since=Sense
Printable View
since=Sense
Not sure, but I think DA slipped on a banana peel and got banned from the Backroom. Not to worry -- he'll be back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
But how do you know that wildlife observation does not alter the change of events? If the observer's presence actually does do so, nobody would know, because every single time the events are altered and so us humans believe that this is how the certain species always acts.
How do you know that it does alter the event?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Hence the dilimea - and the reason why on the surface - without knowning the science behind quantum mechanics I find it somewhat questionable.
Having observed wildlife in the past - not in a sciencetific (SP) method - staying downwind and behind blinds from a distance with bino's - I could safely say that I don't think nor can I prove that I did distrupt their behavior or alter it.
I have done it before from a distance with bino's on human beings also - I didn't change their behavior either... well not until the decision point was reached to engage them......
“I have done it before from a distance with bino's on human beings also - I didn't change their behavior either... well not until the decision point was reached to engage them......”
Her boyfriend was a rugby man?
I know, bad taste...:shame:
Not in bad taste at all - fiting for the course of direction that the discussion took.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Now my comment above could be taken as one of bad taste.....
Me? Banned? Noooooooo. Never. :laugh4:
I wasn't banned.
What was the question? :burnout:
This is talking about your passage you wrote. (Page 2)Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
interesting, the theory does not make sense to me either because of this element of randomness, but the butterfly affect does acually ive seen tiny decisions and events have huge effectsQuote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
okay.Quote:
Wow Divinus Arma. That was a lot of writing, and I applaud your amazing sense of gramatic correctness. I wish I had the patience to write something like that.
okayQuote:
A few comments and questions:
.Quote:
I agree with you that life is not all about doing "good deeds" but alligning your will with God's, because that's what he wants from you
okay
The bible is true because it says it's true. That is called circular reasoning. In order to best serve the Lord, we much engage in logic to seperate truth from myth. Blindly obeying the commands of men will lead us astray, so it is up to us indiviudally to seek and find the truth. There are many distortions and inaccuracies surrounding the life of Jesus Christ. In order to claim that the gospels of the new testament represent the truth of Jesus, there must exist corroborating evidence. It is our arrogance which leads us to blindness. Only through humitliy in recognizing our complete ignorance can we begine the search for the real truth. We must first admit the impossibility of actually ever knowing truth.Quote:
I completely disagree with your comment about all people being a messiah, because the bible clearly says that there will be ONE real messiah, but many false prophets.
The big bang is described vaguely in religious texts and is supported by discoveries of a rapidly expanding universe.Quote:
Where did the material for the Big Bang come from?
Gos operates in the physical world through defined laws. Absolute values are necessary to forge chaos into predictability. So ZAIN, why would a human being form from an unaware cellular being in the womb if God could just make us magically appear? In the material world, these absolute values are the tools with which the Lord forms his creation. The laws of science are His to use. Laws of science are not limitations to the Lord's power, they are enablers.Quote:
Why would God start humanity as single celled organisms if he can do whatever he wants to?
Saying that God simply is self-aware because he is is counter-productive to the search for truth. What evidence do we have to say that he? What logic can we apply to discover the Lord's perception of himself or lackthereof? As I explained before:Quote:
I agree with you about God being Self-aware, because He is God, and created everything. He is a divine "thing", completely aware.
The question, my friend, is one of purpose. We must ask: what is God's purpose and is that purpose one chosen by God? A self-aware "will" designates its own purpose. A "will" without self-awareness does not assign its own purpose. What is God's purpose, if God Himself did not designate it? There is only one answer. God is chaos. He is a self-directed "will" without purpose. This is an impossibility, because, as was discussed early, chaos is self-defeating. Chaotic will could be self-destructive or self-replicating. Deicide. Or similarly, multiple and competing wills without purpose.
In this way we can determine God's perception through logical application against standards of absolute values.
I do not deny that your self awareness begins later in your development. But consider: What is the difference between the moment of your birth and the seconds before? Nothing, aside from the fact that you are sustained by a connection to your mother. Psychologically and spiritually, there is no difference. Neither are you self aware at the moment of your birth. Self-awareness is developmental and is not entirely complete until adulthood. As for the question of your existence: the genetic material that you are comprised of has existed sine before your conception. It has existed before your parents, and there parents, and so on. These fundamanetal building blocks from which your currently existing body was capable of applying external environmental components to create your form is the essence of your being. Without that, you would cease to exist.Quote:
Living is self-awareness, so I disagree that I have been alive since humanity began, although the possibility of my materials being old like that, is slightly possible. It is slightly possible, because the life of a single human being begins with a single Sperm, and a single Egg. Those particles were created by the mother and father's bodies. I'm not sure how that process of creation works though. Anyway, those particles are created, so therefore, the things that started me, were not a part of my parents bodies, only created by my parents bodies. A brick wall.
I am an atheist. I am against all kinds of religion. I believe that religion is evil - an unbelievable amount of people have been killed because of it. But don't take me the wrong way on this statement. I have absolutely no problem if you want to believe.
What I DO have a problem with is if you have a problem with someone else's beliefs and you act on it. Why can't people believe what they want to believe? Don't criticize or hurt someone because they have a different belief system from you. If everyone was religiously tolerant, the world would be a much safer and happier place.
Organized religion is not evil. Organized pressure to conversion is.
DA is on the money, the people killed ''because'' of religion were usually killed for other reasons, during the crusades the ''christian'' crusaders would kill fellow christians too if there was money in itits power and the lust for it that is evil not religionQuote:
Originally Posted by Cowhead418
The problem with the bible is that it was written by human beings, and this brings it's credibility into dispute. There is no real evidence proving the existence of any kind of god, which is why religions are strictly "faiths" of course based on some kind of hand written records and/or handed down traditions. I don't have a problem with people believing in any of this, it's when it's inflicted on other people or *cough* used as an excuse to go to war, that it becomes an issue.
I tend to pick up the more middle of the road attitude on organized "religion is evil" it's naive rubbish to pretend that somehow christian/muslims/whatever arnt influenced by their religion. The reason they do these horrible things is becouse of they think god/the gods/the space fairy are giving them the thumbs up for it. However you also have to account for personal responsability and the more positive aspects of organised religion.
In the end organised religion opens the door with it's wacky beleifs but its still up the the butt monkey to walk through.
Christianity and most religions would be a footnote in history if not for pressure to convert.Quote:
Organized religion is not evil. Organized pressure to conversion is.
name something that hasn't been used as an excuse to fight i meen realy humans will find an excuse anwhere if they want one, surely you know this! :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by CheziScrotus XVI
Religion have influenced us in the past, and not only through religious wars. Think about Hebrew, or Arabic. Why is Arabic so widespread and Hebrew still in existence? Because of religion. the Jews sent to work as slaves in Babylon had mostly ended up speaking the language of the time (was it Akkadian or some version of Aramaic?), and it was only due to the efforts of a few pious, dedicated Jews that Hebrew has survived to this day. The spread of Arabic and the use of it in so many countries is due to Islam, and the belief that the Qu'ran should be read in Arabic and not translated. Such is the power of religion.
Byzantine Merc: if you're thinking extreme examples such as Helen and the Trojan War, note that this is just the mythical, more romantic version if you like. It is highly unlikely that one women commiting adultery could spark off a major war between all the Balkan civilisations of the time.
Precisely, but religion is one of those almost purpose built reasons to go out and have a scrap, because it often goes hand in hand with sectarianism. Through the ages most wars have been caused by economics (with religion as an excuse), liberation (perhaps with religion thrown in as a pretext), or, back in the day, conquest, which was also tied up with religion in some way or other. So if we go through those reasons for war through the ages, and if we were to look through them in detail, religion would be propping up all to often.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
i dont dispute that it was the reason people have claimed but there would still be just a much war without religion, look at the atheist communist states, if religion was designed as an excuse for war, then the main religions wouldn't carry a message of love, they would require military actions against neighbours, not loving them, now some small religions do have milataristic aspects, perhaps the religion of the aztecs which had a warlike element but even then there were secondary elements to the religion as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by CheziScrotus XVI
Hi Banguo's Ghost (nee Haruchai :laugh4: ). We're only debating Logic not Science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Logic as in:
No proof > no definition > no claim
A completely blind guy with no knowledge of color has
No proof of color > no definition of > no claim of color.
Imagine Stevie Wonder saying, 'blue' sky! 'Red' flowers! White clouds! 'Yellow' sun! 'Green' leaves! It doesn't happen if he has no knowledge or proof of color.
Now in Macbeth:
Banquo's ghost was seen (proof) > it can be defined as a ghost > it can be claimed as ghost. Logically, if Macbeth was telling the truth and not hallucinating then it might be believable or true.
Now take a God:
No proof > there is a definition > there is a claim. That's not logically possible!
Hence God does not exist. And there's no difference with Leprechauns either (the Leprechaun Test).
edit: misspelled Banquo's Ghost :)
Zain and I were playing Chess. I opened with the Leprechaun's Gambit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
You jump from the bushes, charged and tackled me to the ground. Once you got up, you find your head in an unbreakable armlock. You then flail your limbs and complain you are a bystander :inquisitive:.
If you stayed behind the bushes, Zain would have had his question answered through the Leprechaun Test with no fuss or anything. :)
Purpose=predictability=designQuote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Example: The purpose of an apples is to be eaten. The animal eats the fruit, goes somewhere else, and defectaes apple seeds. The apple seeds take root and grow. The tree cannot "know" this will occur.
Similarly, cactus is covered with needles so an animal will not eat it. The purpose of the needles is to protect it. The cactus does not "know" it needs protection.
If there is purpose, than there is predictability. Purpose is the proof of God, since no purpose would equate to an absence of predictability. A lack of precitability equals chaos. True chaos has no limits whatsoever. Absolute chaos is unrestrainable. Therefore, purpose disproves chaos, and proves predictability.
Predictability proves design, since limitations must be imposed on energy. Energy cannot impose limitations on itself. For example, an object in motion remains in motion until acted upon by an external force. What is true for a tennis ball is also true for positive and negative energy.
You're just repeating your arguments again. Show me where the break in here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
No proof > no definition > no claim
'Exists' was an equivocation in your part as I've explained many times. Two different meanings. Just because a diamond does not exist in my pocket doesn't mean diamonds do no exist (see, two meanings = equivocation). Diamonds exist; life exists as well.
Whether life exists outside of earth is a probability question. But life exists itself. Is God a probability question? No
Show me in full sentence. Where?Quote:
Ah you demonstrate the break in your logic once again.
Hammering on a piano and seeing color(s) is not hearing.Quote:
Deaf people can and do feel sound waves - so again you are demonstrating the fallacy in your statements. Blind people can define color without proof. Just like you can define "intelligent life" in the universe without proof.
Blind people cannot define color without proof. How many blind people define the sky is blue out of their own 'knowledge' without any proof?
Soundwaves are NOT equal to sounds. The guy tickles a piano key and he sees color not hear sounds.Quote:
Again demonstrating how your logic contains multiple fallacies. If the body interprets sound as a color it is still interpreting sound even if it is doing it different then what you do.
Is there a Leprechaun between the Computer screen and your face?Quote:
No need to - one can not base the existance or non-existance based upon lack of evidence. One can not prove nor disprove existance based upon another circumstance or subject. Your question itself is a fallacy.
Simple yes or no.
You won't answer it because all you have is No Proof of Leprechauns! :embarassed: Therefore you're suppressing your thoughts.
Gonna get me that Gold.
Hey guys, sorry I've been gone.
I only had a short time to read all the discussions going around.
My question was what made the Big Bang matter. This does not answer my question DA.Quote:
The big bang is described vaguely in religious texts and is supported by discoveries of a rapidly expanding universe.
On a different note, I liked the metaphor Quietus. :laugh4:
Leprachaun test? :inquisitive:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
I understand what you're trying to get at, but you are the one embracing the logical fallacy.
Using your own sequence, just as there is no proof that leprechauns exist, there is no proof that they don't.
Therefore, in your own logic, you cannot claim that they don't. My argument is just that - one must produce evidence beyond mere absence to disprove the leprechaun.
(Your example of blind people not seeing colours is not so useful as the leprechauns, as there is a lot of evidence that blind from birth people still have their visual centres in the brain stimulated. We don't know what they see, but some stimulation appears to occur, which leads us to believe they may 'see' something. How they define it is another matter.)
Surely, or maybe I'm being obtuse here, the blind man has external proof of colour. He is informed about it by just about every source he comes into contact with who can describe the qualities of colour at least. This external empirical evidence is so strong as to be irrefutable to him. In this case I would say that personal experience or knowledge is a different thing to proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
I think you make a very good point. I did not experimentally validate, in person, every fact of science during my training. For a large part, I relied on other's work which stood up to intellectual analysis - and, most importantly, was peer-reviewed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
As I noted, the blind/colour premise is flawed as used to support Quietus' argument. Nonetheless, one can draw a lesson from it in the context of our religious discussion: In mediaeval Europe, the existence of God was accepted so widely as to be irrefutable external evidence, in the same sense that the blind person can be convinced of the existence of colour.
If everyone tells you something exists, does it, de facto exist? Conversely, if everyone refuses to accept your proof that it doesn't, however sound, does it exist or not? :inquisitive:
The leprechaun is much better - though I could show you quite a lot of peers on a Saturday night in Skibbereen that would corroborate leprechauns... ~;p
Lol! So true, I even think I saw one myself in Flanagan's on Friday night!Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
But back to the blind man and colour. The evidence of external sources is tangible evidence, they see the colours and agree on their qualities as colours (unless colour-blind!). However, although many people may implicitly agree on the existence of god, as in medieval times for example, they have no tangible, i.e. sensory, evidence. They surely rely on faith, or an agreed cultural acceptance of his/her existence.
It's a difficult territory for discussion, and sometimes I wish I had some philosophical training, or formal logic. Eek!
The "Big Bang" was God's implementation of his plan. There was nothing, then there was everything. It is the beginning of this creation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain