Why such an effort to prove the Bible wrong?

Printable View

Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Jun 22nd, 2000, 11:50 AM
Gen-X

jdavison

I appreciate the sentiment.. and no it wont by carried into other discussions.. I will respond to you the way I have always responded to you and always WILL respond to you.. Agree when I agree, disagree when I disagree and say you have lost it when I think you have lost it ;) I would expect no less of anyone

Kedaman

You poor, stupid little moron.

I gave you my "belief". The fact it is a "belief" doesn't mean it is PROOF, nor does it even mean its RIGHT. It means "That is what I believe".

You on the otherhand put forward a "PROOF" and it was shot down in flames.

I don't care if people "believe" in God, they are most welcome to and if their life is better for it then I am happy... but the moment they say they can "PROVE" God I hope they come up with something better than your self-delusion in believing yourself God because the only thing in reality to you is yourself and what you can see (or what makes you see it).

I haven't bailed, I haven't given up... what I have done however is started to treat you based on the level of respect with which you deserve... I offered for us BOTH to take a step back, try to ditch the insults and the sarcasm but you just wailed right into it again...

Because of that you don't even deserve a response and I am kicking myself that I even bothered to give you one. I am completely and totally STUPID for doing so... because I should have learned a long, long time ago that you are incapable of anything but what you have in your tiny little head.... And I am not the first one to say so.

This is the LAST response I make to anything you say until such time as I see you starting to get a grip of yourself.

Sorry for the offense but you have ticked me off just one time too many... and after I brought forth the olive branch, its lovely to have the offer thrown in my face... last time I even bother with the likes of you. :mad:
Jun 22nd, 2000, 12:11 PM
kedaman

Not offended

Dream on Gen-x, if you wan't to fight with pure sarcasm instead of logics, you won't get anyone decent thinking on your side, if that's what you want.

I want truth, not people on my side. No need of sarcasm.

You've probably thought you flamed down my proof using it very extensively, but since such things only happens in your imagination, I am not participating it.
Jun 22nd, 2000, 05:07 PM
Iain17

Where to start :confused:

VirtuallyVB

Referring back to Matthew 7.

1,2. I thought a big part of religion was practising what you preach. It seems however that the head of your religion (ie God) is above this, for he his the biggest judger of them all, if parts of the bible are to be trusted. How can you justify the annihilation of the entire human race, bar Noah and Co. God has seen fit to judge, but we are not allowed to judge. So why do you say that we are going to hell if we do not believe in your God. Is this not a judgement?

Continuing on from this train of thought. It seems God does share human emotions like jealousy, and anger. Yet he disobeys his infamous ten commandments. Thou shalt not kill being a good example.

If god is prefect then, surely we must be perfect if we are made in his own image. And because by definition, anything a prefect being does is perfect. If he got us wrong, then he is not perfect.

3,4,5 I am by no means perfect, i like everyone have my many flaws. I am particularly judgmental and very opinionated. I however will have the common decency to admit when i am wrong. As for removing specks from other peoples eyes, this often helps us remove the logs from our own. When you logically have to explain your beliefs, you begin to realize the flaws in them, and adjust your beliefs accordingly. Well some of us do.

12 While i agree with the sentiment, again it is a case of double standards, or pure and simple hypocrisy. Why if God is telling us to "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is god killing of people in floods, sending them to hell, and punishing the whole of humanity for two peoples mistakes? Does this mean that God would like us to send him to hell, flood heaven and kill everyone there?

As for the rest of it i think Gen-X covered most of my sentiments.

I think i can almost guess the reply now, and i have a feeling it will disappoint by dodging the point.

Kedaman

Lets be perfectly honest and frank. Your arguments are wearing a bit thin. It is time you abandoned ship. Even rats have the common sense to do this.

You never gave me a satisfactory answer to my postulation that your God was the Big Bang. Let me try again.

YOU defined your God as the creator of the universe.

I said there is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang, so let us say that is what created the universe. Now God = Big Bang. He did not cause the big bang, the big bang just happened.

I also have a problem with your concept of reality. (ie you exist, and what you see exists[or what causes the illusion.]) This is defining yourself as god. Nice was of invalidating what everyone says though. Come back with some proper arguments, and you will regain the respect that you once deserved.

If you knew anything about philosophy then you will know that the only way an argument can stand up to scrutiny is if it is backed up by logic and reason. Start using them.
Jun 22nd, 2000, 07:45 PM
dvst8

Quote:

How did they come to the conclusion that the galaxies were accelerating?

Quote:

Yes I would like to know this as well... If this were true it therefor invalidates all Red Shift tests done to date

I'm not sure. The article was not very specific. I suggest reading it though: Equinox July 2000.

What was said, was that these measurements were carried out in 1998, and have been under close scrunity ever since, and the results seem to hold, and only become stronger under scrunity. That is why T. Dickenson infers the existence of an unknown anti-gravity force... interesting stuff.

Question to believers:

Why do you insist that there had to be a reason or a cause behind the big bang??

dvst8
Jun 22nd, 2000, 08:26 PM
kedaman

At least you Iain haven't lost your mind yet so i may speak to you. Although I don't say you have much to say either.

Quote:

Lets be perfectly honest and frank. Your arguments are wearing a bit thin. It is time you abandoned ship. Even rats have the common sense to do this.

You never gave me a satisfactory answer to my postulation that your God was the Big Bang. Let me try again.

Pointless...

Quote:

YOU defined your God as the creator of the universe.

I said there is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang, so let us say that is what created the universe. Now God = Big Bang. He did not cause the big bang, the big bang just happened.

Still you say something like 3 apples = 2 bananas. A concept and a phenomenon is two totally uncomparable things. Whats so unsatisfactory with that? Can you answer me this Iain?

BTW saying "big bang just happened." is perfectly explaining, isn't it? Maybe for Gen-x but I hope you have better sense of logics.

Quote:

I also have a problem with your concept of reality. (ie you exist, and what you see exists[or what causes the illusion.]) This is defining yourself as god. Nice was of invalidating what everyone says though. Come back with some proper arguments, and you will regain the respect that you once deserved.

This was also explained many times to Gen-x but I hope you will get this the first time. My proof is based on that Universe exists and you are part of it, and as universe is defined as everything, and God is not part of it, since he is defined as creator of it. In other words God does not exist in our univese. Which explains over and over again i'm not God. Otherwise I would say that was a nice try.

Quote:

If you knew anything about philosophy then you will know that the only way an argument can stand up to scrutiny is if it is backed up by logic and reason. Start using them.

Now explain this to Gen-X. He need it.
Jun 22nd, 2000, 09:08 PM
Iain17
Kedaman

Quote:

This was also explained many times to Gen-x but I hope you will get this the first time. My proof is based on that Universe exists and you are part of it, and as universe is defined as everything, and God is not part of it, since he is defined as creator of it. In other words God does not exist in our universe. Which explains over and over again I'm not God. Otherwise I would say that was a nice try.

I think i see where you are arguing from now. I still disagree though. Let me sum it up for you.

Premise 1 God is defined as the creator of the universe.

Premise 2 The only things that really exist in the world are :
- Yourself
- What you see, or what causes the illusion of what you see.
Argument 1 :- Everything is now because of you.
The only thing you can know exists for definite is yourself. Why? There is no way of telling if something is an illusion or not, and you will never be able to find out what causes the illusion, because that may also be an illusion. If this is the case then the universe is an illusion. If you yourself is the only thing that exists, then your mind creates this illusion. This means that you have created the universe as you know it. Seeing as God was defined as the creator of the universe, you are God.

Argument 2 :- God does NOT exist outside of the universe
I will agree that in most cases god is included outside of the universe, and not subjected to the laws of it, in your case this is different. Why? Because there is no universe. It is just an illusion you have created, so there is no universe for god to exist outside of.

Conclusion
This may be correct, and you would not be able to prove otherwise, but why think like that. It is pretty safe to assume that things exist. Once you start accepting that, then we can start discussing things properly.

Quote:

BTW saying "big bang just happened." is perfectly explaining, isn't it? Maybe for Gen-x but I hope you have better sense of logics.

This one always gets me. :confused: Why are you willing to except that God just IS and has always existed, but are unwilling to accept anything else as just always existing. There are reasons why the big bang may have happened, and none of them include God. If this is the case, i state again, God was the big bang by your definition.

Because the Big Bang is what created the universe. Lets say god started the big bang, other people might accept this, but by your definition God was the creator of the universe. So he must have been the big bang, not the creator of the big bang, but the big bang itself, becuse the Big Bang Created The Universe!
Jun 22nd, 2000, 09:20 PM
frank ashley

Iain17,

Sorry, but how do know that you are not an illusion. This invalidates your conclusion.

I would also like to know why god is just is.
Jun 22nd, 2000, 09:42 PM
Iain17

Oh for crying out load, don't you start on that as well.
Jun 22nd, 2000, 10:39 PM
frank ashley

Iain17

Don't worry, you have to be insane to take philosphy seriously.

But, WHY is god just is?

:)
Jun 22nd, 2000, 10:52 PM
HarryW

The big bang was the creation of the universe, not the creator. It was an event. It doesn't make sense to say that if God created the universe then He must be the big bang. Well maybe it does through some very complex proof, but I can't see it. If God created the big bang, then He created the universe in my eyes.

Not that I am saying I believe that is what happened, I just think it's a possibility.

More and more I can see people becoming hostile. As far as I can see there's something like this going on:

Code:

O -|- <= ME! Pro / \ Anti <----------------------------------------------------> pos. O O pos. (1) -|- -|- (2) / \ / \

The pro-God people say that the Antis are in pos. (2) and the antis say that the pros are in pos. (1).

There seem to be very few people who are at one end of the spectrum. Try not to assume that because someone chooses to believe in God, they are unable to accept the possibility that there isn't a God, and also try not to assume that because someone doesn't believe, they're unwilling to accept the possibility there is a God.

Anyway... I think Kedaman was saying that that's all you can know exists, not necessarily what actually does exist. Judge for yourself whether that's true.

I don't think the believers are insisting that there had to be a reason or cause behind the big bang, I think they just think it makes more sense that way. And from the other POV, I don't think the 'unbelievers' are saying the big bang couldn't have been caused by God, just that they think it makes more sense that He wasn't involved.

Gen-X - About how the theological debate began. If I remember correctly (tell me if I don't, I'm sure you will ;) ) while on the subject of evolution and how it didn't make sense, as you were telling people, somebody posted a message that they thought it was down to creation etc... Now I'm not saying that they were right, but be honest, you were a little over-zealous in telling them they were wrong, and how you were insulted that they'd brought it up. It was something like that anyway, that's my memory of it. Probably a bit of a cloudy memory though.

My point is that although the creationist guy was the one that butted into an evolution thread, he was stating his opinion as everyone else was and that opinion is equally valid. Furthermore, it was just him to start with, and the others probably wanted to state their opinion too. The argument wasn't exactly instigated, it just developed.

I've never read the bible so I wouldn't know if God is deemed as perfect or not. Well actually I'm not even sure if the bible is a reliable resource for establishing something like that.

Quote:

Quote:

If he was I think He would have created a human race that was more tolerant of each other's ideas.

Ahhh... now you are starting to see some of the evidence. Don't you think it strange that such a wonderful and all-powerful God would create such a warped and corrupt race?

I am well aware of what this suggests, it's something I have been aware of for a long time. I am looking at this from a neutral standpoint (well pretty neutral), and I have looked at and considered many factors over the years. Basically I would like to think that He is, but I'm not convinced by the evidence. But I don't think I have to be absolutely convinced by the evidence to believe, because some of it comes from the inside. Do you know what I mean? Anyway I am halfway between the two parties. I am far from a believer really, but equally far from sure that God doesn't exist.
Jun 22nd, 2000, 11:15 PM

No, I don't recall. Please post a reference to my post

From my point of view, you've been twisting my words, so please post your reference from me that led you to this conclusion.

Perhaps it will show where our reasoning differs.

I am impressed that you looked at Matthew 7 line by line. The reason I posted it was to provide the "Swine/Pearls" reference, but at least you are re-reading the bible.

I'll take a closer look to your analysis of the chapter later. Skimming over your post, it looks like your belief is strengthened (further away from my belief). That is interesting because I think there is a bible reference about becoming more "faithfull" to your side (whichever side that is).

Regards.
Jun 22nd, 2000, 11:17 PM

Your 4 recent questions

Gen-X
Do you have a comment on my latest answer to your 4 recent questions before the Matthew chapter?
Jun 23rd, 2000, 06:22 AM
kedaman
Iain

First some corrections, you didn't read since you leaved the discussion earlier

Premise 2 Corrections
Universe consists of
- Yourself including what you see
  OR
- You and What you see or causes it.
So in fact you must assume that these are true, not illusions

Argument 1 Flaws:
1. Contradiction: You implicate that universe is an illusion, but since it contains You (in both cases), it can't be.
Correction: Premise 2.

2. Fundamental flaw: Illusions cannot be caused by Illusions since they are part of the same Illusion.

Argument 2 Flaws:

Although it's totally correct in another aspect: Your Imaginasion (Replace all words Universe with Your Imagination and your argumentation will be correct), But since we talk about a universe containing You, it won't apply. See premise 2.

1. Irrelevance: So everything works fine except that you did oversee what universe is.

Quote:

Why are you willing to except that God just IS and has always existed, but are unwilling to accept anything else as just always existing

Time is what exists only in universe. If you define everything as universe why not define always, in the same way? In other words I gladly accept it. In fact you just triggered a very releasing thought of mine, that God actually could create a two-way unlimited amount of time, no beginning and no end, which also could explain a cyclic bigbang theory. But since they've discovered evidence of accelerating expansion, i'm not willing to support it.

Quote:

Because the Big Bang is what created the universe. Lets say god started the big bang, other people might accept this, but by your definition God was the creator of the universe. So he must have been the big bang, not the creator of the big bang, but the big bang itself, becuse the Big Bang Created The Universe!

What do you define Big bang as Iain?
1. Universe Expansion
2. Creation of Universe
3. The physical event, occurring when Universe was created
4. The physical event, occurring at the point of time we refer to as scientists observing a phenomenon explaining astronomic evidence.
5. Your choise

HarryW

Quote:

Gen-X - About how the theological debate began. If I remember correctly (tell me if I don't, I'm sure you will ) while on the subject of evolution and how it didn't make sense, as you were telling people, somebody posted a message that they thought it was down to creation etc... Now I'm not saying that they were right, but be honest, you were a little over-zealous in telling them they were wrong, and how you were insulted that they'd brought it up. It was something like that anyway, that's my memory of it. Probably a bit of a cloudy memory though.

Maybe my memory isn't that good either but since i've been trough all the discussions, i can review it better, heres the debate history:
The debate began with artificial intelligence, then jumped into creation, then into God, while from artificial intelligence to evolution. Then the debate splitted into a) math by passing Gen-x view of "soul" was like quarks, dimensional and now is isolated in creation and ai thread, b) God, which couldn't be isolated since another topic, the bible started and got mixed with this. A scientific topic on timetravel and travelling faster than light got mixed into some threads.
So there's actually 3 ongoing debates:
a) Bible
b) God
c) Math

Quote:

Anyway... I think Kedaman was saying that that's all you can know exists, not necessarily what actually does exist. Judge for yourself whether that's true.

Thanks for the understanding.

Quote:

I don't think the believers are insisting that there had to be a reason or cause behind the big bang, I think they just think it makes more sense that way. And from the other POV, I don't think the 'unbelievers' are saying the big bang couldn't have been caused by God, just that they think it makes more sense that He wasn't involved.

Easily explainable thing: They don't want to have God around, because they think he's so unscientific, by diffusion caused by religion. So they leave a hole of unexplainable territory. In fact this hole basically covers all science and everything known since it's the source of everything. Replacing it with God would therefore be scientifically correct since it fits perfectly, without affecting science.

Gen-x
Have you calmed down yet since our drastical split?
Just like you, I also got tired of you, causing my sudden offensive. Now if we could forgive each other we could continue our discussion where we ended.
Do you accept that Science is not absolutely thrustable?

We start over with just assuming, no proof. So we are in that way more openminded, is that ok Gen-x?
Jun 24th, 2000, 11:26 AM

Iain17 and other slanderers

"So why do you say that we are going to hell if we do not believe in your God. Is this not a judgement?"

Where are you people getting words that you are trying to put in my mouth. You seem to be arguing with yourself. I have never said such a thing. I don't even think I posted such a thing from the bible. Perhaps you had a bad experience in your past with the bible.

Don't mistake what the bible says for what I say. I am not your god or your judge. Find out what the bible says.

That is why I posted the full chapter that mentioned swine and pearls. And even then, I'd go back to a Greek/English Interlinear if I was really trying to fathom it. (OR ELSE I MAY CONCLUDE THAT PETER IS THE FATHER OF THE CHURCH--I don't conclude that). There are what I call "harmonics" in the bible. A first glance(harmonic) and deeper study (harmonics) and "Harmony of the Gospel(s)". Some say practical meanings and spiritual meanings. I would speculate that there is where much symbolism comes from.

I can only give you my understanding of what the bible says. Seriously, find out for yourself by reading or listening. http://www.bible.com
Jun 24th, 2000, 01:11 PM
Sam Finch

OK lads and ladettes, Get your philosophy hats on, It's time for Sam's Crazy Agrument.

Let's Start With Some Assumptions

The Universe Exists

Justification

I exist (I think Therefore I am) I observe the universe, If The universe is just an illusion, it must be
a) In my Head, Therefore I am God.
b) Inside another universe, therefore this universe exists (because if it's an illusion it exists inside another universe or someones head(god)

The universe Runs according to a set of laws

This is Self evident.

That which is truly observed to exist Exsists

Again Self Evident

That which is not truly observed to exist, yet is not truly observed not to exist has a probability of existing

Justification

This is the basis of my argument, it is a Quantum mechanical Idea, Say we look at a wall, It is there because we can see it, we can touch it, now imagine a space where there is no wall, There is not neccaceraly no wall there, it could be that the photons passing through it are simply missing the wall and going through the gaps between the atoms (there's some quantum mechanics to explain why this could happen but it's fairly unlikley) we can walk through the space where this wall might be, but again there is a probability that all the atoms in my body are missing the atoms in the wall (again unlikley) the wall does not have a gravitational field but there could be another wall behind us to cancel it out.(more QM and we're getting spectacularly unlikley now) Etc etc

The Wall neither exist nore doesn't exist It pretty much completley doesn't exist but it does have that tiny little probability that it doesn't exist. This extends to exerything, everything has both a probability of existing and not existing, the more we observe it the more the probability of it existing swings to one or zero.

Now we're going to apply this last idea to the laws that the univere runs to, the laws that we observe and test are the ones that are most likley to be right, Netons Laws Of motion For Example were Tested and Found to be right, before relitivity it was considered very Likley that they were true, then relitivity came along and made them staggaringly less likley.

However, we see that our probability Idea Applies even better to laws than it does to objects, although Newtons laws have been shown not to apply in al situations If you Test them they are very likley to be true, it's only in a few situations that they are found to be false. The Laws of relitivity which replaced them are even more true, It's only in very very few situations in particle accelarators and the centres of black holes that they don't apply.

We Extend this Idea to reach the Following

The Laws of physics most likley to be observed are the ones that are most likley to be true

Now In orded to be observed the laws of the universe must be complicated enough to support intellegent life, The inner workings of the brain are still not understood and probably involve some pretty damned hard Ideas and complicated Physics and chemistry.

So surely the most likley laws to be observed are the ones most likley to support intellegent life, and the most likley universe to support life must have some intellegent being at the helm or a set of laws with it's own intellegence with it's ultimate aim to create life capable of understanding it.

So you all say, why does god not reveal to us the laws of the universe.

Because we would not be capable of understanding them, humans become more intellegent as they learn more and ultimatley have to think for themselves in order to find out these laws, by this process of inquisitive beings does God make us understand him. So why not just create an intellecent being out of thin air and give him the knowlege?

Because this is not allowed under the laws to which the universe runs (probably) The laws must have certain parts capable of supporting life and it is these which restrict god in his ability to create life, which is why is is under the slow process of evolution.

I'm not claiming that this is a proof of gods existance (although I'm not claiming it isn't) But I'm putting it up as a philosophical argument for you all to read.
Jun 25th, 2000, 07:16 AM
Gen-X

Iain

Read your post on Matthew. Didn't you realise God WAS above everyone else? That he and ONLY he had the right to judge, to kill and to destroy whetever he saw fit?

Believers think that because is perfect he has the right to judge... that because he can see ALL he has the right to judge. Remember the saying... "Don't throw stones from a glass house"? God being perfect means that there isn't a LOG in his eye so he has the RIGHT to complain about the logs in everyone elses.

Accept how we have shown that God suffers jealousy and anger which has been proved in the passed to be a combination that leads to "irrational" behavior and mistakes. Therefor if these traits CREATE mistakes then God can make a mistake and if he can do that then he is NOT perfect and if he is NOT perfect then you are right.

Somehow I don't think believers would agree with you though

I really cant understand why Kedaman is still continuing... both of us see flaws in what he says and yet he still clings to it almost as dearly as believers do.

Maybe thats his "crutch" and without it he feels weak and afraid

dvst8

There have been theories for anti-gravity for a while... Just as we can get anti-protons and anti-electrons the theory holds that each of the 4 forces can be reversed.

I haven't read much about it but that is one of the latest theories on how we can travel through space without fuel. A nice big chunk of anti-gravity that makes us constantly "fall" towards our destination. As there is little friction in space we would effectively accelerate to close to light speed. I'm not so sure.

Kedaman

Quote:

At least you Iain haven't lost your mind yet so i may speak to you. Although I don't say you have much to say either.

Is that how it works? They agree with you and they have something to say? I think everyone here has something to say and I am happy to discuss it with them providing they are not completely stuck in their own little imaginary world.

Quote:

BTW saying "big bang just happened." is perfectly explaining, isn't it? Maybe for Gen-x but I hope you have better sense of logics

I'll go one better than that. The Big bang was caused by the PREVIOUS Big Bang which was caused by the one before that and before that... There was no "beginning" because it has been an infinate cycle.

I can't prove it... but neither can you prove it WRONG.

Iain

Good try on Kedaman's "theory"... but you didn't agree with him so you are automatically wrong.

frank

Quote:

I would also like to know why god is just is

If believers had to explain how God got there then they would be saying there is something MORE than God. So they simply say "God just is". It makes it simple, it traces everything back to a single point and they can feel safe.

Harry

Quote:

There seem to be very few people who are at one end of the spectrum. Try not to assume that because someone chooses to believe in God, they are unable to accept the possibility that there isn't a God, and also try not to assume that because someone doesn't believe, they're unwilling to accept the possibility there is a God.

I have tried to put this across but nobody listened. It is the same reason people assume that someone who doesn't believe in God is not spiritual or has no meaning in their life.

Here is the interesting thing though... Ask a Christian to talk about the possibility that Goes does NOT exist and see what answer you get 9 times out of 10.

Quote:

Anyway... I think Kedaman was saying that that's all you can know exists, not necessarily what actually does exist. Judge for yourself whether that's true.

We know what Kedaman is saying... and if the only thing you KNOW exists is yourself then why wouldn't you think that you yourself ARE God?

Kedaman's theory is a very neat and very nice way of throwing absolutely EVERYTHING out the window so that you reduce it to the absolute barest minimum by means of paranoia (Is it real? Does it exist? How do I know? Everyone could be fooling me, it could be an illusion).

Quote:

Gen-X - About how the theological debate began. If I remember correctly (tell me if I don't, I'm sure you will )

To be honest I couldn't be sure how it started. The factual side of what you said is about right but the implications that I was the one who started the furore is a little sketchy. Whether thats because I don't want to believe I started it all or because I didn't actually start it all I don't know :)

VirtuallyVB

Quote:

From my point of view, you've been twisting my words, so please post your reference from me that led you to this conclusion.

I'm not about to start digging through 500+ posts to find the comment... how about I just ask you clearly and consisely to restate?

Please entertain us with your description of the possiblity that God does NOT exist

Quote:

I am impressed that you looked at Matthew 7 line by line. The reason I posted it was to provide the "Swine/Pearls" reference, but at least you are re-reading the bible.

First, I know why you posted it but it only made matters worse because it confirmed the use of the word "swine" as insulting to everyone.

Secondly, read your statement again.. how damn condescending! You are impressed? "at least I am re-reading the bible"? Those words come across as loaded with arrogance. Ever since you started posting you have restated again and again for people to read the bible ("I urge you to read the bible ad nausiem"), as if they are all ignorant but will have their eyes opened if they read it...

But not just "read" it... actually taken the SAME meaning you had. If they came back after reading it and said "But I disagree with you, it is worse, it means this or that" you would say "You didn't read it PROPERLY... read it again".

And that is the problem.... you are using the religious context of the RESULT leading to the INSTIGATION.

"If they answer WRONG then they read it WRONG". "If they prayed and it didn't work then they didn't pray RIGHT". "If they believe in God then they SEE TRUTH".

I hope you can see that every time you do this it is only reconfirming what people believe... not that they take the evidence and draw the CONCLUSION from it... but instead that you take the conclusion and decide what the evidence is that makes it true. Can anyone say the word "bias"?

Now... I appologise for missing your questions, I truely didn't see them.. thank you for letting me know I missed them.

Quote:

I don't know how the bible defines "perfect", but apparently you do. Please enlighten me

Without fault, without flaw, never wrong.

Can you tell me that God makes mistakes? That perhaps he "judged" someone wrongly? That he sent someone to hell that was innocent?

Quote:

Who defines what is very good? A little advice: That's why you had better find out what your Creator requires of you

Apparently the religious define what is good. They decided Incest was "good" while populating the planet and then decided it was "bad" when the planet was sufficiently populated.

As for finding out what the Creator requires of me... If you don't ASK you don't GET... If he doesn't have the simple respect and DECENCY to actually let me know he exists and what he requires then I cannot be held to blame if I don't meet it ;)

Imagine someone walking up to you and slapping you across the face. You look indignantly at them and say "What was that for!?!?!". They turn to you and say "I was expecting you to make me dinner". To which you reply "But I didn't KNOW you wanted me to make you dinner"....

Quote:

Limited is less than perfect, right?

Incorrect assumption. If "unlimited" is the containment of everything then this means it ALSO contains that which is not perfect. Therefor "perfect" would be the subset of everything that is possible, including only those things which are not in error or flawed which means perfect IS limited.

You keep making this incorrect assumptions... If this assumption was incorrect then how do you know your other assumptions about me and being sincere in seeking truth are ALSO not incorrect?

Quote:

You are trying to grasp infinity with a finite mind

Actually I would accuse you of doing this. You see the universe as having a "beginning". In order to comprehend this you believe in the existance of a God who made it begin, who "created" it.

If you were actually able to grasp the concept of infinity you might understand that the universe could have existed for all eternity as a result of a cyclic big bang. No beginning, no start, no need for creation.

So which of us then is trying to grasp infinity with a finite mind? The one who thinks the universe MUST have a beginning? or the one who can clearly see the possibility that it has always existed?

Quote:

Did the bible say that the son is thrown into jail? I think you will see that if the father is thrown into jail, that the son will suffer because he has lost a "bread-winner". No Pun Dude.
I am not trying to "twist" things, but I knew you would say that I did, so I jokingly asked if you liked my twist. I'm trying to provide you answers, although I owe you none

And if the father didn't actually earn an income and was a burden on the family? Or he beat the child?

It was a sin to beat the child and he was thrown in jail. Doesn't this then mean that the next generation is BLESSED for the sin's of the father?

As for you not owing me answers, you are the one who feels obligued to answer... as well as feeling obligued to keep asking everyone to read the bible. So who is it you keep owing for doing this?

Quote:

I'll go one further (although many, if not all Pastors, will disagree with me).

Really? Then how do you know it is not YOU who are wrong in saying it if your religious peers would disagree with you? Are you arrogant enough to think you have an understanding they do not?

Quote:

I say God is responsible for it all. But that makes us robots. We don't like that (right, dvst8?). I call it a will, but not a free will (deep thread potential). So from my point of view, I have to trust God. Indulge me for a moment: Others will be judged on the knowledge they have been given. (Can you say that you measure up to your standard?)

Now we have a point of agreement. If God does exist and did create everything I would agree that we do NOT have "free will" in the definition they want us to believe.

The knowledge we are given however is what has been decided to be given us by God. We don't have free will so whatever we get was already lined up for us. So that means our "judgement" was already decided before we actually existed.

Do I measure up to my own standards? absolutely and totally NOT... but do I have to? absolutely and totally NOT.

Quote:

Thank God this is so, because I have wronged others and I "hope" (that's a faith thing) that I am saved. Although the bible does speak of assurance.
You also misuse evidence and proof. But that's just more carelessness that won't help you in your search.

I find it a scapegoat to say that everything wrong is absorbed by JC... its convenient to do that during your lifetime when no retribution is ever seen.

Please enlighten me as to the TRUE use of evidence and proof

Quote:

Yes, that is my hypothesis (on their own works). Did/Can you find such a person to entertain this line of reasoning? By my belief, the only way we would be righteous to deserve this is by Jesus's substitution. Not on our own works.

So you are saying the bible is therefor WRONG because this situation can never occur... everyone is a sinner so there will never be a thousand generations of love?

Quote:

Where are you people getting words that you are trying to put in my mouth. You seem to be arguing with yourself

Let me ask you... How do you know you are not coming across like this?

One thing I know I constantly fail at is getting my point across in the way in which I meant to. The "way" it comes out is attacking, sarcastic and probably a bit disrespectful... I don't tell people they are wrong for saying that because I understand it.

On the otherhand you keep saying people are putting words in your mouth or twisting what you say...

There is the possibility that in fact you are comming across in a different way than you intended and so they are NOT twisting your words but actually showing them back to you in the way they had been received.

If you are truely an enligthened and intelligent person who is open-minded then surely you must understand the possiblity that what they hear is not what you intended and it isn't their fault for getting it wrong because they aren't the FIRST to take it in exactly the same way.

That is what lead me to realise how sarcastic and confrontational I am... At first I denied it telling everyone they were putting words in my mouth... then I realised that too many people said it for it not to be true (you know the old Everyone else in the world is wrong thing)... I now understand that is EXACTLY how I come across even though that isn't how I intended to...

Can you accept that perhaps its coming out differently to what you intended? That these people are only reflecting your own words back at you as they saw them and that if more than one person saw it differently there is a chance it might be because that is how it sounded?

Sam

I read your post and agreed with it completely. Very well put.. I wish I could explain myself as succinctly as that sometimes.

I am sure Kedaman will say you are wrong, come up with nothing to substanciate it and then be happy he disproved you... but thats him.

I do however have one question for you.

We are talking about probability... and the probability that every particle of my body passes through every particle of the wall and therefor it isn't there.

What I would like to know is at what point does something that is "improbable" be considered as "impossible" simply for the layman?

I mean if the chances of me becoming a millionnaire was 1 in 1,000,000,000 on any given day then I can in all honesty say "I will *never* become a millionnaire".

Somewhere between the odds of 1 in 10 and 1 in a billion we draw a line in the sand and on one side it is "possible" and the other side it is "impossible"... we are finite and short lived creatures... we have to do that.

So I ask you... At what point do we actually decided something that although has a 1 in a billion billion possiblity.... really wont ever happen to anything with such a short time in this universe?
Jun 25th, 2000, 07:26 AM
Gen-X

Sam

About your philosophical point on why we learn through science....

Why didn't God just create us intelligent enough to understand? He could create the universe but couldn't do that?

Also... Think about what this implies.

- God creates a universe
- Populates it with insignificant and stupid life
- He sets it up such that life can evolve
- He watches them gain knowledge as they evolve

It sounds like an experiment... like we are testtube rats that are being watched...

Whats the point of it all then?
Jun 25th, 2000, 09:26 AM
kedaman

Forcing to Warp my mind, it'll bend back as soon as i stop typing

Gen-x Please, don't get mad :mad: again.

Quote:

Here is the interesting thing though... Ask a Christian to talk about the possibility that Goes does NOT exist and see what answer you get 9 times out of 10.

If you get an honest anwer you get "I'm not sure" and that's for sure 9 times of 10. :D

Quote:

Kedaman's theory is a very neat and very nice way of throwing absolutely EVERYTHING out the window so that you reduce it to the absolute barest minimum by means of paranoia (Is it real? Does it exist? How do I know? Everyone could be fooling me, it could be an illusion).

Don't say that Gen-x I didn't throw anything at all out of my window, i just compressed all air out of it and put it in my pocket. And I do not experience paranoia, just like Sam said we have our philosophy hat's on and that means we talk like this, now when I do anything else, in other words, live my life, i'm acting in and experiencing world what you would call "normally"

I don't think theres any idea talking symbolic now Gen-x, yeah you must have been startled i said that, if you define symbolic as diffuse then you may notice you used that a lot in your last post. And if you don't want to get symbolic, get rid of it and let's speak clearly. OR as you said we won't get anywhere. If you have something important there, restate it and i'll reply on it.

iain

Quote:

originally posted by Gen-x
Good try on Kedaman's "theory"... but you didn't agree with him so you are automatically wrong.

I hope you don't leave again, because of Gen-x comment
I'm not disagreeing with you because that you disagreeing with me, i just put up some arguments against yours and I hope you don't ignore them just like Gen-x did. If something got unclear just ask.

Sam

Quote:

The Universe Exists

Justification

I exist (I think Therefore I am) I observe the universe, If The universe is just an illusion, it must be
a) In my Head, Therefore I am God.
b) Inside another universe, therefore this universe exists (because if it's an illusion it exists inside another universe or someones head(god)

Olé! That's not working Sam, because you have to explain what Universe is first, and you explain it like this:
a) My imagination
b) The universe I exist in
So thats it, but we are actually talking b, all the time, because there's no point talking a.
Actually I can't proove God is not me if we assume that, but won't it get more clearer than it is, God exists anyway. That's the whole point in believing. You believe you're not alone and So do I.
WHOA! That got a bit too far from my philosphical spectrum.

Othwerways, i'm not going dive deep into quantum mechanics, but i'm not willing to disagree, i'm just not believing that word by word.

Quote:

That which is not truly observed to exist, yet is not truly observed not to exist has a probability of existing

And I want to call this subjectiveness, because I think Universe contains no probablilities at all, well we don't know but we will get close.

Ok, i was going as crazy as Sam, but that doesn't mean stupid, well see what Gen-x thinks.

Gen-x next post

Quote:

Why didn't God just create us intelligent enough to understand? He could create the universe but couldn't do that?

Also... Think about what this implies.

- God creates a universe
- Populates it with insignificant and stupid life
- He sets it up such that life can evolve
- He watches them gain knowledge as they evolve

It sounds like an experiment... like we are testtube rats that are being watched...

Whats the point of it all then?

It's not an experiment, if you do an experiment you expect a result which you don't know. God knows what he is doing. Thrust him if you need.

God didn't create intelligent life enough to understand that because that would not work out, but i'm of course not sure, maybe someday we're going to understand, maybe some of us already do. Don't expect i'm going to have to know a qwestion we can't answer because it i'mplies you don't.

Hope that got clear. ;)

But i'm sure it wont.
Jun 25th, 2000, 10:31 AM
Gen-X

Kedaman

I'm only going to state one thing at a time with you... more than one overloads the "illusion" of your existance.

Quote:

It's not an experiment, if you do an experiment you expect a result which you don't know.

I disagree.

Code:

A : Do an experiment B : Don't know results Postulation : If A Then B I submit... C(1) : Re-testing results C(2) : Provide baseline to other experiment C(3) : Confirm results for yourself C(4) : Confirm they match calculated or predicted results C(n) : Any number of possiblities NEW Postulation : If A Then B or C(1) or C(2) or ... C(n)

Therefor original postulation of "IF you do an experiment THEN you expect a result which you don't know" is INCORRECT

Rebuttal?
Jun 25th, 2000, 02:22 PM
Sam Finch

I've Just Noticed that My Phillosophical Post was probably on the wrong forum, There are to many about god and I don't really read them so I just put it on the one that was at the top, Oh well, Arguing about the Bible is pretty pointless in my opinion So I don't care.

Gen-X

Quote:

We are talking about probability... and the probability that every particle of my body passes through every particle of the wall and therefor it isn't there.

What I would like to know is at what point does something that is "improbable" be considered as "impossible" simply for the layman?

That's a very hard question, I'd say winning the lottery is Possible as it does happen to people quite regularaly, Trying to draw a line isn't really Possible, It's like asking how far you have to go to be able to say you've been for a long walk or what's the first big number.

The probability of any visible number of photons Passing through a wall is probably Several Trillion to one (English Trillions, 10^18) Probably even less than that, I think you can Essentially Say that any Visible Fluctuation From Newton's Laws on a macroscopic scale is impossible but again Its very hard to decide where to draw the line, you cold define it as if the expected number of times it happens in The universe up until now is less than one then it is impossible, (I can't be Arsed to work it out, I can probably Give you some figure if you're really deperate but it's just an arbitrary definition anyway)

Quote:

Why didn't God just create us intelligent enough to understand? He could create the universe but couldn't do that?

I think You've put your finger on the biggest Question this Raises, I Havn't fully Formed the Argument Yet, There are still a few thing like this to Explain away. I Can Think Of 2 Possible Arguments and here they are,

1 Is He intellegent Enough?

You Said Yourself that

A System cannot Create Directly, Not Understand completley the Workings of another System More Intellegent that itself

So In Order for Us to Understand the Workings of The Universe and God Completley We must Be More Intellegent than him, ThereFore He Cannot Create us Directly as We(Or at least the ultimate form that understands the universe) Must be more intellegent than him, So He must Take A Back Seat and let us Evolve

2 Would the created Being Observe the laws

The argument focuses on an actual observation of the laws of the universe, not just the understanding, what Drives us to observe them is our not understanding them, If we understood the laws of physics completley we would not build particle accelarators to observe the quantum mechanical effects that they show us.

They Could probably be combined into a single reason that covers it completley, like I said this argument isn't fully formed yet.

Quote:

Also... Think about what this implies.

- God creates a universe
- Populates it with insignificant and stupid life
- He sets it up such that life can evolve
- He watches them gain knowledge as they evolve

It sounds like an experiment... like we are testtube rats that are being watched...

Whats the point of it all then?

I'm Quite surpised you said this, I would Have thought you'd have gone the other way, First off, I did not say that god created the universe, I said he was a personification of the laws that govern Our universe, this makes it impossible for him to exist without the universe and therefore he couldn't have Created it, Just everything in it.

Other than that let's look at some views of Life

1 Atheism

There is no Meaning to our existence, we are but lonley souls on a rock which orbits a firey ball in a harsh cold universe.

2 Convential Religion

God Created us and the universe essentially on a whim, he loves us in the same way I love my Dog, our only purpose is to praise him and boost his Ego, we are insignificant compared to him.

3 My Argument

God Created us because he needs us, We have a challenge and a purpose in life to Understand and observe the universe and discover it's workings, God will look after us and help us in our search, Without us(all sentient life forms in the universe) god is nothing, We have a task in life and an all powerful being to guide us until we succeed, which will bring with it the reward of the technology to do anything that is possible in this universe.

I would have thought you would have said that this was a far to optomistic view (as it happens I personally don't "Want" this to be true in the way you say that religious people want their view to be true, As I say I don't claim it to be a proof and if it is then I will have as much trouble believing it as anyone else)
Jun 25th, 2000, 02:56 PM
frank ashley

Sam,

re your 1,2 & 3

1. Yes the universe is cold( v.cold), we are indeed orbiting a fiery ball and I'm far from being a lonely soul! (From an agnostic veering towards atheism )

2 Is god on an ego trip?

3. What the hell is the point of god creating all these laws/rules etc, creating the human race and then waiting for us to discover them. Hasn't god got better or more useful things to occupy his/her time?

:)
Jun 25th, 2000, 06:35 PM
Sam Finch

I missed a couple of posts while I answered Gen-X, then forgot to go back to them

Ked

The Universe Exists

The Idea of this argument is to show that god exists, I went through this bit quickly because it's a fairly standard phillosophical argument and it's been discussed ad nauseum in this and other forums, but one more Time from the Top

I Exist (I think Therefore I am)

The universe Is either

Real (go on to the next argument)
A figment of My Imagination (Therefore I am God so God Exists)
A Simulation in another Universe, which is either controlled by something (God) or operates under a set of rules(Go on to the next argument)

If the universe is just a simulation in another universe we can apply the same argument to the universe it exists in (including this one about it existing)

Are We Happy on that one (Saying the universe Does not exist is not considered a valid argument in philosophy so I could have stated this without any proof at all)

Quote:

Othwerways, i'm not going dive deep into quantum mechanics, but i'm not willing to disagree, i'm just not believing that word by word.

Quote:

That which is not truly observed to exist, yet is not truly observed not to exist has a probability of existing

And I want to call this subjectiveness, because I think Universe contains no probablilities at all, well we don't know but we will get close.

You don't have to delve into Quantum mechanics at all to accept that it's right, The Best physicists in the world think it's right and the only people who think it isn't are the ones who havn't studied it.

Basicly the Idea is this

Say I have a die and an opaque cup. I put the die in the cup, shake the cup and turn it over on the table with the die underneath it.

What number was face up?

Nobody knows, there's a probability of 1/6 that it's 1, 1/6 that it's 2 and so on up till 1/6 that it's 6.

Because it hasn't been looked at you still have to say it has probabilities of being each number, now say I pick the cup up and look at it, It's a six, now I put the cup back on top.

Someone else comes in and I tell him about the die, I don't tell him what it is, When He looks at the die it will be a six, because I have observed it to be a six, He doesn't know this but It has been looked at and it is a six.

You can look at all the options of what happens and this probability Idea will still apply, It's how the universe works.

frank

Quote:

re your 1,2 & 3

this was in answer to gen-x's posts about my crazy argument (6 posts up from here) Basicly it concludes that provided the universe exists God Exists with the soul purpouse of creating a life form that observes and tests all the laws of the universe. Gen-X pointed out that this was a pretty bleak view so went through the 3 views and pointed out mine was the least bleak, with some huge exadurations.

Quote:

3. What the hell is the point of god creating all these laws/rules etc, creating the human race and then waiting for us to discover them. Hasn't god got better or more useful things to occupy his/her time?

God didn't make the rules, he is the rules, In order for the rules to be true they must be observed, which is why it's so important (read the argument)
Jun 25th, 2000, 10:14 PM
kedaman

Gen-x
Rebittal, yes, you declare "know" as have a basic idea about.

Let's declare know as absolute know, you don't guess, you know a fact.

This flaws C

And i'm going to put another A instead of experiment:

A: fulfill
B: knows the result

Sam

Quote:

A System cannot Create Directly, Not Understand completley the Workings of another System More Intellegent that itself

So In Order for Us to Understand the Workings of The Universe and God Completley We must Be More Intellegent than him, ThereFore He Cannot Create us Directly as We(Or at least the ultimate form that understands the universe) Must be more intellegent than him, So He must Take A Back Seat and let us Evolve

I'm not saying i'm disagreeing but i wouldn't think that would be a wise idea to accomplish something more wiser than you self.

I think God have to be more Intelligent
If God exists outside of our universe, where no laws are set, it would be logical that he wouldn't have hi intelligence restricted. By creating Universe, he creates laws, that retricts. And by that I mean he also restricts human intelligence.

Sam, I don't think 3 Sam's Argument was good.

Quote:

God Created us because he needs us

I think He would have no needs, since there are no restrictions, but instead He want to give his love to somthing minor to him.

Quote:

Someone else comes in and I tell him about the die, I don't tell him what it is, When He looks at the die it will be a six, because I have observed it to be a six, He doesn't know this but It has been looked at and it is a six.

You can look at all the options of what happens and this probability Idea will still apply, It's how the universe works.

But, each person have a different view of probablity against everything! That means the more you know, the more towards 100% and 0% the probabilities will go. I would like to believe that this means that there are no probabilities at all. Look at God, he knows everything, and that means there is no "randomness", or "probabilities".

Maybe physicists accept quantum mechanics, because it works so perfectly, that it describes universe perfectly, but I think it won't explain the fact that we exist.

I'm not sure but do philosophist accept quantum mechanics?
Jun 25th, 2000, 11:16 PM

Hold Strong To Your Convictions

But know why you are holding strong.

If you read the title of the Matthew 7 post, "RE: Swine; Then perhaps you have another reason to "hate" the Bible. (verse 6)", you should have learned that I'm not interested if you come back with my conclusions or not. But you should come back with a stronger conviction. So don't post that I am saying that people have to believe what I say or else I say they are wrong and didn't read it correctly. A judgement (if there is a judgment) will show who is right or wrong. The parentheses here show that I entertain the possibility that I am wrong about if there is a God.

My description of the possibility that God does not exist (which I have never stated here, but could be inferred from statements similar to...) If I believe in the evidence for a big bang, then my conclusions for black holes must be incorrect, or I will have to devise a new spacial metric to cover my tracks and tracts, or investigate the white hole and alter physics in convenient regions. Funny, I believe that I have more evidence that our black hole theory is wrong (to a degree) and that we don't have to alter physics or introduce "Virtual Physics" to have matter leaving a black hole.

The fact that anything is here now means "Something Must Always Have Existed". Cyclic or not, a big bang must be reconciled with black holes. I just find the current theory amusing.

Then you say that I have said something, but do not back it up with evidence.

Doesn't your current view on perfection limit a perfect God?
[Therefor "perfect" would be the subset of everything that is possible, including only those things which are not in error or flawed which means perfect IS limited.]
Aren't we imposing what God ought to be? (The "we" here is all people) WE are all guilty of trying to grasp infinity with a finite mind. But that doesn't change my statement that YOU are trying to do so!

I don't follow your "incorrect assumption" argument against me because it appears to me that you agree with me that this view of perfect concludes that perfect is limited.

If you want to call it arrogance that I have my own convictions, that is your choice. I merely encourage that people come to their own convictions after reviewing the evidence, (so I provide references of evidence).

I believe that I instructed you that one man's evidence is another man's proof and perhaps the limit of claims as evidence approaches infinity is proof. But certain things may potentially never be proven and we reach them by faith (whether religious or scientific). That is why my "faith" was strengthened because I found evidence that I believed by faith. Although an Atheist may believe without the proof I require to believe by proof (due to his believing on less evidence).

I know I can come across as arrogant. I am still deciding if I should tell you to rise from "bowing humbly" (in the other thread). Rise and fix your gaze to the evidence of the stars.

JC IS a scapegoat. But if everything is absorbed, then no-one will face judgement. This is also where some Pastors may disagree with me. But will this apply to you? Do you trust in JC ?

Sounds like you don't want me to answer you anymore. Is that so it can appear that you have won an argument, or because you are not sincere?

Ahh, the father had no income and was a burden or beat the child. Sounds to me that the family suffered. And that the judgement limited the suffering of the generations. This is a mercifull God.

Twist things as you may, but be true to yourself.
-Shakespeare
Jun 26th, 2000, 06:20 AM
Gen-X

Sam
So the bottom line is that we "each" make a personal definition of what impossible is.

Doesn't that make it subjective? A "long" walk for me might be a "short" walk for you.... So our terminology automatically indicates a personal reference to considerations we each make.

So when I say "It is impossible to walk through a wall", I am telling you that the chances of it happening in my lifetime are so remote that I can almost say it with assurity and be correct without ever being proved wrong during my limited existance.

Surely when we start talking about certain things, like say rolling a "7" on a 6 sided dice we can clearly use the word "impossible" knowing that there is NEVER a probability of it occuring.... but what if someone drew an extra DOT on the surface?

I guess the bottom line is that when talking about what is real and what is NOT the determining factor is the probability of something happening falling within the boundaries of what we each consider reasonable.

That is why we have "Occum's Razor".

Is it possible our universe doesn't exist? Yes... Is it likely it doesn't exist? No. Are we in some complex "Matrix" world or is the world an illusion of our own minds? Not likely.

Surely with this level of reasoning we can safely say that the universe actually DOES exist, that we actually DO exist and therefor throw out any idea that we are living in a dream world or that we are the only thing that exists?

Its a pity Kedaman keeps talking about the 1 in a billion rather than the other 999,999,999,999 that actually think differently.

Quote:

A System cannot Create Directly, Not Understand completley the Workings of another System More Intellegent that itself

I thought it interesting you mentioned this... Isn't this what I was saying in relation to a human being creating an advanced Artificial Intelligence?

I know what you are going to say... That we create an intelligence that is NOT smarter than us but it evolves as we did to the point where it IS smarter than us... but think about it... If humanity is a 1 in a billion chance (possibly with thousands upon thousands of failures) then how are we going to "fluke" just the right conditions for success if it took the universe and evolution millions upon millions of years just to take us through the last 65 million years?????

Surely that is something we can place as a probability small enough such that most of us will subjectively call it impossible.

At the moment WE are the only form of advanced intelligent life. That makes the probability 1 in 1. There are billions of stars out there and we have found that there isn't life near them like ours (let alone planets.. they seem in short supply), so we adjust our figure to say we are 1 in a billion.... And yet we think ourselves able to recreate on a digital level within the next couple of thousand years what it took evolution a few million to do???

Quote:

I'm Quite surpised you said this, I would Have thought you'd have gone the other way

Its called reflection Sam. You show someone what they actually said to you but using similar words. Sometimes it makes people realise what they actually said and how it actually came out and they gain some understanding. If you only look at things from one perspective you become self-centred (trust me, I know).... something which is TRUE cannot be slanted, it cannot be twisted.... that is why it is true.

"There are 26 letters in the current english alphabet"

This is TRUE. It cannot be twisted, changed, manipulated or altered.

Kedaman

Quote:

Gen-x
Rebittal, yes, you declare "know" as have a basic idea about.

Let's declare know as absolute know, you don't guess, you know a fact.

This flaws C

And i'm going to put another A instead of experiment:

A: fulfill
B: knows the result

What? Why have you completely changed your own statement? You stated that the ONLY reason to do an experiment is because you do NOT know the results... I questioned that and now you are dribbling?

Why change A to "fulfill"?

The only reason you "fulfill" is because you "knows the results".

That is complete and total gibberish.

VVB

Quote:

The parentheses here show that I entertain the possibility that I am wrong about if there is a God

That is not what I asked. I asked you to site for me the conditions under which God does NOT exist.

Surely your reluctance to do so, and your inability to come straight out and say it are proof that you are not truely (read that sincere) in your statement that you can entertain the possiblity he does NOT exist.

Here, I'll go first.

- God does exist
- For some reason he is keeping his presence a secret
- For some reason I don't see his existence around me
- If he created me and made me what I am then he doesn't
want me to see him or else I would
- When we die we will know the truth

To me this would have to be the conditions under which God would exist... It is based on the obvservations I have. Perhaps the 3rd one is a little bit of an assumption but the others are as factual as they get.

Now you try but with the opposite. I bet you find some way to invalidate it even if you do have the nerve to actually put words to it.

You went on about black holes and big bangs and theories about this and that but never ONCE mentioned God or how it ties into the fact that there is a chance he does NOT exist.

Quote:

The fact that anything is here now means "Something Must Always Have Existed". Cyclic or not, a big bang must be reconciled with black holes. I just find the current theory amusing

Whats amusing about it? Localized masses overcoming the gravitational threshhold pull the matter within its direct vacinity into its core. As gravity weakens over distance its range is limited. The universe (The ULTIMATE source of mass) is currently in a state of expansion caused by the big bang. This acceleration is decreasing (supposedly) to a point that if it falls below the gravitational threshhold will start to contract (the central mass of the universe exhurting gravity upon all matter) and at some point reduce everything to a single black hole of such density that the amount of mass cannot be contained within the singularity and a big bang occurs.

There is ONE thing that DOES escape a black hole... and that is GRAVITY. It is "mass" and therefor gravity works on it....

Where exactly does the amusement arise?

Quote:

Then you say that I have said something, but do not back it up with evidence

Much like the you saying God exists?

Quote:

Doesn't your current view on perfection limit a perfect God?
Aren't we imposing what God ought to be?

Actually we are "supposedly" using the tools and communication abilities that he provided us. If he wanted us to consider him in anything more than what we were given to be able to make such determinations then we would have bene provided that ability.

God tells us in the Bible he is perfect, he is just, he is merciful. Now those terms aren't used with an infinate mind... they are used for the LIMITED mind. The Bible is WORDS and WORDS are limited... therefor the ONLY things you know about God are from a LIMITED source.

Of course we impose what God ought to be... your own BIBLE makes those impositions!!!

Quote:

I merely encourage that people come to their own convictions after reviewing the evidence

Don't you mean your evidence?

Quote:

But certain things may potentially never be proven and we reach them by faith (whether religious or scientific)

Perhaps we differ on definition here. "Faith" as far as my dictionary tells me is to have belief WITHOUT evidence. That is the whole POINT of faith. To now say that your "faith" has strengthened because of the evidence you have found is a contradiction. Your "belief" may have increased but your "faith" has diminished becaue you are talking less and less on the "word" of someone else and more and more on the evidence you say you found.

Perhaps you should give me your definition of the word faith, "I urge you to read a dictionary" and tell me how wrong their definition of the word is.

Quote:

Rise and fix your gaze to the evidence of the stars.

You look within another man's garden before you have even seen the fruits of your own. Look not to the evidence of the stars but the evidence within your own hands... for you cannot reach the soil of the stars before you have felt the soil beneath your feet.

Quote:

But will this apply to you? Do you trust in JC ?

I will be judged for my own actions. I don't WANT things I have done "absorbed" by someone else. I did them, I face the music for them. That someone thinks they can commit something wrong and then just pass it off to someone else is cowardice.

Do I trust in JC? Who is that? I have never met nor heard nor seen nor been introduced to the person.... If one day I DO see this person then perhaps we will have a little discussion... but until I actually know someone exists how can anyone say that I have done "wrong" by that person.

You find a 5 dollar note on the road... do you pick it up? Of course, you might even turn it into the police station like a good little boy... but the man who lost it comes back and finds it missing and his family are not fed as a result... So did you do wrong by the man? Of course not, you didn't even know he existed or was even there.

Quote:

Sounds like you don't want me to answer you anymore. Is that so it can appear that you have won an argument, or because you are not sincere?

You enjoy questioning my sincerity don't you? Does it make you feel better to think that I am not sincere? That I am just spending my time writting this for no other reason than to cause anarchy and chaos? Mmmmm... now it sounds like you think I am the devil, sent here to personally corrupt your faith.

I dont care if I win arguments, if I lose as a result of gaining more knowledge than that which I started with (such as my realisation that symbolism does not *always* mean a coverup) then I am happier than if I won an argument....

But I am sure you don't believe that because I'm not sincere

Quote:

Ahh, the father had no income and was a burden or beat the child. Sounds to me that the family suffered. And that the judgement limited the suffering of the generations. This is a mercifull God.

Twist things as you may, but be true to yourself

"This is a merciful God"

Yes but the "rules" stated that the person who "sinned", who "hated" God (I think beating one of his creations is a pretty good definition of hating someone) would have the next 3 generations "suffer".

Now you are saying that the future generations suffering was "limited" and that God is merciful. Doesn't that invalidate the actual statement in the beginning of 3 generations suffering for the sins of the first???

I wish you would make your mind up....
Jun 26th, 2000, 09:06 AM
dvst8

here we go

Gen-x

Quote:

but think about it... If humanity is a 1 in a billion chance (possibly with thousands upon thousands of failures) then how are we going to "fluke" just the right conditions for success if it took the universe and evolution millions upon millions of years just to take us through the last 65 million years????? ....
And yet we think ourselves able to recreate on a digital level within the next couple of thousand years what it took evolution a few million to do???

I really do not find this hard to imagine. In fact I am quite confident that within a relatively short period of time the human race will be able to artificially create a mind with the capacity to be far more intelligent than ourselves. Recall that my view is that we are completely insignificant, an accident of nature. Intelligence came to be as a tool for our survival. I do not think we were given intelligence by a higher power.

Look at the rate at which our understanding of the world around us has increased over the past couple hundred years...surely you will conclude that the curve is exponential. Why is it so hard to fathom that we will be able to produce an artificial race like our own withink lets say 1000 years? Why shouldnt we be able to "download" our minds onto digital media, let those minds self-replicate and continue to acquire knowledge? Science fiction...yes, but I think several people underestimate the rate of change of technology.

Quote:

ULTIMATE source of mass) is currently in a state of expansion caused by the big bang. This acceleration is decreasing (supposedly) to a point that if it falls below the gravitational threshhold will start to contract (the central mass of the universe exhurting gravity upon all matter) and at some point reduce everything to a single black hole of such density that the amount of mass cannot be contained within the singularity and a big bang occurs.

I think you put too much "faith" in your idea that there will be a big crunch. It is my impression that the more convincing side of the evidence indicates that expansion will continue for ever...and I don`t think this really has any implications, other than the fact that that`s just the ways it`s gonna be. Why must we attribute a "meaning" to everything.

Sam

Quote:

God Created us because he needs us, We have a challenge and a purpose in life to Understand and observe the universe and discover it's workings, God will look after us and help us in our search, Without us(all sentient life forms in the universe) god is nothing, We have a task in life and an all powerful being to guide us until we succeed, which will bring with it the reward of the technology to do anything that is possible in this universe.

This is all sounds very nice and flowery. I do not think you showed in your argument that God created us with purpose. How did this come about? What evidence do we have in front of us to bring us to this conclusion? You say an all-powerful being will guide us until we succeed...? What guidance? What being? How and where has he manifested himself? Through scientific discovery? Is that what you are saying?
If thats the case, then how does the following affect your logic: We, has human being in our current level of technological developement, are very close to being capable of wiping out the world around us. (See recent experiment with high-speed particle accelerator and strangelet theory....a slightly negative charge on one of these strangelets emitted starts a chain of matter-eating until all is wiped out--of course just theory...but if it was put into practive who knows what would happen!! :) )

So if we do accidentally wipe ourselves out, where does that put your God and his guidance? Are you saying this will never happen? Would that mean we are killing God? Does that really make sense?

I do not think your attempt at reconciling Science(Technology and human knowledge) as being God, really hold much water. Maybe I`m misinterpreting it.... if so, please clear it up, because it really is a neat way of looking at things. (eventhough i dont agree with it :) !)

jda and vvb

when were you first introduced to God? surely by somekind of teacher or teachings....so you must admit your mind was biased in a certain way. certainly you had the choice when you reached maturity to decide whether or not you would follow that path of belief, but you were necessarily biased one way....

All

Im not sure where what follows is going, i`m just going to go on a tangent, and follow it....

Consider the following experiment:

a boy and a girl are left alone to grow up together on an island (they arent related...lets avoid incest)

they start they own mini-civilisation. they are never told or instructed about the God that you and I have been introduced to in our culture today.

What do you think the chances are of that family/civilisation of reaching the same conclusions about God as we have? Very Slim!! What does this mean. Does this mean that your God does not love these people? Why has he not made himself known to these people? What is likely is that this civilization will develop its own system of belief, of worship but different from what we have today. does it make them wrong? will then not get into heaven?? there was no one to show them the way....
What if we left behind a Bible? Should we expect them to believe it? If they did, would they then be considered Good in god`s eyes, and if they didn`t would they have sinned?

But now let me take this situation, and argue against my original stance, from the opposite point of view:

These people are on the island, and they come to their own "scientific" conlusions about the limited world around them. They believe their island to be at the center of the ocean, they have no means of knowing what is beyond their furthest point of sight. they think the sun is their God...They think the water around them is evil... they reach some erroneous conclusion. we are on the outside observing this little experiment of ours, we see them screwing up, we see them make errors in their assumptions. So in this little colony, does this make us, the creators of this experiment God?? Well let`s take this through its logical conclusion....

Some people would argue this is the exact situation we find ourselves in. We are currently incapable of fathoming a God that could have made us...just like the Island people...

however, I would counter-argue as follows:

we created the island civizliation with no definte purpose. these people had no direct meaning or superior goal to their lives. they were happy to live as they wanted. we did not judge them, we did not control their soul, their destiny. they were not coming to our higher plane of existence when they died...i would say that this civilization given time would reach the point where it became sufficiently technologically advanced that it would seek out the rest of its world... could we avoid detection as their creators? perhaps. but i would say that as their science became more refined, they would eventually come to the realization that the world around them was governed by set rules. their so called gods had to obey these same rules, and the ultimate conclusion reached may be that their was no true God in this system.

Now take this one final step further: imagine the same island, but instead of having us plant two people on this island, just have a few long carbon strands...they synthesize into complex carbon strands, dna, simple bacteria, if the conditions are right (perfect) multi-celled organism, then maybe intelligent life flourishes on this island....we have the same civilisation...they develop in a similar manner, making fumbling mistakes, believe crazy things, but making progress along the way....they ultimately figure out the set laws that govern their "universe" and discover that infact there was absolutely no trace of any kind of god. they had just appeared...on their own..as a fluke. no greater purpose or meaning...does this make their existence sad?? i dont think so. but then you may ask, who created the island that they lived on...and to that I say: I don`t know how to deal with that, but i would prefer to let science reach a conclusion based on evidence, revise that conclusion if necessary, rather then blindly believe it was set their by mystical powers. but that is stricltly my preference.

i`m not sure if i reached any kind of conclusions with that...i dont think so. maybe just more questions... i would like some discussion on it...see what you think.

dvst8
Jun 26th, 2000, 10:13 AM
Gen-X

dvst8

Yes our technology is increasing exponentially... But our knowledge of the human brain, how it works, WHY it works is not increasing at all!!!!

And yet we are expected to recreate intelligence when we don't even understand what it is, where it comes from or how it works?????

We keep looking in everyone elses back garden we have failed to look in our own.

What makes the difference between choosing chocolate over strawberry? What are the "EXACT" factors that go into the decision? If you want an artificial intelligence it means we must know ALL the variables in order to make it work.

Quote:

Why shouldnt we be able to "download" our minds onto digital media, let those minds self-replicate and continue to acquire knowledge?

We could download our minds into digital media. What you would have is NOT a sentient being but a snapshot of the information stored in your brain at that point in time.

You are forgetting... we are more than just information... we are a series of "neurons" which are interlinked chemically. You can't just "copy" it somewhere else and expect it to work the same...

Thats like saying "I have this computer disk, I will just draw it on paper and it will still work just like a computer disk". You change the MEDIUM and you change the dynamics of the system.

- How do we know silicon is the best substitute?
- How do we replicate chemical engram creation?
- How do we store based on pattern rather than memory address?
- How do we replicate neuron function?
- Where do we store 50 Terabytes?
- How is it indexed?
- What is the process for filtering information?
- When is information lost?
- What priority do we place on new information coming in?

I could ask a thousand questions to which you would say "I DONT KNOW" and yet you expect to be able to create an artificial intelligence that KNOWS all of this!?!?!

Quote:

I think you put too much "faith" in your idea that there will be a big crunch

"supposedly", "if", "providing"...

They are not words based on "faith". As I said, there are 3 possibilities, +ve, -ve and 0. One of them is bang/crunch, the other is entopy via constant expansion and the other is an already infinate universe.

I simply said "how do you know that it WONT crunch?"

Quote:

It is my impression that the more convincing side of the evidence indicates that expansion will continue for ever

This "so called" convincing side uses only the doppler effect (red shifting) to determine the acceleration of the universe. Considering we can only see the smallest portion of what we consider the entire universe its ignorant to say that just because we can see "OUR" part expanding doesn't mean the rest is or at the same rate.

That is like me saying "Hey Guys! Look at this river flow... the entire WORLD must flow as fast as this river because if I look around me I see flowing water"

Quote:

So if we do accidentally wipe ourselves out, where does that put your God and his guidance?

Considering the premise people use that God was responsible for everything, knows everything and made us what we are then that means God actually wiped us out as a result of the tools and teachings he gave us ;)

Quote:

I do not think your attempt at reconciling Science(Technology and human knowledge) as being God, really hold much water. Maybe I`m misinterpreting it.... if so, please clear it up, because it really is a neat way of looking at things. (eventhough i dont agree with it !)

I have always seen "Science" as a personification of human curiosity, while "Religion" is the personification of human settlement.

One wishes to expand, grow, learn and find answers... the other is content to sit where it is, refuse to move and stay there for the rest of eternity.
Jun 26th, 2000, 12:35 PM

Your wishes are granted. See Ya, Wouldn't Want To Be Ya.

I don't know if it is a Monday thing or if it really is you that has exhausted me. Maybe if we continued one-on-one I could be more confident that you have read what I have written. I know that you post alot, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe your attention is split among too many posts. I interpret your replies to me as evasive and you interpret mine the same way. I don't think I'll be replying to you in this forum anymore, but it is because I feel like I have to keep referring to my past posts that (from my point of view) you won't read.

I am on the verge of publishing a paper on matter being able to leave the event horizon of a black hole without introducing "virtual particles" and this would undermine my theory of the Big Bang opposing Black Holes and "who/what intervened" when the Big Bang was a black hole (if it was a black hole), and you say that I have not answered your question. This will be without using energy or gravity escaping as an argument. The intervention could have been by an advanced entity (not the God of the Bible) or a process following the capability of my paper (requiring NO god of any sort). Try to read the converse of a statement also. I don't have to say "God" when I propose a purely scientific possibility. If this science holds, then there is no need for a God. But now I have stated it (hopefully) as you desire and can grasp.

I believe that the quote was that the children would suffer (generations of the lineage). So you lost me.

On "faith": I consulted a dictionary (dictionary.com) and it said, "without proof or evidence", so I suppose I am arrogant to go against this dictionary, because I would say "without proof", but I would not say "without evidence". The bible says in John 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
So I would conclude that you (and the dictionary and perhaps everyone else in the world--a consensus thing, so you must be right--not--[because I am arrogant and consensus is not truth or fact]) must really be defining "blind faith". Because the bible seems to be providing evidence and saying to have faith (JC: be not faithless Tom, I just showed you evidence). And maybe you can add that to the tally of biblical (apparent) contradictions or warped definitions. Perhaps "blind faith" is true enlightenment required to "move that mountain by my word". I almost wish I had blind faith.

dictionary.com also seems to suggest that evidence=proof, and again I would disagree. I proposed an "In The Limit" definition in a recent post. I guess I'm just a rebel. Or a free thinker or just blind although I don't have blind faith. But I would say that I have faith by my (convenient as you say) definition.

Oh, and yes, believers are content.
Jun 26th, 2000, 01:16 PM
Gen-X

VVB

So now you understand that the words you are using and the words we are "interpreting" are different.

You also understand that the meaning you give them is different to that which the dictionary and most other people give to them.

Could that explain why you feel your words are being twisted? Why you feel people are putting words into your mouth?

Not because they are... but because they use the meaning of the word as they are defined and not as you have changed.

You see a difference between "proof" and "evidence" and yet can you quantify it to a point where it is clear to everyone?

"and be not faithless, but believing"

To translate in "english" using the words that everyone was taught in school.

"and be not (accept without evidence), but (accept as true / have absolute faith)"

Or to remove the double negatives....

"and don't accept with evidence, but simply accept"

The statement says that the person is wanted not to seek any evidence but instead to actually "just believe", to trust without given anything to base that trust on.

It doesn't say (be not faithless Tom, I Just showed you evidence)...it says (be not faithless Tom, but just believe)

If I were to come to you and ask you to accept something as true you would laugh at me... why? because you don't see me as someone to trust. You see God as someone to trust and so you believe them immediately without question... without evidence (because you already believe) and so you have faith

It keeps going around and around... you believe because you have faith and because you have faith you see evidence to make you believe....

If you choose to no longer post that is your choice, but I would be saddened to think you stopped posting because of a difference in communication. You say I don't read what you write and yet I can correctly quote the definitions of words while you disagree with them... If I were to truely "miss" so much then why wouldn't I miss that?

As to your description of God not existing.... I didn't ask you to define the scientific conditions under which God didn't exist... I asked for your PERSONAL and EMOTIONAL response to it just as I did for you. I even gave you an example to show you what I was trying to mean... does that mean I didn't read what you wrote? Or that I was clarifying what I wanted?

"believers are content"

If only that were true... perhaps then the church would have been "content" not to murder thousands of innocent people during the inquisition.... Or they wouldn't "invade" other countries professing to "save the natives from the devil" by evangelising to them....

If they were truely content they would be happy to sit at home in their own little world and live their lives... instead they stand on street corners bellowing their beliefs to the world and they take over Television stations cajoling and guilt-tripping people out of their money in order to be saved.

I am content to know who I am, what I am and where I am from... I am also content to know that I can be wrong and wont suffer for it....

Can you actually say that you wont suffer if you are wrong?
Jun 26th, 2000, 07:38 PM
dvst8

Gen-X

Quote:

I am content to know who I am, what I am and where I am from... I am also content to know that I can be wrong and wont suffer for it....

Very true...! 100% agreement

Quote:

You change the MEDIUM and you change the dynamics of the system.

So what? Why would we our physics not be able to predict the exact new behavior in the new medium...?

Quote:

- How do we know silicon is the best substitute?

I don't think I ever implied that. I definitely do not think this to be the case. Holographic storage seems like a possibility....

Quote:

- Where do we store 50 Terabytes?
- How is it indexed?

hehehe.... this is pretty near sighted Genx...
10 years ago, someone could easily have said "Where do we store 50 Gigabytes?" Today we have the means....
WIthing a couple decades, I'm certain we will be capable of storing EXAbytes of information.... I can't believe you don't see it that way. "640K RAM should be enough for anybody..."

I can't necessarily answer all your questions, but they are definitely answer-able. So we don't know anything about the brain. Should that imply that we will NEVER know anything about the brain? Certainly not. 100 years ago, we didn't know anything about communication theory. Today just look at how pervasive communications is, from television to the internet... I really think it is pretty much limitless what we will be able to do with science...
(within physical constraints of course) But I believe anything that is physically possible will be achieved by Science eventually. What's to stop us?

One other thing...why do people threaten to leave a thread?? Should this strike fear in us? What kind of leverage does that really give them? "I'm going to stop posting if you don't start listening"
Am I the only one that thinks this is increadibly childish?

dvst8
Jun 27th, 2000, 06:02 AM
Gen-X

dvst8

Quote:

So what? Why would we our physics not be able to predict the exact new behavior in the new medium...?

We don't WANT to predict the new behavior... we want it to "mimic" what we have now... if you are downloading your brain to a computer you want it to behave the same way or else it really isn't a digital copy of your brain is it?

Quote:

I don't think I ever implied that. I definitely do not think this to be the case. Holographic storage seems like a possibility....

I don't think you quite understand. We are "carbon" based life. If we were to make intelligence it needs to be based on an element and if it is a computer it uses "silicon". Ok, so you say "Holographic storage".... Wha materials are used for this???

Quote:

hehehe.... this is pretty near sighted Genx...
10 years ago, someone could easily have said "Where do we store 50 Gigabytes?" Today we have the means....
WIthing a couple decades, I'm certain we will be capable of storing EXAbytes of information.... I can't believe you don't see it that way. "640K RAM should be enough for anybody..."

Your not getting the point are you?
Every single human being walks around with 50 Terabytes of information within the small area that is his skull. Now we are going to replicate this single human brain and all its abilities. That requires storage space. I know that in years to come things will be smaller, faster ,etc,etc...

But the point is we don't even know how the human brain STORES or RETRIEVES information... how the hell are we going to get a computer to do it when we don't have a clue ourselves.

Just saying "I am certain we will be capable in the future" doesn't answer the question... it says you BLINDLY just accept Science will be able to do anything.

Quote:

I can't necessarily answer all your questions, but they are definitely answer-able

If course they are "answer-able"... you just say "I am sure they will in the future" and leave it hanging without anything at all. Isn't that what religious people do? "God exists, evidence is in the Bible..." and leave it at that?

Quote:

So we don't know anything about the brain. Should that imply that we will NEVER know anything about the brain? Certainly not. 100 years ago, we didn't know anything about communication theory. Today just look at how pervasive communications is, from television to the internet...

And that is the point.... We HAD a brain 100 years ago and yet we didn't look at it... And yet communications came along and we discovered it and expanded it... and STILL the brain went untouched.

It seems humanity is too eager to look "OUT" to bother looking back IN. Perhaps if they finally decide to spend some time studying the human brain they will get somewhere... But until they do you can't just say "I bet they will" for the heck of it.

Quote:

I really think it is pretty much limitless what we will be able to do with science...
(within physical constraints of course) But I believe anything that is physically possible will be achieved by Science eventually. What's to stop us?

You see this is BLIND faith in science.. this is what VVB was talking about (and funny enough accused me of).

You say science is limitless (pretty much) and then immediately afterwards say "within physical constraints of course".

What does that mean? That if its possible we will do it? Then how do you know it is not "physically" possible to replicate the human brain inside a computer??????

What's to stop us? The LAWS OF PHYSICS... the LAWS OF CHEMISTRY. We cannot do what cannot be done. We cannot create matter, we cannot breath "metal".... There are just some things that will NEVER be possible.

How do you know an Artificial Intelligence isn't one of them?

Quote:

One other thing...why do people threaten to leave a thread?? Should this strike fear in us? What kind of leverage does that really give them? "I'm going to stop posting if you don't start listening"
Am I the only one that thinks this is increadibly childish?

No its called human nature and something we have all done at one time or another. As for childish.... can you honestly tell me you have never been childish? ;)
Jun 28th, 2000, 05:50 AM
Gen-X

I dont underestimate what Science can do... but at the same time I don't just say "One day science will do it", even if I think its "plausible".

Thats what healthy scepticism is. To not immediately believe science will get there, OR that it will never get there. You have read several times how I praise science and now you read where I have critisized science. That shows that I don't blindly have faith in it but it also shows that I don't believe it can do everything.

As for reading about science I read many different sources. Have you heard of the "Leech-u-lator"? I kid you not, neurons from a leech grafted to a circuit board and used to be able to do simple arithmetic.

All that means is that they have worked out how to electronically stimulate a neuron... nothing more. Yes it does put them closer to the end goal but we are talking A.I here... not cybernetics or cyborgs.

In its purest form AI is about creating a sentience, a presence formed COMPLETELY inside an artificially created container that is self-aware and has the abilities as defined by "sentience". At this point in time only humans and some higher level mammals have been "labelled" as having this.

Intelligence ONLY exists in carbon based life... it doesn't exist in trees or rocks... So why wouldn't be consider the fact that the medium in which it is in is important? Intelligence needs a vehicle and in our case it is neurons, carbon and dna... What do you propose AI would use for a medium?

We are learning more about things all the time... but we are also learning things that are NOT possible. A few years ago everyone was raving about FTL... now science has made breakthroughs that show it might not work as a result of factors they didn't consider (infinate mass etc, etc). Just as science oncovers something it also comes against those WALLS.

AI is one of those things we don't know enough about to actually understand if there is a wall up ahead. All AI research (and I have researched it at University) is based on "mimicing" the human brain and its functions... and we do that by looking at the "OUTSIDE" and saying "Yeah, that seems logical we do it that way"
Jul 4th, 2000, 07:49 AM
rathunter

trying to prove the bible is wrong or right is as wise as trying to prove Silmarillion or Cthulhu mythos are wrong or right. Who wants to believe, has evidences enough. Who don´t, has contra arguments... it is simple contraproductive...
Jul 4th, 2000, 10:38 AM

How about them BBQ'd rats? Mmmm mmmm

You strike me as a "survivor".
Jul 5th, 2000, 07:38 PM
HarryW

Quote:

I can't necessarily answer all your questions, but they are definitely answer-able. So we don't know anything about the brain. Should that imply that we will NEVER know anything about the brain? Certainly not. 100 years ago, we didn't know anything about communication theory. Today just look at how pervasive communications is, from television to the internet...

Whoa, that sounds familiar dvst8! That's more or less exactly what I was thinking (maybe I didn't say it clearly) when there was the original AI post in December, entitled "Grey VB world" for those that are interested.

Gen-X, you said this:

Quote:

Intelligence ONLY exists in carbon based life... it doesn't exist in trees or rocks... So why wouldn't be consider the fact that the medium in which it is in is important? Intelligence needs a vehicle and in our case it is neurons, carbon and dna...

I wasn't aware that we had come across any lifeforms that are Si based. I don't follow the journals to the same extent some here do, but I would have thought I'd have heard about it if we had discovered a lifeform that was non carbon based.

Quote:

Quote:

So we don't know anything about the brain. Should that imply that we will NEVER know anything about the brain? Certainly not. 100 years ago, we didn't know anything about communication theory. Today just look at how pervasive communications is, from television to the internet...

And that is the point.... We HAD a brain 100 years ago and yet we didn't look at it... And yet communications came along and we discovered it and expanded it... and STILL the brain went untouched.

It seems humanity is too eager to look "OUT" to bother looking back IN. Perhaps if they finally decide to spend some time studying the human brain they will get somewhere... But until they do you can't just say "I bet they will" for the heck of it.

I'm sorry, I don't see the relevance of this first paragraph (beginning "And that is..."). Could you explain please?

Yes, we had a brain 100 years ago, and I'm sure some did look at it, although with limited understanding. With limited tools, there was not much scope for further investigation I would have thought.

I think it is a matter of opinion whether a digital copy of oneself is in fact a lifeform. If we were able to recreate a life environment in a computer simulation (or some equivalent means of emulating a universe) with digital inhabitants, made from copies of real people, would those digital versions be considered alive? Would they be considered to be the same person? Could you cheat death by copying yourself to a simulation in this way, and continuing to live your life in a computer?

I am also somewhat confused by your statement, "Perhaps if they finally decide to spend some time studying the human brain they will get somewhere..." I am absolutely sure that there has been a considerable amount of time devoted to studying the human brain. Furthermore, I am convinced that there will be a considerable amount more time spent on that same subject.

Quote:

This "so called" convincing side uses only the doppler effect (red shifting) to determine the acceleration of the universe. Considering we can only see the smallest portion of what we consider the entire universe its ignorant to say that just because we can see "OUR" part expanding doesn't mean the rest is or at the same rate.

That is like me saying "Hey Guys! Look at this river flow... the entire WORLD must flow as fast as this river because if I look around me I see flowing water"

He said 'more convincing' not 'convincing'. Check your eyes for logs please :D I say this because you have presented this argument:

Quote:

The universe (The ULTIMATE source of mass) is currently in a state of expansion caused by the big bang. This acceleration is decreasing (supposedly) to a point that if it falls below the gravitational threshhold will start to contract (the central mass of the universe exhurting gravity upon all matter) and at some point reduce everything to a single black hole of such density that the amount of mass cannot be contained within the singularity and a big bang occurs

which is presented as a statement of truth, or your opinion at least. It is hypocritical to say that dvst8 is making an assumption, that he cannot prove his argument, when you make the above statement. I can understand that you might have used the closed universe theory (is it a theory or a theorem? I can never remember) to help your 'no God' argument, because it implies no beginning to the universe.

I'm sorry to keep at your statements Gen-X, it's just a matter of differing opinion...

Quote:

"and be not (accept without evidence), but (accept as true / have absolute faith)"

Or to remove the double negatives....

"and don't accept with evidence, but simply accept"

Is that definitely the statement with double negatives removed?

"and be not (accept without evidence), but (accept as true / have absolute faith)"

"and be (¬accept ¬with evidence), but (accept / faith)"

I can see only two negatives here to cancel each other out, and that makes:

"and accept with evidence, accept as truth / have absolute faith"

Is my logic flawed?

And on a final note to Gen-X, I see you have asked some questions regarding Sam's proof for his #3 scenario. Well, Sam said this if you hadn't noticed...

Quote:

I don't claim it to be a proof and if it is then I will have as much trouble believing it as anyone else
Jul 18th, 2000, 09:33 AM
wwjd

All this Bible talk in a VB forum? Hey, I might as well jump on the bandwagon. Lets not take the Bible's word for it, lets look at what science has to say. Science has never proven evolution. Evolution is merely a theory based upon the thesis by Charles Darwin. However, if you ever read what Charles Darwin had to actually say you would see that the theory was merely that... a "theory". Darwin himself noted that there were HUGE problems with his theory. His theory was based merely on the similarity between structural and physical appearances of different creatures, and he noted himself that he could NOT account for such huge complexities, such as the eye and the egg for example, to prove his theory that they merely evolved out of nothing by pure chance. And that was BEFORE we knew how complex things really were! Saying that we descended from apes comes from a theory proposed by Darwin in relation to our body structures (hands, feet, etc...). Science of today for some reason rests upon this paradigm as if it were proven, which it is not. It doesn't even make sense.

Knowing what science knows about genetics today, Darwin himself would laugh at his theory. We know today how complex DNA is and that, for example, although apes also have 46 chromosomes, they are inifinitely different from ours. Each species is infinitely different from others on the genetic level. To say they would just morph out of nowhere into a new species is ridiculous. You put a sheep in a room and let it sit there forever... it will never morph into something else... it will never clone itself. Man had to clone a sheep... proof that higher intelligence is needed for creation. There is room for wide variety in each species, but each species, no matter how many similarities they may have on the physical level, are not even close on the genetic level.

Also, this whole idea of chance is ridiculous as well. You don't have to be a statistician to figure out that this notion is completely LESS logical than the universe (and everything in it) being created by God. For the amount of time scientists believe the universe has existed you would be lucky if chance could produce a single protein molecule... much less TWO... or even a single celled organism. Just to spell "the theory of evolution" with scrabble, your chances are once in over eight hundred million trillion trillion to get each letter and space in order. Have a computer do a billion random tries a second, and it would still take you billions of times longer than the supposed existence of the universe to spell it.

So then the universe must have been around forever, right?
Nope. Science's own second law of thermodynamics proves that any closed system will eventually run out of energy. We wouldn't be here, and nothing would be from a long time ago if the universe was "eternal".

Anyway... don't take my word for it :) Sorry it turned out to be a book. Hope you enjoyed it.
Now can i see some good VB help in this forum or what?
Jul 18th, 2000, 12:45 PM
mbay

Religion

I am sorry, but I dont belive in god and this is why...

A careful reading of the bible suggests the world was created 5000 years ago. This means that there was nothing on the earth later the 5000 years ago. While scientists find fossils almost daily over millions of years old. Errr how did they get there???

Religion was used thousands of years ago to keep people in order and to give them an incentive to work hard and abide by the law. If they were good they would go to heaven, and bad go to hell. It kept people in order gave people an answer scientific questions that were hard to explain.

Also some of the stories in the bible are more unbelievable that stories that you tell you children. How can a grown up actually believe in these fairy tale stories.

M Baynham
Jul 18th, 2000, 04:02 PM
wwjd

just a heads up... if people actually DID carefully read the bible they would notice many things... one of them being that the Bible certainly NEVER claims that the universe is only 5000 years old. There are certainly lineages of birth outlined in certain places, but an inspection of the actual language used in no way identifies a father-son relationship, eg. "person1 begat person2" does not necessarily mean anything more than person2 was a descendent of person1. Therefore some uninformed people may try to say that these lineages denote an explicit relational length of time (father-son, father-son...)which is a very dangerous assumption.

Also, carbon dating and all of the other dating methods can be very easily flawed. They are based on very large and possibly inaccurate assumptions about conditions throughout the centuries (air quality, humidity, climate, etc.). In addition, any kind of contamination in the specimen can be catastrophic to the resultant "age" guess. Finally, there is absolutely NO means to validate these dating methods on the merits of a mathematical expression for the radioactive decay of the certain element, eg. Carbon-14. We cannot take something known to be 500 or 1000 years ago and claim validity based on this test for something that claims to be 1 million years old. Your margin of error could be enormous, and you have NO way of determining what that error is. Scientists make HUGE assumptions by extrapolating backward like that, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it can very easily be WAY off.

Nobody can make you believe in God and religion has nothing to do with it. Religion is man's creation... we are God's. God's laws are written on our hearts. Deny it if you want, but its true. Want proof? Can you tell me the only difference between Mother Theresa and Hitler is a cultural one? Of course not. The knowledge of morals is born in us. We are created in God's image... we are rational, moral, and personal. No other creation comes close to fulfilling those three things but humans.

As far as the fairy tale thing goes... well, you are entitled to your opinion. The fact remains that most of these "tales" are backed up by historical and archeological evidence. The Bible is not a book of stories... it is hisorical and evidencial. Anyway, just my 2cents again. I am done now :) If anyone wants to take this discussion OUT of the VB forum I think it would be a better idea. Feel free to email me and we can discuss :)

here's a good article for those who are interested:
http://www.erols.com/myage/articles/Fat_Chance.htm
Jul 18th, 2000, 05:57 PM
Gen-X

You really like to jump around the different laws of Science, claiming some are wrong and others right.

Chance is LESS logical? And yet you automatically accept the age of the universe... strange.

What are the chances of finding the letters in scrabble to spell the phrase you said? Now factor in the fact we have a hundred million trillion trillion stars and planets and other celestial bodies... funny... now that chance comes down to 1.

2nd law of thermodynamics? We haven't proved its a closed system yet. Another flaw.

I dispute Darwin's theory of evolution as well myself but the FACT is that all forms of life on this planet share 95% of the same genetic code... That would be the best indication that all life sprange from the same source more so than Darwin's limited understanding of the process.

Did you know that a Banana matches human DNA by 50%?
Jul 18th, 2000, 09:53 PM
wwjd

So... if the chance comes to 1... where did all those stars you counted come from? Nowhere?

And say the universe isn't a closed system... then it would still require a source of energy (God) to keep things in motion.

All I can say is that I thought the exact same way most of you do before I was saved. I used to think it was all nonsense. I would swear up and down how stupid "religion" is and blah blah. It was for weak minded people, etc. etc... I've heard it all before because I said it all before. The point is... we can debate back and forth on this forever. I could go on and on. If you want more proof start by looking at the millions of lives changed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the power of God... including my own... then again maybe that won't even do it for you. Some accept it, and some never will.

The beauty of it all is that I do not have to defend God. I can uphold what He has revealed to us, but I ultimately am powerless. And who am I to defend God? I am nobody. I am only one person out of countless numbers He has created and will create in the span of existence. As long as man exists there will be many who will go out of their way to deny Him... its nothing original. God will defend Himself on His own time.

Just a note: I know this is supposed to be a VB forum so this is my last reply on this thread... like I said... this debating could go on forever. If anyone seriously is interested in chatting about any of this you can email me here and I'd love to share more with you: [email protected]

Thanks

Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page