|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
 Posted - 08/02/2001 : 17:33:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
We cannot recognize him with scientific data, there is none.
This is the fundamental problem most atheists have with the issue of god.
quote:
God is not physical. There may be in the other 6 that physicists say exist, but it is unknowable.
Only a few physicists make this claim, and it is purely for aesthetic reasons: the equations can be expressed more easily that way.
quote:
There are proofs that say mathematically that a 6 billion year old universe could not have evolved, not even for a 30 billion year old universe, not enough time.
Can you direct me to these? I would find them fascinating.
quote:
The Bible does contain macro and micro codes, which in the feild of cryptology indicates a coded message ("Cosmic codes," by Chuck Missler). I'm not into the predictive codes and other junk that is out there, but codes do exist, proven fact. There is the heptatic (7) structure. Although a little out there, it is well established that the Bible contains many sevens. What does this prove, I don't know, but no man could insert these patterns of sevens(God's number of completeness) and still have a readable message.
Unfortunately, this proves absolutely nothing. Taken from a probabilistic standpoint, in a document with so many symbols (letters) it is almost impossible to NOT find codes and repetition of numbers. I would be far more impressed if nobody could find a code in that document.
quote:
The Bible requires no interpretor to give you his/her interpretation of the Bible, unless you want to be Catholic. I think even they have waffled on this.
This is true, I think the current position is that priests help interpret the bible.
quote:
You guys have been watching too much TBN.
LOL!
I am afraid I'm not clever enough to come up with a good signature, eh? |
 |
|
|
Jim
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 17:44:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Bible Codes!? Oh please.
I should not have mentioned it.
Dont't judge based on what you have seen/heard. The fact is that the Bible does contain coded text. I don't have the title handy, but I beleive this was done by a secular cryptology institute, more than once.
If you'd like to research it, I can get you some titles, it's not a feild of study for me. The problem with the codes is what people use them for. Some believe in the equidistant letter sequence thing, I happen to think it is a hoax. If it is real, so what? Some believe it is a predictive tool, I say prove it, they cannot. It takes a little understanding of cryptology, but I'm convinced that the grammatical structure of the entire Bible is encoded. It is an evidence of design that cannot be replicated.
And that is all.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Jim
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 17:54:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
The Bible does contain macro and micro codes, which in the feild of cryptology indicates a coded message ("Cosmic codes," by Chuck Missler). I'm not into the predictive codes and other junk that is out there, but codes do exist, proven fact. There is the heptatic (7) structure. Although a little out there, it is well established that the Bible contains many sevens. What does this prove, I don't know, but no man could insert these patterns of sevens(God's number of completeness) and still have a readable message.
Unfortunately, this proves absolutely nothing. Taken from a probabilistic standpoint, in a document with so many symbols (letters) it is almost impossible to NOT find codes and repetition of numbers. I would be far more impressed if nobody could find a code in that document.
It doesn't really prove nothing. It's what people say it proves, that bothers me. It is just evidence of design. The study I mentioned did involve a comparison of other ancient and modern texts. They found none of these codes in any other known literary work. I believe the book "Bible Codes" dealt with this research.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 17:59:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If you've a case against the logical coherence of a non-spatial (or atemporal) consciousness, let's have it.
Consciousness has never been shown to exist apart from the physical functions of a biological or electronic brain.Non-spatial consciousness exists only as a fantasy.
But feel free to show me wrong. Maybe some non-spatial consciousness will log on to this thread.
It is a concept only in the imaginations of people like Steven King and St John the Divine (in Johnny's case I might want to change "fantasy" to dementia)
----
I see dead people... |
|
|
|
Jim
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 18:46:56 [Permalink]
|
One thing I think has been overlooked in this whole discussion. A question was asked if I applied non-scientific methods (faith) to other things in my life. My answer was no. The reason is because of the implications. The implications of someone having an invisible green dragon in their garage are zero in my life. Who cares? Might be worth a curious look, but nonetheless, useless to me. But what about the existence of God? Does it have implications for everyone and everything? Is it worth taking a little closer look? Is it even maybe worth giving God the benefit of the doubt before going in? Yes. Because the implications are much bigger than any scientific experiment that we might deal with. Why do I seem to bend the rules for God? You have to look at all of the possibilities. I can tell you that I have proven to myself that God exists. I can tell you that I know God to exist, I know that verses from scripture, when applied with faith, can and will change your life, they did mine. I can tell you giving away a portion of your money to God (Church) will improve your financial situation. Why, because God says it will. How? I do not know. Is it coincidence? What are the odds? And you don't have to aks me, ask my Mom, the atheist, or my Dad, the agnostic. They will affrim this. They don't know why. It's like explaining gravity, or infinity. We know them to exist, we put them into laws, but we just don't know why. Is this proof to you? No, because it doesn't touch one of your five senses. But I have knowledge that these things are true. It is my experience, and that is why I can honestly stand here and defend the existence of God and the accuracy of the Bible, because it has proven true in my life, and the lifes of others who have this faith. It's really not non-scientific, it's just unprovable to a skeptic. If this is a lie, it is the best one I have ever seen.
Dr. Slater, you started this topic, so my question to you is why do you spend so much time studying somehting that does not exist? This is illogical. Some might say insane, but not me. If you really KNOW God does not exist, than you are lying by participating in these useless discussions. It is a waste of time. Asking for proof of something that you KNOW does not exist is lunacy. The real question that needs to be asked is why do I and many others believe in something so stupid? Why do I appear so sane (I am assuming I appear sane), yet am obviously experiencing dementia? Why can I communicate with you, yet I am obviously suffering from a disease that should make me appear insane and irrational? Why?
I have asked God for proof, He has given it to me. I can't ask for you.
Jim
Edited by - jim on 08/02/2001 18:52:36
Edited by - jim on 08/02/2001 19:00:12 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 18:57:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
One thing I think has been overlooked in this whole discussion. A question was asked if I applied non-scientific methods (faith) to other things in my life. My answer was no. The reason is because of the implications. The implications of someone having an invisible green dragon in their garage are zero in my life. Who cares. Might be worth a curious look, but nonetheless, useless to me. But what about the existence of God? Does it have implications for everyone and everything? Is it worth taking a little closer look? Is it even maybe worth giving God the benefit of the doubt before going in? Yes. Because the implications are much bigger than any scientific experiment that we might deal with. Why do I seem to bend the rules for God? You have to look at all of the possibilities. I can tell you that I have the proven to myself that God exists. I can tell you that I know God to exist, I know that verses from scripture, when applied with faith, can and will change your life, they did mine. They will affrim this. They don't know why. I can tell you giving away a portion of your money to God (Church) will improve your financial situation. How? I do not know. And you don't have to aks me, ask my Mom, the atheist, or my Dad, the agnostic. Is this proof? No, because it doesn't touch one of your five senses. But I have knowledge that these things are true. It is my experience, and that is why I can honestly stand here and defend the existence of God and the accuracy of the Bible, because it has proven true in my life, and the lifes of others who have this faith. It's really not non-scientific, it's just unprovable to a skeptic. If this is a lie, it is the best one I have ever seen.
This could apply to any faith in all of history whether it's the worship of Thor, Horus, a caveman's firegod or even Jesus.
The firegod has definately made a difference.
Fire warm!!
All compelling arguments to each faith but only to the believers of that particular faith. What do you think of a firegod or perhaps a tree spirit? It's not a lie to the believers. But lie is the wrong word. Delusion is a better one. And I'm sorry, but you are wrong, as non-scientific subjects go, religion has led the pack for millenia.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Jim
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 19:22:45 [Permalink]
|
You are implying that all religions are the truth? That cannot be true, all religions share their differences. All major religions have their points of exclusion. This is syncretism, it doesn't work.
In order to make that statment you would have to spend a lifetime personally immersed in each one to determine if it was truth or not. This doesn't seem feasible. All religions seem to have truth, but you'd have to look deeper than that.
Jim
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 19:35:25 [Permalink]
|
I am implying that they all claim to be the ultimate Truth. What makes your flavor of Truth so special? How deeply have you looked at the others? have you taken the Truth Taste Test?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 20:12:48 [Permalink]
|
Then, I guess, NO RELIGIONS ARE TRUE. I'll agree with that...
ljbrs
Perfection Is a State of Growth... |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 20:31:28 [Permalink]
|
You are implying that all religions are the truth? That cannot be true, all religions share their differences. All major religions have their points of exclusion. This is syncretism, it doesn't work.
Since I agree with @tomic I'll throw in my 2¢.
All religions are not true. However the criteria that you have stated that you have for "truth" would hold for any of them. It is the same basic "proof" followers of Cargo Cults use to explain why they worship airplanes.
In order to make that statment you would have to spend a lifetime personally immersed in each one to determine if it was truth or not. Funny it didn't take you nearly that long. You must be a quick study. You even have the secret decoder ring for the bible.
This doesn't seem feasible. All religions seem to have truth, but you'd have to look deeper than that. I have looked deeper than that and you acussed me of being crazy to do so. Do you think that religion has effects only on believers?
If I ran for public office, and was clearly the superior candidate, when a TV reporter asked my religion and I told him Atheist what would you say my chances were of being elected?
Take a look at comments on these boards from people like He and Christian Skeptic.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 23:37:13 [Permalink]
|
Normally I see a flawed argument met with sufficient counterargument here as I lurk and read, but I've yet to see this one tackled. I'm a day late but I don't get to read every day so allow me this indulgence.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
What about the big rock argument? I'd love to hear a religionist give a satisfactory refutation of that one.
Is that the one that asks if God can make a rock too big and heavy for He himself to move?
So what if He cannot?
Cannot what? Make the rock or move the rock once he's made it? In either case, it is demonstrated there is something that is beyond the power of a supposedly omnipotent entity.
Would it make sense to say that God is not omnipotent because he cannot create a round square? Why or why not?
[quote]
Religionists don't like this argument. They usually pooh-pooh it as facile and sophomoric, or they label the person who uses it as a big juvenile delinquent. One thing they never do, or at least I have never heard one do, is refute it successfully.
It is more sophistic than sophomoric, but in any case it is as easily refuted as the round square argument above. The divine attribute of omnipotence does not include the performance of logically impossible acts, nor has traditionally implied any such nonsense. If it did, it would not be a descriptor at all but rather a logically contradictory and hence nonsensical predicate.
What I see quoted directly above is a self- refuting argument, assuming the spirit of this thread applies. If, as certain previous posts imply, there is nothing greater (more powerful, more knowledgeable, etc) than the proposed Judeo-Christian God, then this by definition applies to logic. If the created universe has a foundation of logical laws, then they must have been created, with or as a result of the universe, by the creator. The creator cannot be completely bound by his creation. Therefore, it cannot be that at once God created logic and is bound by logic. If you claim that God cannot, by means outside of his control, perform an illogical act, then you have just elevated logic to a status greater than God and have stripped God of its omnipotence. For all intents and purposes then, God and logic are mutually exclusive. We know we have logic, so how can we also have God?
This signature does not exist. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2001 : 03:43:50 [Permalink]
|
That is a good point and I would like to say (sorry folks) that I don't like the old rock argument.
Would any of you really be suckered if something appeared before you and transmuted energey to matter or vice versa or maybe made time go backwards or some really neat thing like that? Any feat, no matter how amazing would be suspect to me for several reasons. One of the best of those is that you would haveto wonder what sort of "God" would need to prove it to some lowly creature like man in the first place. i would suspect deception from start to finish and try to peek under the curtain.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2001 : 12:01:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The fact is that the Bible does contain coded text. I don't have the title handy, but I beleive this was done by a secular cryptology institute, more than once.
I'd like to read more on that. I hope you remember the title soon.
Ian Andreas Miller. My site. |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2001 : 12:45:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Normally I see a flawed argument met with sufficient counterargument here as I lurk and read, but I've yet to see this one tackled. I'm a day late but I don't get to read every day so allow me this indulgence.
quote:
It is more sophistic than sophomoric, but in any case it is as easily refuted as the round square argument above. The divine attribute of omnipotence does not include the performance of logically impossible acts, nor has traditionally implied any such nonsense. If it did, it would not be a descriptor at all but rather a logically contradictory and hence nonsensical predicate.
What I see quoted directly above is a self- refuting argument, assuming the spirit of this thread applies. If, as certain previous posts imply, there is nothing greater (more powerful, more knowledgeable, etc) than the proposed Judeo-Christian God, then this by definition applies to logic. If the created universe has a foundation of logical laws, then they must have been created, with or as a result of the universe, by the creator. The creator cannot be completely bound by his creation. Therefore, it cannot be that at once God created logic and is bound by logic. If you claim that God cannot, by means outside of his control, perform an illogical act, then you have just elevated logic to a status greater than God and have stripped God of its omnipotence. For all intents and purposes then, God and logic are mutually exclusive. We know we have logic, so how can we also have God?
The refutation of the round square, unliftable rock, and related paradoxes does not state that logic is “greater” than God in any sense. Logic is a structural aspect of the languages (English, mathematics, formal logic) we use to describe reality, nothing more. What the refutation states is that the paradoxes in question are simply talking nonsense, and are hence unsound as arguments. In short, any premise relying upon a self-contradictory concept or type-crossing is noncognitive and hence deductively useless.
The key issue here, though, is how theists choose to define their god and its attributes. I think I've made it clear above that they are not using the overly broad and indeed self-contradictory concept being employed by skeptics herein this forum.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Dog_Ed
Skeptic Friend
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2001 : 15:08:41 [Permalink]
|
Um, skipping back to atemporal, omnispatial consciousness: A timeless consciousness seems impossible to me. The essence of consciousness is thought; an essential attribute of thought is change; there is no change without time. A static, unchanging mind is catatonic. (Zen mind perceives time perfectly well but suppresses verbal constructs and a sense of self as much as possible--it's not at all atemporal. Brain research seems to indicate that Zen-style meditation changes brain activity in a very specific way, producing the sense of calm euphoria and disappearance of self.)
Ergo: God must either exist in time, or else He cannot have consciousness. (I'm sure all this has been hashed over many times in the past.)
On the proving of stuff: Everything comes to me filtered through my senses. I can arrange these data into patterns, and test them against subsequent sensory data to see if the patterns hold up. If they do, I call them "knowledge" and if they don't I call them "misconceptions" and try again. That's as close as I can get to first-hand proof.
I can also create patterns in my mind using applied logic or sheer creativity, though they'll be flavored by my life experience. If I can find no logical flaw in one of these patterns, I also call it "knowledge" even though I personally might admit it is not proven.
Finally, I can read what other people write on the SFN and test against the logical, creative, and experiential patterns I hold to be "knowledge." Really a great deal of what I "know" comes in this way: If Slater says that the basalts of the Deccan Plateau of India and the flood basalts of Oregon USA are similar in origin, I will probably add that datum to my store of "knowledge" because it fits with other patterns that fit within yet more patterns which fit with what I have tested and "know" to be true.
When Jim and Slater ask for proof of a proposition, what level proof will they accept: first-hand, physical evidence? A logical construct they can reason through and understand? Or a datum which they can accept although they have not proven it nor logically reasoned through it themselves?
Just a bit of perspective. Again, well-trampled philosophical territory.
"Even Einstein put his foot in it sometimes" |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
