kallend 2,079 #226 August 9, 2006 Quote>If you want a meaningful discussion about this or any other >subject, you have to carefully define what you mean by those terms. That's exactly the point I was trying to make. What is "spirit?" If you define it as a floating, weightless, energyless, indivisible thing that makes you human. it's pretty easy to disprove. If you define it as that intangible quantity of someone expressed through their writings, speeches, families etc then that's a very different story. Similarly, if you define "God" as a very tall white-haired guy in white robes who sits on a throne, turns people to pillars of salt and gives goodies to people who pray X times a week in Y church, it's easy to claim there's no such thing as God. But change the definition to "the reason that Planck's Constant and the Gravitational Constant is what it is" and it's a lot harder to disprove. . I haven't heard many Fundamentalist Christians expressing the second version.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,537 #227 August 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteIf you want a meaningful discussion about this or any other subject, you have to carefully define what you mean by those terms. That's exactly the point I was trying to make. What is "spirit?" If you define it as a floating, weightless, energyless, indivisible thing that makes you human. it's pretty easy to disprove. If you define it as that intangible quantity of someone expressed through their writings, speeches, families etc then that's a very different story. Similarly, if you define "God" as a very tall white-haired guy in white robes who sits on a throne, turns people to pillars of salt and gives goodies to people who pray X times a week in Y church, it's easy to claim there's no such thing as God. And that tall guy, more or less, is evidently Mockingbirds 'truth' (and the most relevant 'truth' to discuss in a thread with Fundamentalist in the title). That 'truth' will not become real and valid no matter how hard she believes it.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #228 August 9, 2006 the problem with Christianity or any other religion, is that they all claim to be the only one that is right and distinctly different from the other religions. this makes each one false in it's assertion to being the 'true religion'. FASCISM can easily be defined this way---You don't believe in my god so you must die, it's obvious with islam, luke 19:27 makes it MOST EVIDENT in christianity. IT IS THIS SIMPLE, GOVERNMENTS AND RELIGIONS MANIPULATE US INTO THE SITUATION OF NOT LIKING SOMEONE ELSE BECAUSE THEY DON'T SHARE OUR BELIEFS. WE ARE ALL ONE HUMANITY. IT IS TIME TO OPEN OUR COLLECTIVE EYE AND SEE THROUGH THE LIES THAT WE HAVE ALL BEEN FEDwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #229 August 9, 2006 the truest depiction of 'god' is the yin-yang symbol, the rest of the story is TOTAL ABSURDITY.we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #230 August 9, 2006 QuoteQuote>If you want a meaningful discussion about this or any other >subject, you have to carefully define what you mean by those terms. That's exactly the point I was trying to make. What is "spirit?" If you define it as a floating, weightless, energyless, indivisible thing that makes you human. it's pretty easy to disprove. If you define it as that intangible quantity of someone expressed through their writings, speeches, families etc then that's a very different story. Similarly, if you define "God" as a very tall white-haired guy in white robes who sits on a throne, turns people to pillars of salt and gives goodies to people who pray X times a week in Y church, it's easy to claim there's no such thing as God. But change the definition to "the reason that Planck's Constant and the Gravitational Constant is what it is" and it's a lot harder to disprove. . I haven't heard many Fundamentalist Christians expressing the second version. I'm not a fundamentalist, but I know many and I haven't heard ANY express the FIRST version. Its easy to make people of an opposing view appear stupid, by rephrasing their words. But then again, some of us don't need much help. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,038 #231 August 9, 2006 >I'm not a fundamentalist, but I know many and I haven't heard >ANY express the FIRST version. Right, but it makes a great straw man. Which, I think, is why so many arguments here are pointless. People aren't even discussing the same things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #232 August 9, 2006 Quote>I'm not a fundamentalist, but I know many and I haven't heard >ANY express the FIRST version. Right, but it makes a great straw man. Which, I think, is why so many arguments here are pointless. People aren't even discussing the same things. Yep, see my edited reply above yours, Bill. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,537 #233 August 9, 2006 QuoteI'm not a fundamentalist, but I know many and I haven't heard ANY express the FIRST version. Its easy to make people of an opposing view appear stupid, by rephrasing their words. But then again, some of us don't need much help. Ok, take out the bit where he looks like an old white haired guy but you're still left with a lot of people who believe in a tangible, hands on, interventionist God who really did do the things in the OT (sacking cities, parting seas, Genesis creation story etc.) and NT (virgin birth, healing miracles, resurrection) that are impossible. Things that can't be argued away as 'a different viewpoint of truth' or with semantics like 'what does spirit mean?'Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #234 August 9, 2006 The very definition of a supreme being would make Him doing the impossible ... possible. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #235 August 9, 2006 Yeah, I am going to have to agree with steverorino here. You argument is flawed. You are human. Thus, those things are impossible. God is not human; he is a supreme being. Therefore, what is impossible to you is not to him.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,079 #236 August 9, 2006 QuoteThe very definition of a supreme being would make Him doing the impossible ... possible. Now you return to the version for which no objective proof exists.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,537 #237 August 9, 2006 Quote The very definition of a supreme being would make Him doing the impossible ... possible. Which is why I disagree with Bill's assertion that differing religious beliefs are equally true to the people that believe them. There either is a being that can do impossible things or there isn't. No degree of belief can change that.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #238 August 9, 2006 If objectable proof is only a giant cross in the sky, yep, you're right. But to others it is the order of the universe, prophecies fulfilled, and the immeasureable presence we feel in our spirit. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,537 #239 August 9, 2006 Quote Yeah, I am going to have to agree with steverorino here. You argument is flawed. You are human. Thus, those things are impossible. God is not human; he is a supreme being. Therefore, what is impossible to you is not to him. You misunderstand my argument. I refered to God doing things that are impossible to illustrate the point that there has to be an actual divine, powerful consciousness if those parts of the bible are to be believed (as many do). Physically impossible may have been a better way to put it. My reason for doing so (in a seemingly increasingly convoluted manner) was to refute Bill's suggestion that different ideas of God can all be equally true. A powerfull God that can do humanly impossible things must either be real or not real, independant of belief.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,079 #240 August 9, 2006 QuoteIf objectable proof is only a giant cross in the sky, yep, you're right. But to others it is the order of the universe, prophecies fulfilled, and the immeasureable presence we feel in our spirit. The word was "objective", not "objectable". And what you feel in your spirit is the very definition of non-objective. The order of the universe says absolutely nothing about a supernatural being who intervenes in our daily lives, or even cares about us at all. As Bill pointed out, just defining the values of a handful of physical constants some 15 billion years ago leads inexorably to order we see in the universe with no further intervention necessary.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #241 August 9, 2006 What does the order of the universe say? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,038 #242 August 9, 2006 >There either is a being that can do impossible things or there isn't. There is no being that can do impossible things, by definition. If anyone (including someone we define as god) can do them they're not impossible. On the other hand, WE can do things that were formerly impossible. We can bring dead people back to life (sometimes.) We can copy animals, and will soon be able to copy people, without the need for a father. Today we can pull off "immaculate conceptions." Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic (or in this case, an act of God.) Does that mean that a future human, because he can (for example) create life, is a god? Nope. Thus the danger of definitions like "beings who can do impossible things." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #243 August 9, 2006 Here is a question ( or rather an idea) I posed in another thread that no one ever really answered. I would enjoy hearing thoughts on it: Society is filled, and has been filled, with clashes of science and religion. Particullarly the question of "order of the universe." And in examining these clashes and question, I have had to ask - Why was the universe MADE the way it is? If scientific study has caused so much strife and conflict, why did God bother to create systems of physics and biology to begin with? Why make the systems so complicated that we continue to find 10 more questions for every answer determined? If God is all powerful and created the universe, why did he not make it so that it was easier to understand? Why make such complex rules about how light travels, how the universe works, how our bodies work, etc? Take our bodies for instance. Why not make it such that we are just big shells that have life? Why are we these unbelievably complex systems that have so many potential areas of failure? After all, God is all-powerful so making a ball of mud walk and think would be no problem for Him. And He certainly would not need to impress anyone (like us) with complexity would he? If the rules were much simplier it definitely cut down of the arguments and strife. I realize this is one of those, "You can never understand why a supreme being does what He does" type of question but it is still quite intriguing to me.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #244 August 9, 2006 I'm sorry I don't have a better answer than I'd feel presumptious to understand and know all of why God does what He does. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #245 August 9, 2006 I said that for you. This is pretty much a thought experiment. Philsophical idea However, it you wanted to make applicable to current discussions, you could infer that I think the argument that the order of the universe is evidence of God is utter bullshit. We should also know that I believe in God - just to makes certain you understand that I am not coming from some atheist point of view.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,537 #246 August 9, 2006 QuoteTake our bodies for instance. Why not make it such that we are just big shells that have life? Why are we these unbelievably complex systems that have so many potential areas of failure? After all, God is all-powerful so making a ball of mud walk and think would be no problem for Him. And He certainly would not need to impress anyone (like us) with complexity would he? If the rules were much simplier it definitely cut down of the arguments and strife. We could be Golems? Now that would be coolDo you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,079 #247 August 9, 2006 QuoteWhat does the order of the universe say? It says that there are rules that determine how space, time, matter and energy behave. That is all. Nothing about supernatural beings intervening in our lives.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #248 August 9, 2006 What are those rules, and how do they address origin? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,079 #249 August 9, 2006 While the systems may be complex, the rules governing them can be extremely simple. As an example from mathematics, the Mandelbrot Set is infinitely complex (more complex than the visible physical universe) yet can be generated by one simple rule that can be expressed as one line of computer code. The "Intelligent Design" (sic) argument about complexity is totally bogus.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,079 #250 August 9, 2006 QuoteWhat are those rules, and how do they address origin? Things like quantum chromodynamics, electrodynamics, relativity.. They don't address origin (which does NOT imply the existence of a supernatural being who takes an interest in your life and listens to prayers and violates those rules on a whim).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
