- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bill Nye Smears Ken Ham
Posted on 2/11/14 at 8:29 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 2/11/14 at 8:29 am to SlowFlowPro
real quick I have to go in a second.
doesn't answer the question
I asked what is the sufficient reason for the universes existence?
meaning why does the universe have existence at all instead of no existence. Even a infinite universe has a sufficient reason
quote:
there doesn't have to be a genesis
doesn't answer the question
I asked what is the sufficient reason for the universes existence?
meaning why does the universe have existence at all instead of no existence. Even a infinite universe has a sufficient reason
1
Posted on 2/11/14 at 8:31 am to catholictigerfan
quote:
meaning why does the universe have existence at all instead of no existence.
if there never was a genesis, this question is irrelevant. there doesn't have to be a "why"
reality just is
Posted on 2/11/14 at 8:41 am to DCRebel
quote:
Plenty of Christians have used the Bible to justify all sorts of acts against humanity.
I would suggest to you engaging in acts against humanity (particularly of the kind I assume you are referring to..) would by definition make you not a Christian as defined by the book (the Bible..) which they use to justify their actions...
Posted on 2/11/14 at 8:50 am to MagicCityBlazer
quote:
Someone is making a claim through the bible, they should proove the claim or not be upset I don't buy into it. Equivocating into various positions is not really important, claim must have more proof than "its in the book".
An aware Christian's responsibility to 'love the brethren as thyself', simply means that Christian's are required by their Faith/Good Lord...to BEAR WITNESS to the Truth. We are neither required, nor is it psychologically healthy to become "upset"...at any individual who don't 'have (Spiritual) eyes that see and ears that hear'. I reckon the weak-minded Christians whose Faith-based assumptions might be challenged by your own rebuttals to said 'witness', might get upset, MCB...but if you are serious about beating back the eternal DEATH that is stalking you like a lion...then you'd best not focus on the arguments/reactions of the weak...but go to the most powerful arguments of them who clearly perceive the potential that this whole Phenomena is indeed, the product of Pure Conscious Energy. Of the which there are no Time/Space limitations. There is you *God*...the sum total of all that there is...Infinite Intellect...expressed, manifest and PERCEIVED as the *Universe*. To degree, by all manner of It's infinite separate parts. I.e., beings. Up to Humanity...and beyond.
Bottom line. You are in a fight with your own limitations; limitations on your knowledge...Knowledge which translates (or can) into power. Power, which MAY be employed, in ways which our current Scientific methodology is unable to qualify/quantify. That don't mean the potential to overcome death ain't there; or that the whole concept of Evil and Salvation through Jesus Christ is irrational, illogical or contrary to Universal Law. I can offer perfect Philosophical arguments in support of such; not that anybody - especially someone for whom 'belief' is not an "open proposition" (William James/The Will to Believe) could understand them.
From my pov, it looks like both you and those who you challenge (the Ham types) are relatively 'upset'; theirs, because their Knowledge is shaky re your challenges...and you - being upset with them because they choose to believe by Faith and are comforted...that which you do not accept, can not see and which therein relegates you to remain a hopeless psychological victim of that which stalks you.
Pitiful, for both. Such is life. The Darwinian Model applies...until it don't.
If you're serious about examining the Scientific nature of Manifest Reality, and ALL the potential therein...you might start with "The Holographic Universe". Since the Good Book don't seem to impress you. IMO, the supposed contradictions of Spirit as such relates to the Empirical Universe are now being resolved/quantified/qualified by such weighty research. The best minds (Physicists) have done a good job. At least to the degree that Infinity can be. It seems a waste of valuable and LIMITED time, for you to spend it arguing with lightweights like Ham, et al.
Good luck, buddy.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 8:55 am to catholictigerfan
quote:Is matter absolutely prerequisite to existence?
when it comes to origins we are ultimately asking what is the origin of matter?
quote:Possibly. But not currently.
now can science which studies matter know the origin of matter?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 9:04 am to RCDfan1950
quote:
RCDfan1950
I would love to talk further but Tigerdroppings might not be the appropriate place.
Just be careful that you don't allow your preconceived notion that the bible is true lead you to ignore the possibility it isn't.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 9:14 am to MagicCityBlazer
quote:
Faith has no burden. Science does.
So the one making the claim of a deity making the world and everything in it doesn't have a burden of providing proof?
Awesome
Posted on 2/11/14 at 9:20 am to TheDoc
quote:No more so than the one making the claim of atheistic origin.
So the one making the claim of a deity making the world and everything in it doesn't have a burden of providing proof?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 9:21 am to MagicCityBlazer
quote:
I would love to talk further but Tigerdroppings might not be the appropriate place. Just be careful that you don't allow your preconceived notion that the bible is true lead you to ignore the possibility it isn't.
FYI, M...I began my examination of the potential out there, 40 years ago, from an assumption (Atheist) that God did not exist. Being that may sanity depended on my belief...I cut out the simplistic psychological weakness bs, and got real. Even if it hurt.
Re TD...we have had some really definitive arguments here on this site. There are some serious good minds who prowl here. Good and honest folk. In fact, this subject always guarantees a long thread; to the dismay of a few who don't see it being political. Of course, religion and politics are just like religion and science...ineffably intertwined.
I tend of be both amazed and amused at the seemingly naïve, simplicity of the Good Book. But not surprised as Scripture relates "...the simple to confound the wise". The Truth is there. Though the Aborigines might be more able to see it than contemporary humanity.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 9:34 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
No more so than the one making the claim of atheistic origin.
...what?
There is a man in a teapot in orbit around the moon. It is true, and you can't disprove it. Di you agree?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 9:38 am to MagicCityBlazer
quote:You apparently did not understand what you were responding to. You probably should, before you walk this further.
There is a man in a teapot in orbit around the moon. It is true, and you can't disprove it. Di you agree?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 9:39 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Is matter absolutely prerequisite to existence?
to existence itself no
to material things which is all human beings all of the universe and everything contained in that universe yes.
if we don't know where matter comes from we can't answer the question where do we come from.
quote:
Possibly. But not currently.
do you think science studies only matter can it study things outside of matter or that transcend matter?
I would say no science only studies things that are observable, and matter makes up all observable things. So to say that science can know the origin of all observable things is to go beyond what science can study.
now maybe my definition of science is incorrect or maybe my definition of what observable things are is incorrect if you think so please show me.
but my argument is as follows
Science studies observable things
all observable things are made up of matter
anything outside of matter isn't observable
meaning the origin of matter (which is by definition outside or transcendent of matter) can't be known by science.
edit: sorry for the edits hopefully I got them in before you saw it.
This post was edited on 2/11/14 at 9:43 am
Posted on 2/11/14 at 9:47 am to catholictigerfan
quote:We think of science as advanced. Our descendants, 50 generations removed, will view our present-day science as crude, and in many cases (i.e., AGW) laughably inaccurate. In simplistic terms, as science observes deep space, no matter is involved. As it considers light, matter may or may not be involved.
do you think science studies only matter can it study things outside of matter or that transcend matter?
I would say no science only studies things that are observable, and matter makes up all observable things.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 9:48 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
No more so than the one making the claim of atheistic origin.
Wut
Posted on 2/11/14 at 9:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if there never was a genesis, this question is irrelevant. there doesn't have to be a "why"
reality just is
you are missing the point I'm trying to make, which is expected in the modern world
let me start by asking you a simple question (note depending on when you response I may not be able to respond till this afternoon.)
what is causality?
is it simply A causes B
or is there something more to it.
I would side with Aquainas on this who would understand causality being much more than just a causing B. Actually this causality reduced to only cause and effect is a modern concept that completely ignores all of the concepts of causality proposed by everyone from the ancient period and middle ages.
Note: don't use the oh Aquinas is 800 years ago so he obviously is wrong. That is an absurd argument, if you actually want to discus the concept of causality, which is essential to the discussion of the universe and it's origins than you have to explain to me why Aristotle Aquinas and many other philosophers before the modern era were wrong about causality and why people like hume are correct.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 9:59 am to catholictigerfan
There's a dragon that lives in my closet
Posted on 2/11/14 at 10:00 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
We think of science as advanced. Our descendants, 50 generations removed, will view our present-day science as crude, and in many cases (i.e., AGW) laughably inaccurate. In simplistic terms, as science observes deep space, no matter is involved. As it considers light, matter may or may not be involved.
quickly because I have to go in a sec
let me make it simpler than just matter
science deals with observable things only, something that is not observable meaning you can't see the thing itself or the effects of the thing itself. You could argue that gravity is not observable because it is invisible but it is observable because you can see it's effects.
what is the origin of all observable things?
science can't answer this question.
Now maybe there is no origin of observable things, but I would like to here how that is possible if you claim it.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 10:19 am to catholictigerfan
quote:
science deals with observable things only, something that is not observable meaning you can't see the thing itself or the effects of the thing itself. You could argue that gravity is not observable because it is invisible but it is observable because you can see it's effects.
what is the origin of all observable things?
science can't answer this question.
I have a bunch of problems with this. Science can not measure some of the things you mention now. But you don't know what science will be able to do in the future.
If 200 years ago you would tell someone that without cutting anything open, you could image body like we do with MR or CT, well they would tell you that you were crazy. There was no way we could do those things.
That is the great thing about science. When they don't know something, they want to figure it out. Sometimes figuring it out leads to many more questions. But that is what science does.
What it doesn't do is say that well we don't know right now, so god did it. And then leave it at that. Saying god did it is not a good reason. It is not a worthwhile explanation. It does not add to the knowledge base. It does not allow us to predict things. It is a dead end.
And then you start explaining gods magnificence as being tied into these things. God raises and lowers the tide. God sent lightning down to give us fire. God created the grand canyon to amaze us.
And then when we explain these things with science, some of the religious people feel like gods magnificence is being diminished. OMG, you are saying god didn't do that? Well then you just took some of gods magnificence away. And the really crackpot religious, who tie gods magnificence into these things, don't want to relinquish these types of things.
Just like the church didn't want to say that the earth rotated around the sun. Why? Because god made man in his likeness and earth was the center of the universe. To say otherwise would have been attacking god.
Science is not attacking god. It is explaining our surroundings. If you tie gods magnificence into these types of mysteries, well, when these mysteries are solved, you can see what happens.
Either you believe in god or you don't. Saying he does certain things and then finding out it was simply the gravitational pull of the moon should not diminish what you think of god. By the same token, whether you understand that we evolved from a previous ancestor rather than be poofed into existence 6k years ago should not negatively impact your view of god.
Unless you tie him into explaining previously unknown things. Then you view whatever does that explaining as the enemy to god when science is anything but that.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 10:25 am to catholictigerfan
This seems somewhat germane to the discussion. Occums Razor is widely employed by science and often used to attempt to logically rule out the existence of a Divine being. Ockham himself held the following belief and is a view that I can agree with to a large extent
William of Ockham himself was a theist. He believed in God, and in some validity of scripture; he writes that "nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture."[53] In Ockham's view, an explanation which does not harmonize with reason, experience or the aforementioned sources cannot be considered valid. However, unlike many theologians of his time, Ockham did not believe God could be logically proven with arguments. To Ockham, science was a matter of discovery, but theology was a matter of revelation and faith (e.g. some sort of Non-overlapping magisteria).[54] He states: "only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover."[55]
William of Ockham himself was a theist. He believed in God, and in some validity of scripture; he writes that "nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture."[53] In Ockham's view, an explanation which does not harmonize with reason, experience or the aforementioned sources cannot be considered valid. However, unlike many theologians of his time, Ockham did not believe God could be logically proven with arguments. To Ockham, science was a matter of discovery, but theology was a matter of revelation and faith (e.g. some sort of Non-overlapping magisteria).[54] He states: "only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover."[55]
Posted on 2/11/14 at 10:33 am to mattloc
Page 6 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News