52
   

Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity

 
 
Anomie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 04:53 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
I know what's going on. There's a low level clash going on between the materialists who think there is nothing behind reality as they define it and those who think there is an unworldly dimension which we cannot know about.
A materialist is bound to think his position threatened if there is an unworldly dimension. Scoffing at attempts to guess the nature of any unworldly dimension does nothing to dismiss the possibility that there is such a thing.

History shows that human intuition senses an unworldy dimension, an unwordly one too, and attempts to give it words. And other symbols.

A threatened position, either way, will be defended vigorously.


Yes.

It has been 'formally proven' than any cosmic inflation (local or global interpretation) of the universe cannot be of an infinite space-time continuum, therefore it has a finite past, this is independent of any contemporary physical model, be it chaotic inflation, or quantum gravity.

I quote it 'formally proven', being that it is not a mathematical theorem, and is in fact mathematical physics.

There are metaphysical naturalists (such as Hawkings) that are attempting to find exceptions with other theorems and models to ad hoc the theorem formulated by the cosmologists: Borde, Guth and Velinken.

I personally believe, epistemically, that a posteriori analysis has not been scientifically consistent, meaning that the basis of theoretical models may be incomplete, there are empirical assumptions, furthermore some assumptions in the equations have been falsified, an example being the classical big bang model on the basis of general relativity.

There unsolved problems that remain in physics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics

There is also general philosophy, such as induction entailing the ravens paradox.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 04:54 pm
@FOUND SOUL,
Quote:

Trust me, I am an open book, what I speak here, I'd say to a stranger because am I who I am


That seems to be true because here you are speaking to an enormous audience that no stadium would be able to hold. People may be able to read what you have said long after you are gone.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 04:59 pm
@Anomie,
I read that posting a numbers of times and still am not sure what the hell you are trying to claim!!!!!!

That moral values are not a natural and normal outcome for pack animals evolution including the human pack animal and does call for supernatural elements or at least the belief in such supernatural elements to exist for moral values to exist?

Given that the old testament god is a sociopath in human terms I can not see how a belief in such a monster would give moral values of any kind.

Even the ten commandments did not apply when Mose came down from the mountain and saw what his followers had been up to as he then ordered the large scale killing within the tribe as punishment.

In any case could you please rephrase your positions so people who do not share your special vocabulary could get a more accurate idea of your position?
Anomie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 05:01 pm
@Chights47,
Quote:
Possibilities don't matter in least, it's only probabilities that have any real weight.


Your arguement is epistemical, it is inductive, being that a frequency must be inferred, this does not ressolve the metaphysical implications of logical possibilities/spectrum, this arguement entails the problem with induction.

Quote:
It's possible that I will remanifest on a life supporting planet with dozens of the worlds hottest women to repopulate that world with...should I be holding my breath for it though?


Appealing to rationalism/ridicule does not refute the truth value of this assertion.

Quote:
Recent psychological breakthroughs have shown us that religious and supernatural beliefs are just by-product of natural psychological processes, such as hyperactive agency detection and intuitive reasoning.


Can you define "psychological", by definition, it must satisfy methodological conditions of naturalism in order to be natural, therefore a physical quantity is necessary, is there neural correlations to define this construct, there can be NO exceptions.

Philosophy of the mind (i.e. mind-body problem) is unsolved, this applies to neurological solutions.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 05:02 pm
@FOUND SOUL,
I'm sorry to have to say it FS but I think anybody who gets up at 6 am and hated being wrapped in cotton wool by their Mum and Dad should have a rethink.
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 05:22 pm
@spendius,
Hey spendius.

Firstly, I get up at 6am every day because I have a diabetic husky "dog" and so, she needs food and an injection 6.30am and 6.30pm.. Got to love someone who is dedicated to an animal, instead of putting it to sleep just because she becomes diabetic huh.

Secondly, why would I not have hated being wrapped in cotton wool, what is there to re-think?

Any teenager from 14 years of age, would not like to sit in a chair where their parents can see them, whilst they umpire basketball, or not go to girlfriend's houses or parties at 16 because there may be "boys" there Smile Hense, I left home at 16.. I am sure they meant well but being confined for so long, I would have to say they should have re-thought...

I've always been a free spirit as well are a rebel.. There is nothing to re-think..
0 Replies
 
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 05:29 pm
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
I am not sure that I can agree because I think that you and Ryan totally try to be yourselves here and I could not image you doing that anywhere else in front of complete strangers.

I think the internet is a good place to meet others who think like you do and others who do not.

I, like Found Soul, am the same outside here, as I am on here...

I have found in who I believe I am to be, the only way for people to get honest introspection from me...Is to speak to them, directly as they speak to the Spirit of God...

That is why I am nice to most...and say what I feel if someone is being content...If they ask a question, I will answer, but in the form of a question...And if they are hostile, I am fiery, and give them hostility in return...

That is who I am outside of the internet...

I am not a fake person...

And have defended people who I see are holy to people who say they are Christian, but do nothing to show they actually embrace it...

And I speak to people as they speak to me (God in me) all the time, even family members!

The fact I hold nothing back to some on here should '' show you evidence of this"

And go look at when someone approaches me, and how I answer them, and you will see what I am saying...

thanks for the words bud!

I value you as a friend as well!!

But I would say

this:

Quote:
I think the internet is a good place to meet others who think like you do and others who do not.

Is what the whole world is!

What you see, is what you get with me...
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 05:45 pm
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Quote:
That is who I am outside of the internet...

I am not a fake person...


Would you feel comfortable walking up to a complete stranger or maybe a boss and telling him what you told me?

Your quote:

Quote:
scientists, and doctors...other highly intelligent people...are going out of their way, to ask me...not me asking them, or volunteering...So that they can actually use me, and study me...and pay me very high amounts of money...because they do not know, nor can explain what is happening to me, with my experiences...

And they're extremely interested...that shows me, even they "know" what I do, say, speak of is not complete bullshit...and worth taking the time to note...

It would be different If I went searching for them...But they ask me....
FOUND SOUL
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 05:50 pm
@reasoning logic,
I'm only 48, don't wish that on me at this stage Smile

True, what you put out there into the Universe via the Internet is for all to see.

I hope that some of the posts I have made over the years, 25,000 and counting, actually helps people or at least someone, for years to come, that would be a nice thought...
0 Replies
 
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 05:55 pm
@reasoning logic,
I told you, and the world by posting it here? Why would it be different to say it to a stranger?? People on here are strangers to me...

The question would be more interesting to say...Would I feel comfortable telling my friends in the world what I say on here? and the answer is Yes, I have, and do...
reasoning logic
 
  3  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 06:01 pm
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Shocked
Anomie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 07:22 pm
@BillRM,
I am claiming that moral values cannot be investigated by the scientific method, it would not make any sense, natural science measures physical quantities.

Natural science is a positive analysis, that is to say by strict definition, it is knowledge empirically derrived from physical quanities for what they are, NOT how you culturally/subjectively believe it to be, that would be normative.

Natural science pressuposes formal science (mathematics and logic), formal science contains inherent knowledge, experience (empiricism) is not required, therefore a science that requires experience cannot verify/falsify the science that it has pressuposed to be true.

Do not misinterpret a physical law for a logical axiom.

The umbrella term "social science" is defined by knowledge being empirically derrived from human phenomena/society, there are normative assumptions and "social research", which entails "qualitative" and "quantitative" methods.

The definition is broad, it may be law, psychology, economics, archaeology it is only as reliable as the limited system and assumptions that it is subjected to, however it pressuposes natural scientific knowledge (you cannot prove assumptions, therefore it illustrates how limited this study is), and just as natural science it uses informal/applied mathematics, it is pragmatic and concearns itself with rationality and usefulness.

These truths deconstruct on the objective level, be it formal or natural truths, as Harris stated, we must "grant" his assumptions of morality, this would mean that the scientific method should allow his baseless assertion as a natural exception because he says so, or because natural scientific appealings "dont know what were talking about".

My other arguement stated that morality is semantically flawed, that is to say the meaning of good and bad have no axioms to support it and may even be cognitively interchanged because there is obligation to believe such cognitive properties, it is a subject of ethics, and the error with this is that ethical sentences do not appear to be propositional, hence the statement 'you are evil' cannot be true or false, if it is true or false (binary value) it should be compatible with logical and mathematical truths..

There have been attempts to formalise morality, however there has been no solution, views that deny moral propositions (true or false predicates) must be meta-ethical, which questions if moral arguements are meaningful.

Meta-ethics that deny moral knowledge are non-cognitivism and emotivism.

Quote:
That moral values are not a natural and normal outcome for pack animals evolution including the human pack animal and does call for supernatural elements or at least the belief in such supernatural elements to exist for moral values to exist?


Consciousness has not been defined materially.

However, animal wiring, transmitters and hormones do not translate to good and bad predicates, this also applies to sentient entities, such as humans.

If we were to construct operatable definitions of good and bad, it would negate the emotional basis of these concepts, they would have no natural requirements.

Again, the scientific method is positive.

Quote:
Given that the old testament god is a sociopath in human terms I can not see how a belief in such a monster would give moral values of any kind....Even the ten commandments did not apply when Mose came down from the mountain and saw what his followers had been up to as he then ordered the large scale killing within the tribe as punishment.


I will analyse your assumptions:
Why do human terms apply to omniscience and omnibenvolent?
Why should humans NOT be sociopathic?
What is a monster and why would a monster not give moral values?

God is suggested to be the moral law giver, who is to say he does not want us suffer exactly like this?

Simply, if you disagree, it is you that is immoral.

Quote:
In any case could you please rephrase your positions so people who do not share your special vocabulary could get a more accurate idea of your position?

I do hope this clarifies, acknowledge that I am autistic, meaning that I am a neurological variant of what is interpreted to be typical.

This should also clarify on the social level that humans vary.
0 Replies
 
Chights47
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 07:50 pm
@FOUND SOUL,
FOUND SOUL wrote:
I'm a very deep person, that and a Gemini I may say something but I will do more than just that, there is more to me than just being.. The internet is a hard place to show who you are totally.
I can partly agree with this and partly agree with Reasonings response. I feel I can be more forth coming and honest and not feel like I have to hide things or risk being persecuted. For example if certain people where I work found I were an atheist, I might not have a job next week. Despite this honesty and openess I can present here, there is still a draw back. Body langauge, tone of voice, and other in person aspects to an in person conversation are filtered out which make up a huge part of in person conversations.

FOUND SOUL wrote:
Perhaps logical isn't the right word.. I will or did, view things as they occured, questioned it, trying to find a possible that made sense, in this World.. It could have been the wind, maybe I just guessed.. But, ultimately, when so many things happen you end up thinking, ok, there has to be something outside of this World I can't find the answer, or explain it.
Not to sound offensive or hurtful or anything, but when people are like you and seek answers but then just end up accepting the supernatural, to me it's like giving up. History is filled with people sho just gave up and created or accepted the supernatural, none of those claims have ever been proven, the only thing those claims will ever do is persist in the shroud of ignorance. My only hope is that eventually one side will win out. That either the supernatural will be proven or people will give up such ideas...I doubt either will happen in my lifetime, or even several generations from now.

FOUND SOUL wrote:
I can't say I don't know what happens when a person dies.. Because, I do..
I can say you don't know, if you did actually "know" you would have verifiable and replicable evidence to support what you know, if you don't have that then you only have a strong belief based on what you believed to have happened. Heresay doesn't count as proof, never has and never will.

FOUND SOUL wrote:
I'm always up for learning and I'll take what seems to fit in with my thoughts as well as "oh, that makes sense", so absolutely and thank you.

But, if this video explains the apron, then I will believe there is no ghosts
I don't think it will explain the apron but hopefully you find it interesting:



FOUND SOUL wrote:
I can almost visualise now this dude, walking around as soul with a split personality, changing from one side to the other... Now that would make more sense.

How can we predict this honestly, like you said this would go on forever.....
I was trying to figure out whether you felt that what happens to our brains/minds in this life affect out souls/ghost selfs or whatever. Either way you spin it, it seems illogical to me. The reason for Phineas's drastic changes were because of where he suffered brain damage. The frontal lobes of our brains help us in regulating descision making and controlling purposeful behavior, consciousness, and emotions. There are really only 2 ways a soul can work, either it's already wholly formed at the time of conception (or whenever a soul is formed) or, like a painting, it's created and shaped throughout our life. The first seems far too ridiculous to even be considered of the 2 but the second presents problems. Science has shown us that certain parts of the brain control different things and if certain parts were to be destroyed then it can radically alter the very foundations of our being but , irronically, when the whole thing goes up in flames, were almost exactly as were were (minus being dead of course) and talking with grandma and everything...It doesn't quite add up with what we currently know. If, for some reason scenario one is true, the what's the point of living if our soul has already experienced everything beginning to end? Everything in out life would already be written down and done so what's the point of the repetition?
Chights47
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 07:50 pm
@Anomie,
Anomie wrote:
Your argument is epistemic, it is inductive, being that a frequency must be inferred, this does not ressolve the metaphysical implications of logical possibilities/spectrum, this arguement entails the problem with induction
So are we suppose to assume that the next elephant we see will be purple or something then? Induction doesn't have a problem so long as you don't use it in an absolutist sense. Let's say that about 90% of people are right handed. If you had to guess as to which I was, what would you geuss? Just about everyone would guess that I'm right handed because there's about a 9-1 shot that I am...it's logical to think that way. Now let's stretch those odds to 900,000 to 1. What would your guess be then? Now what about the odds of the supernatural being proven? How many times has the super natural been under the microscope (figuratively)? Too many to actually count, but numerous over the course of centuries. Now how many times has the supernatural been proven? Zero...Now I know this doesn't completely eliminate all other possibilities, but when you look at it the way I do and seeing the horrible failure rate the supernatural has, it's hard to see why people support it so fervently.

Anomie wrote:
Appealing to rationalism/ridicule does not refute the truth value of this assertion.
So do you think that my statement is true then? Do you think I will end up on another planet with a bunch of hotties?

Anomie wrote:
Can you define "psychological", by definition, it must satisfy methodological conditions of naturalism in order to be natural, therefore a physical quantity is necessary, is there neural correlations to define this construct, there can be NO exceptions.

Philosophy of the mind (i.e. mind-body problem) is unsolved, this applies to neurological solutions.
If you want you can just watch the video I put in the post addressed to FOUND SOUL (should be right before this one). I was also using natural as a synonym for normal, so to rephrase. ...a by-product of normal psychological processes.
Anomie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 08:59 pm
@Chights47,
Quote:
So are we suppose to assume that the next elephant we see will be purple or something then?


Logic is abstract, a priori knowledge that requires inference/formation rules, it is not restricted to nomological possibility (physical possibility), in the case of the next elephant, there may be positive evidence to deny this material assertion.

However, is it possible for an elephant to be purple, perhaps genetic engineering or another world is open to the possibility.

Quote:
Induction doesn't have a problem so long as you don't use it in an absolutist sense.


I agree, though naturalists must assumes inductive inferences to be consistent, be it for methodology or belief.

Quote:
Let's say that about 90% of people are right handed. If you had to guess as to which I was, what would you geuss? Just about everyone would guess that I'm right handed because there's about a 9-1 shot that I am...it's logical to think that way.


Yes, very well, these are rational informal beliefs, however induction is not logical, it is not a valid deductive system, the premise is certain in this case, being rigorous and non-ampliative.

Quote:
Now let's stretch those odds to 900,000 to 1. What would your guess be then? Now what about the odds of the supernatural being proven? How many times has the super natural been under the microscope (figuratively)? Too many to actually count, but numerous over the course of centuries. Now how many times has the supernatural been proven? Zero...Now I know this doesn't completely eliminate all other possibilities, but when you look at it the way I do and seeing the horrible failure rate the supernatural has, it's hard to see why people support it so fervently.


I am not certain supernaturalism can be subject to probability, as previously stated, frequencies (i.e. physical data) is inferred.

Supernatural is by definition immaterial, also if a theistic God is possible, it entails the ontological arguement.

Intriguingly, the finite and infinite dichotomy appears to be of a supernatural consequent:
- If the universe is of finite regress, there is an unmoved mover.
- If the universe is of infinite regress, there are paradoxes.

I offer uncertainty (arguement from ignorance) to athiests and theists, my arguement is the following:
Contemporary knowledge of a God is epistemically uncertain.

Though, are there any arguements to suggest the proposition, there is no God?

All naturalistic arguements are in fact agnostic repercussions.

I am personally ignostic, meaning I am open to a cognitively defined unmoved mover, simply a necessary antecedent condition for the existence of plank time and energy.

Prior to such conditions, naturalism has no truth value, therefore it is contingent.

Quote:
So do you think that my statement is true then? Do you think I will end up on another planet with a bunch of hotties?


The possibility is logically true, metaphysically true and nomologically true.

It is temporally false.

If you believe there is infinite regress, the assertion is true.

Quote:
If you want you can just watch the video I put in the post addressed to FOUND SOUL (should be right before this one). I was also using natural as a synonym for normal, so to rephrase. ...a by-product of normal psychological processes.


I argue that "social science" is naturally invalid.

It is greedy reductionalism that requires assumptions to derrive to a physical premise.

This "psycho" has no natural definition, it is in fact a synonym to mind, philosophy of the mind has not been ressolved.

I will discuss the video after viewing, however (viewing three minutes), why is atheism, the universal assertion that God does not exist NOT a metaphysical assumption?

Atheistic inferrences are relative to that of theism, in fact DEISM appears to more valid than atheism.

Also, if the Borde-Guth-Velinken theorem suggests that universe has a finite past, how is metaphysical naturalism a true proposition?
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 09:37 pm
@Anomie,
Anomie wrote:
There are NO arguements that suggest metaphysical naturalism, atheism or a physical necessity for objective moral values.


Straw man, i made no such claim. However, there is an obviouis utility in subjective morality for the survival of the group. I am supremely uninterested in anyting you alledge philosophy refutes. I suggested nothing about "social science," that is also a straw man fallacy. I am however, gratified to see that you managed to wok "normative" into your screed--i know that's important to you.

In the subjective morality of the group, in evoutionary terms, that which prospers the group is good, and which harms the group is bad. It is no fault of mine that you're too simple minded to see that. That's what comes of speaking jargon rather than plain English.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 09:46 pm
@Anomie,
What is "beng" supposed to mean? Although some extremophiles may be prokaryotes, not all extremophiles are procaryotes. You should probably not delve into areas where your ignorance is so obvious. Social applications certainly do not deviate from natural science. Are you alleging that ants and bees are unnatural? Humans are a part of the natural world, human societies are, therefore, very much artifacts of the natural world. Perhaps you just make this **** up as you go along. Once again, at no time did i mention "social science," that's just one of your straw men. I also at no time mentioned "social research."

Jeeze, without stawmen, you'd have almost nothing to talk about, huh?
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 09:55 pm
@Anomie,
Fun and interesting watching how far someone will go to defense a fairy tale that they was condition into believing in their childhood.

Also fun to be part of a specie that had the bulk of it membership insane as in out of touch with realty with one supernatural believe or another.

FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 10:39 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Fun and interesting watching how far someone will go to defense a fairy tale that they was condition into believing in their childhood.


I still believe in Snow White !!! Actually, that's not necessarily true Bill.. We all grew out of fairytales once we established they weren't real, like when we grew up....

But, then how you view life thereafter and anything in it, or un-explainable to you, is your priogrative.

Quote:
Also fun to be part of a specie that had the bulk of it membership insane as in out of touch with realty with one supernatural believe or another.


? The human race does not have a membership.. And, if you are suggesting that the bulk of "humans" believe in some form of supernatural occurances, then I'd say you are correct and if that is so, why is that?

I at least have a colourful life, my imagination is wicked sometimes, should see what I visualise, thankfully it doesn't go as far as seeing you naked, that would sent me nuts for life, I am sure....
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 10:49 pm
@Chights47,
Quote:
Body langauge, tone of voice, and other in person aspects to an in person conversation are filtered out which make up a huge part of in person conversations.
Hense why I use emoticons Smile or the word NO, or the word Pftttttt ..

Quote:
Not to sound offensive or hurtful or anything, but when people are like you and seek answers but then just end up accepting the supernatural, to me it's like giving up. History is filled with people sho just gave up and created or accepted the supernatural, none of those claims have ever been proven, the only thing those claims will ever do is persist in the shroud of ignorance. My only hope is that eventually one side will win out. That either the supernatural will be proven or people will give up such ideas...I doubt either will happen in my lifetime, or even several generations from now.


I don't see it that way at all. If I can not get answers that make sense as "evidence" stated by man, but I can read a million stories the same, that I can delve into finding then answers from what I read and it points to supernatural then that is "my" answer, not yours. However, people that turn to Church, because they lost a loved one, or got gravely ill and now that is their saviour to me, that's giving up and being brainwashed. You believe or you don't. Some hide behind this "Church" but don't really believe in themselves nor know who they are, what's the point. I will still watch your video..

Quote:
I can say you don't know, if you did actually "know" you would have verifiable and replicable evidence to support what you know, if you don't have that then you only have a strong belief based on what you believed to have happened. Heresay doesn't count as proof, never has and never will.


I can say I do know. Intuition is a very real thing.. Evidence can come in many forms, you wish for this evidence to be confirmed by man? Who is man? My take...

Quote:
Everything in out life would already be written down and done so what's the point of the repetition?
What if it was written down. What if, you chose your body before your "new soul" entered that body, what if you had to choose it, to go through what ever we go through in that body, to correct past mistakes that we were un-successful at doing? If that was the scenario, then there is no repetition, off course unless you keep coming back and never, ever learn.

What about miracles? Where man can not for the life of him explain any scientific reason, logic how that miracle occured, it shouldn't have, it's not possible.. Yet all the person had was faith and they were cured?

There are so many what if's Chights.. I choose to live in that world of wonder and wonderful... At least when I die, I will be happy and won't question, won't have fear and be calm.. I can't imagine those that do not believe in anything other than what man proves, how they will / would feel as they get close to that last breathe... Isn't that pain? Maybe, that's why alot of old people all of a sudden become Christian... IDK, who knows..

I'm still going to carry on with my thoughts because they are what I know,to me, for me and after all I live once in this lifetime so I am going to be me.
 

Related Topics

Atheism - Discussion by littlek
The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/16/2019 at 02:07:01