Tossing Myself into the Fire - Page 5

**TheFeniX** · 04-21-2006, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diceman

This is exactly the way I see the relationship between science and religion as well. The foundation for faith in religion always comes down to God. People love to argue about the existence of God, likely because the foundations of science are so much more mundane. But, mundane or not, they are no more solid footing than a claim that God absolutely exists, or alternatively fails to exist.

There's no observable evidence that God exists. I can say the same for the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, Grendal, Obi-Wan Kenobi, vampires. I could go on for days. Just as it's irrational to believe in any of those: it's irrational to believe in any entity when there's no evidence to the contrary.

God fails to exist because he doesn't provide evidence of his existance.

Quote:

The suppositions of science seem to come down a one thing, but it can be further boiled down to something more basic. As I see it, the faith motivating science is empiricism - the belief that what we perceive about the world is actually what happens in the world; that our senses don't fool us, and the world is empiricably knowable. More basic than that is the idea of causality - that effects have causes. Really, we have no argument in principle for this idea, just a strong belief in this claim because everything we have ever considered has had a cause (the only room for discussion on this one is, if the big bang happened, what caused it?

What caused God to create the cosmos as they stand now?

Quote:

Some say something came from nothing, others say that there was some extra-universal cause. We don't know.) Lastly, we believe in logic and reason. This is the trickiest one to affirm; after all, how do we know that logic is true? We can't use logic to deduce its own existence, that would be one of the more basic fallacies. But without logic, we have only intuition and/or faith (incidentally, this argument also handily defeats mathematics from any claim of necessary truth, beyond the definitional one presented above).

Ah, philosophy class. "We can't prove anything, because everything is subjective."

Quote:

Now, at the same time, I think we are starting to see unifying themes between the two concepts of religion and science. After all, religious people are not illogical people.

In that aspect of thier lives: they are illogical and irrational. Just as the 6 year-old child who believes in Santa Clause is irrational.

Quote:

When seeking reasons for why something is, they simply provide a different answer than the scientist.

That answer is no answer at all: "God did it." Define: God.

Quote:

The claim has been made (not in this thread) that postulating God as an explanation is illogical, but that is nothing more than name calling.

No it isn't. When you believe in something with no evidence to support it, you're being illogical. That's not an insult. And considering that I DO believe in God, by your logic: I'm insulting myself.

No, I just understand that when it comes to God: I'm an irrational person.

Quote:

In reality, the priest and the physicist simply have competing hypotheses, but both are motivated by an unquestioned need to explain reality via logic.

If ID conformed to the Scietific Theory in any way, shape, or form: you might be onto something. It doesn't. Hence, they are nothing alike.

Quote:

As a closing thought, this post indirectly relates to a post made by leejo in another thread, postulating that people are foudational illogical. I recognize (what I hold to be) certain truths in that claim, but simultaneously think that my reasoning above shows that people are foundationally logical. Perhaps the truth is something harder to understand - that we are foundationally logical and illogical at the same time. Superpostion is possible in Quantum Mechanics, why not with the self?

More philisophy.

**Apophis** · 04-21-2006, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Wow, Buck started a better thread than I imagined it would be...

Agreed. This is a PHENOMINAL conversation that I'm enjoying, and learning from, immensely.

**CingularDuality** · 04-21-2006, 02:33 PM

Perception, reality, facts and truth are all very different things. And this discussion is showing that facts might not exist at all?

**TheFeniX** · 04-21-2006, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigitalAssassin

You are exactly right. However, Jesus Christ was not just a person, but the Son of God. I will not even begin to propose my feeble human mind can understand what actually happened, all that matters is I choose to believe it did. That one choice directs how I live the rest of my life.

Pretend you're an Atheist for the next 2 minutes and re-read that statement. Now tell me: does that belong as a part of human history or in a well-written Dungeons and Dragons novel?

There's no evidence that Jesus was the son of God: so we can't take the as fact. You have to believe, in the face of all observable evidence, that Jesus was the Son of God and rose from his grave. Even if I was still Christian: I could accept the fact that it's an irrational thought process.

TychoCelchuuu · 04-21-2006, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

There's no observable evidence that God exists. I can say the same for the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, Grendal, Obi-Wan Kenobi, vampires.

Don't be irrational. Obi-Wan Kenobi and vampires have been documented time and time again in modern cinema.

**Wyzcrak** · 04-21-2006, 02:39 PM

How crazy is it, Fenix, for someone to say to you that you must BELIEVE that 2+2 is 4? What about the details which form your answer are or are not available to someone saying it's crazy to BELIEVE that Jesus is the son of God?

**DigitalAssassin** · 04-21-2006, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

There's no observable evidence that God exists.

Be careful with this statement. Have you really taken the time to research this enough to make a statement like that? My response would be that I can provide what I BELIEVE is evidence that God exists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

God fails to exist because he doesn't provide evidence of his existance.

Or could it be you just don't BELIEVE that evidence? I'm not saying you have to believe it, but what makes you more qualified then anyone else to make a statement like that?

As an aside, those of you intrigued by this whole discussion might be interested in the book 'The Case For Christ' by Lee Strobel.

Yes, I'm a Christian, so I'm biased in this conversation. However, I'm also a highly logical thinker, which in the beginning was the cause of a lot of doubt when I started my journey as a Christan. Being a logical/scientific thinker and a Christian are not mutually exclusive things.

Rather than forceably push my beliefs on someone, I merely suggest that when you look at the evidence, look at ALL of the evidence. The best way to make a decision is to be informed.

Mateo · 04-21-2006, 02:42 PM

I haven't been the same since Dogma.

**DigitalAssassin** · 04-21-2006, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TG_Mateo

I haven't been the same since Dogma.

And Mateo swoops in with the tension breaker.

icky · 04-21-2006, 02:52 PM

The guy from post #3 was so right. Stick to your day jobs. The philosophical ground you think you are breaking has already been excavated and used as a landfill.

**TheFeniX** · 04-21-2006, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

How crazy is it, Fenix, for someone to say to you that you must BELIEVE that 2+2 is 4?

I don't have to believe in something so trivial: I can use observeable evidence (mathematics), plug in the numbers, and get that answer. If I did it 600,000 times (and I didn't screw up the math): I'd get the same answer. Hence, it's a logical theory that 2+2=4.

It's not crazy: it's irrational for them to say that.

Quote:

What about the details which form your answer are or are not available to someone saying it's crazy to BELIEVE that Jesus is the son of God?

I don't understand the question. Please rephrase.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigitalAssassin

Be careful with this statement. Have you really taken the time to research this enough to make a statement like that? My response would be that I can provide what I BELIEVE is evidence that God exists.

Then you'd either by lying or giving credit for some mudane event (winning the lotto, winning a basketball game, surviving a wreck) to God.

Quote:

Or could it be you just don't BELIEVE that evidence? I'm not saying you have to believe it, but what makes you more qualified then anyone else to make a statement like that?

I can only assume you're talking about modern day "miracles:" What makes you qualified to assume mundane "miracles" are the work of God?

Quote:

Yes, I'm a Christian, so I'm biased in this conversation. However, I'm also a highly logical thinker, which in the beginning was the cause of a lot of doubt when I started my journey as a Christan. Being a logical/scientific thinker and a Christian are not mutually exclusive things.

When it comes to God they are. Many Scientists are religious. They just make sure to leave him at home before going to work.

You don't see me trying to use my religious beliefs as evidence here, do you?

Quote:

Rather than forceably push my beliefs on someone, I merely suggest that when you look at the evidence, look at ALL of the evidence. The best way to make a decision is to be informed.

There is no scientific evidence that God exists. None, zip, nada. And if there were: there would be scientists researching that evidence to the best of their abilities.

There's the key difference: Religious people already have the answers they want. And they'll defend those answers through any means necessary. Scientists (for the most part) just want answers: no matter what they may be.

Diceman · 04-21-2006, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

More philisophy.

Ah, what a marvelous response. You've utterly devastated the coherency of my argument. Congratulations.

**TheFeniX** · 04-21-2006, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diceman

Ah, what a marvelous response. You've utterly devastated the coherency of my argument. Congratulations.

You can't debate philisophy at all. Once you go down that road, people start claiming that all evidence is suspect (even that water is wet). Using philosophy like that in a debate just makes sure nothing worthwhile gets said. Besides: we weren't talking about how people are fundamentally wired (logically or illogically), so it's off-topic anyways.

But hey, why not just Strawman my arguement by focusing on that and not answering my other points. That's makes you the bigger man, right?

Mateo · 04-21-2006, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

You've got me really thinking now on the possibility for a "fact" to exist. I'm looking around trying to find anything that I could present as a fact, but based on some input from this thread I'm not longer sure I can do that without still requiring someone believe in the concept.

There is another problem related to "fact": even if you have seen something with your own eyes (and are a witness to a fact) your perception of that fact/event colors your perception and recall of that fact/event.

We have all these eyewitness accounts of the Death of Jesus by Romans, Jews, Christians of the time, but the Bible wasn't compiled until much later. That gets us into a sticky situation with trying to piece together historical fact (this is what was reported to occur) with the way those facts were percieved by the "correspondent".

There is also a certain bias in the minds of the compilers of the Bible, whom had their own agenda. That's another layer of filters between us and the "fact" of Jesus.

Then we get into how our own preconcieved notions modify your understanding of that historical fact. Our cultural reference, upbringing, level of education, and experience of life all effect how we percieve the Bible, and the "facts" which it relates.

Its a complex problem. I think that saying that any of these historical documents (Bible, Koran, Buddha's sayings) is literal truth is untenable. In the end, taking articles of faith, such as Christ's resurrection, or Buddha's combat with the Mara (I think that is right), as fact is dangerous. We can't know that with certainty, since we cannot witness it, and even if we could witness it, we would have 6 billion interpretations of the event.

It's better to simply say: "I believe that Jesus was the son of God, and that he rose from the dead and ascended to his rightful place at his father's side. I can't witness any of that, so I take it as an article of faith."

Diceman · 04-21-2006, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

You can't debate philisophy at all. Once you go down that road, people start claiming that all evidence is suspect (even that water is wet). Using philosophy like that in a debate just makes sure nothing worthwhile gets said. Besides: we weren't talking about how people are fundamentally wired (logically or illogically), so it's off-topic anyways.

But hey, why not just Strawman my arguement by focusing on that and not answering my other points. That's makes you the bigger man, right?

If you don't see that any discussion regarding the existence of God is a philosophical discussion, then I have no points to make and nothing to add to this thread. I guess I could just ignore you, and that sounds like an appealing option as well.

04-21-2006, 02:33 PM	#63 (permalink)
CingularDuality Join Date: May 2003 Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth area of Texas, USA Age: 33 Posts: 17,137	Re: Tossing Myself into the Fire Perception, reality, facts and truth are all very different things. And this discussion is showing that facts might not exist at all? __________________ Become a supporting member! Buy a Tactical Duck! Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage." TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

04-21-2006, 02:39 PM	#66 (permalink)
Wyzcrak Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 14,148	Re: Tossing Myself into the Fire How crazy is it, Fenix, for someone to say to you that you must BELIEVE that 2+2 is 4? What about the details which form your answer are or are not available to someone saying it's crazy to BELIEVE that Jesus is the son of God? __________________ Steam Community? Add me. \| Join #tacticalgamer \| Search Results Legend \| New Posts Forum Filter \| Postbox Toggle \| Live Thread Review \| One Line Results \| Free Remote, Encrypted Backup Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Root: Welcome to TG. Feel free to punctuate your sentences correctly. Monkerz: Its gonna take all my skills to beat those boys off in the future.

04-21-2006, 02:42 PM	#68 (permalink)
Mateo Join Date: Aug 2004 Age: 37 Posts: 6,483	Re: Tossing Myself into the Fire I haven't been the same since Dogma.

04-21-2006, 02:52 PM	#70 (permalink)
icky Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Ottawa Valley Posts: 6,154	Re: Tossing Myself into the Fire The guy from post #3 was so right. Stick to your day jobs. The philosophical ground you think you are breaking has already been excavated and used as a landfill. __________________ Peace through fear... since 1947!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links