Print

Author Topic: Confess!: (became a) Religious Discussion  (Read 22621 times)

Black Mage

  • HP 1018 MP 685
« Reply #15 on: May 13, 2011, 06:09:53 PM »
Not necessarily, the former is supported by empirical evidence (or at least suggests that if God exists he or she cannot be discovered through legitimate natural methods) while the latter is just another strange "explanation" (like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.) for the origin of everything.

Would you mind sharing this empirical evidence that supports your statement?

« Reply #16 on: May 13, 2011, 06:42:32 PM »
Look it up yourself. It still stands that abstract concepts like the afterlife cannot be proven by natural means.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2011, 06:50:42 PM by PaperLuigi »
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

CrossEyed7

  • i can make this whatever i want; you're not my dad
« Reply #17 on: May 13, 2011, 07:34:16 PM »
Look it up yourself. It still stands that abstract concepts like the afterlife cannot be proven by natural means.
A: That's kinda why it's called "supernatural." Who decided that natural explanations are the only possible legitimate ones -- not in science, but in life? Who decided that scientific knowledge is the only real knowledge -- which is itself a philosophical, not scientific, assertion?

So science can't deal with God. Big surprise. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Science cannot possibly disprove God, because God is outside the defined purview of science.

Using science to deny God is the same thing as that blogger saying Friendship is Magic is racist. She looked at the show already assuming it was made by racists and looked for things to interpret racially, then acted shocked at her own interpretations ("Those ponies there are kinda dark grey. If the animators are racists, then those are black slave ponies. ...Oh my God, this show has black slave ponies! Therefore the animators are racist!"). Using science is the equivalent of looking at the world and asking "How did this happen if a wizard didn't do it?" Science then says "Well, if a wizard didn't do it, then it had to happen this way." Then you say "Look at this! Science says a wizard didn't do it because it happened this way!" That's what you're doing.

You're taking the "If p, then q" ("If Lauren Faust is racist, then there are slave ponies." or "If God doesn't exist, then science."); then saying "p because q". If you assume that p is true, then q is also true. But then, while under that assumption, you say to yourself, "Oh, look, q is true now!" and expand that out as a universal truth, and then look back at the original statement of "If p, then q" and say "Well, q is true, so p must also be true," which wouldn't even necessarily follow anyway (it's not "if and only if". There could be slave ponies because Lauren Faust wants to make a point about racial issues; God could be using natural means for his own purposes).

B: Maybe not. I haven't read it yet, but I just put in a request for it at my library. I'll let you know if it's any good.

C: This is starting to get a little off-topic I think (if there even is a topic). We're ending up in the same fundamental philosophical questions as we always do.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2011, 07:47:42 PM by CrossEyed7 »
"Oh man, I wish being a part of a Mario fan community was the most embarrassing thing about my life." - Super-Jesse

« Reply #18 on: May 13, 2011, 07:45:28 PM »
A: That's kinda why it's called "supernatural." Who decided that natural explanations are the only possible legitimate ones -- not in science, but in life? Who decided that scientific knowledge is the only real knowledge -- which is itself a philosophical, not scientific, assertion?

Well, it's all we've got really. Anyone can assert that they've had a supernatural experience. Would you believe me if I told you that I spoke with a rainbow pegasus last night?

So science can't deal with God. Big surprise. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Science cannot possibly disprove God, because God is outside the defined purview of science.

Well, okay then. Same thing with a space teapot. We can't disprove it, but would you accept its existence with absolute certainty anyway?

C: This is starting to get a little off-topic I think (if there even is a topic). We're ending up in the same fundamental philosophical questions as we always do.

Eh I agree.
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

BriGuy92

  • Luck of the Irish
« Reply #19 on: May 13, 2011, 09:06:31 PM »
As far as you creative endeavors, and your uncertainty with your abilities, what's wrong with creating but not showing it until you are comfortable with you skill level? Or, display it in a more passive manner.
The thing is, I tend to not want anyone seeing it at all. Like, not even in a "curious passerby" kind of way. I guess the best way to get over that would be to just do it, though.
Know the most important contribution of the organ Fund science girls type. It's true!

Black Mage

  • HP 1018 MP 685
« Reply #20 on: May 13, 2011, 09:38:01 PM »
Look it up yourself. It still stands that abstract concepts like the afterlife cannot be proven by natural means.

If you're not willing to back it up, don't make the statements. I don't even know where I'd begin to search for a scientific study of the correlation of a person's "will" and their belief in God or an afterlife.

Your second statement is true, but science cannot explain many things. But that doesn't stop me from yawning.

« Reply #21 on: May 13, 2011, 10:13:40 PM »
Science can't explain everything...yet. And I wouldn't attribute the unknown to a god.
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

CrossEyed7

  • i can make this whatever i want; you're not my dad
« Reply #22 on: May 13, 2011, 10:29:41 PM »
Science will never be able to explain everything because it can't explain why you picked science in the first place.
"Oh man, I wish being a part of a Mario fan community was the most embarrassing thing about my life." - Super-Jesse

BP

  • Beside Pacific
« Reply #23 on: May 13, 2011, 10:31:23 PM »
Gods used to explain flames, tides, the rising sun, storms, languages.

I wonder if there was ever a god whose poetic tales explained why we shiver when we pee
All your dreeeeeeams begiiin to shatterrrrrr~
It's YOUR problem!

« Reply #24 on: May 13, 2011, 10:36:59 PM »
Science will never be able to explain everything because it can't explain why you picked science in the first place.

...I'm not sure I understand your argument. Perhaps science can't explain a lot of "out there" things like reason, consciousness and love, but I'd like to think that it could, given that it's explained a lot of once "unexplainable" happenings.

If you're not willing to back it up, don't make the statements. I don't even know where I'd begin to search for a scientific study of the correlation of a person's "will" and their belief in God or an afterlife.

No no no, I was saying that it's likely that the Christian god doesn't exist because empirical evidence has disproven a lot of "supernatural" events in the Bible. I concluded that people who accept it anyway are fooling themselves. They're being weak. That's just my take on it.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2011, 10:49:35 PM by PaperLuigi »
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Black Mage

  • HP 1018 MP 685
« Reply #25 on: May 13, 2011, 11:05:45 PM »
No no no, I was saying that it's likely that the Christian god doesn't exist because empirical evidence has disproven a lot of "supernatural" events in the Bible. I concluded that people who accept it anyway are fooling themselves. They're being weak. That's just my take on it.

I see. But I don't really see how you can come to that conclusion unless you take every story in the Bible literally.

CrossEyed7

  • i can make this whatever i want; you're not my dad
« Reply #26 on: May 13, 2011, 11:23:48 PM »
No no no, I was saying that it's likely that the Christian god doesn't exist because empirical evidence has disproven a lot of "supernatural" events in the Bible.
I'd be interested to see this empirical evidence that disproves the Bible. Carbon-dating that shows that no one named Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale? Debunking of the significant evidence for the resurrection of Christ?

I mean, on the one hand, it'd be derailing an already derailed thread, but on the other hand, it's an unsupported assertion that I really don't want to leave unchallenged. Hrm.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2011, 11:33:30 PM by CrossEyed7 »
"Oh man, I wish being a part of a Mario fan community was the most embarrassing thing about my life." - Super-Jesse

BP

  • Beside Pacific
« Reply #27 on: May 13, 2011, 11:37:04 PM »
And that's the standstill--how do you prove Greg didn't walk on water and give sight to the blind and return from the dead? Easy. You can't do that, so he didn't. There are proofs that humans just can't.

Apply the same proofs to Jesus, the retort is that he was magic.

Argue that he couldn't have been magic, the retort is yes he was
All your dreeeeeeams begiiin to shatterrrrrr~
It's YOUR problem!

« Reply #28 on: May 13, 2011, 11:39:40 PM »
And that's when I say, "You know, it could've happened but it's not likely."

I see. But I don't really see how you can come to that conclusion unless you take every story in the Bible literally.

My reasoning is that the Bible is supposed to be perfect, but it's not. It's full of inaccuracies outright impossibilities. Why should I take it seriously if it says it's inerrant but it's not?

EDIT: I'm actually laughing pretty hard. BriGuy92 comes to us and he's really depressed and we're like "sure we'll help and stuff" and then this.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2011, 11:46:45 PM by PaperLuigi »
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

BP

  • Beside Pacific
« Reply #29 on: May 13, 2011, 11:46:26 PM »
And that's why I don't like to press what I think on to people (intentionally, at least). I can't prove I'm right. It can't be proven I'm wrong. The only worthwhile religious debates to me are the political ones, where the issue is preserving a government free of it

My reasoning is that the Bible is supposed to be perfect, but it's not.

It is also partially forged, possibly

Whether or not the Bible is full of [dukar] isn't a point I count against Christians though, I took most of it as myths even when I was pious
« Last Edit: May 13, 2011, 11:50:18 PM by BP »
All your dreeeeeeams begiiin to shatterrrrrr~
It's YOUR problem!

Print