A path to faith with science

Quote:

---

well, it is pretty obvious that alot of the bible was streamlined to be more acceptable to the pagans (astrology reference) such as the changing of Christmas to the Pagan holiday date, and while not only obvious, it is documented as well. Hell, Voodoo is a combination of african religions and Christianity, in order to at least partially convert the "heathens".

Christianity has even gone as far as taking polytheistic religions and comparing the saints to the lesser Gods in order to make the religion more accessible and easier to assimilate into.

I don't blame the religion though, I blame the insane people that were so desperate to convert the unbelievers that they would go as far as to "adapt" their religion and make it more appealing. This is why Christians ain't usually taken seriously when they talk about the bible being 100% true.

---

I have done a lot of research on what you're talking about and I won't try to explain it all here. But basically here's how it goes. I'll probably have to repeat this numerous times in this forum but here goes.

What you're talking about were things all performed by the roman catholic church. The Roman catholic church is not a Christian church. Shortly after the flood The sons of Noah ( Shem ham and jape th) had descendent's and began to repopulate the earth. The first began in the area of the bible lands in the land of ancient Babylon. One of the descendent's was a man named nimrod whose name meant mighty hunter before the Lord. From what we know about Nimrod, he was a very evil man. He is responsible for building the original Babylon and he was a vicious king and conquerer who deified himself and made himself a God. But that's not all. There is confusion just like there are in all mystery cults but basically what happened was he had this wife named Semiramis also called Ishtar or Astarte etc. Basically through a series of events which would take a time to explain Nimrod and Semiramis deified themselves and called themselves Gods and took advantage of the prophecy that had been given of the messiah to the sons of Adam and eve and deceived people and tried to say that he was the "one" . and when Nimrod died she took advantage of this and established her self among the heathen as the "mother of the Gods" . Her alleged son also became deified but her status remained above both of them. This mystery cult outlived far longer than Babylon ever did (in fact it still lives on today). In fact through various hidden methods such as symbolic representations and morphing of names and such this mystery religion spread throughout the whole earth. All of the ancient Gods names you may be familiar with from Greece, rome, egypt, India, Iceland, Eourope, Africa, even as far as places like south america and and china and native American cultures it can be traced to and are rooted in the same Babylonian mystery religion. Also the idol God baal that caused Israel to stumble is none other than nimrod, and can be traced back to the Babylonian mystery religion also.

Now when Christianity came along, there was a great falling away shortly after the apostles died and in fact was started to grow long before that. Soon the church was full of apostasy and had been infiltrated by such as the false Egyptian church, itself traced back to babylon, hid behind a false veil of Christianity.

When the Christianity reached Rome, basically what happened was the church leaders who were far compromised already, spread a door wide open for paganism. On the surface, it looked like the church had grown in popularity overnight, but in reality the old temples had been merely refurnished to give the allusion of a Christian theme. A temple which used to be to dionysus would read something like " cathedral of st. dionysus" and such like. In reality paganism had never been abolished but only absorbed into the church. As time when on the
mystery religion working in secret would do everything it could to change the doctrine and rituals and symbolism and everything in the church to be in fact one and the same of the babylonian religion, with the false appearance of Christianity. The same is true to this day. The mystery of iniquity working through the false church pretty much rules the world, and not only established the American government, but continues to rule America and deceive you all and the whole world to this day. And the truth is, there are probably only a handful of Christians on the earth right now.


And all of this is why in the book of revelation it says :

8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

24And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

^^ He doesn't mean that - he means the story of Jesus was just copied from the Story of Horus - and I think he's right.

There it took 30 seconds

And guess where the story of horus originated from.

Babylon. I know what I'm talking about.

I read two pages of that this morning NatureIsAwesome, I think your account of entropy and how it relates to/does not entirely explain life is inconsistent and well basically completely wrong, sorry. Entropy is a measure of the flow of a system from disorder to order, not the other way around, you contradicted yourself. If you wish to understand how life forms out of a universe which scientists used to think was governed by the laws of thermodynamics and physics alone then I suggest reading The Web of Life by Fritjof Capra which gives one of the best accounts of the work of Ilya Prigogine on dissipative structures and how this phenomenon provides a model for how organisms formed into the complex and counter entropic patterns we see today. You suggested that in order to counter the effects of entropic flow lifeforms eat enough food to sustain an adequate degree of complexity, and you also employ mechanical rhetoric. In fact, the food we eat becomes part of our structure which is in a state of quasi-equilibrium, a closed structure but open to a flow of energy which it harnesses also from food and the universal life energy.

The bible lies, or at teh very least has been selectivly edited.

Even people who believe what it teaches should appreciate that, and stop using it as evidence.

Quote:

---

Entropy is a measure of the flow of a system from disorder to order, not the other way around, you contradicted yourself.

---

That's..I can't believe you are saying that.

Entropy is a measure of a a sytems unavailability to do work. The energy available in our universe to do work is being lost...I just don't understand how you can say that. That's totally wrong. I'm seriously baffled, like ..

Things don't naturally become more complex by the 2nd law. They become less complex. Period.

" The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. "

I'm tired of arguing about whether things are closed or not closed. It's irrelevent. There are not exceptions to the second law.

Yes our bodies do harness energy from food, and complex machinery is required to do this.

Quote:

---

The bible lies, or at teh very least has been selectivly edited.

Even people who believe what it teaches should appreciate that, and stop using it as evidence.

---

There is nothing in the bible that has ever been proven false. According to the same process that historians apply to verify the authenticity of other manuscripts and historical artifacts, it is history by all counts. You are the one who should be recognising the bible as a history book.

There is nothing in the bible that has ever been proven wrong, and you have no basis for concluding that anyone has ever edited it. It's only your own presuppositions. It has no logical basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

There is nothing in the bible that has ever been proven false. According to the same process that historians apply to verify the authenticity of other manuscripts and historical artifacts, it is history by all counts. You are the one who should be recognising the bible as a history book.

There is nothing in the bible that has ever been proven wrong, and you have no basis for concluding that anyone has ever edited it. It's only your own presuppositions. It has no logical basis.

---

Because you can't prove them false, remember? We can't prove that a donkey didn't talk some thousands of years ago. All we can do it say "Are there any talking donkeys today? Nope" So why would there be talking donkeys in the past?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

That's..I can't believe you are saying that.

Entropy is a measure of a a sytems unavailability to do work. The energy available in our universe to do work is being lost...I just don't understand how you can say that. That's totally wrong. I'm seriously baffled, like ..

Things don't naturally become more complex by the 2nd law. They become less complex. Period.

" The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. "

I'm tired of arguing about whether things are closed or not closed. It's irrelevent. There are not exceptions to the second law.

Yes our bodies do harness energy from food, and complex machinery is required to do this.

---

Again you choose to employ mechanistic terminology.

I'm not saying it is the second law which causes things to become more complex, its quasi-equilibrium, as I have already indicated. Dissipative structures defy the 2nd law by forming into structures which harness the flow of enery through them, in the same way an organism does, or a planetary biosphere such as the earth. This requires the harnessing structure to be closed, but at the same time open to a flow of energy through it.

It was you who said the second law causes things to become more complex, you are confusing order with disorder, perhaps unintentionally. Either way what you said about entropy and life was fundamentally incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

There is nothing in the bible that has ever been proven false. According to the same process that historians apply to verify the authenticity of other manuscripts and historical artifacts, it is history by all counts. You are the one who should be recognising the bible as a history book.

There is nothing in the bible that has ever been proven wrong, and you have no basis for concluding that anyone has ever edited it. It's only your own presuppositions. It has no logical basis.

---

And sir, you cant prove, through any means, that Buddhism isnt a real religion, and that previous Buddha's have not existed.

Dont tread the path of "you cant disprove it, so it must be true", you wont like the walk, trust me.

Quote:

---

"You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt." - Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

---

Some words to think about...

Staurm said:

Quote:

---

It was you who said the second law causes things to become more complex, you are confusing order with disorder, perhaps unintentionally. Either way what you said about entropy and life was fundamentally incorrect.

---

where did I ever say that?? The logic in the original post goes the exact opposite, and I suggest you reread it.

Actually it seems you said in your post before exactly what you're charging me with right now:

Quote:

---

"Entropy is a measure of the flow of a system from disorder to order, "

---

was that a typo?

It's also important to make a distinction between randomness, complexity and order as I've already mentioned earlier in this thread. The argument goes like this (there a lot more to it of course)

The natural universe is running down, and the fact it's losing complexity tell us it must have started with a higher degree of complexity to begin with. Since the natural universe is not able to decrese entropy on it's own, something outside of the natural universe must have done this, something with intelligence and the ability to direct force.


When you say dissapative structures do you mean things like ice? I've alreadly touched on that before in this thread too if that's what you mean. (#35)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardcore Newbie

Because you can't prove them false, remember? We can't prove that a donkey didn't talk some thousands of years ago. All we can do it say "Are there any talking donkeys today? Nope" So why would there be talking donkeys in the past?

---

What I'm saying is that there are methods that are used to determine whether the information contained in historial manuscripts are false or authentic. When the bible is subject to the same test that all other history is, it passes with flying colors. So, if you won't consider the bible as history, then toss out everything else too while your at it. History of Greece, alexander the great, Rome, pretty much everything. The fact is no we can't prove it the way you want it to be proven but nothing else in history can either really (perhaps if it was on video camera then maybe you would beleive but looking at how people doubt even that these day it wouldn't suprise me if you didn't). we can't prove anything supernatural happened like a donkey talking like you want it to be proven but there are other ways to verify the bible as a historical record and for it's trustworthiness. We can look at other historical artifacts from the same time period, we can look at archeological evidence etc. we can also look at fulfillment of prophecy an accuracy to what we know about the universe and the things in it etc. It's a faith and I never said it's wasn't. The fact of the matter is that it is something you have to recognise in your heart. You have to recognise God's nature in your heart. You have to recognise his wisdom in your heart. You have to look at the world and recognise that the world is made through the inspiration of his divine nature in your heart. You have to recognise that the world is corrupt and God's eternal nature in your heart. You can't prove it through your eyes you have to prove it in your heart. You can't prove eternal nature through yuor eyes, but you can prove it in your heart.

And so it's a combination. You have evidence in this world on one hand, but that doesn't cover everything. The evidence you can perceive in your heart is another. And there's no logical reason for you to say that I can't use evidence from the heart as proof. Who's to say that the evidence from the heart isn't as firm as what we see? In reality though they deny it, even atheists attest to a greater spiritual truth of good and evil, though they deny it and contradict themselves in thier philosophy of humanism.

imitator said:

Quote:

---

And sir, you cant prove, through any means, that Buddhism isnt a real religion, and that previous Buddha's have not existed.

Dont tread the path of "you cant disprove it, so it must be true", you wont like the walk, trust me.

---

I can prove buddhism is a false religion if it contradicts what we know about life and the universe indeed I can. And I believe I did it in my original post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

imitator said:



I can prove buddhism is a false religion if it contradicts what we know about life and the universe indeed I can. And I believe I did it in my original post.

---

Actually you came far from it, because Buddhism actually works better with science then Christianity does. Nothing you said in that post refutes anything Buddhism teaches and states, unless you count your large logical jump from the slightly flawed science you mentioned, to a God having to exist, and it having to be YOUR God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

imitator said:



I can prove buddhism is a false religion if it contradicts what we know about life and the universe indeed I can. And I believe I did it in my original post.

---

Also, you assume too much. You make the assumption that what you know now is definitely the truth, and that it can not possibly be wrong.

Many times throughout the history of man, have we proven wrong what was believed to be "known" to all. Our knowledge is forever expanding, and as time goes on, we find peices to the big puzzle that change how we view everything else that we "knew".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

we can't prove anything supernatural happened like a donkey talking like you want it to be proven but there are other ways to verify the bible as a historical record and for it's trustworthiness.

---

So since the Bible has some truth that can be verified, the rest of it must be true? If that were the case, anytime a liar wanted to deceive someone, all they have to do is tell mostly truth, which makes the rest of their statements are believable, no matter how absurd. I do not believe in talking donkeys. I see little reason to take a book with talking donkeys as fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

You have to recognise God's nature in your heart. You have to recognise his wisdom in your heart. You have to look at the world and recognise that the world is made through the inspiration of his divine nature in your heart. You have to recognise that the world is corrupt and God's eternal nature in your heart.

---

I *have* to? What happens if I attempt to and find nothing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

And so it's a combination. You have evidence in this world on one hand, but that doesn't cover everything. The evidence you can perceive in your heart is another. And there's no logical reason for you to say that I can't use evidence from the heart as proof.

---

I'm not sure what you mean by "evidence from the heart", I will assume it means Values and beliefs. Obviously correct me if i'm wrong in the assumption. So I look down in my heart (or use my brain, since the heart only feels in a symbolical sense) and come to the conclusion that God's version of morality is immoral to me, then I must be right, right? I mean, the evidence was right there in my heart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

In reality though they deny it, even atheists attest to a greater spiritual truth of good and evil, though they deny it and contradict themselves in thier philosophy of humanism.

---

Since when do atheists believe in a "spiritual truth"? And how do they contradict themselves with humanism, assuming of course that all atheists subscribe to humanism, which of course they all don't.

Imitator said:

Quote:

---

Many times throughout the history of man, have we proven wrong what was believed to be "known" to all. Our knowledge is forever expanding, and as time goes on, we find pieces to the big puzzle that change how we view everything else that we "knew".

---

Many times throughout history there was born a boy or girl who grew up into a stupid ignorant man or woman. But just because there's a lot of stupid ignorant people doesn't mean the facts arn't facts or they are totally ambiguous. A fact is a fact whether anybody is too stupid and ignorant to know it or not. But at there same time there have been some people who were born and grew up to have some common sense and wisdom. And those things never change. And in every generation there are those few who carry the torch, whether their parents taught them or they were rescued from the plague of stupidity and insanity of this world. And the truth is, yes we do learn a lot of new things and make mistakes, but on the other hand there's nothing new under the sun. You may think it's new, but look back it'll be there.

I see new information and new knowledge something that changes how I view what I know in the sense that it opens up a greater view, a greater understanding. But it's like with some theories they arn't negated but they become molded together with the new information and perhaps absorbed into something greater than itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

Imitator said:



Many times throughout history there was born a boy or girl who grew up into a stupid ignorant man or woman. But just because there's a lot of stupid ignorant people doesn't mean the facts arn't facts or they are totally ambiguous. A fact is a fact whether anybody is too stupid and ignorant to know it or not. But at there same time there have been some people who were born and grew up to have some common sense and wisdom. And those things never change. And in every generation there are those few who carry the torch, whether their parents taught them or they were rescued from the plague of stupidity and insanity of this world. And the truth is, yes we do learn a lot of new things and make mistakes, but on the other hand there's nothing new under the sun. You may think it's new, but look back it'll be there.

I see new information and new knowledge something that changes how I view what I know in the sense that it opens up a greater view, a greater understanding. But it's like with some theories they arn't negated but they become molded together with the new information and perhaps absorbed into something greater than itself.

---

I loathe using this as an example, because its so cliche, but...

What about during the times where everyone believed the world was flat. Or that the sun revolved around the earth? That was truth, that was fact, during its hayday, but we know now that it wasnt true, at all. There was no molding or morphing to be had there, they were blatantly false, but believed to be true at the time.

Even right now, there is not a single thing in this world which we can state is a fact. Nothing. We have lots of lovely theories and the like, but they do not constitute fact, only a long string of coincidences where things happened the same.

Hi natureisawesome,

Ive been reading your posts and I know a lot of people have responded but i couldnt help adding mine and I hope you'll forgive me :thumbsup:

Ill start with a short allegory I heard a while ago from a good friend :)

Imagine your in a court room, and a trial is taking place, against someone who has commited a terrible act against a loved one you know very well, and against the man accused stands a wealth of evidence, its scientific evidence, statements of accounts from countless witnesses, there is genetic evidence - everything ties in together and makes sense, and the judge is about to call to the jury for a verdict.

The wealth of evidence results in a verdict which to everyone in the courtroom seems a just punishment, to some, closer relatives to the victim, it is obviously not enough.

Yet one man from the crowd stands up and makes a protest about the sentance.

The judge being particularly open minded allows the outburst and asks the man to continue.

The man says "That man is not guilty".

To which the judge responds - "why?"

And the man simply says...

"Because I feel it in my heart".

Is that the way you want the justice system to work? Because in essence, that is what you are asking the scientifically minded people to do, when you continually ask us, to believe that the Bible, is still the infinite truth of the universe and the "word of God".




Hi Imitator,

I just read your last post and couldnt get my head around your comments about facts and theories.

You said:

Quote:

---

Even right now, there is not a single thing in this world which we can state is a fact.

---

What i can interpret this as is that your saying there is always a way to dispute fact, or so called fact?

I say, if you jump off a 50 story building, when you hit the ground, your heart will stop.

There is nothing we can state as fact?

There's always a way to dispute fact?

Dispute that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen_Icarus

Hi Imitator,

I just read your last post and couldnt get my head around your comments about facts and theories.

You said:



What i can interpret this as is that your saying there is always a way to dispute fact, or so called fact?

I say, if you jump off a 50 story building, when you hit the ground, your heart will stop.

There is nothing we can state as fact?

There's always a way to dispute fact?

Dispute that one.

---

No, I apologize, what I said was very broad, although being used for a very narrow aspect of it.

I do believe that there are facts out there in this crazy universe we live in. However, we have not as of yet found anything that is truely a fact. All of science is theories, all of life is theories, at best.

The problem comes from the misconception with fact and belief in alot of cases, although not neccessarily yours, just in general.

Most people believe its a fact that when they wake up tommorow morning, and go to get out of bed, that their floor will be beneath their feet. That is not a fact though, merely a belief, as there is an infinite number of possibilities that could have happened while said person was asleep to make it so that isnt true. Thats a very simplistic way of showing what we deal with in regards to facts and science.

We may currently even be in the possession of an actual fact, but we do not know it if that is the case.

I apologize for the lengthy quote that I am going to post here, but I dislike linking to my blogs and such directly, so here is something I wrote up for a debate in one of my philosophy classes about two years back. Keep in mind, I was baked as all hell when I wrote it, but its a pretty decent way of me explaining what I meant.

Quote:

---

What would we do if we ever held true knowledge? Something that was truely irrefutable, something that would never be up for debate or interpretation, in essence the first real fact that mankind would ever have had?

All too often we tend to take for granted the world in which we live in. Sometimes, its because consistantly things seem to happen in an ordered manner; to question the "fact" every second of ones existance would leave little time for other things. We are taught that it is wholely un-intelligent and quite possibly un-sane to question if the sun will rise tommorow. It has done so for so very long that its the logical conclusion that it will do so again tommorow. And that without some sort of catacalysmic event happening, nothing could change that "fact".

But if we look at our own day to day lives, if we look into the things that happen daily around us, we would find that these catacalysmic events happen so very often that its almost unbelievable. Every time that a light bulb goes out, its because of one of these events. It worked fine yesterday, in fact it worked fine just mere seconds before. But through actions that we can not see easily, it dies. Because of a certain reaction, which caused another reaction, which in turn continued to cause reactions down a very long chain, the light bulb ceased working. Each of those reactions were random. There was no factor that could be calculated in any form of math or other science that could show the exact time that the lightbulb would cease to function.

So the question is, then, if such reactions on such a small scale, in comparison to lets say the sun, are not exactly understood and can not be defined and predicted, wouldnt that mean that the science is not exact? That while we may understand the concept, we do not have any facts, just thoughts and ideas that seem to fit in accordance to the subject?

What would a fact mean to us? With even one true, actual fact, that was never unpredictable, that no matter what the scale it was applied to, one could calculate exactly when something would happen, how, and all the other details, we would then be able to find facts for everything else in existance. This is true because, once we fully understand something, anything, we can apply it to anything else, by simply breaking down the truth to the smallest factor. In essence, knowing the fact of why the lightbulb goes out, and being able to say for certain when any lightbulb will go out, and never being wrong, gives you the starting block. From there, since you have the equation or whatever to prove these things, you can go deep as you wish, and look at all the levels of this truth. And when you reach the deepest darkest level of the truth, for example lets say down to the atom's and their actions and reactions, you can then begin to understand everythign else at that level. Because for this thing to be a truth, certain things must react exactly the same towards it. And for those things to react exactly the same to the truth, other things must react exactly the same. So on and so forth, until you understand the workings of everything because they must all react in a certain way for this truth to be true.

The problem is, we dont have any truth's. We dont have any actual facts. The world that we percieve, the world that we believe we live in, is so full of randomness, that in order to stay "sane" or to make any sense of it all, we have to try to make as much as we can into "facts and truths". Instead of saying, the sun might rise tommorow, we state that it will. The common man is never given any reason to assume otherwise. But for whatever reason, maybe the sun's hypothetical lightbulb just goes out. We have no way of knowing when it will happen, or why, although we have idea's and assumptions in regards to the matter. At this very moment as I write this, the sun could no longer exist, and we wouldnt know for some time to come. Yet assuming the sun has already gone out, people would wake up tommorow and say that the sun rose. And they would tell you matter of factly that it will rise again tommorow. What would they say when the time finally came that it was apparent that the sun wasnt going to "rise again tommorow morning"? How would they react when one of their basic "facts" was no longer there?

One of the interesting things about the pursuit of knowledge, the search for truths, is that for every one answer you may find, it will ultimately leave you with two questions in its place. Every scientific theory that has been adopted as truth and fact, has at some later period of time, been proven to be innacurate, or completely untrue. Something wasnt correct about it, although it was adopted as fact and only later on noticed to not be true. And everyone who adopted these items as fact, were living in a lie. And every one of them willingly doing so. Ignorance isnt an excuse for the criminal, and nor is it for the scientist or the common man. Just because certain things werent known when you came to your conclusion doesnt mean that you arent at fault for believing in an untrue conclusion. You are entirely at fault, because if you had looked, you would have seen it to be false. Sometimes its very simple to look and see that its false, other times its so deeply hidden that at times it seems impossible that it could not be true. But without fail eventually every single "truth" is looked at hard enough that someone sees the "crack in the armor". And it is because of the failures of everyone before that person that the crack was not noticed beforehand. You can never have looked hard enough if you havent found the fault in something. Using the logic discussed earlier, it is very probable that anything could happen.

This would leave us in a complete state of chaos though. If anything can happen at any time, then that would be a textbook case of a chaos state. To help us with this, and to help us live in this chaos state, we have science. When we look at the developments of science not as facts, but as explinations and rationalizations of occurances that have a high probability of occuring again, it gives us the ability to hold onto the slippery slope we are perched on. If we look at the sun rising tommorow as highly probable because of "these reasonings", we can give both some order to our world and still not willingly be living in a state of falsehood.

Note that even though we have this science to help us live day to day, it doesnt change the fact that we do live amoungst chaos. It is easier for us to cover chaos and randomness with logic and sureity, it allows us to live easier. When we dont have to spend every second questioning something, or wondering what or when something will happen, things are easier. Over time though, if one were to strip away the logic and sureity, or better yet introduce someone into this world without ever giving them this logic and sureity, that person would have little problem living easily. It is through our own constructs, over an incredibly lengthy period of time, that we put ourselves in a position that we can not handle living in a world of uncertainty. We have grown accustomed to our sureity, and cant quite comprehend how to live without it.

Ironically, it is because of this chaos, or rather through it, that I am discussing this topic to begin with. There was no equation to prove when I would think about this, or what I would say and when. Logic and sureity can not apply to some things and not others. You cant have object A which is logical and essentially a truth or fact, sitting next to object B which has no logic or sureity. In order for object A to exist, everything around it must be a truth and logical as well. It must all be proven, must always act the same, or else the entire foundation of object A being a truth and logical is lost. Everything must react the same every time so that object A can be logical and proven without any randomness. If one object can react in any way that can not be pinpoint predicted, then the entire truth is lost.

Now science likes to avoid this dilemma of absolutes. In such cases, clauses are added. "Well, if object B doesnt act the way we use right now to predict object A, it is possible for it to act another way and still acheive the same results." If I state that this Sunkist in my cup will never leave the cup, you can immediately see the problem. Sure the Sunkist in a perfect sitaution would never leave that cup, but there are external factors that can modify and change the entire thing. If gravity changes, the liquid might leave the cup, or if some force colides with the cup and causes it to move in such a fashion that the liquid sloshes out, then what I said above would not be true. The Sunkist indeed could leave the cup. And this admittedly makes sense. And one could even go so far as to come up with equations to show definitively what would happen with each situation. The problem is, what about something that changes the above mentioned things that could cause the alteration of the fact of the Sunkist never leaving the cup.

True enough though, each of these things that could change the factors that would cause the Sunkist to have a means of leaving the cup and its truth, can be definitively equated. And no matter how far down the line you go, you could come up with equations that explain everything needed to show how the fact of the Sunkist never leaving the cup could be altered, but still be true in the end. Seems like my entire thought process is debunked then, no?

No indeed, actually. Because even with all these equations, you cant prove with fact when these "somethings" could alter the truth of the Sunkist leaving the cup. You can show me the logic behind what happened after the fact, and what caused it, but you could not tell me ahead of time that it was going to happen, without using other factors to give you hints. And then you must look at these other hint factors, and be able to tell me ahead of time about those, and so on and so forth. So, even though we know the almost certain "why and how", we cant come even close to the certainty with the "when". And without the "when", you dont have a sound arguement.

Look at it this way. Although we can show with science the reactions and actions that take place as I type on this keyboard, no amount of science can show ahead of time what it is I am going to type, when I am going to type it, or why. In this sense, science is explaining things, but only in a retroactive manner. And now we sit at our catch 22. Science appears to be able to explain things in a retroactive manner, IE after the fact. And it always seems to be correct in some manner. In example, our lightbulb. After it goes out, we can examine it and declare what the cause of death was. We then declare what we found to be the truth, and the cause of the death of the lightbulb.

But for something to be correct, for something to be "fact" or a "truth", everything around it must be a truth as well. And if we held a truth, as talked about above, then we would essentially know that everything else in this existance is a "truth" or "fact" for the reasons stated above. But if this is true, for the science to be correct, it must be a fact or a truth. And if it was a truth or fact, then that means that it would always act in a certain manner, and that everything, and I do mean everything else is the same. If we take all of this to be true, then in order for us to be correct 100% of the time about the death of the lightbulb, we would need to be able to be 100% correct about the exact time of death. In all situations too. Although we can use external forces of our own direction and control to force a death of the lightbulb, which would allow us to be 100% correct about the time of death, we must also be able to predict it in perfect situations where nothing acts "out of optimum conditions", and all points in between.

So, if we can prove and claim it fact on how the lightbulb died, then we should be able to show when it will die. Also, a whole different can of worms becomes apparent. Taking our current situation and assuming that it is all true and fact, there would be no distinction between someone forcing the death of the lightbulb and the optimum conditions set. There is no inbetween. They would be one and the same, since the action would already have been predicted and known as a fact or truth. There never was a less then optimum condition, there was never any other choice or option other then the one that happened. Thats right, predestination would be a "fact" if one were to believe that there were indeed "facts".

---

Hope that better explains what I meant, if not, let me know, and Ill see if I cant explain it better.

h.b. said:

Quote:

---

So since the Bible has some truth that can be verified, the rest of it must be true? If that were the case, anytime a liar wanted to deceive someone, all they have to do is tell mostly truth, which makes the rest of their statements are believable, no matter how absurd. I do not believe in talking donkeys. I see little reason to take a book with talking donkeys as fact.

---

You don't need to see a miracle to recognize God's existence. You don't have to see a miracle to recognize God's nature. If you did, then god definitely would show you a miracle. Since you don't need to be shown a miracle, and it's required that man shall live by faith then you're excuseless and you're only testing God. The evidence to recognize God isn't something real hard to grasp. It's everywhere and so plain and obvious that it's insulting to ask to see a miracle. People tell themselves they can't see it and they don't. They choose to have no faith.

Do you know that in old times, that the type of stories and genealogies in the bible were read aloud in in the synagogue in Israel? It was also told by word of mouth, every thing was in those days and not just in Israel either. They had all this stuff memorized in their head and they were trained to remember lots of stuff like stories and genealogies and history of wars and everything else because hardly anyone read or wrote. So all the time there were people who were hearing this written history and things and if it was wrong, then lots of people would be saying hey that's wrong.

All of the books of the bible were written by leaders and scribes and people well known about and very visible and information would be much more widely available. For instance the books of chronicles or the books of kings were from the royal palace itself, and would be widely circulated. Especially because another one of scribes jobs was to make copies of existing documents.

With the information there is to know about God, it's enough to have faith. You don't need the bible to know there's the all loving God in the bible. And why aren't you as suspicious about all history? Do you know there wasn't a talking donkey? I know I can't prove something i can't show you, but at the same time you have no way of knowing and the possibility still lies open there could be one in the past. So take care to recognize your bias.

Quote:

---

I *have* to? What happens if I attempt to and find nothing?

---

With honestly, humility and faith that won't happen.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure what you mean by "evidence from the heart", I will assume it means Values and beliefs. Obviously correct me if I'm wrong in the assumption. So I look down in my heart (or use my brain, since the heart only feels in a symbolical sense) and come to the conclusion that God's version of morality is immoral to me, then I must be right, right? I mean, the evidence was right there in my heart.

---

Not just values and beliefs. Ultimate values. Spiritual Truth. I don't believe that our feelings are in our brains of course. I think there's a good deal to show this is true. Also, something I've noticed. Have you ever noticed that whenever you feel real deeply about somethings, like if you feel very strongly towards a girl of if you're in emotional pain it hurts right in your heart, I mean your physical heart. I find that interesting and I'm not saying the physical heart can feel, but I've thought about it and if there's a designer I think that would be the perfect place to make that connection you know? from the spiritual heart to the beating heart? we we think of the beating of the physical heart, it's very representative of what we recognize as our heart, our center of feeling and of sentient perception.

Quote:

---

Since when do atheists believe in a "spiritual truth"? And how do they contradict themselves with humanism, assuming of course that all atheists subscribe to humanism, which of course they all don't.

---

According to the Humanist Manifestos I & II: Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view. The Humanist Manifestos declare:

"These affirmations [in the Manifestos] are not a final credo or dogma but an expression of a living and growing faith." Philosophically, secular humanism is naturalism. Strictly speaking secular humanism does not allow for ultimate morality but adopts a philosophy of ethical relativism. But on the other hand, who of them of them will deny that loving isn't good or helping someone who needs help is not right? Many people have different concept of what they think is the best love, but ultimately we all recognize love as something right, a higher standard that's higher than us all that we are all obligated to follow. But the material universe cannot determine moral Truth . Only sentient beings can recognize that. But then when examined they would be forced to admit that according to their belief in naturalism and evolution they cannot allow a spiritual truth. I know you might say well some people believe in God and evolution but I think that can be easily shown fallacious but the truth is leading evolutionist don't seem to like theistic evolution at all.

Logically, atheists have to provide a moral code from outside of their belief system which which can't provide any. Richard Dawkins even claimed that he was a passionate Darwinist as to how we got here, but a passionate anti-Darwinist when it came to morality.

Quote:

---

An idea of the problem for atheists was illustrated in the famous radio debate between the Jesuit philosopher and historian of philosophy Frederick Copleston and the anti-Christian mathematical logician Bertrand Russell (www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm):

Bertrand Russell [BR]: You see, I feel that some things are good and that other things are bad. I love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad. I donâ??t say that these things are good because they participate in the Divine goodness.

Frederick Copleston [FC]: Yes, but whatâ??s your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them?

BR: I donâ??t have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow. What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? I can see they are different.

FC: Well, that is an excellent justification, I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty?

BR: By my feelings.

As Christian apologist Dr. Ravi Zacharias said in The Atheists Challenge, if Copleston werenâ??t such a gentleman, he might have asked, â??in some cultures they love their neighbors; in others they eat them, both on the basis of feeling. Do you have any preference?â?�

---

Fr. Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell: The Famous 1948 BBC Radio Debate on the Existence of God

Here's what can happen when angry and hurt people believe there is no standard of morality, that they can make their own rules:

How to build a bomb in the public school system

Fallen Icarus said:

Quote:

---

Hi natureisawesome,

Ive been reading your posts and I know a lot of people have responded but i couldn't help adding mine and I hope you'll forgive me

Ill start with a short allegory I heard a while ago from a good friend

Imagine your in a court room, and a trial is taking place, against someone who has committed a terrible act against a loved one you know very well, and against the man accused stands a wealth of evidence, its scientific evidence, statements of accounts from countless witnesses, there is genetic evidence - everything ties in together and makes sense, and the judge is about to call to the jury for a verdict.

The wealth of evidence results in a verdict which to everyone in the courtroom seems a just punishment, to some, closer relatives to the victim, it is obviously not enough.

Yet one man from the crowd stands up and makes a protest about the sentence.

The judge being particularly open minded allows the outburst and asks the man to continue.

The man says "That man is not guilty".

To which the judge responds - "why?"

And the man simply says...

"Because I feel it in my heart".

Is that the way you want the justice system to work? Because in essence, that is what you are asking the scientifically minded people to do, when you continually ask us, to believe that the Bible, is still the infinite truth of the universe and the "word of God".

---

But like I said before evidence that is morality and spiritual truth are just as valid if not more so, and this includes atheists. What's wright or wrong? To an atheist something is right because he feels so. He believes that his sense of morality can not be recognition of any spiritual Truth because there is no God. But for a theist, it so much more it's the solid ground of spiritual truth. You wrote that and I though immediately afterwords how that is self-defeatist and you revealed the very weakness of you tried to accuse me of in your argument. Furthermore, recognition of spiritual Truth does not deny evidence in the material world.In fact, one of the main ways of determining the validity of any religion is to compare it to what we observe in the natural world and see if they fit or not.

Quote:

---

Hi Imitator,

I just read your last post and couldn't get my head around your comments about facts and theories.

You said:


Quote:
Even right now, there is not a single thing in this world which we can state is a fact.

What i can interpret this as is that your saying there is always a way to dispute fact, or so called fact?

I say, if you jump off a 50 story building, when you hit the ground, your heart will stop.

There is nothing we can state as fact?

There's always a way to dispute fact?

Dispute that one.

---

I've shown ample evidence of facts. Rock solid facts. Just because you don't want to accept it doesn't make it not a fact. You are. I am. We are. Does anyone question this? How much closer can a think get for you to recognize it's validity? To deny your existence and the outside world is to live in hypocrisy because you fall upon these same axioms every day.

imitator said:

Quote:

---

There was no factor that could be calculated in any form of math or other science that could show the exact time that the lightbulb would cease to function.

---

That's simply not true.

Quote:

---

What would a fact mean to us? With even one true, actual fact, that was never unpredictable, that no matter what the scale it was applied to, one could calculate exactly when something would happen, how, and all the other details, we would then be able to find facts for everything else in existence.

---

You are thinking. Deny it? You can't. You can't deny yourself.

Quote:

---

Because for this thing to be a truth, certain things must react exactly the same towards it. And for those things to react exactly the same to the truth, other things must react exactly the same. So on and so forth, until you understand the workings of everything because they must all react in a certain way for this truth to be true.

---

Huh??

Quote:

---

At this very moment as I write this, the sun could no longer exist, and we wouldn't know for some time to come.

---

How do you have any way of knowing that the sun 'could' no longer exist? You don't know it can do anything other that what you know it to do by the observation by which you know it. There is no reason to believe or suggest that it 'could' no longer exist. Your imagination does not count. From all we know and observe in the outside world, and the science thereof the sun will exist. And nothing stands to contradict this.

Quote:

---

Every scientific theory that has been adopted as truth and fact, has at some later period of time, been proven to be inaccurate, or completely untrue.

---

absolutely false

Quote:

---

Just because certain things weren't known when you came to your conclusion doesn't mean that you aren't at fault for believing in an untrue conclusion. You are entirely at fault, because if you had looked, you would have seen it to be false.

---

......

Quote:

---

But without fail eventually every single "truth" is looked at hard enough that someone sees the "crack in the armor".

---

every single one eh?

Quote:

---

Using the logic discussed earlier, it is very probable that anything could happen.

---

How do you know this? You say that facts cannot be identified but then say anything can happen as a fact. How do you know? Wouldn't you rather go with the evidence you do have rather than the evidence you don't???

Quote:

---

This would leave us in a complete state of chaos though. If anything can happen at any time, then that would be a textbook case of a chaos state.

---

No basis for this either.

Quote:

---

When we look at the developments of science not as facts, but as explanations and rationalizations of occurrences that have a high probability of occurring again

---

How do you know?

" It is easier for us to cover chaos and randomness with logic and surety, it allows us to live easier. .......Over time though, if one were to strip away the logic "

You mean the logic you used to write this?

Quote:

---

Logic and sureity can not apply to some things and not others.

---

really...

Quote:

---

If one object can react in any way that can not be pinpoint predicted, then the entire truth is lost.

---

That's not true.

I managed to read all of it. I finally made it. I don't feel the need to answer your logic and I seriously think you were smoking too much wed on top of other things.

You don't seem to recognize that no matter how close your perception of another thing is it's in the end up to you to accept it's existence (yes it does require willpower). In the end, no matter how much you know it comes down to being reasonable. The only other way is to be all knowing, to know everything that exists or doesn't.

Your mind is all you have. Nomatter which direction you turn, to accept reality or to deny it you still use your perception and judgment skills nomatter where you turn. You have to accept reality. You don't have any other choice.

from something I posted a while ago:

Quote:

---

As far as understanding anything goes, human logic is all we have. Human understanding and reasoning. That's it. If you want to scrutinize our understanding of infinity, then you have to scrutinize our entire thinking process, and well and there's really no way to do that since the only thinking and feeling capabilities you would use to scrutinize your thinking and feeling capabilities are the ones you already have, and those would be in question. And even if you had back up thinking and feeling capabilities, these would necessarily come under question as well. You would come to a dead end and very likely turn to nihilism, but really this can't even be a sure thing for you since your judgment skills you used to turn to nihilism could be faulty
too. Things really just go downhill from there but ultimately you must either face or deny yourself.

Whether you choose to deny yourself or accept your own existence, either way proves that someone or something made the choice to do it - you. Therefore since you do exist, you can be absolutely sure that this much of your judgment skills is practical. You may now proceed to gain your own trust of reality. If you need help doing this I can help you.

If you don't like or trust having personal convictions or having value judgment skills then too bad, there's nothing you can do about it. It's built into you and the only thing you can do if you don't like it or trust it is to tell yourself it's all in your head and live in hypocrisy by using those judgment skills in your day to day life.

Or you can be reasonable and just accept that it is reasonable and practical and wonder how such magnificent sentient manifestations such as love, virtue,courage, beauty,compassion, patience, charity, honesty etc. could be manifested by anything but another sentient being.

---

I understand that you don't know exactly exactly what's going to happen in the future. But the evidence we have shows that the universe is not inherently chaotic and all signs show that it will continue to do so. That's evidence. The way you use the word fact you render it utterly meaningless, and necessarily because facts can't only be recognized by a sentient being. You choose to deny them and you fall deeper trying to evade a reality that cannot be evaded.

The fact is you are thinking and you exist and the same perceiption you perceive yuor own existance you also observe the outside world and everything in it according to human reasoning which cannot be evaded the universe and things in it are just as real as you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

You don't need to see a miracle to recognize God's existence. You don't have to see a miracle to recognize God's nature. If you did, then god definitely would show you a miracle. Since you don't need to be shown a miracle, and it's required that man shall live by faith then you're excuseless and you're only testing God. The evidence to recognize God isn't something real hard to grasp. It's everywhere and so plain and obvious that it's insulting to ask to see a miracle. People tell themselves they can't see it and they don't. They choose to have no faith.

---

What's so insulting about wanting to see a miracle? I can say the exact opposite that you just said, and I'd be just as right. You're stating opinions. Besides, you say god is all powerful, so it literally takes *nothing* for him to show me. I've already an open invitation to any God, god, deity or anything of the like to have a conversation with me. No takers so far (besides Flying Spaghetti Monster, of course).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

With the information there is to know about God, it's enough to have faith. You don't need the bible to know there's the all loving God in the bible. And why aren't you as suspicious about all history? Do you know there wasn't a talking donkey? I know I can't prove something i can't show you, but at the same time you have no way of knowing and the possibility still lies open there could be one in the past. So take care to recognize your bias.

---

Do I know there wasn't a talking donkey? No, of course not, it's impossible to prove that something DIDN'T HAPPEN. I realize that nearly anything is possible (which I state clearly and often). if I'm biased for living in reality and realize the possibility of a talking donkey is highly unlikely, then call me bias.

I'll ask you a few questions about a talking donkey. Do you believe that a donkey has ever spoken? And if so, why aren't you be suspicious? If you're not suspicious, would you believe me if I told you that my dog told me that god doesn't exist?

I'm not suspicious of most history because unlike a talking donkey, it's.... what's the word.... believable. The only other books I've read with talking animals were called fairy tales.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

Not just values and beliefs. Ultimate values. Spiritual Truth. I don't believe that our feelings are in our brains of course. I think there's a good deal to show this is true. Also, something I've noticed. Have you ever noticed that whenever you feel real deeply about somethings, like if you feel very strongly towards a girl of if you're in emotional pain it hurts right in your heart, I mean your physical heart.

---

Nope. I get mine in the gut. More assumptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

I find that interesting and I'm not saying the physical heart can feel, but I've thought about it and if there's a designer I think that would be the perfect place to make that connection you know? from the spiritual heart to the beating heart? we we think of the beating of the physical heart, it's very representative of what we recognize as our heart, our center of feeling and of sentient perception.

---

All subjective. I'd say the perfect places for love would be in the genitals or the fingers. It's just my view of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

According to the Humanist Manifestos I & II: Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view. The Humanist Manifestos declare:

---

I don't care what the definition of humanism is. You stated that atheists subscribe to humanism. A very blanket statement used so that you can further your points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

Logically, atheists have to provide a moral code from outside of their belief system which which can't provide any. Richard Dawkins even claimed that he was a passionate Darwinist as to how we got here, but a passionate anti-Darwinist when it came to morality.

---

Logically, atheists (or anybody, really) don't *have* to do anything. Each person is an individual. What does richard dawkins have to do with anyone else as a person? he's a famous atheist? Big deal, he doesn't speak for every atheist on the planet.

Also, some people may be immoral by my standard, but not by their own. So *logically*, nobody on the face of the earth is required to provide their moral code.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

Here's what can happen when angry and hurt people believe there is no standard of morality, that they can make their own rules:

---

I could throw up a link to the spanish inquisition and use that of my basis to describe anyone who is religious anyone believes in a higher power, and what they do when they think their morality is being guided by a higher power. it serves no purpose.

'Faith' is just a nicer word for 'assume'. If you have faith in something for which there is no evidence (e.g., something that can be replicated by others and produces consistent results), then you are just assuming that what you've been told (or what you feel) is the truth. Truth should never be assumed. Question everything, and demand evidence. This is how we stopped thinking that God makes meteor storms to punish the wicked or that women who can swim must be witches.

250 years ago, if they threw you in the river and you *didn't* drown, they burned you, because they had faith that this was God's will, to burn witches, and they had faith that you *were* a witch if you didn't drown, thus making burning the skin from your bones the 'right' and 'moral' thing to do. These are the roads down which faith takes people. Much of the world has outgrown such superstitious nonsense, but it is thriving in the U.S.

Faith in the Islamic model of life and of the afterlife is what drives virtually all the suicide bombings in the world today. They have faith that *their* beliefs are right and yours are wrong. You have faith that they're wrong and you're right. If everyone would just stop with the assumptions and start asking for demonstrable proof, violence would go way way down.

I've noticed that throughout this whole thread no one has even come to mentioning the scriptural prophecies In the original posrt. I'd be interested to hear thoughts on that.

I predicted that you would post again. It's not a prophecy. Even Sylvia Browne gets things right. The best way to do it is to make hundreds of predictions and a few will probably be right.

Many of the prophecies you listed seem to depend on the original 69 seven's prophecy. Numerical prophecies are notoriously easy to manipulate after the fact. If it doesn't work with days, try weeks. If it doesn't work with weeks, try months. If it doesn't work for months, try years. If it doesn't work with years try decades, or multiples of sevens of years, and on and on and on. Even the starting date could easily be readjusted, as there have been attempts to 'rebuild Jerusalem' in *recent* times. Which would push the Messiah date up into the future rather than in the past. With numbers, if you look for patterns, you will find them, even if they aren't really patterns at all. (Ever see the movie Pi? If not, it's worth watching, lots of number-related religiousy stuff.)

As for many (if not all) of the other prophecies, they aren't resolved yet. Was THE Jesus the one that was found in that tomb recently? If so, then perhaps we'll be able to analyze that DNA at some point and see if his mother is there, perhaps who his real father was, whether that was his wife and son also buried there, etc. If any of that proves to be true, that will pretty much invalidate much of the Christian belief system. Of course, many (probably most) Christians will go into denial at that point and cling to their traditional beliefs like a drowning man does a life preserver, which would be interesting to watch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

That's simply not true.

---

Since it worked for you so well, prove it. Wait, you cant? Then I guess I am right, no?

There exists no method to determine the exact period of time at which the lightbulb will die. None. Now sure, in the future, we might find a way, but that doesnt make my statement wrong in any way.

Quote:

---

You are thinking. Deny it? You can't. You can't deny yourself.

---

One of the more simplistic philosophical exercises, but a good one none the less. The problem is, the entire "I think, therefore I am" arguement fails to work if you introduce the Dreamer aspect. If we are all part of someones dream, and we didnt actually know it, then we could actually debunk the "I think, therefore I am" line of logic, because your thinking is actually not you thinking, but part of someones dream that they are creating.

Quote:

---

Huh??

---

It goes like this. A truth is a truth is a truth. It is true no matter the circumstances, no matter who views it, it is true. Truth/Facts are independant of any one persons reality, they exist, by themselves, and need not anyone to be currently looking at it to exist. They are the same no matter who views them, assuming the person knows what they are looking at. Now if a truth/fact is always true no matter what, if you start breaking down the truth into more and more basic truths, eventually you will find yourself at a level where you can begin to use said truth to prove other truths, by causing interactions with the original truth. That truth/fact is always the same no matter what, so any interactions you cause will have a similar pattern of always happening in them as well. Follow me?

Quote:

---

How do you have any way of knowing that the sun 'could' no longer exist? You don't know it can do anything other that what you know it to do by the observation by which you know it. There is no reason to believe or suggest that it 'could' no longer exist. Your imagination does not count. From all we know and observe in the outside world, and the science thereof the sun will exist. And nothing stands to contradict this.

---

Do believe you are making my point for me there. Or part of it at least.

I dont know if the sun exists at the moment. I know that it could no longer exist, based on the theories we have in science currently. But it is impossible for me to know its actual current existance, at this exact moment, without being right next to the actual sun. If the sun was destroyed this very minute, we wouldnt know about it for a period of time. But before that period of time came up, we would all assume that the sun was still working like it always had, and everything was ok. But, it wasnt, there was no more sun, even though everyone would tell you its a fact that the sun still exists.

Quote:

---

absolutely false

---

Prove it. Show me an example. Show me one scientific theory that was never based on any other theory that ended up being false or modified in any way shape or form, and that hasnt itself been modified in any way shape or form.

Quote:

---

......

---

With the sun example, every single person is at fault who continued to assume the sun was perfectly fine, when it wasnt. You cant claim ignorance as an excuse, the answer was there, if you looked deep and hard enough. But once again, convienence wins out on situations like this, because its such a pain in the ass to do constantly, and the chances of seeing something different are slim, so its considered useless. But that doesnt change that the answers were there for anyone to see if they looked hard enough, they were just too lazy to do so.

Quote:

---

every single one eh?

---

Show me a single assumed truth, ie something that was a theory that everyone considered a fact/truth, that hasnt at some point been modified or shown to be incorrect, or wasnt based on a theory that hasnt at some point been modified or shown to be incorrect in any way. Im betting you wont find anything, because as time goes on, and we as a species learn more, we also learn just how little we knew before, and how incorrect we were.

Quote:

---

How do you know this? You say that facts cannot be identified but then say anything can happen as a fact. How do you know? Wouldn't you rather go with the evidence you do have rather than the evidence you don't???

---

Probable. PROBABLE. Prob-able. That is, literally, the key word in what I said. I never said it WOULD, I never said it was a FACT, I said it was probable.

Also, facts can be identified, and I dont recall ever stating they couldnt. I said we dont have any facts that we know about currently, although its possible that we are in possession of a truth, and just havent realized it yet. Facts exist, or at least I believe that they do... we just havent found any yet.

Quote:

---

No basis for this either.

---

In a reality where anything could happen at any time, randomly, that would be a text book case of a chaos state.

[quoteHow do you know?[/quote]

This is seriously almost like comic relief. You are making my point. How do YOU know that it isnt like that? You dont, but unlike myself, you assume that it is a fact that it always happens like that, but you dont know if it does. I am arguing that we dont know that it is a fact, and on the same hand you are arguing with me saying how do you know its not a fact. If it was a fact, there wouldnt be any question, it would just be a fact.

Quote:

---

" It is easier for us to cover chaos and randomness with logic and surety, it allows us to live easier. .......Over time though, if one were to strip away the logic "

You mean the logic you used to write this?

---

You caught me. I use logic and reasoning in day to day life. I imagine if you look around, you might find that others use it to. Shocking, I know, but bear with me here.

And yet again, it sounds like you are trying to help me here, not argue against me. You pointed out that I use logic to try to make chaos and randomness easier to deal with/understand in a sense, which is exactly what I am saying. People use logic and surety to make randomness and chaos easier to deal with and less complicated in general.

Quote:

---

really...

---

I do believe it was you, and I apologize if I mixed you up with someone else, that said that the supernatural couldnt exist along side the natural, because of some reasoning involving God. If something is above the laws that govern our universe, if it is not logical, then it would have to belong to something similar, if not, the group of things known as supernatural. Now I would have to ask, how can you question what I said, and still claim that the supernatural cant exist. It has to be one or the other, as far as I can see.

Quote:

---

That's not true.

---

I am not sure if you responded to just the clipped quote from that section I wrote or not, but when put into full context, in its entirety, it is very true.

I was stating that you cant have a truth, if you can not pinpoint every last thing about it and be able to explain all of it in some sort of equation or something similar. If you cant state how its going to react, to anything, all the time, with 100% certainty and no chance for it to ever happen any differently, then its not a fact, is it?

Quote:

---

I managed to read all of it. I finally made it. I don't feel the need to answer your logic and I seriously think you were smoking too much wed on top of other things.

---

Ill ignore the half cop-out excuse to avoid actually discussing at all what I said, and the fact that throughout everything you said in response, you never did anything but make blanket claims with nothing behind them... Wait, no, I wont. Thats a load of crap, and you darn well know it. If you had no intention of answering my logic, or providing anything to back up your statements in response to what I said, then why bother posting? To make yourself feel better?

Quote:

---

You don't seem to recognize that no matter how close your perception of another thing is it's in the end up to you to accept it's existence (yes it does require willpower). In the end, no matter how much you know it comes down to being reasonable. The only other way is to be all knowing, to know everything that exists or doesn't.

---

Do believe that is what they call the classic search of knowledge that man has been doing since our existance. The search to understand everything, be able to explain everything. Sure, not everyone has it, but as a species, we have advanced so far because of it, and will continue to advance as long as we continue to search.

You can choose to accept somethings existance or to not to, but in the end, that doesnt affect its actual existance one bit. If something truely exists, it exists outside of your perception, and is independant of you. Such as, since we are talking about it, truths and facts. They exist independant of you, and wether you choose to accept their existance or not, it doesnt affect their actual existance.

If it only exists for yourself, if it is dependant entirely on yourself, and nothing else, then how do you show anyone else that it exists? And if you cant show anyone else, and no one else can see it, does it truely exist? Before you give that question a blanket yes statement, ask yourself, can you prove to anyone, and everyone, of its existance? If not, then you dont have proof that it exists, you have a strong belief and conviction based on personal perception.

Quote:

---

Your mind is all you have. Nomatter which direction you turn, to accept reality or to deny it you still use your perception and judgment skills nomatter where you turn. You have to accept reality. You don't have any other choice.

---

But my reality is different then yours, and yours is different then his, and his is different then hers. So who's do I accept?

And once again, my entire reality, my entire thought process and everything I do, think, and percieve, could easily be a part of some great beings dream. The Dreamer theory is a wonderful thing at debunking people who use the "reality is a fact" arguement. Everything is foiled by the Dreamer theory, granted, but it still proves the point.

Quote:

---

I understand that you don't know exactly exactly what's going to happen in the future. But the evidence we have shows that the universe is not inherently chaotic and all signs show that it will continue to do so. That's evidence.

---

No, thats actually not evidence. And where is your facts? Your absolute proof? I mean, if the universe is not inherently chaotic, and it will continue to be as such(it would have to, or else it would have always been chaotic), then surely there must be an easily recognizable and provable fact amoungst it? If it is not chaos, then its order, and order follows rules, and rules are independant of people and perception, and should be definable in things such as or similar to equations. And those equations would indeed be facts, as they would always be that way, with no chance for anything to ever deviate.

Quote:

---

The way you use the word fact you render it utterly meaningless, and necessarily because facts can't only be recognized by a sentient being. You choose to deny them and you fall deeper trying to evade a reality that cannot be evaded.

---

The way you, and most of this population uses the word fact, you render it meaningless, and ruin the entire idea of a fact.

A fact isnt a belief, a fact isnt a perception, a fact is a fact is a fact. Its always has been, currently is, and always will be the same. Its independant of everything, and if it isnt actually a fact in one situation or another, then it a fact at all.

Too much these days people use the word fact and truth to describe things that happen in life for which we only have theories, no facts. Science has never found a fact, and you wont find any reputable scientist who will tell you otherwise.

A fact/truth will be the same wether I choose to acknowledge it or not, and me not acknowledging it doesnt mean it cant affect me either. A fact/truth does what it does, without any change, and is independant of everything else but itself. I know I keep repeating that, but its for a reason.

Quote:

---

The fact is you are thinking and you exist and the same perceiption you perceive yuor own existance you also observe the outside world and everything in it according to human reasoning which cannot be evaded the universe and things in it are just as real as you.

---

Do I exist? Couldnt I be a part of a dream you are having, or another person is having of us?

There is no proof that I exist. Its easier though, for everyone to assume they exist in a permanent reality that is independant of themselves and others, but there is no concrete proof. There is some nearly irontight theories, for certain, but no proof. Because, honestly, how would you prove that you werent a part of some greater beings dream? Until that can be proven or disproven, there is no way to know for certain. Hence, its not a fact that I exist. Its a strong theory, and a personal belief of my own, but it is not a fact sir. And you have shown that you have failed utterly in understanding what a fact really is. ... the irony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamstigator

As for many (if not all) of the other prophecies, they aren't resolved yet. Was THE Jesus the one that was found in that tomb recently? If so, then perhaps we'll be able to analyze that DNA at some point and see if his mother is there, perhaps who his real father was, whether that was his wife and son also buried there, etc. If any of that proves to be true, that will pretty much invalidate much of the Christian belief system. Of course, many (probably most) Christians will go into denial at that point and cling to their traditional beliefs like a drowning man does a life preserver, which would be interesting to watch.

---

Actually, I would guess the line of logic would be that it was the Devil's work to try to confuse believers. It seems to be the standard when something gets close to being proven utterly wrong in regards to the faith.

Granted not everyone of the religion will believe or use that line of logic. I would imagine it would only be the truely extreme... I think the average believer would be shaken, but wouldnt let it affect how they chose to live their lives before, becuase that is what was important... the lessons it taught on how to live a good life. But who knows, its nigh impossible to predict how a massive group of people would react to a hypothetical situation such as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

And guess where the story of horus originated from.

Babylon. I know what I'm talking about.

---

Nope, they BOTH more likely originated from a single source.

Tammuz and Osiris were both worshipped and based on a much older god.

I don't think the Babylonian Tammuz was the influence for Osiris/Horus - they were around at the same time - about 5000 years ago.

That would make you an old-world creationist then :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta9 UK

Nope, they BOTH more likely originated from a single source.

Tammuz and Osiris were both worshipped and based on a much older god.

I don't think the Babylonian Tammuz was the influence for Osiris/Horus - they were around at the same time - about 5000 years ago.

That would make you an old-world creationist then :thumbsup:

---

What much older God? Tammuz aka ninus who's name literally signifies "the son" was part of the mother godess religion as a child in her mothers arms. Also known as "the lamented one" (for reasons far removed from any Christian theme) he was the type for other gods osirus, bachus etc.

The existence of the babylonian mystery religion and how it spread to where it is today fulfills biblical prophecy and is testimony to the truth of God's word.

p.s. - of course they were from around the same period.

Imitator, I'm not going to answer all of that. I don't have time for that. I already tried to explain it the best I can. I will save my arguements for someone more reasonable. You state your logic , and the built in process of logical deduction in your mind as factual but then you say you cannot know for sure if you in fact exist. If you can trust your mind to come to any conclusion correctly, why don't you trust your own mind to recognise your existence. I'll say it again, no matter how close you perceive something, you can always deny it. You can always have doubt. Why don't you just accept what's reasonable since you can't escape reality. Let me ask you this : how would you know a fact is a fact? What faculty of perception and observation would count as valid to recognise a fact? Unless you are eternal, there is no "string of observations" that can validate each other as absolute facts, that is they exist as they are. They are only a string of observations. A fact is an idea that can only be recognised by the perception. It depends on you.

You say there IS a possibility for such and such. That's saying, it's a fact this this can possible happen. You contradict yourself. You say we don't know anything for a fact but then you say as a fact such and such is a possibility. I know based on the evidence available that the sun will rise towarrow. Everything we know about the natural world shows that to hold true. And the evidence we have shows that we do not live in a world of chaos.

what evidence do you have to show that we may not exist?Or that a possibility that the world is not real?

All logic is built upon axioms. My axiom I know from things I observe. Yours is built on an axiom as well. That your mind is a valid tool to make deductions. But your axiom for the possibility that we may not exist is based upon nonexistent evidence.

It's only your belief. blind faith. Isn't that ironic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

Imitator, I'm not going to answer all of that. I don't have time for that.

---

What happened to wanting to save our souls? what was the point in posting in the first place?

h.b. ,

I want to save everyone's soul. Yes that's why I posted this thread. But that argument isn't going anywhere. How come nobody asks me questions more about Jesus. If God exists, don't you ever wonder or care what he's like? Don't you care whether he loves you or not? I want to tell you something very important.

knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.


Good night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

The natural universe is running down, and the fact it's losing complexity tell us it must have started with a higher degree of complexity to begin with. Since the natural universe is not able to decrese entropy on it's own, something outside of the natural universe must have done this, something with intelligence and the ability to direct force.

---

Complexity is disorder. Order is death. Life exists in the balance between the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

When you say dissapative structures do you mean things like ice? I've alreadly touched on that before in this thread too if that's what you mean. (#35)

---

No. Ice is a static solid structure. Dissipative structures require liquid.

Sorry I don't have time to reply further today, I suggest you check out the text I referenced previously.

[align=center] Ahhh...nothing better to stir up controversy and anger than a religious post on a board full of "I don't give a fucks"...
Me being one of them...
I have no time for religion or god. Ever since the age of 8 I've been FORCED to go to church due to some bullshit scripture stating "As for me and my house, we will serve the lord."
Yet the reason god gives us the choice between heaven and hell is because he loves us and wants us to have that freedom. WHY exactly isn't that same thought applied to my having to go to church? You tell me.
I got no problems with religion and church and god and shit...but when people try to force it on me...I get pissed. Lol...
DO NOT think that that last sentence was aimed at you because I know it was my own choice to view this thread...I just wanted to put forth my ideas and beliefs the same as you.
Besides...the bible teaches that you should obey gods law first...then the law of the land. Smoking marijuana is illegal. Your breaking a law of the land. And in doing so...breaking gods law. Therefore you are sinning...excuse?[/align]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

h.b. ,

I want to save everyone's soul. Yes that's why I posted this thread. But that argument isn't going anywhere. How come nobody asks me questions more about Jesus. If God exists, don't you ever wonder or care what he's like? Don't you care whether he loves you or not? I want to tell you something very important.

knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.


Good night.

---

Nobody asks questions about jesus because most of us know enough about the guy to not ask.

Love builds up, but nike airs PUMP up :D

I'm sorry I just can't stay away from this...

"Ask me more about Jesus, I want to tell you somthing important"

So you basiclly ask people to ask you questions, but you're upset that people ask about the very existance of God, and not about what political opions jesus had?

The Bible is the WORD OF MAN

WORD OF MAN

WORD OF MAN

WORD OF MAN

Word_of_Man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

Imitator, I'm not going to answer all of that. I don't have time for that. I already tried to explain it the best I can. I will save my arguements for someone more reasonable. You state your logic , and the built in process of logical deduction in your mind as factual but then you say you cannot know for sure if you in fact exist. If you can trust your mind to come to any conclusion correctly, why don't you trust your own mind to recognise your existence. I'll say it again, no matter how close you perceive something, you can always deny it. You can always have doubt. Why don't you just accept what's reasonable since you can't escape reality. Let me ask you this : how would you know a fact is a fact? What faculty of perception and observation would count as valid to recognise a fact? Unless you are eternal, there is no "string of observations" that can validate each other as absolute facts, that is they exist as they are. They are only a string of observations. A fact is an idea that can only be recognised by the perception. It depends on you.

You say there IS a possibility for such and such. That's saying, it's a fact this this can possible happen. You contradict yourself. You say we don't know anything for a fact but then you say as a fact such and such is a possibility. I know based on the evidence available that the sun will rise towarrow. Everything we know about the natural world shows that to hold true. And the evidence we have shows that we do not live in a world of chaos.

what evidence do you have to show that we may not exist?Or that a possibility that the world is not real?

All logic is built upon axioms. My axiom I know from things I observe. Yours is built on an axiom as well. That your mind is a valid tool to make deductions. But your axiom for the possibility that we may not exist is based upon nonexistent evidence.

It's only your belief. blind faith. Isn't that ironic.

---

If you are going to use insults, and call me unreasonable and the like, then like you I will not waste my time speaking with you anymore.

Its obvious you werent looking for a discussion, you just wanted to state your beliefs and give the illusion that you wanted to listen and discuss things with others.

I come to these posts for the discussions, and to learn more about other posters, and see things from a different point of view. Even in this post I was able to gain a bit that I didnt know before. If you arent even willing to hold a discussion, then thank you for the bit of time you shared, and Ill note not to worry about attempting any sort of discussion with you again.

As a note though, its not very consistant to state that you will save your arguements for someone more reasonable, and then begin to argue against my views and post anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iambreathingin

I'm sorry I just can't stay away from this...

"Ask me more about Jesus, I want to tell you somthing important"

So you basiclly ask people to ask you questions, but you're upset that people ask about the very existance of God, and not about what political opions jesus had?

The Bible is the WORD OF MAN

WORD OF MAN

WORD OF MAN

WORD OF MAN

Word_of_Man.

---

The most important thing for me about jesus can be shared in a poem/song...

Quote:

---

Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, cause he always puts Skippy in my lunch.

---

And for the people who will inveritably use that joke against me, it was a joke, ok? :p