logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2023-02-05 06:52:59 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Read the first edition of the Ideohazard

  Church of Virus BBS
  General
  Philosophy & Religion

  A thread from "the triangle" - student magazine at Drexel University
previous next
Pages: 1 [2] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: A thread from "the triangle" - student magazine at Drexel University  (Read 1754 times)
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4269
Reputation: 8.96
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:A thread from "the triangle" - student magazine at Drexel University
« Reply #15 on: 2003-07-24 06:12:53 »
Reply with quote

Source: Church of Virus (Not yet posted)
Authors: Hermit
Dated: 2003-07-24

[Hermit] I am going to conjoin your posts in order to simplify my reply.

[hootie361 quotes Hermit] "As for your assertion that your gods are "outside" time, this requires the discarding of all physics relating to space-time."

[hootie361] No, actually it doesn't require the discarding of space-time physics. I gave you an example of what we see every day, bearing in mind that it was the simplest explanation to come to mind. I wouldn't have a clue of where to begin discussing the scientific implications of God being "outside time" because, quite frankly, I'm ignorant in that field.

[Hermit] I'm afraid that you have lost me somewhat. You started by making assertions that creationism is a valid perspective - and now you say that you don't understand science sufficiently to comprehend its implications. So how did you evaluate the claims of creationists?

[Hermit] In any case, the issue of gods versus physics has been well covered in an introductory fashion in the discussion with Flag at "Re:Why God cannot exist by Joe Dees & Hermit".

[hootie361 quotes Hermit] "Given that physics answers the questions we have about the things we observe, while the idea of gods prevents the questions from being asked (or why the development of science and knowledge stopped during the "dark ages" when the church ruled the world) in the first place"

[hootie361] Accepting God does not require ignoring facts of reality, that's a common misconception. It does ask you to question what someone claims is a "fact" and think, maybe, there's an alternate explanation.

[Hermit] Not if a god or gods exist (if there is one there are most likely more and if you reject that idea, why cling to one?), but if a god or gods that are Omniscient or Omnipotent or Omnipresent, then the facts we know about the Universe have to be ignored (as already explained at some length in the discussion with Flag at "Re:Why God cannot exist by Joe Dees & Hermit" thread.

[hootie361] For example, you say we have found life on Mars. I say, from what I've read, the findings on mars have not been *living* life, but of *possible* life in the forms of what *appear* to be fossils. You claim this proves that life can originate in the vacuum of space, where it's also just as possible that God created life throughout the universe in the first place.

[Hermit] Umm, I think you have misunderstood the situation. We have found byproducts of life in meteorites which originated on Mars and which we have recovered in Antarctica. To the best of our knowledge, the compounds formed cannot be produced except by life, so we deduce the presence of life on Mars to cause them. The compounds are real and were found in the meteorites. The meteorites are real and originated on Mars. We have also found similar compounds and microfossils in asteroids. In both cases, the methodologies adopted exclude contamination. If you wish to reject the appearance of the evidence for life on Mars or on asteroids, then you need to propose a credible alternate mechanism explaining the presence of the compounds. So far science has not been able to do so.

[hootie361] The only catch to my theory is God has to exist, otherwise my theory falls to pieces.

[Hermit] You have not laid out a theory, you have made assertions. There is a qualitive difference between these. If you present evidence which necessitates a god (presumably with "supernatural" capabilities or you would not call it a god) then I would consider your theory. Until then your assertions do not fall to pieces, they don't get past first base.

[hootie361] You know damn well why the Dark Ages prohibited science and knowledge. Because, as you said, the Church ruled those days and, although I'm sure they believed they were doing a great service to God, they prohibited man from helping other men (save by grace of God, ie prayer).

[Hermit] By your own admission the Church rejected reality and its study in order to preserve their beliefs (and I suggest, power). I am simply suggesting that Ockhams law recommends that we not invent improbable beings deeply interested in your sex life and contravening the comprehended nature of the Universe until we have eliminated all other explanations. I am further suggesting that the motivation for your arguments so far does not significantly differ in nature from those put forth by the earlier Church.

[hootie361] No Christian scientist I've read yet has denounced the laws of science or said science is an evil (save the few die-hards), and why should they? Why should a person who focuses their belief system in God have to abandon the laws of reality in life?

[Hermit] A "Christian Scientist" is an oxymoron. A Scientist is somebody who applies the scientific method in order to eliminate incorrect potential models of reality. As demonstrated ad nauseam in the discussion with Flag at "Re:Why God cannot exist by Joe Dees & Hermit", the idea of gods with "supernatural" capabilities is in conflict with the consensus models of reality. Thus the scientist rejects the Christian ideas about reality.

[hootie361] Would I choose a doctor or a pastor to save me in the case of a medical accident? You're fond of Bible verses, so let's look at the one from the New Testament (pardon me for not referencing):
Quote:
"No evidence will be given to this generation."


[Hermit] I'm afraid I can't easily forgive the lake of a reference, as a thorough search of all available versions of the bible at http://www.biblegateway.com/ for either your purported quotation or even just "evidence generation" using the advanced keyword search failed to identify it. In any case, assuming that you have misquoted and that the meaning is as you conveyed it, would "this generation" not be long dead according to the biblical myths? In which case, what precludes the provision of evidence?

[hootie361] Now you tell me...a pastor prays for me to have my severed legs reattached and my skull returned to normal and, without a touch from a doctor, it is made so. How do you explain that in non-divine terms? You can't, you'd have to except that there was either divine intervention (evidence of God) or you were insane.

[Hermit] I see this as a false dichotomy. Your legs may not have been detached, your skull not broken. Or the alleged repair might be faked. Or you may have been repaired in some other way and been lying or mistaken. But as I have not seen such a thing, I reject the plausibility of your hypothesis and in consequence, the need to "explain" what seems like an "insane" proposition.

[hootie361] So quite frankly, I would ask for both.

[Hermit] I'm not sure why you think this follows from the previous paragraph ("So", being a conjunction, implies causation). Would you kindly explain what you thought you meant?

[hootie361] I trust the doctor knows what to do to a human body in my condition to maintain my life, but I trust in God to look over the whole ordeal should he so choose.

[Hermit] I suggest that if there were such a thing as gods, that the evidence proves that "he" doesn't usually (ever?) "choose" to do "so."

[hootie361] There is no conflict here, it's an understanding of the way God works and the way our perceived reality functions.

[Hermit] How did you achieve this understanding of the "way god[s] work[s]"? Why do you imagine that neurology, psychology and sociology does not allow us to determine how "our perceived reality functions"? I see a massive conflict. When I see a creature in pain, I attempt to help it if it is within my power. The conclusion I reach, from observation, is that gods don't exist, or don't care, or that it is never in "their" power.

[hootie361] You can put all your faith in the Lord for his direction in dealing with your daily life, but you shouldn't be surprised then, that your rejection of this reality leads to a shorter physical life.

[Hermit] I'm not sure why you concluded a "Lord" is a reality (if you have reasons you have failed to articulate them here) but understanding what you appear to be saying, as far as I am aware, there is no evidence that a lack of belief can "shorten" physical life. Certainly, the World Health Organization considers the Japanese, where Christianity forms a small minority, to have the longest lifespans. If I follow your arguments, perhaps you have erred in your choice of deity and should be worshiping your ancestors or a god-emperor if your intent is a prolonged life. Finally, on this note, if as it seems, you assert "non-physical life" I would like your evidence for this too.

[hootie361] As far as your quotes from the Bible, if you're going to read it so literally, I'm surprised you haven't asked why God needed to "rest" after the 6 days of creation? You realize, I'm sure, that there are a VAST number of passages that you could refute as internal contradictions. Why waste time asking questions of someone whom you know doesn't have the answer? Why not ask a pastor or priest or at the least a seminary student? If I asked a 5 year old to explain to me the theory of relativity, should I take his inability to reply as evidence that the rule of science is fake?

[Hermit] I'm sorry, earlier in this discussion you seemed to speak so authoritatively that I presumed that you knew, or thought you knew, what you were talking about.

[hootie361] Have you noticed yet that you're referencing evolution based web-sites to refute my creation based assertions and opinions while I'm referencing creation based sites to refute your claims of evolution? For every site you can reference in your defense, I could likely do so with mine. And in the end, it accomplishes...what?

[Hermit] What I have cited is evidence and observation based, and conforms with the vast majority of scientific opinion. Your preference towards fringe pseudo-science as your apparently preferred source of authority (assertions are not evidence) is probably related to your lack of education in the fields we are discussing.

[Hermit] Editing temporarily halted here. To be continued before posting to the "Triangle" site.


[hootie361] The largest problem here, you'll likely agree, is the determination on whether or not God exists. As many other men of science ask for evidence, you also claim there is no way to "prove" God exits using the faculties provided by man, i.e. his five senses of site, touch, taste, smell and hearing. Why is it, then, that millions of people, in the face of all this contrary evidence continue to side with God? Is it a lack of ability to reason? Certainly possible in some cases, but we know a reasoning person is able to separate his belief system from the "facts of life". Is it stubbornness? Quite likely, especially from people who are very ill-tempered, traditional and stuck in their ways.

[hootie361] What if I were to suggest it were something our five known senses weren't able to pick-up? What if it were something we couldn't see, hear, taste, smell or touch in the physical sense? What if there were another way of "feeling", so to speak? And not the "feeling" as in emotional feelings, because we all know those fluctuate based on your mood, how much coffee you had for breakfast, when the last time you got laid was, etc. What if this were a never-changing, ever-constant feeling? People use the term "heart-felt" all the time, why is that? What is the pain known as "heart break"? Why do people always refer to it when saying God has "touched their hearts"?

[hootie361] And why hasn't science recognized this as another human sense? Because not everyone has experienced this, and if it is inconsitent it can not be considered part of science. Science must remain consistent so we can remain confident with our discoveries of reality and ascertain "fact" from "requires-divine-intervention". My same challenge still applies to anyone who claims God doesn't exist, that he's no more than a figment of imagination, myth or some apparition. Have you ever made the honest, heart-felt attempt to commune with God? It's your prerogative and it requires no answer to me or anyone else, but if not, why not?
« Last Edit: 2003-07-24 07:35:52 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4269
Reputation: 8.96
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:A thread from "the triangle" - student magazine at Drexel University
« Reply #16 on: 2003-07-24 06:14:11 »
Reply with quote

Source: Church of Virus
Authors: hootie361
Dated: 2003-07-07

[hootie361] Have you noticed yet that you're referencing evolution based web-sites to refute my creation based assertions and opinions while I'm referencing creation based sites to refute your claims of evolution? For every site you can reference in your defense, I could likely do so with mine. And in the end, it accomplishes...what?

[hootie361] The largest problem here, you'll likely agree, is the determination on whether or not God exists. As many other men of science ask for evidence, you also claim there is no way to "prove" God exits using the faculties provided by man, i.e. his five senses of site, touch, taste, smell and hearing. Why is it, then, that millions of people, in the face of all this contrary evidence continue to side with God? Is it a lack of ability to reason? Certainly possible in some cases, but we know a reasoning person is able to separate his belief system from the "facts of life". Is it stubbornness? Quite likely, especially from people who are very ill-tempered, traditional and stuck in their ways.

[hootie361] What if I were to suggest it were something our five known senses weren't able to pick-up? What if it were something we couldn't see, hear, taste, smell or touch in the physical sense? What if there were another way of "feeling", so to speak? And not the "feeling" as in emotional feelings, because we all know those fluctuate based on your mood, how much coffee you had for breakfast, when the last time you got laid was, etc. What if this were a never-changing, ever-constant feeling? People use the term "heart-felt" all the time, why is that? What is the pain known as "heart break"? Why do people always refer to it when saying God has "touched their hearts"?

[hootie361] And why hasn't science recognized this as another human sense? Because not everyone has experienced this, and if it is inconsitent it can not be considered part of science. Science must remain consistent so we can remain confident with our discoveries of reality and ascertain "fact" from "requires-divine-intervention". My same challenge still applies to anyone who claims God doesn't exist, that he's no more than a figment of imagination, myth or some apparition. Have you ever made the honest, heart-felt attempt to commune with God? It's your prerogative and it requires no answer to me or anyone else, but if not, why not?
Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Pages: 1 [2] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed