Religion — Page 78

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

Frank your Majesty said:

chyron8472 said:

Frank your Majesty said:

chyron8472 said:

God literally created time and space.

Citation needed.

Now really. How would he have explained the space-time continuum to people who lived thousands of years ago? And when such an explanation would have been beside the point?

I didn’t ask for a citation on how he created it, I asked for a citation on that he created it.

As opposed to it happening spontaneously?

Yes.

To assume so makes far less sense. The universe is too complex, intricate and balanced to have been completely generated from nothing by nothing for no reason.

Opinion noted.

It’s the same thing people say about evolution.

What do people say about evolution?

To say that animals evolve to suit their environment, or that genetic mutations win or lose out over time to the ultimate change of a species or development of new ones…

Nah, people all the time seem to be confused about how a process like evolution could create such complex beings. Things like “how could evolution create something so complex as an eye?” etc.

that’s not the same things as to say that humans evolved from primates.

Do you believe this isn’t so?

I did imply that I don’t believe that, but the truth is I can’t really say. I suppose my response is “I need more information to make a determination.”

But evolution within a species over time, yes.

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?

Yes, your second question.

Because that’s not how science works. With testimony, there is credibility in question. How credible is the witness? and so forth. By its nature, testimony is subject to unprovable scrutiny (that is, scientific scruity, not court-of-law scrutiny) and is not irrefutable.

To refute testimony scientifically is to use the wrong test. The correct test would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a court or some such.

How would there be testimony at the dawn of the universe? Nobody was alive back then. I don’t understand your point.

Testimony about it. From the dawn of our universe.

I’m not sure if I quite understand what you’re saying, but testimony can obviously be falsifiable. Let’s say I propose that flowers grow from seeds. You could test this testimony to find out if I’m right or wrong. I think the same could be applied to the dawn of the universe.

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?

Yes, your second question.

Because that’s not how science works. With testimony, there is credibility in question. How credible is the witness? and so forth. By its nature, testimony is subject to unprovable scrutiny (that is, scientific scruity, not court-of-law scrutiny) and is not irrefutable.

To refute testimony scientifically is to use the wrong test. The correct test would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a court or some such.

How would there be testimony at the dawn of the universe? Nobody was alive back then. I don’t understand your point.

Testimony about it. From the dawn of our universe.

I’m not sure if I quite understand what you’re saying, but testimony can obviously be falsifiable. Let’s say I propose that flowers grow from seeds. You could test this testimony to find out if I’m right or wrong. I think the same could be applied to the dawn of the universe.

That’s what I said. That’s why it’s not irrefutable nor scientific to use testimony as scientific data.

I said we can not scientifically prove the impetus or method of creation of the universe, but though there is testimony we can acquire it is not scientific nor irrefutable.

ZigZig said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?

Yes, your second question.

Because that’s not how science works. With testimony, there is credibility in question. How credible is the witness? and so forth. By its nature, testimony is subject to unprovable scrutiny (that is, scientific scruity, not court-of-law scrutiny) and is not irrefutable.

To refute testimony scientifically is to use the wrong test. The correct test would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a court or some such.

How would there be testimony at the dawn of the universe? Nobody was alive back then. I don’t understand your point.

Testimony about it. From the dawn of our universe.

I’m not sure if I quite understand what you’re saying, but testimony can obviously be falsifiable. Let’s say I propose that flowers grow from seeds. You could test this testimony to find out if I’m right or wrong. I think the same could be applied to the dawn of the universe.

That’s what I said. That’s why it’s not irrefutable nor scientific to use testimony as scientific data.

Is the testimony of some guy born 1250 years after Abraham’s presumed birthdate less refutable ?
Because that is what the Bible is. And this is a fact…

No. The Bible was not written by one person. So, no that’s not a fact.

But also, no. I wasn’t talking about the Bible. As I said, knowledge about the science or physics of the universe was not important to know for them back then so he didn’t tell them that because it didn’t matter and they wouldn’t understand anyway.

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?

Yes, your second question.

Because that’s not how science works. With testimony, there is credibility in question. How credible is the witness? and so forth. By its nature, testimony is subject to unprovable scrutiny (that is, scientific scruity, not court-of-law scrutiny) and is not irrefutable.

To refute testimony scientifically is to use the wrong test. The correct test would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a court or some such.

How would there be testimony at the dawn of the universe? Nobody was alive back then. I don’t understand your point.

Testimony about it. From the dawn of our universe.

I’m not sure if I quite understand what you’re saying, but testimony can obviously be falsifiable. Let’s say I propose that flowers grow from seeds. You could test this testimony to find out if I’m right or wrong. I think the same could be applied to the dawn of the universe.

That’s what I said. That’s why it’s not irrefutable nor scientific to use testimony as scientific data.

I said we can not scientifically prove the impetus or method of creation of the universe, but though there is testimony we can acquire it is not scientific nor irrefutable.

If I’m following correctly, this is the “God of the gaps” argument. There are gaps in human understanding – they change over time, but there are always gaps. Once, God made it rain, now we understand more about weather and he doesn’t (anyone seen Gene Wilder’s “God Does Not Make It Rain!” monologue from The Frisco Kid?). To an atheist-inclined person, God’s shrinking role is more proof that he’s never been there at all. To a religiously-inclined person, the gaps that have persisted through the ages point to the existence of God, as it does in Wilder’s monologue.

But they’re just gaps. They are only rightly filled with “I don’t know”. Which means they are just the blank canvas onto which we paint our own desires. If we want science to fill them, we say science will fill them, even if we don’t know it will (Heisenberg demonstrated science does not have the capacity to fill every gap). If we want God to fill them, look, there he is. Gaps neither prove nor disprove either side.

DuracellEnergizer said:

NeverarGreat said:

If God existed before everything else, then who or what created God? Since nothing else existed, the definitive answer is that nothing could have created God, and its existence is not only ineffable, but logically unsound. Something cannot come from nothing. The universe itself also suffers from this problem. People who posit the existence of God and/or the universe are implying that the very principles of logic are so broken that literally anything follows from an argument. I could say that because some flower pots are red, Australia is made of bricks and it would be just as logical as saying that God or a universe arose from nothing.

Therein lies the problem of saying God “exists”. To exist is to be a part of existence — to be part of the creation. God isn’t a part of existence; God is the ground of existence, or existence itself. Ergo, God doesn’t “exist”.

But that’s only what I’ve gleaned from a cursory reading of Tillich.

Precisely.

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?

Yes, your second question.

Because that’s not how science works. With testimony, there is credibility in question. How credible is the witness? and so forth. By its nature, testimony is subject to unprovable scrutiny (that is, scientific scruity, not court-of-law scrutiny) and is not irrefutable.

To refute testimony scientifically is to use the wrong test. The correct test would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a court or some such.

How would there be testimony at the dawn of the universe? Nobody was alive back then. I don’t understand your point.

Testimony about it. From the dawn of our universe.

I’m not sure if I quite understand what you’re saying, but testimony can obviously be falsifiable. Let’s say I propose that flowers grow from seeds. You could test this testimony to find out if I’m right or wrong. I think the same could be applied to the dawn of the universe.

That’s what I said. That’s why it’s not irrefutable nor scientific to use testimony as scientific data.

I said we can not scientifically prove the impetus or method of creation of the universe, but though there is testimony we can acquire it is not scientific nor irrefutable.

If I’m following correctly, this is the “God of the gaps” argument.

No, it’s more like… The bigger my understanding of the world/universe gets, the bigger God gets. It’s kind of like the Narnia book series, where Lucy remarks to Aslan that he is bigger than before. He responds by saying that she is getting bigger (or older) and so in response he looks bigger to her each time she meets him.

It’s all about perspective. When I look at nature or science, I don’t fill in the gaps of my understanding with “God did it.” I marvel at God’s creation. It’s kind of like looking at a painting and it making you think of the artist who made it, and what that painting says about them. Learning about the universe, about science and art and nature, helps me learn more about God. About who He is and what he’s truly like.

Additionally, I do have personal experiences on which to draw that undeniably to me prove the existence, presence, and intimacy of God. I have had personal encounters with him and have physically felt his presence. I knew it was Him. I can not explain these experiences to you in an irrefutable way. At the end of the day you would have to judge the testimonies of myself and other people involved. Thus my experiences are not scientifically provable, nor intentionally repeatable (even suggesting trying that sounds horribly arrogant to me).

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?

Yes, your second question.

Because that’s not how science works. With testimony, there is credibility in question. How credible is the witness? and so forth. By its nature, testimony is subject to unprovable scrutiny (that is, scientific scruity, not court-of-law scrutiny) and is not irrefutable.

To refute testimony scientifically is to use the wrong test. The correct test would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a court or some such.

How would there be testimony at the dawn of the universe? Nobody was alive back then. I don’t understand your point.

Testimony about it. From the dawn of our universe.

I’m not sure if I quite understand what you’re saying, but testimony can obviously be falsifiable. Let’s say I propose that flowers grow from seeds. You could test this testimony to find out if I’m right or wrong. I think the same could be applied to the dawn of the universe.

That’s what I said. That’s why it’s not irrefutable nor scientific to use testimony as scientific data.

I said we can not scientifically prove the impetus or method of creation of the universe, but though there is testimony we can acquire it is not scientific nor irrefutable.

If I’m following correctly, this is the “God of the gaps” argument.

No, it’s more like… The bigger my understanding of the world/universe gets, the bigger God gets. It’s kind of like the Narnia book series, where Lucy remarks to Aslan that he is bigger than before. He responds by saying that she is getting bigger (or older) and so in response he looks bigger to her each time she meets him.

It’s all about perspective. When I look at nature or science, I don’t fill in the gaps of my understanding with “God did it.” I marvel at God’s creation. It’s kind of like looking at a painting and it making you think of the artist who made it. Learning about the universe, about science and art and nature, helps me learn more about God. About who He is and what he’s truly like.

Additionally, I do have personal experiences on which to draw that undeniably to me prove the existence, presence, and intimacy of God. I have had personal encounters with him and have physically felt his presence. I knew it was Him. I can not explain these experiences to you in an irrefutable way. At the end of the day you would have to judge the testimonies of myself and other people involved. Thus my experiences are not scientifically provable, nor intentionally repeatable (even suggesting trying that sounds horribly arrogant to me).

What value is faith if you could prove it?

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?

Yes, your second question.

Because that’s not how science works. With testimony, there is credibility in question. How credible is the witness? and so forth. By its nature, testimony is subject to unprovable scrutiny (that is, scientific scruity, not court-of-law scrutiny) and is not irrefutable.

To refute testimony scientifically is to use the wrong test. The correct test would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a court or some such.

How would there be testimony at the dawn of the universe? Nobody was alive back then. I don’t understand your point.

Testimony about it. From the dawn of our universe.

I’m not sure if I quite understand what you’re saying, but testimony can obviously be falsifiable. Let’s say I propose that flowers grow from seeds. You could test this testimony to find out if I’m right or wrong. I think the same could be applied to the dawn of the universe.

That’s what I said. That’s why it’s not irrefutable nor scientific to use testimony as scientific data.

I said we can not scientifically prove the impetus or method of creation of the universe, but though there is testimony we can acquire it is not scientific nor irrefutable.

If I’m following correctly, this is the “God of the gaps” argument.

No, it’s more like… The bigger my understanding of the world/universe gets, the bigger God gets. It’s kind of like the Narnia book series, where Lucy remarks to Aslan that he is bigger than before. He responds by saying that she is getting bigger (or older) and so in response he looks bigger to her each time she meets him.

It’s all about perspective. When I look at nature or science, I don’t fill in the gaps of my understanding with “God did it.” I marvel at God’s creation. It’s kind of like looking at a painting and it making you think of the artist who made it. Learning about the universe, about science and art and nature, helps me learn more about God. About who He is and what he’s truly like.

Additionally, I do have personal experiences on which to draw that undeniably to me prove the existence, presence, and intimacy of God. I have had personal encounters with him and have physically felt his presence. I knew it was Him. I can not explain these experiences to you in an irrefutable way. At the end of the day you would have to judge the testimonies of myself and other people involved. Thus my experiences are not scientifically provable, nor intentionally repeatable (even suggesting trying that sounds horribly arrogant to me).

What value is faith if you could prove it?

If I could prove my experiences by replicating them in a controlled environment? If He wanted me to be able to do that, I could do it. But that’s up to Him, not me.

JEDIT: And I’m not sure you’d believe it anyway. Scientific theories are still theories until they’re further disproven. That doesn’t make the conclusions people draw from the current evidence fact.

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?

Yes, your second question.

Because that’s not how science works. With testimony, there is credibility in question. How credible is the witness? and so forth. By its nature, testimony is subject to unprovable scrutiny (that is, scientific scruity, not court-of-law scrutiny) and is not irrefutable.

To refute testimony scientifically is to use the wrong test. The correct test would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a court or some such.

How would there be testimony at the dawn of the universe? Nobody was alive back then. I don’t understand your point.

Testimony about it. From the dawn of our universe.

I’m not sure if I quite understand what you’re saying, but testimony can obviously be falsifiable. Let’s say I propose that flowers grow from seeds. You could test this testimony to find out if I’m right or wrong. I think the same could be applied to the dawn of the universe.

That’s what I said. That’s why it’s not irrefutable nor scientific to use testimony as scientific data.

I said we can not scientifically prove the impetus or method of creation of the universe, but though there is testimony we can acquire it is not scientific nor irrefutable.

If I’m following correctly, this is the “God of the gaps” argument.

No, it’s more like… The bigger my understanding of the world/universe gets, the bigger God gets. It’s kind of like the Narnia book series, where Lucy remarks to Aslan that he is bigger than before. He responds by saying that she is getting bigger (or older) and so in response he looks bigger to her each time she meets him.

It’s all about perspective. When I look at nature or science, I don’t fill in the gaps of my understanding with “God did it.” I marvel at God’s creation. It’s kind of like looking at a painting and it making you think of the artist who made it. Learning about the universe, about science and art and nature, helps me learn more about God. About who He is and what he’s truly like.

Additionally, I do have personal experiences on which to draw that undeniably to me prove the existence, presence, and intimacy of God. I have had personal encounters with him and have physically felt his presence. I knew it was Him. I can not explain these experiences to you in an irrefutable way. At the end of the day you would have to judge the testimonies of myself and other people involved. Thus my experiences are not scientifically provable, nor intentionally repeatable (even suggesting trying that sounds horribly arrogant to me).

What value is faith if you could prove it?

If I could prove my experiences by replicating them in a controlled environment? If He wanted me to be able to do that, I could do it. But that’s up to Him, not me.

It was more of a rhetorical question, doubting Thomas and all that. That fact that it can’t be proven gives value to faith. With proof, faith changes character completely and is merely reason extended to a new field.

TV’s Frink said:

Why does God have to be a “He” anyway?

He doesn’t. Our language doesn’t have a gender-neutral pronoun for a single individual and I’m not sure if the Hebrews and Greeks had one either.

TV’s Frink said:

Why does God have to be a “He” anyway?

Lazy sexist, was lazy.

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Why does God have to be a “He” anyway?

He doesn’t. Our language doesn’t have a gender-neutral pronoun for a single individual and I’m not sure if the Hebrews and Greeks had one either.

We do.

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Why does God have to be a “He” anyway?

He doesn’t. Our language doesn’t have a gender-neutral pronoun for a single individual and I’m not sure if the Hebrews and Greeks had one either.

We do.

I did think about that, but the word “they” meaning an individual is not clear in and of itself, but more from context. Historically, God has made it clear He is the “one true God”, and the word “they” might be construed polytheistically. Also, God is and has been portrayed as a “Father” and I’m sure that was intentional on His part. Plus, Jesus was/is male, and Jesus is considered by many as the physical human incarnation of God.

But logically, he can take on whatever appearance he wants, or assume any sex/gender he wants. What labels we attach might be more for our benefit than for his.

Also using “it” for a person is seen as derogatory.

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Why does God have to be a “He” anyway?

He doesn’t. Our language doesn’t have a gender-neutral pronoun for a single individual and I’m not sure if the Hebrews and Greeks had one either.

We do.

I did think about that, but the word “they” meaning an individual is not clear in and of itself, but more from context. Historically, God has made it clear He is the “one true God”, and the word “they” might be construed polytheistically.

Also, God is and has been portrayed as a “Father” and I’m sure that was intentional on His part. Plus, Jesus was/is male, and Jesus is considered by many as the physical human incarnation of God.

What if I want to believe God’s a Xe? What do you have to say to that?

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Why does God have to be a “He” anyway?

He doesn’t. Our language doesn’t have a gender-neutral pronoun for a single individual and I’m not sure if the Hebrews and Greeks had one either.

We do.

I did think about that, but the word “they” meaning an individual is not clear in and of itself, but more from context. Historically, God has made it clear He is the “one true God”, and the word “they” might be construed polytheistically.

Also, God is and has been portrayed as a “Father” and I’m sure that was intentional on His part. Plus, Jesus was/is male, and Jesus is considered by many as the physical human incarnation of God.

What if I want to believe God’s a Xe? What do you have to say to that?

I’d say that’s between you and him and that the question is kind of moot.
It’s like me asking you if you’re offended if I call Frink “Steve.”