Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Protests over a cartoon... wtf.
( ) 3 Votes
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202077 is a reply to message #188804] |
Thu, 01 June 2006 11:03   |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Whatever...it's still not the usual light that we know, that's all I'm saying
|
Point is, it's still travelling faster than what was thought to be the extreme speed limit.
| Quote: |
Who says it's crediable? Besides, I think this is more going into the direction of supporting/disproving Christianity...if can tell you why the whole Christian faith doesn't make any sense, if you want to head into that direction.
|
You brought up the "four main books", so thats what I argued based on. But I agree, save the religious-specific arguments for a different thread.
| Quote: |
He explains how you can't really put religion and philosophy in the same shelf.
|
Actually, what he's saying is that Philosophy and Religion argue differently about the same thing. Kind of like apples and oranges. Not the same, but they are both in the "fruit" category. That's where Philosophy and Religion are the same. They argue the same thing,using the same "formulas", just argue it in a different manner.
I'm not trying to argue the "apples and oranges" here, I'm trying to get you to see that they are both fruit.
| Quote: |
It being possible is all I need to prove my point.
I used that to show how a pheonomenon of nature was mislabeled as something religious, just like world being flat was mislabeled as science.
|
And Being possible is all I need to prove mine.
They weren't mislabeled. Religion held its perception to be true, even though it wasn't, just as Science held its perception to be true, even though it wasn't. Both were made claim to by their respective area.
| Quote: |
You're saying that the existance of God is as realistic as the existance of molecules?
|
Neither are "realistic" as neither can be conclusively proven. I'll use a legal analogy, since that is my area of profession. Science would be like a Criminal Trial. The burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The existance of God, since it is in itself unprovable, would only qualify in the Civil Trial, where the burden of proof is simply on a balance of probabilities.
While, admittedly, God is in the lower form of required "proof", it doesn't make it any less possible that he does exist. The innate lack of the availability of proof just makes it more likely that something like we are arguing about will come about.
| Quote: |
I'm willing to hold something that is 99.9999% sure as the truth, since that's as close as it'll get.
|
But it still isn't certain that this belief is true. Sure, may seem to be true 99% of the time, but there is still the possibility that it may not come true. And, after all, you did say:
| Quote: |
But, from a logical point of view, assuming that there is something you have no proof of whatsoever makes no sense at all.
|
Changing the definition to suit your needs doesn't make it any less than a lack of "proof" to make it 100%. Anything less, and (as I mentioned before) is simply a belief that what is thought of to be true, is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202192 is a reply to message #188804] |
Fri, 02 June 2006 02:28 |
 |
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Point is, it's still travelling faster than what was thought to be the extreme speed limit.
|
It's not the type of light they made the rules for I guess..
| Quote: |
Actually, what he's saying is that Philosophy and Religion argue differently about the same thing. Kind of like apples and oranges. Not the same, but they are both in the "fruit" category. That's where Philosophy and Religion are the same. They argue the same thing,using the same "formulas", just argue it in a different manner.
I'm not trying to argue the "apples and oranges" here, I'm trying to get you to see that they are both fruit.
|
Philosophy digs deeper, but whatever, I guess you could both put them into the fruit category for your aspect.
| Quote: |
And Being possible is all I need to prove mine.
They weren't mislabeled. Religion held its perception to be true, even though it wasn't, just as Science held its perception to be true, even though it wasn't. Both were made claim to by their respective area.
|
That's the "possible" taking out of context. I said it's possible that I feel the need to learn everything and am a genius, thus am able to walk those steps. Your possible is that everything's possible.
The world being flat has it's roots in Religion, so you might as well put it in that area as well. Just because some so-called scientists were kissing religion's ass doesn't mean it's science since there's absolutely nothing scientific about it.
| Quote: |
But it still isn't certain that this belief is true. Sure, may seem to be true 99% of the time, but there is still the possibility that it may not come true. And, after all, you did say:
Quote:
But, from a logical point of view, assuming that there is something you have no proof of whatsoever makes no sense at all.
Changing the definition to suit your needs doesn't make it any less than a lack of "proof" to make it 100%. Anything less, and (as I mentioned before) is simply a belief that what is thought of to be true, is.
|
That's what we humans call "proof", tho...but you're right, I should've made that distinction earlier.
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202208 is a reply to message #188804] |
Fri, 02 June 2006 06:19 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
It's not the type of light they made the rules for I guess..
|
I'm sure that someone so in tune with Science as you claim to be would know that the rule was not made for light alone, but rather for all things. Hence the rule "nothing can travel faster than 186,000 miles (299,300 kilometers) per second."
| Quote: |
Philosophy digs deeper, but whatever, I guess you could both put them into the fruit category for your aspect.
|
Phlosophy digs as deep as the person arguing something wants to, same as religion. Most people, such as yourself, seem to aruge, or rather, misinterpret Occam's Razor.
| Quote: |
That's the "possible" taking out of context. I said it's possible that I feel the need to learn everything and am a genius, thus am able to walk those steps. Your possible is that everything's possible.
|
Since the "possible,proven" aspect is what started this, I'm going to assume that the because it's poosible for you to go out and learn it, that automatically makes it proven. Sorry, that alone doesn't make it proven. Unless you want to concede that,because it is possible to go out and learn about God, that God must be proven as well.
| Quote: |
The world being flat has it's roots in Religion, so you might as well put it in that area as well. Just because some so-called scientists were kissing religion's ass doesn't mean it's science since there's absolutely nothing scientific about it.
|
That might be, but science still held it as a scientific truth. Just as they did the idea of the sun moving around the earth (and there was evidence of that as well!), and the existance of caloric (which scientists believed in, simply because there was nothing else to answer the question).
| Quote: |
That's what we humans call "proof", tho...but you're right, I should've made that distinction earlier.
|
Well, if we humans are basing proof on something that can not be proven absolutely, has to potential to be wrong, and must be believed in, in order to exist...
Then I guess that proves God's existance right there.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202216 is a reply to message #188804] |
Fri, 02 June 2006 07:00 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
I'm sure that someone so in tune with Science as you claim to be would know that the rule was not made for light alone, but rather for all things. Hence the rule "nothing can travel faster than 186,000 miles (299,300 kilometers) per second."
|
Yea stuff that carries information...
| Quote: |
Phlosophy digs as deep as the person arguing something wants to, same as religion. Most people, such as yourself, seem to aruge, or rather, misinterpret Occam's Razor.
|
That's just wrong...read Java's post again.
| Quote: |
Since the "possible,proven" aspect is what started this, I'm going to assume that the because it's poosible for you to go out and learn it, that automatically makes it proven. Sorry, that alone doesn't make it proven. Unless you want to concede that,because it is possible to go out and learn about God, that God must be proven as well.
|
No it's possible to have learned about God then. The difference is that people have proven molecules before, so it's possible to do it again, if the person is willing to, but God hasn't been proven.
| Quote: |
That might be, but science still held it as a scientific truth. Just as they did the idea of the sun moving around the earth (and there was evidence of that as well!), and the existance of caloric (which scientists believed in, simply because there was nothing else to answer the question).
|
Sun moving around the earth has it's roots in religion as well. Existance of caloric is a perfect exemple for people making stuff up because they can't explain something...it's not a scientific approach, so therefore it isn't science.
| Quote: |
Well, if we humans are basing proof on something that can not be proven absolutely, has to potential to be wrong, and must be believed in, in order to exist...
Then I guess that proves God's existance right there.
|
Since when is there a 99.9999% certaintly that God exists?
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202244 is a reply to message #188804] |
Fri, 02 June 2006 11:48 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Yea stuff that carries information...
|
not really, otherwise they would not have said "nothing can travel faster.."
| Quote: |
No it's possible to have learned about God then. The difference is that people have proven molecules before, so it's possible to do it again, if the person is willing to, but God hasn't been proven.
|
People have said they have proven molecules exist. It's up to you to believe them or not. People have claimed to have proven God exists (hence the emergence of different religions), but you have to choose to believe them or not.
| Quote: |
Sun moving around the earth has it's roots in religion as well. Existance of caloric is a perfect exemple for people making stuff up because they can't explain something...it's not a scientific approach, so therefore it isn't science.
|
Actually, the sun moving around the earth has its roots in science. Someone looked up into the sky, saw that the sun moved across the sky, in a continuous motion, and concluded with that evidence that the sun moves around the earth.
Caloric was something Scientists made up to explain the phenomenon of heat transfer, and held it as truth in the absence of anything to the contrary.
| Quote: |
Since when is there a 99.9999% certaintly that God exists?
|
There never has been, as far as we (meaning you and me), as individuals, can ascertain. Just as there is no proof (99% or 1%) to the existence of anything that we have not discovered for ourselves. It all comes down to a matter of belief. Both science and religion rely on that aspect (well, all things in humanity do) to succeed. There is no way we can honestly say "I know", unless we have experienced it ourselves, and can trust that our senses are not fooling us ( and for all intents and purposes, they don't... but it's still a concern)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202258 is a reply to message #188804] |
Fri, 02 June 2006 13:15 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
My post reinforces warranto's issues.
|
If Philosophy and Religion are so synchronous, then how should I understand this?
| Quote: |
Eventually you'll get to a point where the biologist needs to prove the so-called "laws" that govern the universe. This is where science fails in lieu of agnostic philosophy.(...)But if you keep asking the big question "why", the priest hits the same road block; however clearly a lot faster then the biologist.
|
| Quote: |
not really, otherwise they would not have said "nothing can travel faster.."
|
Zzing
| Quote: |
People have said they have proven molecules exist. It's up to you to believe them or not. People have claimed to have proven God exists (hence the emergence of different religions), but you have to choose to believe them or not.
|
The people who said they have proven molecules exist can walk you through to proving it yourself...the people that have "proven" God exists can't, I wonder why.
| Quote: |
Actually, the sun moving around the earth has its roots in science. Someone looked up into the sky, saw that the sun moved across the sky, in a continuous motion, and concluded with that evidence that the sun moves around the earth.
Caloric was something Scientists made up to explain the phenomenon of heat transfer, and held it as truth in the absence of anything to the contrary.
|
It was the Sungod cruising around...
Yea, that's exactly what I've been saying...that's everything but a scientific approach.
| Quote: |
There never has been, as far as we (meaning you and me), as individuals, can ascertain. Just as there is no proof (99% or 1%) to the existence of anything that we have not discovered for ourselves. It all comes down to a matter of belief. Both science and religion rely on that aspect (well, all things in humanity do) to succeed. There is no way we can honestly say "I know", unless we have experienced it ourselves, and can trust that our senses are not fooling us ( and for all intents and purposes, they don't... but it's still a concern)
|
You can never be sure that your senses aren't fooling you...that's why I said that nothing can really be proven 100% before. We have to rely on not being involved in any conspiracy, so that we can call those things that belong in the .0001% "proven". God, however, doesn't belong into that category, the existance of molecules does.
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202262 is a reply to message #188804] |
Fri, 02 June 2006 13:47 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Err... Huh?
What does that have to do with Science getting something wrong?
| Quote: |
The people who said they have proven molecules exist can walk you through to proving it yourself...the people that have "proven" God exists can't, I wonder why.
|
Err, I've said this time and again, that the existance or lack thereof of God can not be proven... The people who have "proven" that molecules exist must rely on something outside of their control to prove it (ouside of the control does not include the senses, which we will, for sanities sake, assume are "perfect"). That there is not proof, but trust once again.
But, to continue with the point I was making, the people who have claimed to proven God exists, can walk you through it just as easily.
| Quote: |
It was the Sungod cruising around...
Yea, that's exactly what I've been saying...that's everything but a scientific approach.
|
That was one interpretation, far before the time that I am referring to. The Greek/Roman polytheism died out long before the idea that the sun revolved around the earth was wrong. It wasn't until the early 1600's that it was proven wrong. Unless, you are suggesting that science didn't exist before then.
| Quote: |
You can never be sure that your senses aren't fooling you...that's why I said that nothing can really be proven 100% before. We have to rely on not being involved in any conspiracy, so that we can call those things that belong in the .0001% "proven". God, however, doesn't belong into that category, the existance of molecules does.
|
Why, then?
And please, don't go off again about things being provable.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202316 is a reply to message #188804] |
Sat, 03 June 2006 05:41 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
That was the so-called laws of the universe are as provable as the existence of God, the existence of molecules, the existence of your favourite colour, or even the existence of yourself one second from now. The world of our preceptions is not very distant from the world of our minds.
|
I know, but it also means that the philisopher doesn't hit the road block, thus isn't synchronous.
| Quote: |
Err... Huh?
What does that have to do with Science getting something wrong?
|
My way of saying "You were right!".
| Quote: |
Err, I've said this time and again, that the existance or lack thereof of God can not be proven... The people who have "proven" that molecules exist must rely on something outside of their control to prove it (ouside of the control does not include the senses, which we will, for sanities sake, assume are "perfect"). That there is not proof, but trust once again.
But, to continue with the point I was making, the people who have claimed to proven God exists, can walk you through it just as easily.
|
Someone had to make the things that are outside of their control, so for sanity's sake, I assume that they don't try to screw you ever.
How can they walk me through it? God never shows himself after the "holy book" is written...if you're aiming at the people who saw God in their steak, then...yea, I'd probably kick them in the nuts for wasting my time.
| Quote: |
That was one interpretation, far before the time that I am referring to. The Greek/Roman polytheism died out long before the idea that the sun revolved around the earth was wrong. It wasn't until the early 1600's that it was proven wrong. Unless, you are suggesting that science didn't exist before then.
|
That interpretation lead to people believing that it was the sun instead of the Sungod, that's all. The roots are found in Religion.
| Quote: |
Why, then?
And please, don't go off again about things being provable.
|
Uhm I said something wrong the last time.
| Quote: |
We have to rely on not being involved in any conspiracy, so that we can call those things that belong in the .0001% "proven".
|
^This should be changed in "belong in the 99.9999%".
What do you mean by "Why, then?"?
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202354 is a reply to message #188804] |
Sat, 03 June 2006 10:44 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Someone had to make the things that are outside of their control, so for sanity's sake, I assume that they don't try to screw you ever.
|
Right. But the idea is relating to the belief in someone that they aren't going to screw you, as you have no way of actually knowing if they will.
| Quote: |
How can they walk me through it? God never shows himself after the "holy book" is written...if you're aiming at the people who saw God in their steak, then...yea, I'd probably kick them in the nuts for wasting my time.
|
Of course, for that to be true, someone must have to foolishly follow the "seeing is believing" phrase. At least in relation to God not showing himself as people would expect.
I'm relating more to the idea of religous experts being able to walk you through their idea of proof for God's existance. The same as scientists, they rely on their own means to get you to believe them.
| Quote: |
That interpretation lead to people believing that it was the sun instead of the Sungod, that's all. The roots are found in Religion.
|
Most things have their roots in religion. That doesn't ignore the idea that it was supported and held true by science.
| Quote: |
What do you mean by "Why, then?"?
|
If you have to choose to believe things that can not be 100% proven, that you must trust that you are not going to be subject to a consipracy, why, based on that, does God not fit in to the same "subject to flaws, but does not mean its untrue" category?
[Updated on: Sat, 03 June 2006 10:48] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202362 is a reply to message #188804] |
Sat, 03 June 2006 12:51 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Right. But the idea is relating to the belief in someone that they aren't going to screw you, as you have no way of actually knowing if they will.
|
You don't know if your eyes or whatever will screw you, either...it belongs to the basics that you have to live with.
| Quote: |
Of course, for that to be true, someone must have to foolishly follow the "seeing is believing" phrase. At least in relation to God not showing himself as people would expect.
I'm relating more to the idea of religous experts being able to walk you through their idea of proof for God's existance. The same as scientists, they rely on their own means to get you to believe them.
|
Yes, the watchmaker stuff, but didn't I already explain before, why that logic is flawed?
| Quote: |
Most things have their roots in religion. That doesn't ignore the idea that it was supported and held true by science.
|
Those roots however gave them the feeling that it must be that way...but yes, since they found "evidence" that the sun moves around the earth, I could say you're sort of right on that occasion. They eventually got it right, tho and I have faith in science being able to prove that the universe wasn't created by some kind of "God", seeing as how unrealistic the alternative seems.
| Quote: |
If you have to choose to believe things that can not be 100% proven, that you must trust that you are not going to be subject to a consipracy, why, based on that, does God not fit in to the same "subject to flaws, but does not mean its untrue" category?
|
I didn't say that we have to believe things that aren't 100% proven in general, I said that we can believe things that are 99.9999% certain, the kind of things that can only be flawed if all of a sudden everyone's senses are wrong or the equipment that we built for that reason chooses to malfunction all over the world...
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202542 is a reply to message #188804] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 07:26 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Just to bring in a "new" argument, there is nothing that says science and religion are incompatable.
I throughly believe that science will be able to prove everything wasn't made by God, at least not directly.
Consider this, if you would:
My personal belief is that God is the ultimate scientist. He's the one that developed the rules for the universe, and, perhaps as a result, initiated the big bang.
Everything after that, up to the point of life appearing, is pure coincidence. However with this guiding hand" theory of mine (my own phrase), God tends to interfere a little bit in his "experiment" (don't read too much into that), simply to make things don't comlpetely fall apart. He may have created humans (through scientific means), wether through evolution, or simply the "poof" factor. But more or less stays out of our hair to let us develop on our own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202549 is a reply to message #202542] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 08:44 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| warranto wrote on Mon, 05 June 2006 09:26 |
Just to bring in a "new" argument, there is nothing that says science and religion are incompatable.
I throughly believe that science will be able to prove everything wasn't made by God, at least not directly.
Consider this, if you would:
My personal belief is that God is the ultimate scientist. He's the one that developed the rules for the universe, and, perhaps as a result, initiated the big bang.
Everything after that, up to the point of life appearing, is pure coincidence. However with this guiding hand" theory of mine (my own phrase), God tends to interfere a little bit in his "experiment" (don't read too much into that), simply to make things don't comlpetely fall apart. He may have created humans (through scientific means), wether through evolution, or simply the "poof" factor. But more or less stays out of our hair to let us develop on our own.
|
If God was the ultimate scientist, then why would be have to interfere?
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 18 15:17:19 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01543 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
