sonickid01]

Well then, we must simply refute logic, for it is being 'blind assumed' the same way religion is. One obtains a testimony in the same way one discovers that logic works - by taking a step into the darkness, and seeing if it works. You use faith to obtain it. It should be similar with religion. You have to take a step to having faith in it, and then things will be shown unto you. And though the basic laws of physics exist everyday, even our thoughts about how they work our based, on... logic. So if logic falls apart, so does all that scientific research we have done. Similarly with relgion... everything that has been discovered about it has been done so through... faith. And if faith falls apart, so does religion.

No, as I and MetalGearSamus both pointed out, it is not being blindly assumed. At best it is axiomatic. But the consequence of such axioms is a naturalistic explanation of millions of phenomena. And due to the inherent supernatural basis of faith, I would also like to point out that such a naturalistic approach to the universe and having faith in supernatural powers are not mutually exclusive; when claims of supernatural activity interfering with the natural are falsified, then you have the conflict as we are discovering with J-man and Son of Disaster.

Na, you misunderstand the trial of faith. Faith starts with two basic elements - hope and charity. Hope is the wish for something to be true, due to your being happy. Why do we need hope? Because hope is the only thing which will drive us to truly seek and ask for an answer directly from God, which is what we need. We have to be driven to ask, despite knowing it is all-together possible that he doesn't exist. We have to ask on faith, hoping for an answer to confirm our beliefs. Now charity, why do we need it? Because, without charity, we won't have the willingness to serve others in the way God wants us to do.

Not sure what you're getting at, but this seems irrelevant.
Hope? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking
Charity? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_irrelevance

Faith requires charity because our faith tells us that(?). I fail to see how hope drives us to search an answer, it's simply non sequitir. I think I am running in circles in your points and am earnestly confusing myself in what you're telling me.

would you please re-phrase this so it doesn't say words that trigger my humiliating over-restricting blocks?

<_<
My basic point is that feelings of happiness that come as a result of "having faith" and "believing in your heart" are ultimately a result a chemical reactions and can even be induced with drugs that are not of divine nature. They are very easily generated with mere placebo effects and so the divine feelings of such meditation or praying are not necessarily divine in nature and in fact, there is little reason to believe they would be other than wanting it so.

i interpret the bible according to context.

because it's according to context.

Context context context

What context is there?! What context is in the Bible surrounding the literal creation described in Genesis? I'd like some concrete guidelines describing exactly how you take a piece of scriptural information, analyze it, use the surrounding context and determine exactly what is meant.

My main issue with hard, literal interpretations of such holy scriptures is that it removes the beauty of the entire book. I am atheistic but I am not abhorrent of religion. The holy scriptures of religion are meaningful, not historical.

this comment is reeking of mega church anti-theology. roman catholics and mega church goers aren't the only christians that exist. who decided that the Bible is a social guide?

I don't know what you're trying to imply here. But to answer your question, I think it was probably Moses who really started it. The Ten Commandments (to some with a different translation, Ten Blessings, just to not lump all Christians in the same page) are very clear guidelines for how people are to live. The scriptures in both Testaments contain very clear examples of moral stories. Jesus is considered a teacher for Pete's sake, he's very clear on instructing people in the way to live morally and healthily. It's very obvious that if anything at all, nearly all holy scriptures, the Bible, Vedas, whatever, are rules for living healthfully, happily, and "spiritually." Do you know why such prominent books share such common features?

Because they are evolutionarily advantageous. How's that for irony?

but you completely ignored what i talked about geological
processes.

You didn't say anything about geological processes other than mentioning St. Helens and I didn't see any relevance. Catastrophe, geological processes, suppositions, perhaps my brain has been completely fried for the last week without my notice but I just don't see what you're talking about. If your meaning is that rapid geological processes could have occurred in rapid succession while we weren't looking to create the appearance of a long time scale for huge processes, Mt. Saint Helens left huge impacts in the area and blew its entire side out. There must be extremely, extremely dramatic indications of such huge processes. For example the crater in I believe Yucatan, Mexico is evidence of huge impact, probably the famed K-T Boundary meteor or some other object.

What presuppositions do you believe Firestorm was talking about when he said that a 6,000 year old Earth was proved false? Rather than declaring the subject and pointing fingers that I'm ignoring your points, bringing the problems you have with geological process and radiometric dating yourself could help to discuss the issue more clearly.

why don't you read genesis 1 and ask that question again

Read it again, still got nothing. Perhaps God didn't make the heavens and earth first; I'm thinking the real first creations were definitions of everything before they existed.

this is a misconception from your naturalistic axiom. try seeing things from the christian point of view (i'm not saying be a christian). The Bible states that God is above his creation. Perhaps the light came from him?

Touche, I concede your explanation. But why is that never mentioned?

Also, why 6000 years? The Byzantines would put it at 7519 years, 7520 come the 1st of September.

Because that was the approximate calculations as from the ages and relative time periods described in the Bible.

 

[Ferrouswheel]

Because that was the approximate calculations as from the ages and relative time periods described in the Bible.

Thanks, I realized that part. To explain my question in more depth, why does someone prefer Bishop Ussher's date of 6000 years or 4004 BCE over Bishop Annianos's date of of 5493 BC, or the unknown Byzantine Greek who put it at 5509 BC?

 

[sonickid01]

Oh, I didn't see what you meant, my bad.

I did some Wikipedia searching for the actual answer as to why there is a difference. Apparently Bishop Ussher used the Hebrew version of the Bible to run his calculations based on the ages of those mentioned in the book, as opposed to a 2nd Century BCE Greek version of the script called the Septuagint. The latter scriptures gave different ages for the characters of the Bible which added approximately 1500 years.

In addition to Ussher's work, various chronologies using the Hebrew texts have arrived at more or less 6000 years, and so I guess the main difference is the version of the Bible that you get the numbers to crunch from. So the best I can come up with to answer your question is that most people prefer 6000 years because it is calculated from the Hebrew texts as opposed to Greek ones.

 

[Scoopapa]

There's a youtube video called "an archeological moment in time" that describes much of what we know about 4000 B.C. Very interesting to watch.

 

[J-man]

<_<
My basic point is that feelings of happiness that come as a result of "having faith" and "believing in your heart" are ultimately a result a chemical reactions and can even be induced with drugs that are not of divine nature. They are very easily generated with mere placebo effects and so the divine feelings of such meditation or praying are not necessarily divine in nature and in fact, there is little reason to believe they would be other than wanting it so.

I meant change it on the previous page... It doesn't matter cause someone mentioned Adult-Mature material stuff. I don't know who. Could we be careful when using our mouths?

Context context context

What context is there?! What context is in the Bible surrounding the literal creation described in Genesis? I'd like some concrete guidelines describing exactly how you take a piece of scriptural information, analyze it, use the surrounding context and determine exactly what is meant.

I'm having a difficult time thinking up a response, so i suppose i will say what's on my mind. I read it, and it makes sense according to what context it falls under. For instance, the book of Psalms is obviously poetic. Romans falls under instruction in faith. The Gospels follow the life of Jesus our lord and savior, so it would fall under the category of historical content First and Second Kings follow the lines of the kings of Israel and Judah, so it would make sense that they would be Historical. Genesis is an account of the beginning of the Earth, so it would be historical.

My main issue with hard, literal interpretations of such holy scriptures is that it removes the beauty of the entire book. I am atheistic but I am not abhorrent of religion. The holy scriptures of religion are meaningful, not historical.

My friend, you don't get what the Bible is about. The Bible is one giant historical book that accounts the many times where man is continually rescued by God, eventually leading up to the ultimate act of rescue via the sacrifice of God's only begotten son to serve as a vessel for God's wrath that man deserved by sinning against his creator.

I don't know what you're trying to imply here. But to answer your question, I think it was probably Moses who really started it. The Ten Commandments (to some with a different translation, Ten Blessings, just to not lump all Christians in the same page) are very clear guidelines for how people are to live.

According to the Bible...

Romans 3: 10-20
As it is written:


“ There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”[b]
13 “ Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;[c]

“ The poison of asps is under their lips”;[d]
14 “ Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”[e]
15 “ Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;
17 And the way of peace they have not known.”[f]
18 “ There is no fear of God before their eyes.”[g]

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

No one can keep the law, as the law can not be kept by flesh alone. It can only condemn and show us our sin. In christianity, the law isn't a social guide it is a death sentence.

The scriptures in both Testaments contain very clear examples of moral stories. Jesus is considered a teacher for Pete's sake, he's very clear on instructing people in the way to live morally and healthily. It's very obvious that if anything at all, nearly all holy scriptures, the Bible, Vedas, whatever, are rules for living healthfully, happily, and "spiritually." Do you know why such prominent books share such common features?

You clearly miss the point of Jesus' ministry. Jesus was acknowledged by many to be the Son of Man. you should read this article http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Luke/Overview-Jesus-Ministry

Because they are evolutionarily advantageous. How's that for irony?

what are you trying to say here?

You didn't say anything about geological processes other than mentioning St. Helens and I didn't see any relevance.

I said Mt. Saint helens was an example of how geological processes can occur rapidly. I believe if memory serves correctly, that there was a canyon carved out near St. Helens due to a mudslide caused by the eruption.

Catastrophe, geological processes, suppositions, perhaps my brain has been completely fried for the last week without my notice but I just don't see what you're talking about. If your meaning is that rapid geological processes could have occurred in rapid succession while we weren't looking to create the appearance of a long time scale for huge processes, Mt. Saint Helens left huge impacts in the area and blew its entire side out. There must be extremely, extremely dramatic indications of such huge processes. For example the crater in I believe Yucatan, Mexico is evidence of huge impact, probably the famed K-T Boundary meteor or some other object.

Not picking up what i'm supposed to respond here.

What presuppositions do you believe Firestorm was talking about when he said that a 6,000 year old Earth was proved false? Rather than declaring the subject and pointing fingers that I'm ignoring your points, bringing the problems you have with geological process and radiometric dating yourself could help to discuss the issue more clearly.

Once again, Mt. Saint Helens is a good example of how geological processes can occur rapidly, which ties into the Flood as a catastrophe that could have caused many geological processes that are assumed to be slow to have occurred rapidly. now, concerning radiometric dating.

a part from the wikipedia article.

For approximate analysis it is assumed that the cosmic ray flux is constant over long periods of time; thus carbon-14 is produced at a constant rate and the proportion of radioactive to non-radioactive carbon is constant: ca. 1 part per trillion (600 billion atoms/mole)

Assumption from Dictionary.com

1. something taken for granted; a supposition



Now from what i have read, Radiometric and Radiocarbon dating require these three assumptions (a. a constant half life (b. an isolated system (c. known initial conditions. I would like to know if any of these assumptions can be proven correct or be tested. I would also like to know the credibility of this statement made by Fred Jueneman:

The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such "confirmation" may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that readio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And tihs could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age of the memory of man.

Read it again, still got nothing. Perhaps God didn't make the heavens and earth first; I'm thinking the real first creations were definitions of everything before they existed.

And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. Genesis 5b. God determined it i guess.

Touche, I concede your explanation. But why is that never mentioned?

The Bible says that some things are not explained to us.

Because that was the approximate calculations as from the ages and relative time periods described in the Bible.

6000 is generally a median age. no less than ~4000, no more than ~10000 (from what i've read, this according to the magnetic decay in the Earth(?) something like that. I'm rushing right now, so i've little time to look it up)

 

[Captain Snacks]

Don McLeroy seems like a nut, and it's sad that lots of children won't be getting a balanced education now. I don't understand why kids can't be presented both the theory of evolution and this creationist stuff, and why the kids can't decide for themselves.

What I also don't get is why the textbooks are updated every decade. You'd think that people who believe in an adequate education for everyone would have their material updated more often, especially considering new information is coming out practically every day.

I did get a good laugh out of this though:

With childlike glee, McLeroy flipped through the pages and explained what he saw as the gaping holes in Darwin’s theory. “I don’t care what the educational political lobby and their allies on the left say,” he declared at one point. “Evolution is hooey.”

 

[Relictivity]

No, at our most basic (when we are babies) we "experiment" by doing and seeing what results from it, whether that be crying when we're hungry, touching what is unfamiliar (stoves, blankets, pets, etc.), or attempting to imitate others speech. There is no "faith" in anything, we just do and see. It's how we first learn. Science is simply a more detailed process with specific intentions to discover certain things. There is no "faith" that experiments will work the way we want them. We do not expect our predictions to be right, in fact they are more often then not wrong, we preform the experiment to learn what happens when we test "X."

Also, I fail to see your reason be hind "logic is limiting" seeing as it is derived from observation in the universe and would thus be a tool for deriving other things from said universe.

Even though observation is a key part of experimentation and they are both fundamentally linked? I'm not sure I see your point in this paragraph, would you mind making it a little clearer?

Faith is doing things on trust that what we are doing is safe. We don't know that the moment we step out of the house for the first time, we aren't going to be eaten by giant green monsters. Yet we still step out of the house. It IS experimenting. And that IS how we first learn, like you said. Everything we know in life is based off of this first experimentation, or faith. So why isn't religion attempted in the same way? Why not attempt to talk to God yourself? It's not going to hurt you if he's not there - and if he is, you have so much to gain.

Also using faith: I have faith that the world will eventually (after a long time) come to peace. I hope it will. I strive for it. I yearn for it. Does that mean it will happen? No. But if I refute the possibility of it happening now, I have just destroyed the possibility of it happening. We have to hope, to have faith in these things that we don't see, to get any results at all. If you don't have faith in God, why do you expect him to show himself to you?

Logic is limited because it is impossible to observe what is outside of the universe (since it isn't nothing, else the universe could not exist), and thus, logic is limited in it's observing, and eventually, we won't have anything to observe anymore. And we still won't be able to explain everything, because we won't understand what is outside of the universe.

My point of that paragraph is in order to see the correctness of religion, one must have experiences with it. And in order to have experiences with it, one must have faith (or else he won't show you). Thus, it is impossible to verify the correctness of religion, unless you go through a trial of faith beforehand (and it is justified afterwards with experiences). The thing is, because one cannot experience what another did, it is important for one to go seek one's own experiences, and use the one's of others merely as a supplement, not a replacement.

*Reply to SonicKid01*

Yes, it is being blindly assumed. How do we know that our legs won't collapse on us and fracture into pieces the first time we walk? We don't. We take a 'step of faith' (literally), and discover, wow, we can walk. We explore areas we do not fully understand when full born, and we just have faith that it won't hurt us. We have faith that our eyes won't be burnt out. We have faith that our hands won't sink through surfaces. We have faith that our noses and ears aren't malfunctioning. Because there is always a first time to see, to feel, to smell, or to hear. And that first time, regardless of times later, it requires an element of faith and trust that we are observing our environment correctly. Thus it should be with religon - we have to use faith the first time, but once we use it and discover how correct religion is - just as we discover how awesome our sense are - we won't be required to use as much faith anymore. But until you go through that first trial, well, it's kinda hard to make an assumption about religion, no?

Yes, hope is wishful thinking, it is a driver. If you don't have something to PUSH you, you won't do it. If you didn't have a driver for first learning how to use your senses, you wouldn't use them either.

Read this definition on charity. http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.j...toid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
It should help some. Faith requires charity because charity is the act of being loving and humble.

I don't use the other people's methods, cause I find them to lead in the wrong direction - twoards that of obcessive proof.

 

[MetalGearSamus]

Faith is doing things on trust that what we are doing is safe. We don't know that the moment we step out of the house for the first time, we aren't going to be eaten by giant green monsters. Yet we still step out of the house. It IS experimenting. And that IS how we first learn, like you said. Everything we know in life is based off of this first experimentation, or faith.

Agh, you've just completely missed the point of that paragraph. That first experiment is NOT, and in fact CANNOT be, faith; it is an unconscious learning process that establishes within our mind the "norm" for what the world is and how to survive in it. The reason we do not have to have faith that any number of improbable things wont happen in any normal circumstance is because they have never even remotely entered into those circumstances before and thus we have no reason to believe they would happen or to even contemplate the possibility of them happening. It is not faith to step out side, no expecting green monsters to attack, because we do not even consider the possibility and thus the conscious act of "faith" cannot and does not occur.

Logic is limited because it is impossible to observe what is outside of the universe (since it isn't nothing, else the universe could not exist), and thus, logic is limited in it's observing, and eventually, we won't have anything to observe anymore. And we still won't be able to explain everything, because we won't understand what is outside of the universe.

To the first bolded: Proof please.
To the second bolded: Proof please.
To the third bolded: Proof please.

You have made ridiculous assumptions about the universe, and, in fact, about the very nature of any reality whatsoever, and I would ask you to explain your reasoning.

My point of that paragraph is in order to see the correctness of religion, one must have experiences with it. And in order to have experiences with it, one must have faith (or else he won't show you). Thus, it is impossible to verify the correctness of religion, unless you go through a trial of faith beforehand (and it is justified afterwards with experiences). The thing is, because one cannot experience what another did, it is important for one to go seek one's own experiences, and use the one's of others merely as a supplement, not a replacement.

Ah, yes, the correctness of religion. Forgive me for douvting you, but I think I am able to judge for myself just fine, without personal experience, the "correctness of religion."

 

[Relictivity]

Agh, you've just completely missed the point of that paragraph. That first experiment is NOT, and in fact CANNOT be, faith; it is an unconscious learning process that establishes within our mind the "norm" for what the world is and how to survive in it. The reason we do not have to have faith that any number of improbable things wont happen in any normal circumstance is because they have never even remotely entered into those circumstances before and thus we have no reason to believe they would happen or to even contemplate the possibility of them happening. It is not faith to step out side, no expecting green monsters to attack, because we do not even consider the possibility and thus the conscious act of "faith" cannot and does not occur.

To the first bolded: Proof please.
To the second bolded: Proof please.
To the third bolded: Proof please.

You have made ridiculous assumptions about the universe, and, in fact, about the very nature of any reality whatsoever, and I would ask you to explain your reasoning.


Ah, yes, the correctness of religion. Forgive me for douvting you, but I think I am able to judge for myself just fine, without personal experience, the "correctness of religion."

Well, I'm afraid, that's how we must learn religion too as well, 'through an unconsciousness learning process that establishes with our mind for the "norm" for what the world is and how to survive in it'.

I wouldn't say that we don't' consider those happening - for example, with monsters in one's closet. We've never seen monsters - we have no reason to think there is monsters in the closet, despite it being 'dark'. But we still are afraid of it. Does that mean that we eventually can't come to suit with it, and start learning that there isn't monsters in our closet? No. But it takes a few personal experiences aka staying up all night because your so afraid.

As said, you may not consider those possibilities, but I certainly do watch out for things. Even to this day, that sense has not left me. However, as also said, I get through a lot of it with faith.

Conscious and Unconscious - did you realize that one can make unconscious feelings conscious if one realizes them? Thus, it is possible to make such 'processes that establish with our mind for the "norm"', conscious.

-----

Ok, now for the universe, first thing first, showing conservation of mass exists outside of the universe.

Two possiblities - A. It exists, B. It doesn't.
If it doesn't, the chaos that exists outside of the universe (no conservation of mass is complete chaos) destroys the universe in the instant of it's creation. It eats through the walls of spacetime. Obviously not happening.

So thus, it must be A, it exists, and furthermore, since the universe is completely orderly (based on variables), there should be information relating to the existence of the universe inside the universe. However, if one looks at it closely, the only thing that actually is information is the universe itself, and everything in it. Plus the existance of unobservable matter existing outside of the universe makes the creation of the universe an impossibility to accurately simulate.

Thus, we have the information loss that we have similarly in black holes. We can't get out of this universe, so we can't see what it is truly like there, thus there will always be variables we cannot fully understand with logic and science. We will eventually reach a 'limit barrier', where we cannot learn anything else through 'scientific means' until we find a loophole out of the universe.

-----

Again MetalGearSamus, why are you going to the churches - you should be going to God himself to find out the correct one. You point out all these scandals, but you don't even bother to ask God which one isn't truly scandalous? God's not going to lie to you, so why don't you ask a source that will always give the right information?

 

[foxy_eisenhower]

To All people trying to use science to disprove religion: Stop it, science is based on observation while religion is based on faith, you'll never logically intersect
To All people trying to use religion to disprove science: Stop it, religion is based on belief while science is based on empirical observation, you'll never convince them
To All people being jerks: Stop it.

This issue isn't about whether religion is true or not. It's whether or not Texas schools should be teaching their kids something usually reserved for Church in a science class.

I personally don't support any action that blurs the gap between Church and State just because of the general shittiness involved, and furthermore think the Texas legislature and bureaucracy has been making very alienating decisions in general in a sort of knee-jerk reactionary movement and this is the most prominent issue

So yeah, stop talking about philosophy and more about politics

 

[btb]

Ok, now for the universe, first thing first, showing conservation of mass exists outside of the universe.

Just a little nitpick. If you are going that far then you'll have to prove that "outside the universe" exists before making claims about it. Also anything "outside the universe" would not necessarily follow the rules that apply "inside" the universe which means mass wouldn't exist, or it could be much different than what we call mass.

 

[J-man]

You missed his point completely. His friend guessed he would where a blue shirt the next day. The next day he picks out a blue shirt to wear because his friend predicted it. In other words, he consciously fulfilled his friend's prediction. That is not indication of any supernatural phenomenon, only a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Once again, that's fine. But the Israelites taking the promised land wasn't a prophecy, it was a Promise.

Besides the point that all those are contradicted by evidence and forbidden by the laws of physics, how do you determine which is literal and which is figurative? People believed that the earth was flat 6000 years ago, what prevents them from writing about it literally?

Evidence is interpreted. What laws of physics contradict? And once again i ask you: If i said that i'm gonna get in a space ship and travel the four corners of the Galaxy, would you think that i said that the galaxy is a square/rectangle? [Yes] or [No]

No. This is the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. You cannot say he was not avid simply because he has "fallen away," one's choices later in life do not effect their enthusiasm for anything they already did. And what is "sufficient knowledge for a Christian?" He was a Christian by all definitions of the word. Being un-convertible is not one of them.

Right, sorry. I couldn't throw out my words correctly. Words like "avid" tell me that he didn't get what Christianity means. "Avid" tells me that he is putting Christianity at the same level of a sports fan or political supporter. A Christian isn't measured in enthusiasm. However, i wouldn't expect a 12 year old to get that. Now, i would like to know:
@Oddish on Fire?

What kind of church did you go to?
What Arguments did you use?
Was there an acquaintance of yours that would have encouraged you to have an extra-average knowledge of the Bible and Biblical doctrine?

It has been studied and it has been debunked. Thoroughly. It is contradicted by evidence and itself.

This comment leaves too many questions unanswered. Come back when you are willing to go into detail.

Also, have you witnessed God's godliness? What has he done to say that he is God?

He created this earth, and gave up his only begotten son to suffer his wrath which was our punishment so that i, and you, wouldn't have to suffer it because of our rebellion. Christ rose from the dead, and conquered death and made me, as well as all the fellow Christians on this earth dead to sin.

Psalm 19

1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.




Romans 1: 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. [/QUOTE]

Sorry, but I have no idea what this is supposed to mean unless the history you learn in Catholic school is actually a Bible study.

I don't go to catholic school. Nice assumption but wrong. anyways. I never hear any of this, and it seems as if Onion is the Only "news" source that seems to be reporting this. Once again, if you can find a duplicate article on a different website then by all means i will investigate this.

And you are now putting words in my mouth. I never said that you said you believed in a flat earth. I said that you are being hypocritical by saying everything in the bible should be taken literally except for things you have photographic evidence of being false in which case you opt for the "oh well that's figurative.

I never said that things in the Bible should be taken literally unless it was disproven. We're back to where you're putting words in my mouth. And you never answered my logic check.

I have already answered this as has bleed4m3. We have fossils dating back millions of years. We had civilizations arise thousands of years ago. Someone already explained why the idea of 6 24 hour days is ludicrous considering we base our idea of a "day" around the Earth revolving around the sun (light / dark cycle).

Who decided that the Fossils were millions of years old? Civilizations arising thousands of years ago doesn't do much to disprove the Bible.

Genesis 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

J-Man, you really are picking and choosing what is convenient to believe about/in the Bible. You say now that the Earth is obviously not flat because we can prove beyond a doubt that it is not.

I never said before that when the Bible said "four corners" it meant that the Earth was flat. Please take my logic check.

What if we someday have the ability to travel back in time and we prove beyond a doubt that the Earth is older than the Bible says? Will you change what you believe then to be "well obviously that part of the Bible was figurative language?"

Frankly, i have no faith that we can attain the ability to actually time travel, but for now history books and such will suffice.

If such is the case then your stance is obviously that everything in the Bible should be taken literally until it is proven false, which I can not support.

This is just one giant Straw Man argument. Taking a weak argument (Four Corners) and using that to argue on.

In my own opinion, that is blind faith. Faith is a fine thing in its own right. The ability to trust and believe in a higher power is actually admirable, not all people have that ability. However, blind faith, faith without the questioning process, is a very dangerous thing. The Nazi regime had blind faith in Adolf Hitler, and we all know how that turned out.

I don't have Blind faith.

I encourage you to read the Bible again and at each turn ask yourself, "Why should this be interpreted literally? Would it make more sense if it was figurative? Does it have a negative impact on my faith if it isn't literal?"

Would it make sense if "Four Corners" was figurative? Would it have a negative impact on Christianity if it was Figurative?

That last part I urge all religious people to consider. Does it really matter if the Earth is older than 6,000 years? What difference does it make in your faith?

So long as it isn't older than 10,000 years, although something tells me that might be pushing it.

 

[Relictivity]

Just a little nitpick. If you are going that far then you'll have to prove that "outside the universe" exists before making claims about it. Also anything "outside the universe" would not necessarily follow the rules that apply "inside" the universe which means mass wouldn't exist, or it could be much different than what we call mass.

Uh, as said, the outside of the universe must exist, because utter chaos (meaning, unpredictability, no matter and infinite matter at the same time) cannot generate an organized world. In other words, space-time fabric cannot be organized out of nothingness, or else it would be being organized right now, and interfering with our universe.

Yes, that is true, one thing I have thought about is that it exists in a different dimensional sense than what we call time - kinda like a giant recursive method - a universe containing universes. But that's just some hypothesis I have come up with which has never been proven.

For now, don't consider it conservation of mass, consider it 'conservation of existance'. Meaning, things can be converted, never created, nor destroyed. Also meaning they have been existing infinitely long ago in the past int terms of 'outside of the universe' time (again, a different dimension of time).

 

[sonickid01]

I'm having a difficult time thinking up a response, so i suppose i will say what's on my mind. I read it, and it makes sense according to what context it falls under. For instance, the book of Psalms is obviously poetic. Romans falls under instruction in faith. The Gospels follow the life of Jesus our lord and savior, so it would fall under the category of historical content First and Second Kings follow the lines of the kings of Israel and Judah, so it would make sense that they would be Historical. Genesis is an account of the beginning of the Earth, so it would be historical.

obviously poetic

I don't think you're getting my question. What makes Psalms obviously poetic? What do you mean by "poetic;" is it simply facts stated in a lyrical way or metaphorical statements? What standards or methodical reasoning do you apply to determine whether Psalms is an actual listing of historical meaning or poetic, and what purpose does the poetry serve? Why would a holy book include poetry? Yet Genesis cannot be poetic. God says "let there be light!" but there is no mechanism provided as to how to, such as when God gives specific instructions with measurements to precise cubits on building large structures, yet the mechanisms of the creation of heaven, earth, light, plants, animals, night, day, the sun, the moon, the stars, man, and woman remain, in my view, a poetic mystery. There aren't cold hard dates in the Bible, and you said yourself that when the words "1,000 years" appears it is a kind of figurative language.

My friend, you don't get what the Bible is about. The Bible is one giant historical book that accounts the many times where man is continually rescued by God, eventually leading up to the ultimate act of rescue via the sacrifice of God's only begotten son to serve as a vessel for God's wrath that man deserved by sinning against his creator.

the book of Psalms is obviously poetic

It's a historical book with some poetry. I can easily create a way to view the Bible in a much more metaphorical rather than history textbook way.

No one can keep the law, as the law can not be kept by flesh alone. It can only condemn and show us our sin. In christianity, the law isn't a social guide it is a death sentence.

What is your point? If you're trying to show that the Ten Commandments are not a social guide then you basically proved it.
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;
17 And the way of peace they have not known.”[f]
18 “ There is no fear of God before their eyes.”[g]

I don't know what you're trying to say by this but it seems that it's giving a justification for following God's laws. Where do we follow them? In society. Capital punishment is part of a social guide. A death sentence is pretty convincing for many people to follow certain rules. Do not covet other things, do not bear false witness, do not kill, yeah it seems pretty damn indisputable that these are definitely instructions on how to live, regardless of what their basis is and what the punishment is. I earnestly don't know what your point is but please explain how the Bible does not give instructions on how to live.

what are you trying to say here?

I'm trying to say that societies which actively endorse killing each other will die off quickly. Societies with members who actively steal from each other rob themselves of materials from those who need it. Societies which are unproductive will not survive. So I deduce that societies with reasons to behave well will survive better than others and thus an ultimate divine God which can actively punish those who commit acts that would not progress the civilization would help to keep people in line. I'm trying to say that it's rather strange that several of the rules imposed by the Judeo-Christian God seem to be those that would help a society progress or "evolve" into a culture which can continue to sustain itself as it has proved to do. In fact the concept of beliefs having such a profound impact on the evolution of societies into those that minimize the natural struggle for survival is rather intriguing to me.

Once again, Mt. Saint Helens is a good example of how geological processes can occur rapidly, which ties into the Flood as a catastrophe that could have caused many geological processes that are assumed to be slow to have occurred rapidly. now, concerning radiometric dating.

If you're referring to the Grand Canyon and similar features, the Grand Canyon was created by a long, long period of erosion due to relatively stable rivers. A gigantic flood would have weathered down far more rock.

Now from what i have read, Radiometric and Radiocarbon dating require these three assumptions (a. a constant half life (b. an isolated system (c. known initial conditions. I would like to know if any of these assumptions can be proven correct or be tested. I would also like to know the credibility of this statement made by Fred Jueneman:

The half lives are assumed constant because for the most part no known external factors affect the rates of decay (there are a few modes of decay which have slight sensitivity to the chemical environment). Isolated systems can be assumed from taking the environment and the sample as a whole, and the initial conditions can be known based on certain signals of evidence such as clamshells which can give the relative amount of oxygen present on a day-to-day basis due to oxygen molecules trapped within daily secreted layers.

Juneman's quote seems a bit extreme to place the extinction of dinosaurs within a man's lifetime. He is trying to play up the very small (.1% or so) influence the sun can play on certain decays as though they are massive fluctuations. They are not. The presence of the error itself is debated within the community NOT RELATED to paleontology and evolution, but strictly radiation science and a paper was published claiming that the error was probably just small mistake and found no correlation.

Yes, it is being blindly assumed. How do we know that our legs won't collapse on us and fracture into pieces the first time we walk? We don't. We take a 'step of faith' (literally), and discover, wow, we can walk.

Toddlers do not think about whether their legs are strong enough to support them when they begin moving around. Most of their actions are done objectively or in instinct.

Yes, hope is wishful thinking, it is a driver. If you don't have something to PUSH you, you won't do it. If you didn't have a driver for first learning how to use your senses, you wouldn't use them either.

I don't see how wishful thinking is a driver. If you're saying that hope that God exists makes you believe in God, then it can be explained as placebo effect and/or confirmation bias.

To All people trying to use science to disprove religion: Stop it, science is based on observation while religion is based on faith, you'll never logically intersect
To All people trying to use religion to disprove science: Stop it, religion is based on belief while science is based on empirical observation, you'll never convince them
To All people being jerks: Stop it.

We're not trying to disprove science nor religion. What we are trying to do is discuss what is logical and what is illogical. No one is trying to be a jerk to anyone.

The reason the science thing was brought up was because Don McLeroy stated that "evolution is hooey" and some of us are attempting to refute his claims and some are supporting it.

The philosophy thing was a tangent and I'll admit I saw that it was way off topic. XD We probably need a different topic for this.

If i said that i'm gonna get in a space ship and travel the four corners of the Galaxy, would you think that i said that the galaxy is a square/rectangle? [Yes] or [No]

If I said that a verbal snake convinced a woman to eat a fruit of knowledge, would you think I said that snakes can talk? It seems to me like it's simply a personification of the ignorance of humans as part of our inherent and probably permanent imperfection based on the image of snakes as deceitful and cunning. To finally answer your question, no, I would not believe you implied that the universe was a square, as it's a figure of speech. But calling a tricky man a snake in the grass is a figure of speech as well, albeit a modern one.

For now, don't consider it conservation of mass, consider it 'conservation of existance'. Meaning, things can be converted, never created, nor destroyed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_photons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Energy-time_uncertainty_principle

Things can be created/destroyed for short periods of time. On large scales they don't appear to because the effects quickly die off but on the whole there is no such conservation of existence.

 

[Venusaur]

tl;dr

Although, I have read a -few- posts, thinly. I lived in Texas for about 3 years (2006-2009), and personally, Texas is still one of the notorious states for being slightly stupid in the head. I went to a high school in Katy, and no one there was this fictional, to my knowledge. Cliched, but people are different, and they will forever be different.

 

[popemobile]

Uh, as said, the outside of the universe must exist, because utter chaos (meaning, unpredictability, no matter and infinite matter at the same time) cannot generate an organized world. In other words, space-time fabric cannot be organized out of nothingness, or else it would be being organized right now, and interfering with our universe.

Yes, that is true, one thing I have thought about is that it exists in a different dimensional sense than what we call time - kinda like a giant recursive method - a universe containing universes. But that's just some hypothesis I have come up with which has never been proven.

For now, don't consider it conservation of mass, consider it 'conservation of existance'. Meaning, things can be converted, never created, nor destroyed. Also meaning they have been existing infinitely long ago in the past int terms of 'outside of the universe' time (again, a different dimension of time).

Anything "outside" of our universe does not necessarily have to follow the laws of our universe. Any claims about conservation of mass applying to these areas are purely theoretical claims, as you cannot know what happens when conservation of mass is not a physical law, since it is impossible to observe the effects of this in any system in our universe where the rule applies because it applies everywhere. As far as you know, matter was able to be created outside of this universe because that "universe" (for lack of a better term) does not need to follow the laws of our universe. As you have mentioned, it is impossible to know anything about time before time as we know it existed (the big bang).

And even if that law absolutely had to apply, that invalidates the theory of a god creating everything. Unless you make the claim that god is the only thing that can invalidate an absolute law of the universe, but that discussion gets silly quickly.

 

[billymills]

Why does the universe have to have a beginning?

 

[popemobile]

Why does the universe have to have a beginning?

All available evidence points to the universe having a beginning (The Big Bang). It doesn't absolutely have to have one but that is by far the most logical conclusion.

 

[MrIndigo]

The universe (almost certainly) has a beginning, the error in logic comes from the idea that there was something before that when the universe did not exist. Since time is an element of the universe, 'before' the universe began there was no time, so the concept of 'before' is meaningless. That's where people come unstuck.

Similarly, Reclivity's statement that outside the universe can't be nothing is similarly flawed. People often think of the universe as being some kind of sphere of stuff, suspended in a void or other system. But since all of space is contained within the universe, the very concept of asking "What's outside the universe?" is meaningless because there IS no outside of the universe. If something were to exist outside the universe, whether it were void or matter, it simply means you have not defined your universe properly.

 

[dinov]

Read that and sounds really scary.

 

[kerners]

Wow Texas is indeed fucked up