PDA

View Full Version : Which is more believable: God or Global Warming


Pages : [1] 2

Mr. Laz
04-14-2006, 11:21 AM
Double spin-off thread and with a Poll no less!! :fire:





Ready, Set .................. Go!!!

banyon
04-14-2006, 11:24 AM
I want to vote "other".

This question is flawed.

Belief in God is based on a standard of faith.

Belief in Global Warming is based on a standard of reason/Science.

So they are apples and oranges IMO.

Iowanian
04-14-2006, 11:26 AM
I know there is a God.

I accept that Global warming is a fact....because its part of a climatic cycle. 50,000 years from now, people are going to be bitchin' because its gettin cold in here....

Mr. Laz
04-14-2006, 11:28 AM
I want to vote "other".

This question is flawed.

Belief in God is based on a standard of faith.

Belief in Global Warming is based on a standard of reason/Science.

So they are apples and oranges IMO.
shhhh ... that's part of the question

what do people consider the definition of believable

believable = faith based

or

believable = logic based

kaplin42
04-14-2006, 11:28 AM
I want to vote "other".

This question is flawed.

Belief in God is based on a standard of faith.

Belief in Global Warming is based on a standard of reason/Science.

So they are apples and oranges IMO.


Yeah the differance would be that....


Belief in science could help us find a way to reverse global warming, provide alternative fuel sorces, generaly make life better.


Belief in God, while compforting will provide......Nothing!! If God exists, I highly doubt that he will intervine to save us from destroying our planet.....kinda goes against the whole "free will" thing.


Just Sayen

BucEyedPea
04-14-2006, 11:31 AM
I know there is a God.

I accept that Global warming is a fact....because its part of a climatic cycle. 50,000 years from now, people are going to be bitchin' because its gettin cold in here....


What he said...and it is also so minor that it is actually beneficial to mankind as it means a longer crop growing season and requires less fuel to create warmth in winter. We are simply still coming out of an ice age.

StcChief
04-14-2006, 11:41 AM
No way evolution supports creation of complex creatures
etc.(it isn't random) So belief in a creator 'GOD' has to be a given.

Global warming, not enough past century stats to see that it is a complete trend or a cycle.

Fossil fuels etc are hurting but this may change and cycle.

Saulbadguy
04-14-2006, 11:45 AM
There is very little proof to support global warming, which is a theory.

There is no proof of a God.

Claynus
04-14-2006, 11:47 AM
Global warming for sure.

Claynus
04-14-2006, 11:47 AM
No way evolution supports creation of complex creatures


What about the missing link dinosaur they just found the other day?

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 11:52 AM
I want to vote "other".

This question is flawed.

Belief in God is based on a standard of faith.

Belief in Global Warming is based on a standard of reason/Science.

So they are apples and oranges IMO.
If you are talking about human/CO2 caused Global Warming...

ROFL ...there's more faith taken there than there is with God.

pak1983
04-14-2006, 11:53 AM
god is much more unbelievable than global warming. in saying that, its unbelievable (if there is a god) that any of you were created. because remember, god creates babies

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 11:56 AM
What about the missing link dinosaur they just found the other day?
The unproven issue with evolution is that, assuming the current rate of evolution as the rate over all time, and the assumption that our geological time scale is right, there simply isn't enough time for species to have evolved the way they did. Somewhere there was an acceleration of the evolutionary process or there was massive mutation over very few generations, neither of which we've found or proven. Not to say that it isn't the right theory, but it has holes just like anything else.

Mr. Laz
04-14-2006, 11:58 AM
The unproven issue with evolution is

compared to:

The unproven issues of religion...

Mr. Kotter
04-14-2006, 12:01 PM
compared to:

The unproven issues of religion...

And ignorant people wonder where the perception of religious bigotry begins.... :rolleyes:

kaplin42
04-14-2006, 12:08 PM
Problem with religion is its all based on something that you can't prove.

Jesus for instance. Lets say that there really was a guy that was Jesus.
How do you prove that he was the "son of God" rather than just a guy who was tired of the religious leadership, and rule of the day, and decided to rebel against them. In which case, still doesnt prove that there is a god.

Evolution has been proved in many species. While there is most definately a lot we dont know about or know how to explain, I would put my money on evolution over creationism any day of the week and twice on sunday.

Mr. Kotter
04-14-2006, 12:12 PM
... I would put my money on evolution over creationism any day of the week and twice on sunday.

Only simpletons types believe creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive of one another.

Mr. Laz
04-14-2006, 12:15 PM
And ignorant people wonder where the perception of religious bigotry begins.... :rolleyes:

so there are no "unproven issues" with religion?


or you just feeling the need to be a mouthy little bitch?

Mr. Kotter
04-14-2006, 12:16 PM
Most reasonable people acknowledge global warming trends; the real debate is over the cause and effect.

Hysterical chicken little global warming activists are reluctant to concede the cyclical nature of the phenomena, the awesome and resilient power of nature, and the uncertainty of factors other than the contributions of man to the trend.

Mr. Kotter
04-14-2006, 12:18 PM
so there are no "unproven issues" with religion?

Apples and oranges. Science deals with empirical observations and data. Religion is based on faith.

People who don't understand the distinction seem to be the ones with the need to prove, or disprove "religion." Most religious folks, while curious and intrigued perhaps, don't need empirical evidence.

kaplin42
04-14-2006, 12:21 PM
Only simpletons types believe creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive of one another.

That comment speaks volumes about how little you know. Thats like saying only the patheticly insecure need to believe in a higher power that governs everything that happens, rather than just having the courage and self dignity to believe in themselves and taking responsibility for their own actions.

Think before you post comments like that.

Baby Lee
04-14-2006, 12:22 PM
The singular beauty of religion is its all based on something that you can't prove.
Fixed yer post. ;)

Mr. Laz
04-14-2006, 12:24 PM
Apples and oranges. Science deals with empirical observations and data. Religion is based on faith.

People who don't understand the distinction seem to be the ones with the need to prove, or disprove "religion." Most religious folks, while curious and intrigued perhaps, don't need empirical evidence.
and that relationship between fact and faith and how people define it, is what this thread/poll is about.

you're the one who can in slinging BS, as usual, trying to tell people how ignorant/simple/chicken little they are.


i tried to prompt simplex into using his evaluation process towards religion like he did in his post about global warming.... to see what he had to say.

unfortunately i'll i got instead was more of your mouthy crap

kaplin42
04-14-2006, 12:25 PM
Apples and oranges. Science deals with empirical observations and data. Religion is based on faith.

People who don't understand the distinction seem to be the ones with the need to prove, or disprove "religion." Most religious folks, while curious and intrigued perhaps, don't need empirical evidence.


Which is the problem. Science needs fact, where as religioun cant be quite happy with with just believing.

The sky is blue, why?

1.) Because thats the way God wants it?

2.) Because thats how the light from the sun is filtered through our atmosphere.

Which answer is true, and can be proven fact?

plbrdude
04-14-2006, 12:29 PM
" because remember, god creates babies"



and all this time i thought people had something to do with it

Mr. Kotter
04-14-2006, 12:35 PM
That comment speaks volumes about how little you know. Thats like saying only the patheticly insecure need to believe in a higher power that governs everything that happens, rather than just having the courage and self dignity to believe in themselves and taking responsibility for their own actions.

Think before you post comments like that.

The arrogance and condescension of secular humanism is exceeded only by its ignorance.

Do you honestly believe most Christians don't accept many of the precepts of evolution? If so, that is sheer arrogance and ignorance on your part.

Amnorix
04-14-2006, 12:37 PM
The unproven issue with evolution is that, assuming the current rate of evolution as the rate over all time, and the assumption that our geological time scale is right, there simply isn't enough time for species to have evolved the way they did. Somewhere there was an acceleration of the evolutionary process or there was massive mutation over very few generations, neither of which we've found or proven. Not to say that it isn't the right theory, but it has holes just like anything else.


Really? I've never heard this before. Planet Earth is estimated at about 4.5 billion years old. Clearly alot of that timeframe was "lost" becuase the planet's atmosphere wasn't fully formed, and weather patterns didn't support life, etc.,

But I've never heard it said that there just hasn't been enough time for evolution to have occurred as it apparently has.

Besides, what other theory can one ascribe. Adam and Eve is just ludicrous.

http://www.nineplanets.org/earth.html

Mr. Kotter
04-14-2006, 12:38 PM
This thread is premised on a false choice.

Most people I know believe in both.

Amnorix
04-14-2006, 12:38 PM
Problem with religion is its all based on something that you can't prove.

Jesus for instance. Lets say that there really was a guy that was Jesus.
How do you prove that he was the "son of God" rather than just a guy who was tired of the religious leadership, and rule of the day, and decided to rebel against them. In which case, still doesnt prove that there is a god.

Evolution has been proved in many species. While there is most definately a lot we dont know about or know how to explain, I would put my money on evolution over creationism any day of the week and twice on sunday.


I think it's pretty much accpeted that a person -- Jesus -- lived approximately 2,000 years ago and was a founder of a new religion.

Whether he was really the son of God, whether the Immaculate Conception occurred, whether he performed miracles, and rose, etc.. are what's at debate. Not whether the guy ever actually existed.

Bowser
04-14-2006, 12:40 PM
Al Gore is bored with these pedantic questions.

http://movies.apple.com/trailers/paramount_classics/aninconvenienttruth/

kaplin42
04-14-2006, 12:41 PM
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The singular annoying thing about religion is that the fanatical follow it blindly without any indication of thought, logic or reason.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fixed yer post:


Fixed your post that you fixed for me :thumb:

RedNFeisty
04-14-2006, 12:42 PM
What threw me first about religion is the Adam and Eve story. Eve ate from an apple tree a.k.a. The tree of knowledge and I grew up Baptist being a Christian that really shouldn’t ask too many questions and just have faith, well I have grown up and I have tons of questions.

kaplin42
04-14-2006, 01:02 PM
Do you honestly believe most Christians don't accept many of the precepts of evolution? If so, that is sheer arrogance and ignorance on your part.

Actually, no I don’t. I believe the majority of people who are devout are very reasonable and I have no problems with their beliefs or their religions. However, its the fanatical, the zealots, who I refer to in my posts. Now you might say that I am raging against the few, when the many are good standing people. You might be right, however, it is the few that are the cause of many of the problems in the world today, and there for it is the few who get my attention.


and yes I am referring to all religions, not just one or two

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 01:06 PM
Which is the problem. Science needs fact, where as religioun cant be quite happy with with just believing.

The sky is blue, why?

1.) Because thats the way God wants it?

2.) Because thats how the light from the sun is filtered through our atmosphere.

Which answer is true, and can be proven fact?
Neither. Science is reasonably certain, given our current theories on how the universe functions, that #2 is true. It doesn't negate #1, however.

And no, I'm not a Christian so you can leave your "you stupid Christian" smack for someone else.

kaplin42
04-14-2006, 01:10 PM
Neither. Science is reasonably certain, given our current theories on how the universe functions, that #2 is true. It doesn't negate #1, however.

And no, I'm not a Christian so you can leave your "you stupid Christian" smack for someone else.

Hmm.

Google (http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html)

The blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering. As light moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths pass straight through. Little of the red, orange and yellow light is affected by the air.

Baby Lee
04-14-2006, 01:12 PM
Actually, no I don’t. I believe the majority of people who are devout are very reasonable and I have no problems with their beliefs or their religions. However, its the fanatical, the zealots, who I refer to in my posts. Now you might say that I am raging against the few, when the many are good standing people. You might be right, however, it is the few that are the cause of many of the problems in the world today, and there for it is the few who get my attention.


and yes I am referring to all religions, not just one or two
Whew!!

We haven't had a good "I'm not talking about all black people, just the N***ers" post in a while.

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 01:17 PM
Actually, no I don’t. I believe the majority of people who are devout are very reasonable and I have no problems with their beliefs or their religions. However, its the fanatical, the zealots, who I refer to in my posts. Now you might say that I am raging against the few, when the many are good standing people. You might be right, however, it is the few that are the cause of many of the problems in the world today, and there for it is the few who get my attention.
ROFL Did you catch the obvious dichotomy of this when you wrote it? You're the polor opposite of the people you hate. You are the SAME PERSON!

ROFL

and yes I am referring to all religions, not just one or two
Read up on your religions there, cochise. You're lumping Hindus (who believe in many Gods), Budhists (who believe in no God), etc into one hole with the major monotheistic religions.

BucEyedPea
04-14-2006, 01:20 PM
Read up on your religions there, cochise. You're lumping Hindus (who believe in many Gods), Budhists (who believe in no God), etc into one hole with the major monotheistic religions.

Excellent point!

I bring this one a lot myself.

And you are also correct about the anti-religion zealout bigots being the same person.

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 01:22 PM
Hmm.

Google (http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html)
Earth to dips**t:

Your "proof" is a THEORY that requires acceptance of truth in other THEORIES. It's the way we understand it and believe it to be, but that doesn't mean it's RIGHT.

There are multiple scientific models of the universe, they all have flaws, including and especially the currently "accepted" one as espoused by NASA and scientists in general.

I understand, though. It's hard for some people to accept the unknown. It's Ok. You just keep living that simple life that you have, where everything is all mapped out.

BucEyedPea
04-14-2006, 01:25 PM
... whether the Immaculate Conception...

A common misunderstanding is that the IC refers to the virgin birth of Christ.

It doesn't.

It refers to the idea that Mary, his mother, was born without Original Sin.

There are even many RC's that still don't know this.

Mr. Kotter
04-14-2006, 01:36 PM
and that relationship between fact and faith and how people define it, is what this thread/poll is about.

you're the one who can in slinging BS, as usual, trying to tell people how ignorant/simple/chicken little they are.


i tried to prompt simplex into using his evaluation process towards religion like he did in his post about global warming.... to see what he had to say.

unfortunately i'll i got instead was more of your mouthy crap

Let's see...

1. Laz posts a thread starter, as best as I can tell, intended to provoke a debate over a false dichotomy between those believe in God and those who believe in global warming....including a devilish-fiirey smiley (which would imply mischievious intent)...

2. Laz procedes to make a distinction between "believable = faith based" and "believable = logic based"....tucked in a sarcastic and TIC set-up.

3. Laz challenges those who "believe in God" by equating the holes Simplex suggests exists in evolutionary theory (a scientific belief based on empirical science) with holes in religious beliefs (based on faith.)

4. Laz is shocked and indignant when people react the way he intended, or should have reasonably expected....given the way in which he has framed the discussion.

Allow me to say, I'm shocked that you are shocked....

Mr. Laz
04-14-2006, 01:42 PM
Let's see...

1. Laz posts a thread starter, as best as I can tell, intended to provoke a debate over a false dichotomy between those believe in God and those who believe in global warming....including a devilish-fiirey smiley (which would imply mischievious intent)...

2. Laz procedes to make a distinction between "believable = faith based" and "believable = logic based"....tucked in a sarcastic and TIC set-up.

3. Laz challenges those who "believe in God" by equating the holes Simplex suggests exists in evolutionary theory (a scientific belief based on empirical science) with holes in religious beliefs (based on faith.)

4. Laz is shocked and indignant when people react the way he intended, or should have reasonably expected....given the way in which he has framed the discussion.

Allow me to say, I'm shocked that you are shocked....
Kotter = Projecting again



i think maybe he sees a weasel in the mirror every morning so he thinks everyone else must be a weasel too.

picasso
04-14-2006, 01:42 PM
Earth to dips**t:

Your "proof" is a THEORY that requires acceptance of truth in other THEORIES. It's the way we understand it and believe it to be, but that doesn't mean it's RIGHT.

There are multiple scientific models of the universe, they all have flaws, including and especially the currently "accepted" one as espoused by NASA and scientists in general.

I understand, though. It's hard for some people to accept the unknown. It's Ok. You just keep living that simple life that you have, where everything is all mapped out.

No Simplex that is a fact and not theory. Another fact is that color in itself is a mirage of light and texture. Actually nothing has color, everything is black and white and shades of grey. It is lightness and darkness reflectioning off of objects that surround us that give us a color spectrum. That is one of the first things we as humans learned to harness and adapt biologically to the fact that there are animals that view the world in black and white and shades of grey.

Mr. Kotter
04-14-2006, 01:42 PM
Kotter = Projecting again



i think maybe he sees a weasel in the mirror every morning so he thinks everyone else must be a weasel too.

I notice you didn't deny it.

When I do it; I readily claim credit. :)

Clint in Wichita
04-14-2006, 01:44 PM
I voted for global warming.

At least we know that things can be cooled down and heated up.

Anyone here ever seen a ball of light that created an entire universe?

I didn't think so. STFD and STFU.

picasso
04-14-2006, 01:48 PM
Oh and I choose global warming for the fact that our poles are melting and threatening our penguin population.
I just watched the movie so it must be true as they had maps and stuff!!!

kaplin42
04-14-2006, 01:50 PM
We haven't had a good "I'm not talking about all black people, just the N***ers" post in a while.

Yeah, if you want to put it in those terms...if thats what works for you.

But tell me is there not a differance between a family that goes to church on sundays, and tries to live a good life versus the Fire and Brimestone Baptist (http://www.enormousincongruities.com/myweb/dcdoblog.nsf/plinks/DCAY-6MUGMG)

There is a huge differance between the two.

More over Simplex I dont understand what your problem with me is. What is wrong with not liking the fact that some individuals/organizations will put forth their religious beliefs and their faith before logic and reason? How about this example...

Gov. Nagen from New Orleans said something to the effect of God destroyed New Orleans because we embrace homosexuality and because we are bombing Iraq

When in reality NO was destroyed by a hurricane, and the damage was helped along by our lack of foresight, action and reaction to the situation.

Earth to dips**t:

Your "proof" is a THEORY that requires acceptance of truth in other THEORIES. It's the way we understand it and believe it to be, but that doesn't mean it's RIGHT.:

This is not a theory on the universe, its a fact about how light works, and how it get filtered. Pick up a book before you insult somebody, so at least you dont make yourself look stupid.

picasso
04-14-2006, 02:05 PM
When in reality NO was destroyed by a hurricane, and the damage was helped along by our lack of foresight, action and reaction to the situation.

The other fact there is that Bush cut funding for them to build a stronger and more secure dike. :shake:

Mr. Kotter
04-14-2006, 02:10 PM
..... Pick up a book before you insult somebody, so at least you dont make yourself look stupid.

You might consider your own advice before you try to paint most Christians with the same broad brush...it's akin to us lumping all you Anti-Religious zealots together with your idols like Stalin and the other dictators who slaughtered "believers".... :shrug:

Of course, that wouldn't be fair either. :hmmm:

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 02:10 PM
No Simplex that is a fact and not theory. Another fact is that color in itself is a mirage of light and texture. Actually nothing has color, everything is black and white and shades of grey. It is lightness and darkness reflectioning off of objects that surround us that give us a color spectrum. That is one of the first things we as humans learned to harness and adapt biologically to the fact that there are animals that view the world in black and white and shades of grey.
Real science deals in probabilities, not absolutes. Therefore nothing is a "fact" as we accept the term in everyday life.

Once again, all of the things you are saying depend on accepting hundreds or thousands of other things as being fact.

Let's examine some scientific facts from the past:

1. The Earth is flat.
2. The sun and moon revolve around the Earth.
3. Errr, wait, there's a whole Universe. IT revolves around the Earth.
4. Wait a minute, what are these lizard looking fossiles?
5. Bleeding a person nearly to death will heal them by getting the bad blood out of their body.
6. Light is a wave.
7. Uh, maybe it's a particle.
8. Ok, it's both. Probably.


See where I'm going with this? You don't KNOW, you're just reasonably sure. Sure enough that you're willing to accept that theory as fact.

Amnorix
04-14-2006, 02:11 PM
Earth to dips**t:

Your "proof" is a THEORY that requires acceptance of truth in other THEORIES. It's the way we understand it and believe it to be, but that doesn't mean it's RIGHT.

There are multiple scientific models of the universe, they all have flaws, including and especially the currently "accepted" one as espoused by NASA and scientists in general.

I understand, though. It's hard for some people to accept the unknown. It's Ok. You just keep living that simple life that you have, where everything is all mapped out.

Actually, nearly all of science is based on theories and theories stacked on theories. Whether or not they are RIGHT is not known for certain (hence, "theory") but any valid theory has yet to be disproved by evidence yet found.

Religion, meanwhile, is simply faith. Believe it or don't. No proof, no evidence, nothing.

There is no "accepted one" theory espoused by NASA and scientists in general. The theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, which is a theory of a kind, are mutually incompatible to a degree -- i.e. both cannot be correct in all regards, and scientists are striving for a single unified theory to cover all interactions in space-time.

Clint in Wichita
04-14-2006, 02:11 PM
The other fact there is that Bush cut funding for them to build a stronger and more secure dike. :shake:

I don't care for GWB, but every president for 40 years has ignored the problem, and even if the program had been funded way back in 2000, construction wouldn't have been finished until about 2030.

Amnorix
04-14-2006, 02:12 PM
A common misunderstanding is that the IC refers to the virgin birth of Christ.

It doesn't.

It refers to the idea that Mary, his mother, was born without Original Sin.

There are even many RC's that still don't know this.


I looked it up and you are correct. Fascinating. Thanks for the bit of knowledge. Teh rep.

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 02:15 PM
The other fact there is that Bush cut funding for them to build a stronger and more secure dike. :shake:
Oh Jeezuz. The NO mafia, errr, govt, redirected federal funds from the levee system to other pet projects. Go sell pshycho on WPI, please. We have plenty here.

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 02:17 PM
Actually, nearly all of science is based on theories and theories stacked on theories. Whether or not they are RIGHT is not known for certain (hence, "theory") but any valid theory has yet to be disproved by evidence yet found.

Religion, meanwhile, is simply faith. Believe it or don't. No proof, no evidence, nothing.

There is no "accepted one" theory espoused by NASA and scientists in general. The theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, which is a theory of a kind, are mutually incompatible to a degree -- i.e. both cannot be correct in all regards, and scientists are striving for a single unified theory to cover all interactions in space-time.
This is the point I'm driving at.

Amnorix
04-14-2006, 02:19 PM
Real science deals in probabilities, not absolutes. Therefore nothing is a "fact" as we accept the term in everyday life.

Once again, all of the things you are saying depend on accepting hundreds or thousands of other things as being fact.

Let's examine some scientific facts from the past:

1. The Earth is flat.
2. The sun and moon revolve around the Earth.
3. Errr, wait, there's a whole Universe. IT revolves around the Earth.
4. Wait a minute, what are these lizard looking fossiles?
5. Bleeding a person nearly to death will heal them by getting the bad blood out of their body.
6. Light is a wave.
7. Uh, maybe it's a particle.
8. Ok, it's both. Probably.


See where I'm going with this? You don't KNOW, you're just reasonably sure. Sure enough that you're willing to accept that theory as fact.


Don't be absurd. The "science" that led to more than half of what you're listing above doesn't even qualify as science under any reasonable modern definition.

And, P.S., religion and the Catholic Church in particular DECREED some of the stuff above as TRUTH, and literally killed those who disagreed too strenously over their decrees.

Amnorix
04-14-2006, 02:20 PM
This is the point I'm driving at.

Poorly, however, because in what is either an overly emotional outburst, or an attempt to bludgeon some newbies and others who disagree with you, you're going off half-cocked.

Mr. Kotter
04-14-2006, 02:21 PM
Actually, nearly all of science is based on theories and theories stacked on theories. Whether or not they are RIGHT is not known for certain (hence, "theory") but any valid theory has yet to be disproved by evidence yet found.

Religion, meanwhile, is simply faith. Believe it or don't. No proof, no evidence, nothing.

There is no "accepted one" theory espoused by NASA and scientists in general. The theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, which is a theory of a kind, are mutually incompatible to a degree -- i.e. both cannot be correct in all regards, and scientists are striving for a single unified theory to cover all interactions in space-time.

Tell that to Laz....we've been trying since about post 10 or 20.....

Amnorix
04-14-2006, 02:22 PM
This is the point I'm driving at.

Further, I'm not even sure what your argument is. You're mocking science, but that doesn't prove or disprove anything at all directly.

The question Laz posts is this, in a nutshell:

Do you believe in unproven theories based on relatively limited evidence more or less than you believe in something which is by its fundamental nature not provable by any means whatsoever.

The only sane answer is "who cares"?

I voted for the former because that's where my belief systems lie, as I am an agnostic. But the real vote should be for "this is a dumb question"

although, OTOH, it has triggered debate, and this is just an internet bulletin board, and it is the off-season, so perhaps not so dumb after all. :)

Mr. Kotter
04-14-2006, 02:24 PM
The only sane answer is "who cares"?

But the real vote should be for "this is a dumb question"



Ding, ding, ding!!!

We HAVE a winner.....

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 02:27 PM
Further, I'm not even sure what your argument is. You're mocking science, but that doesn't prove or disprove anything at all directly.

The question Laz posts is this, in a nutshell:

Do you believe in unproven theories based on relatively limited evidence more or less than you believe in something which is by its fundamental nature not provable by any means whatsoever.

The only sane answer is "who cares"?

I voted for the former because that's where my belief systems lie, as I am an agnostic. But the real vote should be for "this is a dumb question"

although, OTOH, it has triggered debate, and this is just an internet bulletin board, and it is the off-season, so perhaps not so dumb after all. :)
I would fall firmly in the "who gives a f**k" category if I had anything to do today. As it is I'm stuck in a cube at a customer site and I can't leave too early or it will look bad. This is one of only two thread moving that isn't a popularity contest.

I'm taking the religion side of the argument simply because there are two guys on the other side right now and circle jerks suck. I think both sides tend to be full of s**t, though there are good intentions by some on both sides. The only thing I know for a fact is that I don't know, and I'm Ok with that.

Chiefshrink
04-14-2006, 02:27 PM
Global Warming = scientific and logic based???? pleeeeeeeeeeeease!!! Quite frankly, I believe that Global Warming may as well be faith based as well with God winning that battle by a landslide. Treehuggers (ala EPA)have to scare in order to keep getting funding(our taxes) thus controlling our lives(making ridiculous laws) all the way from "coconut oil to cigarettes". Just like Al Gore invented the internet!!! HAHAHAHAH !! But I will give him credit for inventing Global Warming!! HAHAHAHA!!

Chiefshrink
04-14-2006, 02:29 PM
Wait til the true data comes out on 2nd hand smoke. Yep that's right. No significance whatsoever that I'm betting on.

Clint in Wichita
04-14-2006, 02:29 PM
Global Warming = scientific and logic based???? pleeeeeeeeeeeease!!! Quite frankly, I believe that Global Warming may as well be faith based as well with God winning that battle by a landslide. Treehuggers (ala EPA)have to scare in order to keep getting funding(our taxes) thus controlling our lives(making ridiculous laws) all the way from "coconut oil to cigarettes". Just like Al Gore invented the internet!!! HAHAHAHAH !! But I will give him credit for inventing Global Warming!! HAHAHAHA!!


The fact that you can heat up a can of Spaghetti Os in a microwave is better evidence of global warming than the Bible is of a ball of light creating the universe.

Mr. Kotter
04-14-2006, 02:31 PM
The fact that you can heat up a can of Spaghetti Os in a microwave is better evidence of global warming than the Bible is of a ball of light creating the universe.

A CAN of Spaghetti 0s......a metal can, in a microwave? :spock:



:p

Clint in Wichita
04-14-2006, 02:34 PM
A CAN of Spaghetti 0s......a metal can, in a microwave? :spock:



:p

The fact that anything can be heated up, regardless of method, is better evidence for global warming than an old book is for evidence of a hyper-intelligent ball of light creating the entire universe.


Even a metal f_cking can in a f-cking microwave!!

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 02:34 PM
A CAN of Spaghetti 0s......a metal can, in a microwave? :spock:



:p
Hey, that would cause a ball of light and your wife would f**k up your universe. We're getting closer.

kaplin42
04-14-2006, 02:34 PM
Global Warming = scientific and logic based???? pleeeeeeeeeeeease!!! Quite frankly, I believe that Global Warming may as well be faith based as well with God winning that battle by a landslide. Treehuggers (ala EPA)have to scare in order to keep getting funding(our taxes) thus controlling our lives(making ridiculous laws) all the way from "coconut oil to cigarettes". Just like Al Gore invented the internet!!! HAHAHAHAH !! But I will give him credit for inventing Global Warming!! HAHAHAHA!!


Slowly rising tempatures, the ice caps melting, the hole in the ozone? no evidence huh? What I can see is in question is the reason, as I don't believe we have enough data from past centuries to really compare to. Are we as a race causing it, or as previously stated, is it just a natural cycle of the earth?

BWillie
04-14-2006, 02:35 PM
I don't really understand why people are so religious, and why they get mad when you just show them facts. Could there be a god "creater"? I don't know. Is Christianity/Islam/Judiasm the truth....well I'm 99.9% sure no. The truth is, life serves no purpose, no meaning. There is no benevolent agenda. The purpose of life is the diffusion of energy until trillions and trillions of years from now the universe reaches the state called the heat death of the universe. This is a state where the universe has reached maxiumum entrophy and all available energy has moved to places of less energy. When this finally happens, no more work can be extracted from the universe. There will be no motion and no life. What you are doing right now, is just a complex series of events that you have no control over and cannot be changed that diffuse energy in a unique way. In fact, you have no real will. You do not have control over your destiny. Everything you feel is energy, and it is electrical impulses in the brain. Me typing this message on this board, I have no control over. If one had a super computer and could adequately know and code every single event and energy exchange that is currently happening in our universe then one could correctly predict the future.

Mr. Kotter
04-14-2006, 02:36 PM
The fact that anything can be heated up, regardless of method, is better evidence for global warming than an old book is for evidence of a hyper-intelligent ball of light creating the entire universe.


Even a metal f_cking can in a f-cking microwave!!

Mods, I think we should change Clint's name....

Lightning Rod in Wichita.

:)

kaplin42
04-14-2006, 02:37 PM
Hey, that would cause a ball of light and your wife would f**k up your universe. We're getting closer.

That was pretty damn funny

ENDelt260
04-14-2006, 02:39 PM
Mods, I think we should change Clint's name....

Lightning Rod in Wichita.

:)
Pretty sure we already have a Lightning Rod.

htismaqe
04-14-2006, 02:40 PM
Which is the problem. Science needs fact, where as religioun cant be quite happy with with just believing.

The sky is blue, why?

1.) Because thats the way God wants it?

2.) Because thats how the light from the sun is filtered through our atmosphere.

Which answer is true, and can be proven fact?

Neither answer is true, and neither can be proven fact.

A "fact" is a concept that was created by human kind. No event can be viewed objectively because the act of observing inherently involves humankind.

There is no fact, only perspective.

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 02:42 PM
Neither answer is true, and neither can be proven fact.

A "fact" is a concept that was created by human kind. No event can be viewed objectively because the act of observing inherently involves humankind.

There is no fact, only perspective.
Very nicely put. :clap:

Clint in Wichita
04-14-2006, 02:42 PM
Neither answer is true, and neither can be proven fact.

A "fact" is a concept that was created by human kind. No event can be viewed objectively because the act of observing inherently involves humankind.

There is no fact, only perspective.


We all agree that a clear sky is blue. Check a crayon box to back up the claim. The damn thing is blue.

kaplin42
04-14-2006, 02:42 PM
Neither answer is true, and neither can be proven fact.

A "fact" is a concept that was created by human kind. No event can be viewed objectively because the act of observing inherently involves humankind.

There is no fact, only perspective.

So gravity doesnt realy exist, its just my perspective on things?

Pitt Gorilla
04-14-2006, 02:42 PM
Neither answer is true, and neither can be proven fact.

A "fact" is a concept that was created by human kind. No event can be viewed objectively because the act of observing inherently involves humankind.

There is no fact, only perspective.Great use of constructivist theory. I agree.

Amnorix
04-14-2006, 02:42 PM
I don't really understand why people are so religious, and why they get mad when you just show them facts. Could there be a god "creater"? I don't know. Is Christianity/Islam/Judiasm the truth....well I'm 99.9% sure no. The truth is, life serves no purpose, no meaning. There is no benevolent agenda. The purpose of life is the diffusion of energy until trillions and trillions of years from now the universe reaches the state called the heat death of the universe. This is a state where the universe has reached maxiumum entrophy and all available energy has moved to places of less energy. When this finally happens, no more work can be extracted from the universe. There will be no motion and no life. What you are doing right now, is just a complex series of events that you have no control over and cannot be changed that diffuse energy in a unique way. In fact, you have no real will. You do not have control over your destiny. Everything you feel is energy, and it is electrical impulses in the brain. Me typing this message on this board, I have no control over. If one had a super computer and could adequately know and code every single event and energy exchange that is currently happening in our universe then one could correctly predict the future.

Well, ya, but the stupid fugging Vogons destroy it before it gives us the question to the answer. :shake:

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 02:44 PM
Well, ya, but the stupid fugging Vogons destroy it before it gives us the question to the answer. :shake:
42, eh?

ROFL

BucEyedPea
04-14-2006, 02:44 PM
Of course there are facts.

A fact is something that can be proven true or false.

An opinion may or may not be based on fact.

But you're right there is perspective...that's where opinion enters.

Sometimes the facts are in dispute.
Sometimes the facts are not in dispute.
Sometimes the conclusion is in dispute but based on agreed facts.

Even if we agree with a given set of facts...there is still no guarantee that we'll all arrive at the same conclusion or opinion. That is where perspective enters in.

There is also omitted information which can change views and facts later.

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 02:48 PM
There is also omitted information which can change views and facts later.
Where is the "my head just exploded" smiley? Facts, by their very definition (a definition you put in this very post), cannot change. If something is subject to change in the future it isn't a fact, it's a theory, belief, posit, etc.

ENDelt260
04-14-2006, 02:49 PM
A fact is something that can be proven true or false.

If it's false, how is it a fact?

Amnorix
04-14-2006, 02:49 PM
Neither answer is true, and neither can be proven fact.

A "fact" is a concept that was created by human kind. No event can be viewed objectively because the act of observing inherently involves humankind.

There is no fact, only perspective.


mmmmm.....we're getting pretty philosophical here, but I gotta disagree. As a matter of fact, I do disagree. :p

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 02:50 PM
If it's false, how is it a fact?
So is it a fact that ENDelt will be getting drunk tonight?

Amnorix
04-14-2006, 02:52 PM
So is it a fact that ENDelt will be getting drunk tonight?


Can't be. Future events can't be facts, IMHO. He could get hit by a bus on the way there, etc. (knock on wood and all that)

Mr. Kotter
04-14-2006, 02:55 PM
We all agree that a clear sky is blue. Check a crayon box to back up the claim. The damn thing is blue.

No. The human eye only PERCIEVES it to be "blue."

Logical
04-14-2006, 02:56 PM
I don't really understand why people are so religious, and why they get mad when you just show them facts. Could there be a god "creater"? I don't know. Is Christianity/Islam/Judiasm the truth....well I'm 99.9% sure no. The truth is, life serves no purpose, no meaning. There is no benevolent agenda. The purpose of life is the diffusion of energy until trillions and trillions of years from now the universe reaches the state called the heat death of the universe. This is a state where the universe has reached maxiumum entrophy and all available energy has moved to places of less energy. When this finally happens, no more work can be extracted from the universe. There will be no motion and no life. What you are doing right now, is just a complex series of events that you have no control over and cannot be changed that diffuse energy in a unique way. In fact, you have no real will. You do not have control over your destiny. Everything you feel is energy, and it is electrical impulses in the brain. Me typing this message on this board, I have no control over. If one had a super computer and could adequately know and code every single event and energy exchange that is currently happening in our universe then one could correctly predict the future.
If you are going to make a scientific argument it really hurts your cause when you use entrophy when you should be using the term entropy.

I am not against your argument neccessarily but I just thought you should know the right terminology.

htismaqe
04-14-2006, 02:59 PM
Of course there are facts.

A fact is something that can be proven true or false.

An opinion may or may not be based on fact.

But you're right there is perspective...that's where opinion enters.

Sometimes the facts are in dispute.
Sometimes the facts are not in dispute.
Sometimes the conclusion is in dispute but based on agreed facts.

Even if we agree with a given set of facts...there is still no guarantee that we'll all arrive at the same conclusion or opinion. That is where perspective enters in.

There is also omitted information which can change views and facts later.

Define "true".

Define "false".

There is no omitted information. All information is already present in the world around us. The differentiator is observance. The information may be known or unknown, observed or not.

Amnorix
04-14-2006, 03:00 PM
No. The human eye only PERCIEVES it to be "blue."

Right, but I still think it's a FACT. Let me rephrase the statement from "the sky is blue" to the following:

(I'm no scientist, so part of my statement may be slightly off, but this is the concept I'm striving for)

The sky of the planet Earth refracts light emitted by the sun it orbits into waves of light that are are within the wavelengths perceived by the human eye and human brain as "blue".

I don't see how this statement (correct for any minor discrepancies in terminology that I have screwed up because i'm a lawyer not a physicist dammit) could possible be anything but a FACT.

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 03:00 PM
If you are going to make a scientific argument it really hurts your cause when you use entrophy when you should be using the term entropy.

I am not against your argument neccessarily but I just thought you should know the right terminology.
This is what I love about this place. Where else can a bunch of people who all know jack about squat get together and beat eachother senseless in one thread over minute details and talk football, TV, and fishing in others?

ROFL

Amnorix
04-14-2006, 03:02 PM
Define "true".

Define "false".

There is no omitted information. All information is already present in the world around us. The differentiator is observance. The information may be known or unknown, observed or not.


True -- a statement that is accurate. False -- a statement that is not accurate.

You're delving into hyper-philosophical BS, IMHO. Hated it in college and hate it now.

I have a son. His name is Alex. That statement is true, and there is no philosophical way around it. (and I could genetically test him to further prove it's true, but there's not exactly any doubt on the matter)

ENDelt260
04-14-2006, 03:03 PM
So is it a fact that ENDelt will be getting drunk tonight?
I doubt it.

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 03:03 PM
Right, but I still think it's a FACT. Let me rephrase the statement from "the sky is blue" to the following:

(I'm no scientist, so part of my statement may be slightly off, but this is the concept I'm striving for)

The sky of the planet Earth refracts light emitted by the sun it orbits into waves of light that are are within the wavelengths perceived by the human eye and human brain as "blue".

I don't see how this statement (correct for any minor discrepancies in terminology that I have screwed up because i'm a lawyer not a physicist dammit) could possible be anything but a FACT.
...because the light refraction theory relies on other theories. You could say "humans perceive the sky to be blue" and I'll give you that is a fact, though there could be discussion about the definition of blue and what about people who are color blind.

ENDelt260
04-14-2006, 03:03 PM
Can't be. Future events can't be facts, IMHO. He could get hit by a bus on the way there, etc. (knock on wood and all that)
Gee, thanks for the well wishes, amno.

Pitt Gorilla
04-14-2006, 03:03 PM
No. The human eye only PERCIEVES it to be "blue."Point Kotter.

Amnorix
04-14-2006, 03:05 PM
Gee, thanks for the well wishes, amno.


ROFL Sorry, easiest example that came to mind. Besides, what else could possibly keep you from getting drunk?! :p

Pitt Gorilla
04-14-2006, 03:05 PM
True -- a statement that is accurate. False -- a statement that is not accurate.

You're delving into hyper-philosophical BS, IMHO. Hated it in college and hate it now.

I have a son. His name is Alex. That statement is true, and there is no philosophical way around it. (and I could genetically test him to further prove it's true, but there's not exactly any doubt on the matter)You seem to be a learned guy, so I'd suggest Ernst von Glasserfeld's "Radical Constructivism." I'm more of an emergent perspective guy, but this book has a lot to offer.

Amnorix
04-14-2006, 03:07 PM
...because the light refraction theory relies on other theories. You could say "humans perceive the sky to be blue" and I'll give you that is a fact, though there could be discussion about the definition of blue and what about people who are color blind.

I'll give you the point on the light refraction theory.

Revise to "nearly all humans" or "humans with unimpaired vision" and you're there.

Debating the definition of blue would end up being circular...

ENDelt260
04-14-2006, 03:07 PM
ROFL Sorry, easiest example that came to mind. Besides, what else could possibly keep you from getting drunk?! :p
Simple lack of interest. I've got better things to do.

Amnorix
04-14-2006, 03:08 PM
You seem to be a learned guy, so I'd suggest Ernst von Glasserfeld's "Radical Constructivism." I'm more of an emergent perspective guy, but this book has a lot to offer.


I'll look into it, but I'm dubious. I tend to dislike advanced philosophical thought. It's time-wasting BS to a large degree, IMHO. :)

Pitt Gorilla
04-14-2006, 03:08 PM
True -- a statement that is accurate. False -- a statement that is not accurate.

You're delving into hyper-philosophical BS, IMHO. Hated it in college and hate it now.

I have a son. His name is Alex. That statement is true, and there is no philosophical way around it. (and I could genetically test him to further prove it's true, but there's not exactly any doubt on the matter)The only information that you have about your son you have gained through perception. It's very likely that most everyone else will "agree" to some extent with your perception, based on their non-isomorphic perception. Or, at least you'll perceive them to be agreeing with you.
:)

Amnorix
04-14-2006, 03:08 PM
Simple lack of interest. I've got better things to do.


I didn't know that was possible with you. Perhaps you're not the drunken miscreant I've always thought. :p

Amnorix
04-14-2006, 03:09 PM
The only information that you have about your son you have gained through perception. It's very likely that most everyone else will "agree" to some extent with your perception, based on their non-isomorphic perception. Or, at least you'll perceive them to be agreeing with you.
:)


like I said, time wasting bulls**t.... :) :p

ENDelt260
04-14-2006, 03:09 PM
I didn't know that was possible with you.

Me neither. It was a fairly recent development.

BucEyedPea
04-14-2006, 03:10 PM
There is no omitted information. All information is already present in the world around us. The differentiator is observance. The information may be known or unknown, observed or not.

True it is present but it is omitted from view by people at one time or another.

Have you ever had to settle a dispute on a job between suppliers and staff?
Sometimes there is missing evidence that can turn the tide. Or sometimes one only witnessed a part of an event like the tail end and reports that as the scene. A written contract would be the "proof" of what the truth is of an agreement though... as an example

As far as defining "true" and "false" well you're waxing philosophic now and there is limited time and space for me for that type of depth. They both have many definitions depending on the context being used. Comes from Old English meaning "loyal" though.

To keep it simple "consistent with reality."
I know. I know...this can be subjective or an agreed upon reality by a group of people but that would still be a workable definition in that case.
If you want to get ontological about it that gets into the nature of "reality" "being" and "existence."

The thing I don't agree with is that nothing can be known. I don't buy that premise.

htismaqe
04-14-2006, 03:11 PM
True -- a statement that is accurate. False -- a statement that is not accurate.

You're delving into hyper-philosophical BS, IMHO. Hated it in college and hate it now.

I have a son. His name is Alex. That statement is true, and there is no philosophical way around it. (and I could genetically test him to further prove it's true, but there's not exactly any doubt on the matter)

What's accurate?

htismaqe
04-14-2006, 03:12 PM
I'll look into it, but I'm dubious. I tend to dislike advanced philosophical thought. It's time-wasting BS to a large degree, IMHO. :)

Ah, I see.

I didn't take you for the faith-based type.

;)

htismaqe
04-14-2006, 03:14 PM
True it is present but it is omitted from view by people at one time or another.

Have you ever had to settle a dispute on a job between suppliers and staff?
Sometimes there is missing evidence that can turn the tide. Or sometimes one only witnessed a part of an event like the tail end and reports that as the scene. A written contract would be the "proof" of what the truth is of an agreement though... as an example

As far as defining "true" and "false" well you're waxing philosophic now and there is limited time and space for me for that type of depth. They both have many definitions depending on the context being used. Comes from Old English meaning "loyal" though.

To keep it simple "consistent with reality."
I know. I know...this can be subjective or an agreed upon reality by a group of people but that would still be a workable definition in that case.
If you want to get ontological about it that gets into the nature of "reality" "being" and "existence."

The thing I don't agree with is that nothing can be known. I don't buy that premise.

Consitent with reality? Define reality.

We could go on forever. I never said nothing can be known. I said nothing can be proven.

Clint in Wichita
04-14-2006, 03:16 PM
No. The human eye only PERCIEVES it to be "blue."


Well, if you believe in the bible, you believe that we were created in His image. I would assume that includes eyes.

Are you telling me that God, if he exists, can't tell what color the sky is?

I don't have a point, really.

BWillie
04-14-2006, 03:23 PM
Gee, sorry Vlad that I spelled entropy wrong. We all make mistakes :) Do you know what the Catholics did when Galileo discovered that the earth and other planets revolved around the Sun instead of vice versa? They freakin' hung him. People never want to hear the truth, their egos are just too large. It is in human nature to try to attempt to feel special.

Logical
04-14-2006, 03:24 PM
A fact, you folks can try and debate but will likely fail.

In the atmosphere of the earth any object consisting of particles with an atomic mass greater than hydrogen if released above the earth will move towards the earth.


Have fun

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 03:26 PM
Me neither. It was a fairly recent development.
So when are you getting married?

Logical
04-14-2006, 03:27 PM
Gee, sorry Vlad that I spelled entropy wrong. We all make mistakes :) Do you know what the Catholics did when Galileo discovered that the earth and other planets revolved around the Sun instead of vice versa? They freakin' hung him. People never want to hear the truth, their egos are just too large. It is in human nature to try to attempt to feel special.

If you are saying it was a typo then I apologize, however, so many people actually think it is entrophy that I thought I would let you know. It is always bad to use scientific theory as an argument then get the theory wrong. By the way entropy is a theory not a fact, so it kind of blows the argument you made right out of the water as a certainty.

ENDelt260
04-14-2006, 03:28 PM
So when are you getting married?
I dunno. You're married. When are you gonna die?

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 03:28 PM
The thing I don't agree with is that nothing can be known. I don't buy that premise.
Check out the holographic universe theory.

http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060922583/002-4472874-0559207?v=glance&n=283155

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 03:31 PM
I dunno. You're married. When are you gonna die?
Soon at this rate. I just figured a chick was the only thing that could straighten you out.

ENDelt260
04-14-2006, 03:33 PM
Soon at this rate.

Shitty.

I just figured a chick was the only thing that could straighten you out.

Not just "a" chick. Lots of those have come and gone.

Clint in Wichita
04-14-2006, 03:34 PM
Check out the holographic universe theory.

http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060922583/002-4472874-0559207?v=glance&n=283155

The universe is a hologram?

That's one big fuggin hologram.

BucEyedPea
04-14-2006, 03:39 PM
Consitent with reality? Define reality.

We could go on forever. I never said nothing can be known. I said nothing can be proven.


Well I meant in a "proven" sense as well.

Define reality? Whatever is real to one or others.

You are getting into philisophical ontology though.
There are some schools that say we put everything here in the physical world particle by particle...that it is all held together by agreement. Which means we could unmock it at will with enough agreement. Thus reality is a construct of our own minds.


Okay...so my turn now:

How do you know you really exist?

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 03:40 PM
Shitty.



Not just "a" chick. Lots of those have come and gone.
Poorly put on my part. A good woman.

CHIEF4EVER
04-14-2006, 03:44 PM
Simple lack of interest. I've got better things to do.

Who are YOU and what did you do with ENDelt? I'm calling the cops and reporting a missing person......

CHIEF4EVER
04-14-2006, 03:47 PM
FACT: I just opened a Home Brewed Weizen and am drinking it like momma's milk. I'm sorry, what was the topic again?

Clint in Wichita
04-14-2006, 03:47 PM
Not just "a" chick. Lots of those have come and gone.


They're all chicks once the "new chick smell" is gone.

ENDelt260
04-14-2006, 03:49 PM
They're all chicks once the "new chick smell" is gone.
That wears off? Can't I just buy more at the store?

Clint in Wichita
04-14-2006, 03:50 PM
That wears off? Can't I just buy more at the store?


More chicks? Sure.

Logical
04-14-2006, 03:52 PM
Well I meant in a "proven" sense as well.

Define reality? Whatever is real to one or others.

You are getting into philisophical ontology though.
There are some schools that say we put everything here in the physical world particle by particle...that it is all held together by agreement. Which means we could unmock it at will with enough agreement. Thus reality is a construct of our own minds.


Okay...so my turn now:

How do you know you really exist?
Because why else would I be reading this shitty post.

Clint in Wichita
04-14-2006, 03:53 PM
Well I meant in a "proven" sense as well.

Define reality? Whatever is real to one or others.

You are getting into philisophical ontology though.
There are some schools that say we put everything here in the physical world particle by particle...that it is all held together by agreement. Which means we could unmock it at will with enough agreement. Thus reality is a construct of our own minds.


Okay...so my turn now:

How do you know you really exist?

I hate hippies.

Chief Faithful
04-14-2006, 04:00 PM
So these two items are connected some how?

Logical
04-14-2006, 04:01 PM
So these two items are connected some how?What two items?

htismaqe
04-14-2006, 04:06 PM
Well I meant in a "proven" sense as well.

Define reality? Whatever is real to one or others.

You are getting into philisophical ontology though.
There are some schools that say we put everything here in the physical world particle by particle...that it is all held together by agreement. Which means we could unmock it at will with enough agreement. Thus reality is a construct of our own minds.


Okay...so my turn now:

How do you know you really exist?

Reality IS a construct of our own minds. If I could convince enough people the sky was brown, it would be brown, whether it really is or not.

And to answer your question: I don't. It's 100% faith.

picasso
04-14-2006, 04:07 PM
This is the point I'm driving at.

There isn't a theory based on a theory of relativity associated with space and time to define what light is. Light and dark is a fact. They have a source and the lack of a source. As to it being a theory stacked upon a theory I believe your going to deep into your Einstien bag for that one.

Chief Faithful
04-14-2006, 04:12 PM
What two items?

I didn't read the thread I was just responding to the poll. I don't see the connection between the two choices.

BucEyedPea
04-14-2006, 04:13 PM
Reality IS a construct of our own minds. If I could convince enough people the sky was brown, it would be brown, whether it really is or not.

But the label "brown" might look like what we call "blue." No?

In a sense that is what they're saying.

Anyhoo... that's not what that school of philosophy is saying exactly. It is saying we "created" everything that is here particle by particle, and put the laws of science here as we see and discover them; and that we are all knowing about how we did it but because we all agreed on it...it becomes reality.

Just saying that it was another branch of philisophy.


And to answer your question: I don't. It's 100% faith.
Oh! Cool.
For me: I know because I am aware of myself being aware or conscious. For me this "knowingness."

BucEyedPea
04-14-2006, 04:18 PM
If it's false, how is it a fact?

Good point....It would no longer be a fact once proven false.

The Pedestrian
04-14-2006, 04:26 PM
Okay so either God is screwing with people by making odd temperature changes or Global Warming is doing the whole thing...

Since the warming hasn't been all that consistent over the years, I'm going to go with the concept of a god who just wants to screw with people.

Claynus
04-14-2006, 04:30 PM
Reality IS a construct of our own minds..

Have you read the last chapter in "The Dilbert Future?"

Claynus
04-14-2006, 04:38 PM
Anyway, it's an interesting chapter. He gets serious and talks about alternate universes and stuff. About how time may just be a human construct. What we percieve as time may just be us moving through different dimensions. I one dimension you're jerking off, and in another you're playing pool with Dick Cheney.

He talks about some test some scientists did at some university. They shined a light through a piece of paper with two slits. They recorded the result and did it again. They got the same result.

They then erased the recording of the data and performed the experiment again. The result was different this time.

Claynus
04-14-2006, 04:43 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Here's an excerpt from scott adams book:

The scientists who devised the experiment hooked up some equipment that would record information about the light passing through the slits. When they recorded information about the light, they didn't get a venetian blind pattern anymore. They saw a blotch pattern instead.

You're probably thinking that the way they measured the light must have changed it. The scientists though that, too. So they did the experiment two ways, each time measuring the light the same way, but in one case the measured information was erased after being measured.

When the information was erased, the light pattern was a venetian blind, but when the information was NOT erased, the light pattern was a blotch.

The Scientists Conclusion:

Information in the present can change the past.

Adept Havelock
04-14-2006, 04:48 PM
There is no fact, only perspective.

Outside of the realm of mathematics, I might accept this. In base 10 mathematics, 2+2 will always equal 4, regardless of one's "persepective". This is a fact. As is the Universal Gravitational Constant, and Absolute Zero, among many other examples. None of these change based upon your "perspective".

Global Warming=Hard Scientific Evidence to support it, if only as part of a warming/cooling cycle.

Human Caused Global Warming=Very minimal hard scientific evidence to support it. Most of it of the "pick and choose" variety.

Existence of "God"=No hard scientific evidence whatsoever.

Qualifier: ID theories do not qualify as hard scientific evidence, as they are based on the theory of "irreducable complexity". IC can be neither proven nor disproven, and thus places it outside the realm of Natural Science, according to the standards of scientific inquiry, and the very definition of Natural Science itself. There is no simply no place for the "supernatural" in science.

I certainly can't speak as one, but I have to ask:
Why would a true believer feel the need for anything more than blind faith, anyway? :hmmm:

htismaqe
04-14-2006, 05:00 PM
Okay so either God is screwing with people by making odd temperature changes or Global Warming is doing the whole thing...

Since the warming hasn't been all that consistent over the years, I'm going to go with the concept of a god who just wants to screw with people.

There's a 3rd option:

The Earth is 3.5 to 4 billion years old and goes through global climate variations every few thousand years. We are currently heading into a time of increased geothermal activity accompanied by a general warming of the Earth's overall surface temperature. It's quite possible this just HAPPENS and has nothing at all to do with humans or their byproducts.

htismaqe
04-14-2006, 05:01 PM
Outside of the realm of mathematics, I might accept this. In base 10 mathematics, 2+2 will always equal 4, regardless of one's "persepective". This is a fact. As is the Universal Gravitational Constant, and Absolute Zero, among many other examples. None of these change based upon your "perspective".

Global Warming=Hard Scientific Evidence to support it, if only as part of a warming/cooling cycle.

Human Caused Global Warming=Very minimal hard scientific evidence to support it. Most of the "pick and choose" variety.

Existence of "God"=No hard scientific evidence whatsoever
.
Qualifier: ID theories do not qualify as hard scientific evidence, as they are based on the theory of "irreducable complexity". IC can be neither proven nor disproven, and thus places it outside the realm of Natural Science, according to the standards of scientific inquiry, and the very definition of Natural Science itself. There is no simply no place for the "supernatural" in science.

:bravo:

Finally.

Adept Havelock
04-14-2006, 05:04 PM
:bravo:

Finally.

Thank you for the applause. One is glad to have been of service, Sir.

The Pedestrian
04-14-2006, 05:05 PM
There's a 3rd option:

The Earth is 3.5 to 4 billion years old and goes through global climate variations every few thousand years. We are currently heading into a time of increased geothermal activity accompanied by a general warming of the Earth's overall surface temperature. It's quite possible this just HAPPENS and has nothing at all to do with humans or their byproducts.

Yes, as has been proven, that is the case; however, the question is which is more believable. Had the right answer been posed, I would have chosen it instead of a god.

BucEyedPea
04-14-2006, 05:20 PM
Outside of the realm of mathematics, I might accept this. In base 10 mathematics, 2+2 will always equal 4, regardless of one's "persepective". This is a fact.

To throw a monkey wrench into this one for the sake of argument, and just to be a Devil's Advocate.....as I really do like your post...but mathematics is also based on some arbitraries. I hear, from mathematicians, that they screw around with all types of suppositions including different names for numbers) and possibilities that refute what we'd call a factual mathematical answer.
:hmmm:

Logical
04-14-2006, 05:28 PM
I didn't read the thread I was just responding to the poll. I don't see the connection between the two choices.

I think the thread probably was started under the construct that both require belief. So which is harder/easier to believe?

BWillie
04-14-2006, 05:35 PM
If you are saying it was a typo then I apologize, however, so many people actually think it is entrophy that I thought I would let you know. It is always bad to use scientific theory as an argument then get the theory wrong. By the way entropy is a theory not a fact, so it kind of blows the argument you made right out of the water as a certainty.

Einstein and Newton had theories of gravitation..does gravity not exist? I'm not saying it's a certainty, nothing ever is. Just like gravity, this is a theory that we can observe in our every day lives. The question is not whether or not it exists, the question is how long until it happens. In fact, the concept of time requires that it exists. If it does not exist, then it would not be possible for you to retain memories.

All of this could even be an mirage, maybe you are hooked up to a artificial respiratory and circulatory system and your brain is sitting in a jar and everything you are thinking is simulated by a machine. Ya never know. At any rate, go Chiefs :D

Claynus
04-14-2006, 05:41 PM
Einstein and Newton had theories of gravitation..does gravity not exist? I'm not saying it's a certainty, nothing ever is. Just like gravity, this is a theory that we can observe in our every day lives.


Scott Adams also weighed in on the gravity theory. It's pretty complicated, but it involves the earth, you, and everything around you doubling in size every second, or somesuch.

This makes gravity an illusion. If you jump, you appear to fall back to the earth because the earth is expanding toward you. Or somesuch. I don't care to transcribe another section of the book.

Amnorix
04-14-2006, 05:42 PM
What's accurate?

That you're annoying. ;) :p

Adept Havelock
04-14-2006, 05:51 PM
Scott Adams also weighed in on the gravity theory. It's pretty complicated, but it involves the earth, you, and everything around you doubling in size every second, or somesuch.

This makes gravity an illusion. If you jump, you appear to fall back to the earth because the earth is expanding toward you. Or somesuch. I don't care to transcribe another section of the book.


I'll tell you what, GoChiefs. Let's perform a scientific experiment. We will meet on top of the KCP&L Building. You disbelieve in the reality of gravity as hard as you can. Seek out a hypnotist if you like, to remove any conscious doubt. I will push you off, if you are unable to make yourself jump. ;)

I'm willing to bet the impact splatter you make will prove the reality of gravity beyond any doubt. I'll also bet that your fall, regardless of your desires, will adhere to the law of terminal velocity (allowing for wind resistance, of course).

You take the word of a cartoonist that used to work for the phone company, quoting a theory of quantum mechanics combined with neo-hippy wishful thinking that I personally doubt he really comprehends. IMO, he's just latched onto it because he really wants to somehow scientifically "prove" the existence of "God" (see my previous post). You go with that, if it works for you. I'll be content taking the word of Mathematics, Sir Issac Newton, and the consensus of the Scientific Community. :D

Adept Havelock
04-14-2006, 05:56 PM
To throw a monkey wrench into this one for the sake of argument, and just to be a Devil's Advocate.....as I really do like your post...but mathematics is also based on some arbitraries. I hear, from mathematicians, that they screw around with all types of suppositions including different names for numbers) and possibilities that refute what we'd call a factual mathematical answer.
:hmmm:

Actually, this does occur in certain branches of theoretical mathematics. However, there is also an extremely vast amount of data which no mathematician (other than the obilgatory few mathematicians who are the math equivilant of "hollow-earth UFO types") will dispute.

Logical
04-14-2006, 06:06 PM
Einstein and Newton had theories of gravitation..does gravity not exist? I'm not saying it's a certainty, nothing ever is. Just like gravity, this is a theory that we can observe in our every day lives. The question is not whether or not it exists, the question is how long until it happens. In fact, the concept of time requires that it exists. If it does not exist, then it would not be possible for you to retain memories.

All of this could even be an mirage, maybe you are hooked up to a artificial respiratory and circulatory system and your brain is sitting in a jar and everything you are thinking is simulated by a machine. Ya never know. At any rate, go Chiefs :D

I know that cannot be true, because if it was I would be a Patriots fan not a Chiefs fan. Not even braindead people believe the Chiefs could win the Super Bowl.

banyon
04-14-2006, 08:34 PM
I voted for global warming.

At least we know that things can be cooled down and heated up.

Anyone here ever seen a ball of light that created an entire universe?

I didn't think so. STFD and STFU.

Good argument.

I've never seen a black swan...therefore they must not exist.

Claynus
04-14-2006, 08:36 PM
Good argument.

I've never seen a black swan...therefore they must not exist.

You need to get out more.

http://www.sweetwatercc.org/2005contestphotos/Black%20Swan.jpg

banyon
04-14-2006, 08:39 PM
Where is the "my head just exploded" smiley? Facts, by their very definition (a definition you put in this very post), cannot change. If something is subject to change in the future it isn't a fact, it's a theory, belief, posit, etc.

http://www.msnemotions.org/emoticons/uploads/Microwave.gif

banyon
04-14-2006, 08:55 PM
Reality IS a construct of our own minds. If I could convince enough people the sky was brown, it would be brown, whether it really is or not.

And to answer your question: I don't. It's 100% faith.

Sorry, Decartes is still right.

Something has Faith (you) ergo, you exist.

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 09:19 PM
All of this could even be an mirage, maybe you are hooked up to a artificial respiratory and circulatory system and your brain is sitting in a jar and everything you are thinking is simulated by a machine. Ya never know. At any rate, go Chiefs :D
This is the thing that fascinates me. Is everything I think I know and see just a figment of my imagination? What's to say that when you and I look at Chiefs Planet we see the same things? As long as we were both taught to use a specific word for two different things there is no way for our minds to determine that we are, in fact, seeing something different than what the other is seeing.

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 09:23 PM
I'll tell you what, GoChiefs. Let's perform a scientific experiment. We will meet on top of the KCP&L Building. You disbelieve in the reality of gravity as hard as you can. Seek out a hypnotist if you like, to remove any conscious doubt. I will push you off, if you are unable to make yourself jump. ;)
Actually, your test doesn't disprove the zero gravity theory. If something doubles in size every second it's growth is exponential, therefore the speed of the surface is constantly increasing. The further away you start, the faster it will be going when it reaches you.

Your scenario doesn't "prove" gravity any more than jumping off of a car going 50 in front of a car going 100. The differential will still kill you.

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 09:24 PM
http://www.msnemotions.org/emoticons/uploads/Microwave.gif
Sweeeeeet.

C-Mac
04-14-2006, 09:35 PM
What threw me first about religion is the Adam and Eve story. Eve ate from an apple tree a.k.a. The tree of knowledge and I grew up Baptist being a Christian that really shouldn’t ask too many questions and just have faith, well I have grown up and I have tons of questions.

I wont tell you I have tons of answers......:D, but I do have a question, where did everyone get the notion that Eve ate an apple?

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 09:37 PM
I wont tell you I have tons of answers......:D, but I do have a question, where did everyone get the notion that Eve ate an apple?
Skip was there, he saw it. I believe he said something about "see, I knew that stupid b**ch noob was going to f**k this up", but that got redacted from the Bible.

Adept Havelock
04-14-2006, 09:45 PM
Actually, your test doesn't disprove the zero gravity theory. If something doubles in size every second it's growth is exponential, therefore the speed of the surface is constantly increasing. The further away you start, the faster it will be going when it reaches you.

Your scenario doesn't "prove" gravity any more than jumping off of a car going 50 in front of a car going 100. The differential will still kill you.


True, I chose an overly simplistic example, but I figured most people here were smart enough to know I was being largely facetious. ;)

Besides, I have no need to prove the Law of gravity. The Universal Gravitational Constant (among many other scientific facts) does that for me.

Should I just include you with gochiefs and his neo-hippy psuedo-science, or are you just performing the office of Advocatus Diaboli?

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 09:48 PM
True, I chose an overly simplistic example, but I figured most people here were smart enough to know I was being largely facetious. ;)

Besides, I have no need to prove the Law of gravity. The Universal Gravitational Constant (among many other scientific facts) does that for me.

Or should I just include you with gochiefs and his neo-hippy psuedo-science?
Including me with hippy anything is liable to get you a beat down.

I'm a "don't know" kind of guy. I know nothing as a fact, though I have many accepted realities so that I can deal with daily life. Is there a God? I don't know. Does any of this actually exist? I don't know. I believe in impermanance, but I don't have any unimpeachable empirical evidence to support that belief.

ChiefFripp
04-14-2006, 09:51 PM
I believe there is a god ( a higher form of intelligence that created everything), but I don't think any human could possibly know exactly what God is.

Global warming exist plain and simple...no philosophical debate there.

C-Mac
04-14-2006, 09:56 PM
Actually, nearly all of science is based on theories and theories stacked on theories. Whether or not they are RIGHT is not known for certain (hence, "theory") but any valid theory has yet to be disproved by evidence yet found.
Are you planning to expounding on this or are you sticking to your guns?


Religion, meanwhile, is simply faith. Believe it or don't. No proof, no evidence, nothing.
I guess "proof" & "evidence" and "nothing" are all relevant terms. You can say there is no proof that Jesus existed but yet you dont hesitate to write the evidence of the year 2006 on your checks. Until you can find me a scientist who create life from "nothing", then all bets for the evolution theory are still off. All the science known to man cannot disprove the existance of a creator.

Adept Havelock
04-14-2006, 09:58 PM
Including me with hippy anything is liable to get you a beat down.

Fair enough. I can certainly understand that attitude. It's just my label for most "new-agey" pseudo science. "Zero Gravity" theory ranks up there with Phrenology. Though I must admit lately I've become curious about Retro-Phrenology (causing behaviors by inducing specific lumps and dents on the cranium). I've been having trouble finding people willing to act as experimental subjects, for some reason.


I'm a "don't know" kind of guy. I know nothing as a fact, though I have many accepted realities so that I can deal with daily life. Is there a God? I don't know. Does any of this actually exist? I don't know. I believe in impermanance, but I don't have any unimpeachable empirical evidence to support that belief.

Damn...and I thought I was a skeptic. :D

You know nothing as a fact? As I said before, it's a fact that in Base 10 mathematics 2+2 always equals 4, regardless of perspective.

I also believe in impermanance, but I have empirical evidence of it. It's called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As C.P. Snow put it:
"You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state, because there is always an increase in disorder; entropy always increases)."

Adept Havelock
04-14-2006, 09:59 PM
All the science known to man cannot disprove the existance of a creator.

By an amazing conincidence, it also cannot prove it.

Science is based on logic, and by the rules of logic, one cannot prove a negative. It therefore follows your statement above is at best, nonsensical.

As far as Science is concerned, a "creator" remains a concept based entirely on faith. As I said before, there is no room for the "supernatural" in Natural Science.

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 09:59 PM
Though I must admit lately I've become curious about retro-phrenology (causing behaviors by inducing specific lumps and dents on the cranium).
ROFL

Now THAT is some funny s**t.

Claynus
04-14-2006, 10:00 PM
AH, you should read scott adams book, or at least the that last chapter. Scott himself is a huge skeptic. I don't know that I believe him, and in fact, he says he's not even sure himself. But it did give me something to think about.

Adept Havelock
04-14-2006, 10:02 PM
AH, you should read scott adams book, or at least the that last chapter. Scott himself is a huge skeptic. I don't know that I believe him, and in fact, he says he's not even sure himself. But it did give me something to think about.

I've read most of it. I think I made it clear I wasn't impressed. I can only roll my eyes so many times before I put down a book.

If you enjoyed it, I'm guess I'm happy for you. Given my choice of his writings, I vastly prefer "Dilbert" and "The Way of the Weasel".

C-Mac
04-14-2006, 10:11 PM
By an amazing conincidence, it also cannot prove it.
Science is based on logic, and using your suppostion, one cannot prove a negative.
The "creator" remains a concept based entirely on faith.
Well its a bit weightier than entire faith for we exist either by means of the evolution theory or we exist from a creator. Science is based on logic and order verses illogic and chaos. So understanding these facts, I would say that a creator has a bit more that a 50/50 shot here.

Adept Havelock
04-14-2006, 10:22 PM
Well its a bit weightier than entire faith for we exist either by means of the evolution theory or we exist from a creator. Science is based on logic and order verses illogic and chaos. So understanding these facts, I would say that a creator has a bit more that a 50/50 shot here.

Actually, it's not a zero sum game. The third possibility is a scientific process that is yet to be considered.
Careful there, you might just prove the existence of God, and then where would you be? :p


"The Babel fish," said The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy quietly, "is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy not from its carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

"The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

"`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

"`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.

"`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

"Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God.
"Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation."



Fascinating how Douglas Adams forsaw the very basis of all ID arguments.
ROFL

Claynus
04-14-2006, 10:27 PM
I've read most of it. I think I made it clear I wasn't impressed. I can only roll my eyes so many times before I put down a book.

If you enjoyed it, I'm guess I'm happy for you. Given my choice of his writings, I vastly prefer "Dilbert" and "The Way of the Weasel".

So you think there's zero merit, despite the double slit experiment?

Adept Havelock
04-14-2006, 10:32 PM
So you think there's zero merit, despite the double slit experiment?

As I understand it, the "Double Slit" experiment only attempts to disprove the theory that the present is a quantum gravity interface which, as it moves through time, compresses Time into a system of relativistic blocks.

I think it's an interesting phenonmenon. I certainly don't buy the idea that it somehow proves all reality is subjective. To me, the Copenhagen interpretation of the Schrödinger's cat exercise, while interesting, remains in large part mental masturbation.

In short, perhaps not "zero merit". That said, I do not believe it signifies what Scott Adams is stating it does.

C-Mac
04-14-2006, 10:39 PM
Actually, it's not a zero sum game. The third possibility is a scientific process that is yet to be considered.
Careful there, you might just prove the existence of God, and then where would you be? :p ROFL

I would probably be still here on the Planet debating with someone why it is that God wont let the Chiefs go to another Superbowl. :D

Adept Havelock
04-14-2006, 10:41 PM
I would probably be still here on the Planet debating with someone why it is that God wont let the Chiefs go to another Superbowl. :D

Nice! I've certainly got my share of issues where I cry "Sancho, My Armor!" :p

Have a good night, C-Mac. :toast:

Lurch
04-14-2006, 10:42 PM
What a stupid assed thread.

greg63
04-14-2006, 10:43 PM
I believe both statements to be true; and where's the Gaz option?

Color Red
04-15-2006, 06:58 AM
Such a strange perspective, your inference that belief in God is a matter of some kind of blind faith. If I came into the bedroom and my two year old was hiding beneath a blanket but I could see her moving and hear her all familiar voice, I'd be a moron to not believe that she was there. Are you asking me to go against all my rational thinking that recognizes order in the universe and the distinction of humanity and say there is no God, a Maker who poses all of this? Even the consideration of global warming suggests more questions than it answers. Call me a believer if you doubt, I just don't have enough faith that it all came from nothing.

tiptap
04-15-2006, 07:50 AM
Neither answer is true, and neither can be proven fact.

A "fact" is a concept that was created by human kind. No event can be viewed objectively because the act of observing inherently involves humankind.

There is no fact, only perspective.

This is an incomplete statement. One can state that there are deductive events. That there iare things to be known giving the premise. The counter of that is to state logic or math or reasoning is arbitrary and useless. You can not be informed because the relationships are constantly in flux and there is nothing to be known. But if you do accept you can be informed than an inductive fact, a consistent finding (the sun rises every morning, the temperature goes up when heat is added, etc) feeds the deductive system with primise.

There may be several deductive systems that address the inductive fact. The sun may come up because the earth spins or because the sun circles the earth. And the deductive system provides suggested areas to look at new inductive facts which allows one to discern between systems.

But the inductive fact hasn't change in all of this. The deductive systems have been tried and some are more appropriate. Those deductive systems that are so universal in their explanation are deemed scientific theory. They are theory only in that a more complete theory may be found later for new or novel situations. Not that they are not complete to cover the observations that orginally gave rise to the theory.

Religion for its stance recognizes the deductive set as true. The difference is that religion has revelation provide the premise for the deductive system.

htismaqe
04-15-2006, 07:53 AM
Are you planning to expounding on this or are you sticking to your guns?


I guess "proof" & "evidence" and "nothing" are all relevant terms. You can say there is no proof that Jesus existed but yet you dont hesitate to write the evidence of the year 2006 on your checks. Until you can find me a scientist who create life from "nothing", then all bets for the evolution theory are still off. All the science known to man cannot disprove the existance of a creator.

The year 2006 has nothing to do with Christ.

2006 is "Anno Domini" meaning the 2006th year after Augustus became the 1st emperor of Rome...

htismaqe
04-15-2006, 07:58 AM
As I understand it, the "Double Slit" experiment only attempts to disprove the theory that the present is a quantum gravity interface which, as it moves through time, compresses Time into a system of relativistic blocks.

I think it's an interesting phenonmenon. I certainly don't buy the idea that it somehow proves all reality is subjective. To me, the Copenhagen interpretation of the Schrödinger's cat exercise, while interesting, remains in large part mental masturbation.

In short, perhaps not "zero merit". That said, I do not believe it signifies what Scott Adams is stating it does.

Reality isn't subjective. The NOTION of "reality" is subjective.

Unless you're somehow suggesting that we as humans have some capability to observe our surroundings without coloring them by our own experience.

C-Mac
04-15-2006, 08:56 AM
The year 2006 has nothing to do with Christ.

2006 is "Anno Domini" meaning the 2006th year after Augustus became the 1st emperor of Rome...

Surely you jest...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini
Anno Domini (Latin: "In the Year of the Lord"), abbreviated as AD or A.D., defines an epoch based on the traditionally-reckoned year of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. Similarly, Before Christ, abbreviated as BC or B.C., is used in the English language to denote years before the start of this epoch.

htismaqe
04-15-2006, 09:50 AM
Surely you jest...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini
Anno Domini (Latin: "In the Year of the Lord"), abbreviated as AD or A.D., defines an epoch based on the traditionally-reckoned year of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. Similarly, Before Christ, abbreviated as BC or B.C., is used in the English language to denote years before the start of this epoch.

The Latin "In the Year of Our Lord" was added to the calendar by a Scythian monk in 527 and adopted over the whole of Europe eventually.

The Augustan calendar (adopted from the Julian calendar) was already counting from the ascent of Augustus and had been for over 500 years.

Claynus
04-15-2006, 09:57 AM
****in' monks

C-Mac
04-15-2006, 10:19 AM
The Latin "In the Year of Our Lord" was added to the calendar by a Scythian monk in 527 and adopted over the whole of Europe eventually.

The Augustan calendar (adopted from the Julian calendar) was already counting from the ascent of Augustus and had been for over 500 years.

You previously posted "2006 is "Anno Domini" meaning the 2006th year after Augustus became the 1st emperor of Rome"
This is not correct, Anno Domini translated means "year of our Lord" not "year of Augustus" as you stated. The reason I mentioned that 2006 is a factor is that it is the worldwide "accepted" years from when Jesus was born and a testament to his existance. Just the same as it would be a factor and testament to the existance of Augustus.

htismaqe
04-15-2006, 01:15 PM
You previously posted "2006 is "Anno Domini" meaning the 2006th year after Augustus became the 1st emperor of Rome"
This is not correct, Anno Domini translated means "year of our Lord" not "year of Augustus" as you stated. The reason I mentioned that 2006 is a factor is that it is the worldwide "accepted" years from when Jesus was born and a testament to his existance. Just the same as it would be a factor and testament to the existance of Augustus.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from now...I was all over the place this morning.

Anno Domini does mean "Year of our Lord" but it was started in 527 AD, or 753 years from the founding of Rome.

It is however, as you said, the accepted years from when Jesus was born. Most ancient manuscripts from the region pinpoint the birth about 3 years prior to 1 AD, however.

Speaking of a testament to his existence -- he's mentioned as a man (not a messiah) in writings from Egypt, Persia, and Greece and references to him dot the secular Roman writings of the era, prior to much of Rome adopting Christianity. It's pretty hard for this historian to dispute that he existed...

C-Mac
04-15-2006, 01:37 PM
Yeah, I see where you're coming from now...I was all over the place this morning.

Anno Domini does mean "Year of our Lord" but it was started in 527 AD, or 753 years from the founding of Rome.

It is however, as you said, the accepted years from when Jesus was born. Most ancient manuscripts from the region pinpoint the birth about 3 years prior to 1 AD, however.

Speaking of a testament to his existence -- he's mentioned as a man (not a messiah) in writings from Egypt, Persia, and Greece and references to him dot the secular Roman writings of the era, prior to much of Rome adopting Christianity. It's pretty hard for this historian to dispute that he existed...

Yes and you are of a rare breed around here. Self claimed historian HolyHangenade stated "The Bible is religious opinion not historical fact", somehow he refuses to accept the fact that the bible also holds and has verified many historically accurate facts.

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 02:00 PM
Yes and you are of a rare breed around here. Self claimed historian HolyHangenade stated "The Bible is religious opinion not historical fact", somehow he refuses to accept the fact that the bible also holds and has verified many historically accurate facts.


Well, I certainly accept that there was a man named Yesho Ben Pantera, who has become known as Jesus Christ to later generations.
That's about as far as I can go historically speaking, though.

You make a valid point regarding history and the bible. That said, I feel compelled to point out that Aquinas's Summa Theologie contains some correct scientific facts. However, this does not make it a scientifically accurate work.

Just consider me your Doubting Thomas, C-mac. :thumb:
Actually, I've been told I played that role for a couple of good friends who were attending Seminary at one time or another. As always, "One is glad to have been of service".

C-Mac
04-15-2006, 03:02 PM
Well, I certainly accept that there was a man named Yesho Ben Pantera, who has become known as Jesus Christ to later generations.
That's about as far as I can go historically speaking, though.

You make a valid point regarding history and the bible. That said, I feel compelled to point out that Aquinas's Summa Theologie contains some correct scientific facts. However, this does not make it a scientifically accurate work.

Just consider me your Doubting Thomas, C-mac. :thumb:
Actually, I've been told I played that role for a couple of good friends who were attending Seminary at one time or another. As always, "One is glad to have been of service".

I'm always up for a logical poignant discussion. My issue with the bible, as have always been, that where the bible touches on certain sciences and where it touches on history it has been very accurate, therefore giving it the credence it should deserve. As said before the bible is not a science book but it is scientifically accurate on what is known as scientific fact.
Now I know that Jesus's accurate name in Hebrew is either Yeshua or Yehoshua which when translated in english is Joshua or Jehoshua. Not sure of this name Yesho Ben Pantera you mention.

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 03:10 PM
I'm always up for a logical poignant discussion. My issue with the bible, as have always been, that where the bible touches on certain sciences and where it touches on history it has been very accurate, therefore giving it the credence it should deserve. As said before the bible is not a science book but it is scientifically accurate on what is known as scientific fact.
Now I know that Jesus's accurate name in Hebrew is either Yeshua or Yehoshua which when translated in english is Joshua or Jehoshua. Not sure of this name Yesho Ben Pantera you mention.

From Jesus: A Biography, by A.N. Wilson. (First book I found on my shelves with a proper name).

As I said, the bible, like the Summa Theolgie, may get some facts right. This does not make it entirely true. If your suppostion were entirely true, the geological record would contain evidence of a global flood corresponding to Noah's time, not just the record of an ancient flood in and around the Black Sea.

C-Mac
04-15-2006, 03:32 PM
From Jesus: A Biography, by A.N. Wilson. (First book I found on my shelves with a proper name).

As I said, the bible, like the Summa Theolgie, may get some facts right. This does not make it entirely true. If your suppostion were completely true, the geological record would contain evidence of a global flood corresponding to Noah's time, not just the record of an ancient flood in and around the Black Sea.
Again where the bible touches on science with known facts, it has been accurate. I havent seen anything scientifically that could disprove a global flood and I do know that there is plenty of water to have one. I have seen many a finding that could be explained best by such a global catsrophy. Like the recent found willy mammoths who were almost instantly frozen with food still in there mouths. Like in Montana(I believe it is) that mass groups of bones of dinosaurs and others were found in the side of a river bank, yet there was higher ground all around(One goofy scientist went as far as suggesting it was a mass suicide) Also things such as the Grand canyon, Salt lake ect. It is also interesting and worthy to note that nearly all religions known to man have some type of global flood story with few survivors, as part of their faith.

htismaqe
04-15-2006, 03:33 PM
From Jesus: A Biography, by A.N. Wilson. (First book I found on my shelves with a proper name).

As I said, the bible, like the Summa Theolgie, may get some facts right. This does not make it entirely true. If your suppostion were completely true, the geological record would contain evidence of a global flood corresponding to Noah's time, not just the record of an ancient flood in and around the Black Sea.

The geologic record DOES show a record of an ancient global flood, or at least something that resembles a flood. It was most likely a tsunami, caused by an undersea eruption in the Aegean Sea. The idea of a worldwide flood isn't unique to Judaism. Such an event is found in almost all of the ancient Mediterranean historical writings/artwork.

Remember, the "globe" to the ancient Israelites WAS the area around the Black Sea.

htismaqe
04-15-2006, 03:36 PM
I think the problem here is that alot of people, Christians and skeptics alike, tend to interpret the language of the Bible literally.

For instance, the Bible says God's creation lasted 6 days and on the 7th day he rested. However, the entire concept of a "day" was created by man...

UteChief
04-15-2006, 03:38 PM
Can I believe in both?

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 03:39 PM
It is also interesting and worthy to note that nearly all religions known to man have some type of global flood story with few survivors, as part of their faith.

Yes, and may of these legends predate the alleged "time of Noah."

The majority of them stem from the original work of literature (well, oral literature) "Gilgamesh". Gilgamesh itself is possibly a relic of some earlier culture (for those that subscribe to the "precursor" civilization theory, which I generally reject on grounds of insufficent evidence).

As for Catastrophism, I've studied Immanuel Vilikovsky at the behest of a couple of colleagues. IMO (and apparently the overwhelming consensus of the Scientific community), it's a theory without real substance to back it up.

I'm not familiar with the Montana example you cite. However, basic geology teaches that in an earthquake, or due to volcanism, the level of ground raises and falls all the time. Just because an area is lower or higher than surrounding areas today, certainly does not mean it has always been so. Especially considering the fact one is dealing with timescales measured in millions of years.

C-Mac
04-15-2006, 03:42 PM
I think the problem here is that alot of people, Christians and skeptics alike, tend to interpret the language of the Bible literally.

For instance, the Bible says God's creation lasted 6 days and on the 7th day he rested. However, the entire concept of a "day" was created by man...

The bibles language is really no different than our language...care is needed to understand the context.
One thing for sure is that a creation "day" was not meant as a 24 hour day.

C-Mac
04-15-2006, 03:44 PM
Yes, and may of these legends predate the alleged "time of Noah."

The majority of them stem from the original work of literature (well, oral literature) "Gilgamesh".

As for Catastrophism, I've studied Immanuel Vilikovsky at the behest of a couple of colleagues. IMO (and apparently the overwhelming consensus of the Scientific community), it's a theory without real substance to back it up.

I'm not familiar with the Montana example you cite. However, basic geology teaches that in an earthquake, or due to volcanism, the level of ground raises and falls all the time. Just because an area is lower or higher than surrounding areas today, certainly does not mean it has always been so. Especially considering the fact one is dealing with timescales measured in millions of years.

Yes but the bottom line is though, a global flood is and was scientifically possible.

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 03:48 PM
Yes but the bottom line is though, a global flood is and was scientifically possible.

As I've said, only within the idea of a "global" flood affecting the immediate region surrounding the Black Sea and Mediterranian. All the water contained in the polar icecaps would only raise the global sea level a couple of hundred feet, far too little to cover the entire globe. Unfortunately for your theory, there just isn't enough water to cover the entire earth, even were you to somehow bond all of the oxygen in the atmosphere into water molocules. (This would beg the question of what did they breathe on the ark?) We know this because we can reconstruct the oxygen percentage of the ancient atmosphere through geology and chemistry. Unless of course, you want to dig up some evidence that the totality of dry land has somehow lifted itself thousands of feet higher in only a few thousand years with NO geological record of this "global uplift" whatsoever.

IMO, as another said, the vast preponderence of scientific evidence points towards an ancient mega-tsunami being the origin of the flood mythology. One quite likely caused by an explosion like that which destroyed Thera, or in the modern day, Krakatoa.

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 03:58 PM
The bibles language is really no different than our language...care is needed to understand the context.
One thing for sure is that a creation "day" was not meant as a 24 hour day.

Of course. The "Day" is measured by the rotation of the Earth. How can you measure a "day" before there is a standard by which to measure it?

Claynus
04-15-2006, 03:59 PM
Is it possible a bunch of land mass fell into the ocean, thereby displacing water? I'm pretty clueless, just throwing out other ideas.

htismaqe
04-15-2006, 04:15 PM
Of course. The "Day" is measured by the rotation of the Earth. How can you measure a "day" before there is a standard by which to measure it?

Exactly.

htismaqe
04-15-2006, 04:16 PM
Is it possible a bunch of land mass fell into the ocean, thereby displacing water? I'm pretty clueless, just throwing out other ideas.

That's precisely what happened at Thera and it's probably where the myth of Atlantis originated...

Claynus
04-15-2006, 04:17 PM
That's precisely what happened at Thera and it's probably where the myth of Atlantis originated...

Ooh, what happened at Thera?

4th and Long
04-15-2006, 04:19 PM
Ooh, what happened at Thera?
It was devastated by a volcanic eruption sometime in the 15th century BC. The eruption was one the the most powerful in the past 10,000 years and contributed to the fall of the Minoan Civilization. The other event to contribute to the fall of the Minoan Civilization was the rise of the Mycenean Civilization on the island of Crete.

'About 7 cubic miles of rhyodacite magma was erupted. The plinian Column during the initial phase of the eruption was about 23 miles high. The removal of such a large volume of magma caused the volcano to collapse, producing a caldera....The eruption probably caused the end of the Minoan civilization on the island of Crete.'

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 04:21 PM
Ooh, what happened at Thera?

Here you go:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thera_eruption">Thera Eruption</a>

BigMeatballDave
04-15-2006, 05:04 PM
Here you go:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thera_eruption">Thera Eruption</a>The water makes a profile of a person that resembles Kramer...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1c/Santorini_map.jpg/300px-Santorini_map.jpg

BigMeatballDave
04-15-2006, 05:08 PM
When I can go swimming in 80+ degree temp. in Ohio, in January, I'll buy the whole global warming BS...

BucEyedPea
04-15-2006, 05:16 PM
The water makes a profile of a person that resembles Kramer...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1c/Santorini_map.jpg/300px-Santorini_map.jpg


Cool Santorini...I was there! I saw the excavation from that volcanic eruption you're discussing and it was pretty cool. The guides claimed it was thought to be Atlantis. Saw the story on the History Channel too about the eruption and why they thought it was Atlantis.

Had nice black sand beaches there.

Bearcat2005
04-15-2006, 06:28 PM
Double spin-off thread and with a Poll no less!! :fire:





Ready, Set .................. Go!!!


So I guess humans were at fault 50,000 years ago when "global warming" occured and the ice age receded ....right Al?

Claynus
04-15-2006, 06:33 PM
I have a bunch of cool Santorini pics:

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/8661/santorini1388bj.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/2301/santorini0497lj.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/2122/santorini0903gi.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/4504/santorini0878rn.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Bowser
04-15-2006, 06:48 PM
Didn't know Santorini did clevage. Very nice!

The Pedestrian
04-15-2006, 07:20 PM
The geologic record DOES show a record of an ancient global flood, or at least something that resembles a flood. It was most likely a tsunami, caused by an undersea eruption in the Aegean Sea. The idea of a worldwide flood isn't unique to Judaism. Such an event is found in almost all of the ancient Mediterranean historical writings/artwork.

Remember, the "globe" to the ancient Israelites WAS the area around the Black Sea.

If you want to say that the global flood was strictly the area around the Black Sea as the ancients did--which would be the most logical thing to do, of course--then perhaps we could look at the theory about how the Black Sea was created in the first place. With the ocean levels rising after the last ice age, I wouldn't doubt that there was enough pressure building against that rock wall for everything to push through and force the people living down there to disperse and write their recollections of what they believed to be a global flood. Besides, they have found lakebeds at the bottom of the Black Sea.

tiptap
04-15-2006, 07:56 PM
The most difficult miracle of Old Testament record that is hard to understand is the claim the sun was stopped in the sky by Joshua and was even backed up by one of the kings of Judah. Going from 1000 miles per hour to 0 at the equator. Sound barrier speeds at the US Canadian border.
You don't hear the geological evidence for these events. Yet if the earth did stop spinning on its axis so to 'stop' the sun and celestial objects that would mean that the fluids on earth, air and water, should be traveling 1000 miles per hour at the equator. You talk about your tsunami! The whole ocean torn from its basins. Trees and mountains should be toppled.

Now an infinite god could just hold everything in its place but why then do you insist that the Grand Canyon or other geological structures inform us of Noah's flood? Why then would god turn around and totally hide evidence of these event? Why isn't this event just as universal as the flood story?

It doesn't mean that there isn't some Prime Mover or god. But it does doesn't inspire faith in thinking that the Bible isn't subject to hyperbole.

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 07:57 PM
If you want to say that the global flood was strictly the area around the Black Sea as the ancients did--which would be the most logical thing to do, of course--then perhaps we could look at the theory about how the Black Sea was created in the first place. With the ocean levels rising after the last ice age, I wouldn't doubt that there was enough pressure building against that rock wall for everything to push through and force the people living down there to disperse and write their recollections of what they believed to be a global flood. Besides, they have found lakebeds at the bottom of the Black Sea.

That's an interesting theory. I gather the rock walls you are speaking of are what we now know of as the Dardanelle Straits between Greece and Turkey?

I've seen a theory that something similar at the Straits of Gibraltar formed the Mediterranian Sea. It's certainly possible, and would explain a great deal. Oral histories, while they do change, certainly have a way of hanging around for a very long time.

Lurch
04-15-2006, 07:58 PM
The most difficult miracle of Old Testament record that is hard to understand is the claim the sun was stopped in the sky by Joshua and was even backed up by one of the kings of Judah. Going from 1000 miles per hour to 0 at the equator. Sound barrier speeds at the US Canadian border.
You don't hear the geological evidence for these events. Yet if the earth did stop spinning on its axis so to 'stop' the sun and celestial objects that would mean that the fluids on earth, air and water, should be traveling 1000 miles per hour at the equator. You talk about your tsunami! The whole ocean torn from its basins. Trees and mountains should be toppled.

Now an infinite god could just hold everything in its place but why then do you insist that the Grand Canyon or other geological structures inform us of Noah's flood? Why then would god turn around and totally hide evidence of these event? Why isn't this event just as universal as the flood story?

It doesn't mean that there isn't some Prime Mover or god. But it does doesn't inspire faith in thinking that the Bible isn't subject to hyperbole.

You honestly think most Christians take those kinds of stories, literally?

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 08:03 PM
The most difficult miracle of Old Testament record that is hard to understand is the claim the sun was stopped in the sky by Joshua and was even backed up by one of the kings of Judah. Going from 1000 miles per hour to 0 at the equator. Sound barrier speeds at the US Canadian border.
You don't hear the geological evidence for these events. Yet if the earth did stop spinning on its axis so to 'stop' the sun and celestial objects that would mean that the fluids on earth, air and water, should be traveling 1000 miles per hour at the equator. You talk about your tsunami! The whole ocean torn from its basins. Trees and mountains should be toppled.

Now an infinite god could just hold everything in its place but why then do you insist that the Grand Canyon or other geological structures inform us of Noah's flood? Why then would god turn around and totally hide evidence of these event? Why isn't this event just as universal as the flood story?

Not just that, but think of the storms generated by 1000 mph winds. Oy.

Agreed. The melting of Glaciers at the end of the last ice age, and that water rushing south down the now Colorado River Basin had much more to do with carving out the Grand Canyon than any mythical global "flood".

Amnorix
04-15-2006, 08:07 PM
Are you planning to expounding on this or are you sticking to your guns?

Well, sticking to my guns is a "yes". But putting that aside -- scientific theories are models, or statements of how something works and why. It needs to explain how things happen, and predict how things will happen under given circumstances. If we observe that that isn't how things happen, or a prediction doesn't come true, then the theory is invalid and discarded. It essentially remains a valid theory, and gains additional strength, the more its predictions are proven true.

But that said, the theory of relativity, which has been proven time and again, remains a theory over 75 years since it was first developed.


I guess "proof" & "evidence" and "nothing" are all relevant terms. You can say there is no proof that Jesus existed but yet you dont hesitate to write the evidence of the year 2006 on your checks. Until you can find me a scientist who create life from "nothing", then all bets for the evolution theory are still off. All the science known to man cannot disprove the existance of a creator.

The year 2006 is a convention adopted by OUR society (not all societies on Earth, mind you) to designate a certain time period. It's not even accurate (i.e. Jesus at this point isn't believed to have been born in year 0).

I never said there's no proof Jesus existed. Indeed, I think it's fairly proven that Jesus DID exist. In other words, a person named Jesus was born approximately (but not exactly) 2000 years ago and founded a religion. Whether he was truly the son of God and all that is what is subject to debate.

Scientists can't create life from nothing, nor does the theory of evolution suggest they can.

As I've repeatedly said, belief in God is based on faith, and his existence, or non-existence, is not provable or disprovable by man. You believe in him, or you don't. Endless ink has been spilled by philosophers in a useless quest to prove or disprove God. It's all foolishness...

Amnorix
04-15-2006, 08:20 PM
The year 2006 has nothing to do with Christ.

2006 is "Anno Domini" meaning the 2006th year after Augustus became the 1st emperor of Rome...

Say what? It's Latin for "In the Year of the Lord"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini

And Augustus' reign began in 63 BC...

http://www.roman-empire.net/emperors/augustus.html

Amnorix
04-15-2006, 08:24 PM
Yes but the bottom line is though, a global flood is and was scientifically possible.

But honestly, the whole thing is rather ludicrous... (Noah's Ark).

Amnorix
04-15-2006, 08:28 PM
Yeah, I see where you're coming from now...I was all over the place this morning.

Anno Domini does mean "Year of our Lord" but it was started in 527 AD, or 753 years from the founding of Rome.

It is however, as you said, the accepted years from when Jesus was born. Most ancient manuscripts from the region pinpoint the birth about 3 years prior to 1 AD, however.

Speaking of a testament to his existence -- he's mentioned as a man (not a messiah) in writings from Egypt, Persia, and Greece and references to him dot the secular Roman writings of the era, prior to much of Rome adopting Christianity. It's pretty hard for this historian to dispute that he existed...

Wow. Just wow.

Work with me on this. We all have to do it from time to time.

"I was wrong".

It's okay. Honest.

C-Mac
04-15-2006, 09:21 PM
The most difficult miracle of Old Testament record that is hard to understand is the claim the sun was stopped in the sky by Joshua and was even backed up by one of the kings of Judah. Going from 1000 miles per hour to 0 at the equator. Sound barrier speeds at the US Canadian border.
You don't hear the geological evidence for these events. Yet if the earth did stop spinning on its axis so to 'stop' the sun and celestial objects that would mean that the fluids on earth, air and water, should be traveling 1000 miles per hour at the equator. You talk about your tsunami! The whole ocean torn from its basins. Trees and mountains should be toppled.

Now an infinite god could just hold everything in its place but why then do you insist that the Grand Canyon or other geological structures inform us of Noah's flood? Why then would god turn around and totally hide evidence of these event? Why isn't this event just as universal as the flood story?

It doesn't mean that there isn't some Prime Mover or god. But it does doesn't inspire faith in thinking that the Bible isn't subject to hyperbole.

A little insight for you, the biblical story you have such an issue with is a little more easily understood if you look at the whole context. The reason that such a request was made in the first place was to allow more daylight time to finish the battle at hand. Then to the observer it did appear as if the sun never set or more simply that it never got dark. The earth didnt stop turning but it is possible that the axis could have changed. Have you ever been to Alaska in the summer?

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 09:34 PM
A little insight for you, the biblical story you have such an issue with is a little more easily understood if you look at the whole context. The reason that such a request was made in the first place was to allow more daylight time to finish the battle at hand. Then to the observer it did appear as if the sun never set or more simply that it never got dark. The earth didnt stop turning but it is possible that the axis could have changed. Have you ever been to Alaska in the summer?


Oy. OK, to accept that the axis changed to a level necessary to create polar lighting conditions in the area of Israel (Approx. 30 degrees North) would require a shift of at least 30-40 degrees in a matter of minutes. The tectonic stresses would certainly have left massive traces in the geologic record. They aren't there.

Personally, I'm still waiting for an account of what happened to all the water that flooded the earth, as you alleged was scientifically possible. Especially considering there's not enough in the ice caps, oceans, and atmosphere combined.


The nice thing about citing god as an authority is that you can prove anything you set out to prove.

C-Mac
04-15-2006, 09:39 PM
But honestly, the whole thing is rather ludicrous... (Noah's Ark).

Something else to chew on....
In 1761 Alexander Catcott, wrote A Treatise on the Deluge, citing what he considered to be proof of the cataclysm. He has been quoted as saying: “We appeal once more to nature and find that there are, at this day, as evident, as demonstrative, as incontestable proofs of the deluge over the face of the earth .*.*. as if it had happened last year .*.*. Search the earth; you will find the moose-deer, native of America, buried in Ireland; elephants, natives of Asia and Africa, buried in the midst of England; crocodiles, natives of the Nile, in the heart of Germany; shell-fish, never known in the American seas, together with the entire skeletons of whales, in the most inland regions of England; trees of vast dimensions, with their roots and their tops, and some also with leaves and fruit, at the bottom of mines.”

Amnorix
04-15-2006, 09:44 PM
Here, perhaps, is one of my biggest problems with the Bible, and the human-centric thinking that usually accompanies Judeo-Christianity.

This is a galaxy:

http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/AAO/images/icons/aat017_2.jpg

There are a thousand thousand galaxies just like this one in the universe. Within each galaxy are a thousand thousand stars, and surrounding each of those stars within each of those galaxies are planets innumerable.

Our planet is the third revolving around one sun on an insignificant arm of our particular galaxy.

Unless God has for some odd reason created a whole lot of false images in the sky to make us feel like we're a very small fish in a very big pond, then we are in fact very small fish in a very big pond.

IMHO the best argument for God is that he started the universe and gave it the set of scientific properties to which it adheres (whatever they are).

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 09:46 PM
Here, perhaps, is one of my biggest problems with the Bible, and the human-centric thinking that usually accompanies Judeo-Christianity.

This is a galaxy:

http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/AAO/images/icons/aat017_2.jpg

There are a thousand thousand galaxies just like this one in the universe. Within each galaxy are a thousand thousand stars, and surrounding each of those stars within each of those galaxies are planets innumerable.

Our planet is the third revolving around one sun on an insignificant arm of our particular galaxy.

Unless God has for some odd reason created a whole lot of false images in the sky to make us feel like we're a very small fish in a very big pond, then we are in fact very small fish in a very big pond.

IMHO the best argument for God is that he started the universe and gave it the set of scientific properties to which it adheres (whatever they are).

:clap: :clap:

Ever read Clarke's theory? Can't say I buy it, but I do find it fascinating. He posits the following:

Imagine the initial parameters of the big bang as a single point on a mathematical hypersurface (picture it as an infinite sheet of paper). The hypersurface represents all possible parameters for the intial moment of the big bang, or rather, creation. God, to Clarke, is a supreme "investigator". He is seeking a certain region on this surface, a set of initial parameters which will lead to harmony, as opposed to entropy. A universe which will not end in dissipation, heat-death, or a "big crunch", but rather in a harmony and stability (possibly with all mind not just contributing to that harmony by itself, but helping non-sentient matter along the road to mind. A small closed set on this surface, if you will. God must experiment because the Uncertainty principle precludes simple a priori calculation of the final result.

As I said, I don't believe it myself, but it is a facsinating concept. An interesting faith for an hard-science engineer, if there ever was one, IMO. It certainly has an elegance to it.

Claynus
04-15-2006, 09:46 PM
Aliens seeded mankind on the planet earth.

L. Ron Hubbard > Jesus

The Pedestrian
04-15-2006, 09:47 PM
That's an interesting theory. I gather the rock walls you are speaking of are what we now know of as the Dardanelle Straits between Greece and Turkey?

I've seen a theory that something similar at the Straits of Gibraltar formed the Mediterranian Sea. It's certainly possible, and would explain a great deal. Oral histories, while they do change, certainly have a way of hanging around for a very long time.

The wall was either at an end of the Dardanelle Strait or the Bosporus.

I haven't heard the theory about the Strait of Gibraltar, but yes, it would explain a lot...as would the less likely theory of the Caribbean Sea once being a desert with small villages. Granted they have found what seem to be man-made walls in odd parts of both seas.

C-Mac
04-15-2006, 09:55 PM
As I've said, only within the idea of a "global" flood affecting the immediate region surrounding the Black Sea and Mediterranian. All the water contained in the polar icecaps would only raise the global sea level a couple of hundred feet, far too little to cover the entire globe. Unfortunately for your theory, there just isn't enough water to cover the entire earth, even were you to somehow bond all of the oxygen in the atmosphere into water molocules. (This would beg the question of what did they breathe on the ark?) We know this because we can reconstruct the oxygen percentage of the ancient atmosphere through geology and chemistry. Unless of course, you want to dig up some evidence that the totality of dry land has somehow lifted itself thousands of feet higher in only a few thousand years with NO geological record of this "global uplift" whatsoever.

IMO, as another said, the vast preponderence of scientific evidence points towards an ancient mega-tsunami being the origin of the flood mythology. One quite likely caused by an explosion like that which destroyed Thera, or in the modern day, Krakatoa.

Well to some extent the earth is still flooded. Seventy percent of it is covered by water and only 30 percent is dry land. Moreover, 75 percent of the earth’s fresh water is locked up in the glaciers and polar ice caps. If all this ice were to melt(per this thread starters concerns), the sea level would obviously rise much higher and cities like New York and Tokyo would disappear. The New Encyclopedia Britannica says: “The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 metres (12,430 feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 metres (2,760 feet). If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level.” So technically, if everything were leveled out—if the mountains were flattened and the deep sea basins filled in—the sea would cover the whole earth to a depth of thousands of feet.

Amnorix
04-15-2006, 09:56 PM
Something else to chew on....
In 1761 Alexander Catcott, wrote A Treatise on the Deluge, citing what he considered to be proof of the cataclysm. He has been quoted as saying: “We appeal once more to nature and find that there are, at this day, as evident, as demonstrative, as incontestable proofs of the deluge over the face of the earth .*.*. as if it had happened last year .*.*. Search the earth; you will find the moose-deer, native of America, buried in Ireland; elephants, natives of Asia and Africa, buried in the midst of England; crocodiles, natives of the Nile, in the heart of Germany; shell-fish, never known in the American seas, together with the entire skeletons of whales, in the most inland regions of England; trees of vast dimensions, with their roots and their tops, and some also with leaves and fruit, at the bottom of mines.”

Work with me on this:

The tale of Noah's Ark basically says that God flooded the entirety of planet Earth in order to kill every man, woman, child, animal and insect except for -- get this -- Noah's family and the animals and insects that were on the ark that he built.

An ark for 50,000 species of animals (so assuming 2 of each, 100,000 actual animals) and 1 million insects.

And on this boat they stayed for something on the order of 6 months, I believe.

Consider:

1. how big would this boat have to be? Consider that it must be bouyant enough to handle the weight of all these things? Also, how many people working how many years would it take to build a boat this big? And would they do it if they weren't going to be allowed on-board?

2. how much food would be required to feed them all? What is the source of the food, especially for the freaking carnivores?

3. How can you get food when EVERYTHING is under water?

4. Where did the water come from before the flood?

5. Where did the waters recede to?

6. How did humans (not to mention the animals) repopulate the Earth. Presumably -- although I'm speculating on this one -- incest is necessarily involved for all lifeforms to repropagate the species.

7. How did the animals decide to go on board the boat? The insects? How did some of the critters even get there even if they wanted to? I mean -- Komodo Dragons, crocodiles, penguins, Grizzly Bears, Polar Bears and Kangaroos hardly hang out in the same climates...

The answer to all these, presumably, is God willed it to be so, and so it was. Ok, fine. But you're back to just faith. I don't have it and you do, so we're at a deadlock. No sweat.

Amnorix
04-15-2006, 09:56 PM
Aliens seeded mankind on the planet earth.

L. Ron Hubbard > Jesus
The piece of human filth can rot in hell (irony intended). It's really unfortunate that his "Church" didn't get their tax-exempt status yanked. Frigging phonies.

Amnorix
04-15-2006, 09:58 PM
Well to some extent the earth is still flooded. Seventy percent of it is covered by water and only 30 percent is dry land. Moreover, 75 percent of the earth’s fresh water is locked up in the glaciers and polar ice caps. If all this ice were to melt(per this thread starters concerns), the sea level would obviously rise much higher and cities like New York and Tokyo would disappear. The New Encyclopedia Britannica says: “The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 metres (12,430 feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 metres (2,760 feet). If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level.” So technically, if everything were leveled out—if the mountains were flattened and the deep sea basins filled in—the sea would cover the whole earth to a depth of thousands of feet.

What, prithee, does this have to do with anything, unless you're suggesting that the Earth was "leveled out"?

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 10:01 PM
Something else to chew on....
In 1761 Alexander Catcott, wrote A Treatise on the Deluge, citing what he considered to be proof of the cataclysm. He has been quoted as saying: “We appeal once more to nature and find that there are, at this day, as evident, as demonstrative, as incontestable proofs of the deluge over the face of the earth .*.*. as if it had happened last year .*.*. Search the earth; you will find the moose-deer, native of America, buried in Ireland; elephants, natives of Asia and Africa, buried in the midst of England; crocodiles, natives of the Nile, in the heart of Germany; shell-fish, never known in the American seas, together with the entire skeletons of whales, in the most inland regions of England; trees of vast dimensions, with their roots and their tops, and some also with leaves and fruit, at the bottom of mines.”

Alexander Catcott also believed there were two "firmaments". We know this today as the long discredited "hollow-earth" theory.

The Pedestrian
04-15-2006, 10:01 PM
Here, perhaps, is one of my biggest problems with the Bible, and the human-centric thinking that usually accompanies Judeo-Christianity.

This is a galaxy:

http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/AAO/images/icons/aat017_2.jpg

There are a thousand thousand galaxies just like this one in the universe. Within each galaxy are a thousand thousand stars, and surrounding each of those stars within each of those galaxies are planets innumerable.

Our planet is the third revolving around one sun on an insignificant arm of our particular galaxy.

Unless God has for some odd reason created a whole lot of false images in the sky to make us feel like we're a very small fish in a very big pond, then we are in fact very small fish in a very big pond.

IMHO the best argument for God is that he started the universe and gave it the set of scientific properties to which it adheres (whatever they are).

Let's not forget the Alegory of the Watch, though. While someone could wander through the universe and find Earth as a working watch in the middle of nowhere, we would have to ask exactly how it got there with the capability of working. If all of the needed components are set out there, will a string of coincidences ever force those components into the working watch that was found by the wanderer? Certainly not. Someone had to sit down and work with the components so that they would form a functioning mechanism.

Now, if we should end up saying that some kind of 1/999999999999999 odds created Earth, then another question is posed. Was it God or Aristotle's Unmoved Mover?

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 10:05 PM
Well to some extent the earth is still flooded. Seventy percent of it is covered by water and only 30 percent is dry land. Moreover, 75 percent of the earth’s fresh water is locked up in the glaciers and polar ice caps. If all this ice were to melt(per this thread starters concerns), the sea level would obviously rise much higher and cities like New York and Tokyo would disappear. The New Encyclopedia Britannica says: “The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 metres (12,430 feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 metres (2,760 feet). If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level.” So technically, if everything were leveled out—if the mountains were flattened and the deep sea basins filled in—the sea would cover the whole earth to a depth of thousands of feet.


The only problem with your theory there is Science deals with what is, not what might be.

C-Mac's spinning faster than <a href="http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/fastest_spinning_pulsar.html"> Pulsar IGR J00291+5934</a> tonight, I see.

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 10:07 PM
The piece of human filth can rot in hell (irony intended). It's really unfortunate that his "Church" didn't get their tax-exempt status yanked. Frigging phonies.

Yes, indeed. I really wish he hadn't written Final Blackout, as I actually really like that book. Believe it or not, it's an excellent fiction on the issues of duty and command.

L. Ron Hubbard, the man who loved lousy sci-fi so much he built a religion around it. At least Kurt Vonnegut never tried to make money off of Bokononism.

Amnorix
04-15-2006, 10:09 PM
Let's not forget the Alegory of the Watch, though. While someone could wander through the universe and find Earth as a working watch in the middle of nowhere, we would have to ask exactly how it got there with the capability of working. If all of the needed components are set out there, will a string of coincidences ever force those components into the working watch that was found by the wanderer? Certainly not. Someone had to sit down and work with the components so that they would form a functioning mechanism.

Now, if we should end up saying that some kind of 1/999999999999999 odds created Earth, then another question is posed. Was it God or Aristotle's Unmoved Mover?
Meh. The watch allegory isn't compelling to me. I don't see how a watch is all that comparable to Earth, or the universe.

Watches have stampings, engravings, carvings, notches and edges that have obviously been created by someone at some point in time.

The universe much less so.

It's not unfair to suggest, of course, that it's 1 in a billion for a planet to have the right predicates for creating life as we know it, and another 1 in a billion for life to actually flourish, and reach higher life forms. But given the vastness of the universe, it would be odd indeed if we were the only one.

It also begs the question of why God creates this entire universe we live in to look/act the way it does.

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 10:12 PM
Meh. The watch allegory isn't compelling to me. I don't see how a watch is all that comparable to Earth, or the universe.

Watches have stampings, engravings, carvings, notches and edges that have obviously been created by someone at some point in time.

The universe much less so.

It's not unfair to suggest, of course, that it's 1 in a billion for a planet to have the right predicates for creating life as we know it, and another 1 in a billion for life to actually flourish, and reach higher life forms. But given the vastness of the universe, it would be odd indeed if we were the only one.

It also begs the question of why God creates this entire universe we live in to look/act the way it does.

Like I said, I don't quite buy it, but Clarke's theory (see bottom page 15 of this thread) makes an interesting case for your latter point.

Amnorix
04-15-2006, 10:12 PM
I also note if God is the designer, and designed everything in it, then why do some species die out while others thrive? And why in the hell do platypuses exist at all?

And if the answer is "God has a sense of humor", then I refer you back to the story of Noah's Ark, where God appears to me to be wholly vengeful and capricious, to wipe out 99.999% of humanity by drowning...

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 10:13 PM
I also note if God is the designer, and designed everything in it, then why do some species die out while others thrive? And why in the hell do platypuses exist at all?

And if the answer is "God has a sense of humor", then I refer you back to the story of Noah's Ark, where God appears to me to be wholly vengeful and capricious, to wipe out 99.999% of humanity by drowning...

Amnorix, are you an Athiest, Agnostic, or other? I'm pretty much an athiest myself, but I'm just curious.

The Pedestrian
04-15-2006, 10:15 PM
I also note if God is the designer, and designed everything in it, then why do some species die out while others thrive? And why in the hell do platypuses exist at all?

And if the answer is "God has a sense of humor", then I refer you back to the story of Noah's Ark, where God appears to me to be wholly vengeful and capricious, to wipe out 99.999% of humanity by drowning...

Perhaps God flooded the world with the thought of "They'll get the joke" and then had to promise never to do it again because of how it panned out. :p

Claynus
04-15-2006, 10:15 PM
I also note if God is the designer, and designed everything in it, then why do some species die out while others thrive? And why in the hell do platypuses exist at all?

And if the answer is "God has a sense of humor", then I refer you back to the story of Noah's Ark, where God appears to me to be wholly vengeful and capricious, to wipe out 99.999% of humanity by drowning...

God found some cosmic weed and mellowed out...

Lurch
04-15-2006, 10:16 PM
Substitute the words "This thread" for "Superbowl" in the following video....

http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Superbowl-is-gay

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 10:18 PM
God found some cosmic weed and mellowed out...

Note to self, GoChiefs believes that God is a Rastafarian.

:bong:

Amnorix
04-15-2006, 10:18 PM
:clap: :clap:

Ever read Clarke's theory? Can't say I buy it, but I do find it fascinating. He posits the following:

Imagine the initial parameters of the big bang as a single point on a mathematical hypersurface (picture it as an infinite sheet of paper). The hypersurface represents all possible parameters for the intial moment of the big bang, or rather, creation. God, to Clarke, is a supreme "investigator". He is seeking a certain region on this surface, a set of initial parameters which will lead to harmony, as opposed to entropy. A universe which will not end in dissipation, heat-death, or a "big crunch", but rather in a harmony and stability (possibly with all mind not just contributing to that harmony by itself, but helping non-sentient matter along the road to mind. A small closed set on this surface, if you will. God must experiment because the Uncertainty principle precludes simple a priori calculation of the final result.

As I said, I don't believe it myself, but it is a facsinating concept. An interesting faith for an hard-science engineer, if there ever was one, IMO. It certainly has an elegance to it.

Interesting. Hadn't heard of it.

I'm not sure this is acceptable to religious fundamentalists, as it denies God's omniscience. Putting that aside...

There's no doubt that KNOWN science completely breaks down when you rewind to the Big Bang, and a little while thereafter. No one knows what happened to cause it, and no one knows what happened "before" it -- this literally being "before time even existed" for purposes of the universe that we live in.

If someone wants to say that God pulled the trigger on the Big Bang, then I suppose that's fine. I don't see how it ties into any need to worship him, however. Seems more likely to me under those circumstances that God pulls the ripcord and sees what happens, and isn't looking for obesience from a bunch of monkey-descended people on an insignificant planet with an over-inflated opinion of themselves. :)

Amnorix
04-15-2006, 10:21 PM
Amnorix, are you an Athiest, Agnostic, or other? I'm pretty much an athiest myself, but I'm just curious.
Agnostic, but leaning as heavily as you can toward atheism within agnosticism.

I find the Bible utterly implausible in many respects, and organized religion to be, in nearly all instances, a farce. That alone doesn't denigrate God, however, it just denigrates organized religion and a book that one particular relgion wrote.

I can't say God doesn't exist, so I won't. But I will say that it seems really damn unlikely to me that God exists, or if he does, that he gives a rat's ass about us. I can't see why, within the context of the universe that we know we live in, we'd be remotely significant to him...

Claynus
04-15-2006, 10:22 PM
Note to self, GoChiefs believes that God is a Rastafarian.

:bong:

Actually on a serious note I believe in some form of a creator/higher intelligence, but not in the "God" sense, and I certainly don't think it's worthy of worship.

C-Mac
04-15-2006, 10:24 PM
Work with me on this:

The tale of Noah's Ark basically says that God flooded the entirety of planet Earth in order to kill every man, woman, child, animal and insect except for -- get this -- Noah's family and the animals and insects that were on the ark that he built.

An ark for 50,000 species of animals (so assuming 2 of each, 100,000 actual animals) and 1 million insects.

And on this boat they stayed for something on the order of 6 months, I believe.

Consider:

1. how big would this boat have to be? Consider that it must be bouyant enough to handle the weight of all these things? Also, how many people working how many years would it take to build a boat this big? And would they do it if they weren't going to be allowed on-board?
The ark was 1,400,000 cu ft. The bible says that they were gathered according to their kind. For a simple perspective there are many breeds of dogs but all have come basically from one. There is no reason to think that this couldnt be the same for the big cat family, ect.
2. how much food would be required to feed them all? What is the source of the food, especially for the freaking carnivores?.The bible states it was a total of 370 days onthe ark. Many animals can multiply themselves quite rapidly.
3. How can you get food when EVERYTHING is under water?. You store it and you can consume things such as cow milk, chicken eggs, ect.
4. Where did the water come from before the flood? . Expanse above the earth.
5. Where did the waters recede to?.
Much of it to the polar caps.
6. How did humans (not to mention the animals) repopulate the Earth. Presumably -- although I'm speculating on this one -- incest is necessarily involved for all lifeforms to repropagate the species.. Did you answer your own question?
7. How did the animals decide to go on board the boat? The insects? How did some of the critters even get there even if they wanted to? I mean -- Komodo Dragons, crocodiles, penguins, Grizzly Bears, Polar Bears and Kangaroos hardly hang out in the same climates.... Ever visted a zoo?
The answer to all these, presumably, is God willed it to be so, and so it was. Ok, fine. But you're back to just faith. I don't have it and you do, so we're at a deadlock. No sweat.
All could be logically answered with out the need of fairytale injection.

C-Mac
04-15-2006, 10:28 PM
Alexander Catcott also believed there were two "firmaments". We know this today as the long discredited "hollow-earth" theory.
How would this discredit him and how could that take anything away from his stated facts?

Amnorix
04-15-2006, 10:32 PM
The ark was 1,400,000 cu ft. The bible says that they were gathered according to their kind. For a simple perspective there are many breeds of dogs but all have come basically from one. There is no reason to think that this couldnt be the same for the big cat family, ect.
The bible states it was a total of 370 days onthe ark. Many animals can multiply themselves quite rapidly.
You store it and you can consume things such as cow milk, chicken eggs, ect.
Expanse above the earth.

Much of it to the polar caps.
Did you answer your own question?
Ever visted a zoo?

All could be logically answered with out the need of fairytale injection.

Let me suggest you're kidding yourself. OUTSIDE the context of it being in the Bible, and people believing it on faith alone, no sane person would ever believe this story.

A few specific concerns:

how many chickens and cows would you need to feed the rest? No critter can repopulate itself that fast.

How long ago was this, in order for the "kinds" to segregate themselves into Great Danes to Boston Terriers and everything in between, etc., for all lifeforms?

Frankly, it's all quite absurd outside of believing it on faith. I don't want to mock you for believing it on faith, but believe me when I say that arguing that it can be believed without faith is time wasted by you.

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 10:33 PM
If someone wants to say that God pulled the trigger on the Big Bang, then I suppose that's fine. I don't see how it ties into any need to worship him, however. Seems more likely to me under those circumstances that God pulls the ripcord and sees what happens, and isn't looking for obesience from a bunch of monkey-descended people on an insignificant planet with an over-inflated opinion of themselves. :)

I'll agree. Here's a personal favorite quote I think you might appreciate:

The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.