Religion Vs God

[Dywyddyr]

Why not? That link certainly didn't give me a reason.

Then you didn't read the OP.
There's no telepathy for the same reason that there's no telekinesis: there's no force to transmit it. And IF telepathy were possible then it would be a genetic advantage...

And I've experienced things that are not explained nor refuted by science.

Not explained OR refuted?
Really?
Such as?

Why be so close-minded?

Maybe because I prefer to stick to reality and avoid woo wooism.

 

[Lori_7]

Then you didn't read the OP.
There's no telepathy for the same reason that there's no telekinesis: there's no force to transmit it. And IF telepathy were possible then it would be a genetic advantage...


Not explained OR refuted?
Really?
Such as?


Maybe because I prefer to stick to reality and avoid woo wooism.

You mean no force discovered and documented by science? I'm sure that covers a near infinite number of things, such as a spirit for example.

I have experienced things that let me know without a doubt that there is plenty unexplained, by science or anything else.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You mean no force discovered and documented by science?

There IS no force that can do it, i.e. it's not a case of an "undiscovered" force, it's a non-existent one.
If there were we'd be able to spot it easily.

I'm sure that covers a near infinite number of things, such as a spirit for example.

Exactly.
No spirit either.

I have experienced things that let me know without a doubt that there is plenty unexplained, by science or anything else.

But you also claimed that science hasn't refuted these things.
And these things would be...?

 

[earth]

You mean no force discovered and documented by science? I'm sure that covers a near infinite number of things, such as a spirit for example.

I have experienced things that let me know without a doubt that there is plenty unexplained, by science or anything else.

Have you had any experiences involving spirits?

edit add: maybe you could be a candidate for a ghost hunters episode.

 

[NMSquirrel]

There IS no force that can do it, i.e. it's not a case of an "undiscovered" force, it's a non-existent one.
If there were we'd be able to spot it easily.

as far as telepathy goes...
the ability to read someones mind..
may not be so unbelievible if you consider..
some ppl have a certain amount of sensitivity to read someone..to read their body language,to read their facial features,their eyes,their tone..etc..
IMO telepathy is not so much a supernatural phenomenon as it is an attention thing..those who have been married for a long time can understand what i am trying to say..
some claim it to be a supernatural thing..but i do not think so..its more of a ability to read someones body language and such..

there is a theory that says you can read a persons mind by holding their hand..the thoughts are translated to nerve impulses through their hand, and if a person is sensitive enough to feel those twitches in someone elses hand, there is a possibility of translating those impulses back into what the other person is thinking..

i actually looked for a link to what i am refering to..didn't find it right away..but did find lots of stuff on the science of mind reading..we are getting closer to reading minds on a scientific level...

 

[Dywyddyr]

as far as telepathy goes...
the ability to read someones mind..
may not be so unbelievible if you consider..
some ppl have a certain amount of sensitivity to read someone..to read their body language,to read their facial features,their eyes,their tone..etc..
IMO telepathy is not so much a supernatural phenomenon as it is an attention thing..those who have been married for a long time can understand what i am trying to say..
some claim it to be a supernatural thing..but i do not think so..its more of a ability to read someones body language and such..

I'll certainly grant high degrees of empathy and such, but actually reading someone's mind? Knowing exactly what their thoughts are, word for word?
Derren Brown had a pretty good trick where he'd talk to someone (completely unknown to him prior to the act) and say exactly what they were saying at the same time (no discernible lag): that could be called mind-reading to an extent. But Brown states categorically that it's a psychological/ physiological trick - mentalism.

there is a theory that says you can read a persons mind by holding their hand..the thoughts are translated to nerve impulses through their hand, and if a person is sensitive enough to feel those twitches in someone elses hand, there is a possibility of translating those impulses back into what the other person is thinking..

That would pre-suppose that thoughts are transmitted through the nerves to the extremities, (as opposed to motor impulses/ pain signals [do they go both ways?]).
I doubt (although I haven't seen, or looked, for evidence) that a thought such as "Hmm, I wonder if there's any ice cream left in the freezer, oh have I put the cat out yet?" gets transmitted down the arm, to a hand and is capable of being "reverse-engineered" in the brain of a person holding the thinker's hand.

 

[earth]

That would pre-suppose that thoughts are transmitted through the nerves to the extremities, (as opposed to motor impulses/ pain signals [do they go both ways?]).
I doubt (although I haven't seen, or looked, for evidence) that a thought such as "Hmm, I wonder if there's any ice cream left in the freezer, oh have I put the cat out yet?" gets transmitted down the arm, to a hand and is capable of being "reverse-engineered" in the brain of a person holding the thinker's hand.

Amputees losing an arm sometimes experience the feeling of a clinched fist even though the arm has been amputated. The remedy is to have the person experiencing the clinched fist stand next to a mirror with his real arm and hand visible in the mirror while opening his fist. Doing this exercise by the amputee relaxes the brain and relieves the clinched fist feelings.

 

[NMSquirrel]

I'll certainly grant high degrees of empathy and such, but actually reading someone's mind? Knowing exactly what their thoughts are, word for word?
Derren Brown had a pretty good trick where he'd talk to someone (completely unknown to him prior to the act) and say exactly what they were saying at the same time (no discernible lag): that could be called mind-reading to an extent. But Brown states categorically that it's a psychological/ physiological trick - mentalism.


That would pre-suppose that thoughts are transmitted through the nerves to the extremities, (as opposed to motor impulses/ pain signals [do they go both ways?]).
I doubt (although I haven't seen, or looked, for evidence) that a thought such as "Hmm, I wonder if there's any ice cream left in the freezer, oh have I put the cat out yet?" gets transmitted down the arm, to a hand and is capable of being "reverse-engineered" in the brain of a person holding the thinker's hand.

here is one result from the search 'mind reading science'

alot of this is still in its infancy,but it still means it is possible..

 

[earth]

here is one result from the search 'mind reading science'

alot of this is still in its infancy,but it still means it is possible..

Combine mind reading technology with the Blue Brain Project and extracting images from the brain, what kind of robotic capabilities await the future of humans?

p.s. In the future there isn't going to be a need to torture anyone to extract information, they will have robots picking our brains telepathically.

 

[CHRISCUNNINGHAM]

Whoa back up the crazy train dude the bible is either true or not you cannot just say well that part is not right but the rest of it is. Dont work that way not in the real world either the whole thing is crap or it is not if the whole thing is crap then there is no god.

Grim there is an infinite number of times when "part of it is true" and some things are not... in science and the world as a whole...it does happen, indeed it's the only way logic happens.

Einstein thought that along with his theory of relativity, the universe would not be expanding and would remain static, relativity... true...static, non-expanding universe... false...

Atoms being a major building block of matter and being the smallest particle...

Atoms...true...smallest block...false...

Kepler's Laws...true...keplers belief in a heliocentric universe...false...

And so on...

It happens regularly...the point is that the bibles statements CAN'T be proven false, that's why much of this debate is pointless...I am surely not arguing that it is right grim, nor would I dare argue that the antropomorphic God reeking of man's inadequacies and imperfections exists as a universe-governing entity...

I have simply made a very heavy realization in recent days (of which I will make a thread on) that there is battle between two sets of initial conditions to prove the other false, but it can't logically happen. You cannot argue successfully against the three tenets I wrote in the post you commented on...oh 5 pages ago. You have your own set of initial conditions, and are arguing against a opposing set of initial conditions, but they end up being two different systems, that, by their very existence cannot prove the other FALSE. It is like saying:

In my world oranges are apples. In your world Oranges should be called apples.

But you would say Apples are apples and oranges are oranges...

In my world you're wrong...

And yet we attempt to debate it ad infinitum...

 

[(Q)]

I have experienced things that let me know without a doubt that there is plenty unexplained, by science or anything else.

Your condition is easily explained by science and does not include things that go bump in the night.

 

[(Q)]

I don't use the bible as a text book, and I don't believe in god and christ because its written. But the bible does provide meaning to what I experience.

More contradiction. You would have never known about god and christ without having read it in the bible first. Don't put the cart before the horse, Lori.

 

[NMSquirrel]

More contradiction. You would have never known about god and christ without having read it in the bible first. Don't put the cart before the horse, Lori.

why are you so sure of that Q?

what makes you think someone has to be told or read about god in order for them to believe in god?

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Grim there is an infinite number of times when "part of it is true" and some things are not... in science and the world as a whole...it does happen, indeed it's the only way logic happens.

Einstein thought that along with his theory of relativity, the universe would not be expanding and would remain static, relativity... true...static, non-expanding universe... false...

Atoms being a major building block of matter and being the smallest particle...

Atoms...true...smallest block...false...

Kepler's Laws...true...keplers belief in a heliocentric universe...false...

And so on...

It happens regularly...the point is that the bibles statements CAN'T be proven false, that's why much of this debate is pointless...I am surely not arguing that it is right grim, nor would I dare argue that the antropomorphic God reeking of man's inadequacies and imperfections exists as a universe-governing entity...

I have simply made a very heavy realization in recent days (of which I will make a thread on) that there is battle between two sets of initial conditions to prove the other false, but it can't logically happen. You cannot argue successfully against the three tenets I wrote in the post you commented on...oh 5 pages ago. You have your own set of initial conditions, and are arguing against a opposing set of initial conditions, but they end up being two different systems, that, by their very existence cannot prove the other FALSE. It is like saying:

In my world oranges are apples. In your world Oranges should be called apples.

But you would say Apples are apples and oranges are oranges...

In my world you're wrong...

And yet we attempt to debate it ad infinitum...

Yes and on that note Physical world you can see taste touch smell and interact with = True

Mythical being floating in the clouds = False.

So therefore the Bible and the mythical being in the clouds is wrong.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Honestly, I really don't like to hypothesize or interpret it myself. I'd rather the holy spirit do that for me.

Oh really and then the "Holy Spirit" AKA suppressed personality then selects the line of thought you want to execute then. This could all so be know as mental influencing a form of mind control.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Grim_Reaper,
Full marks for trying, but you aint foolin no one.
Why didn't you carry on with the rest of the verse namely "...and let THEM...." What part of that didn't you understand?

Well that Them would be Adam and Eve that would be them

Grim_Reaper,

Oh really?
How do you know this?

jan.

Well I know this by reading history books that are a bit more tangibly then the bible for starters. And in the Histoy Books it tells stories of how women were not very well placed in most societies and that they needed a man to get them through day to day stuff. And you still see evidence of this in the modern world where women are not treated to well in many many countries including thoose from where the Bible sprang. So you read the books they say the same thing that you are seeing and well you can do the math I am sure of that.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't find evidence of a creator in the fossil record, this is the observation. I wouldn't expect to find a fossil record denoting evolution if the creation story were true.

Its not clear what role evolution plays in discrediting creation ... unless you are alluding to abiogenesis

How does this relate to the human evolution fossils? How does it relate to the opinions of specialist in their fields of study?





How does this relate to the human evolution fossils? How does it relate to the opinions of specialist in their fields of study?

certain conclusions don't have the possibility of appearing in a set of observations if the tools/application of the observation have inherent problems

My question to you is from where does one derive knowledge in reality? Be factual.

In a general sense, all forms of knowledge (even the factual variety) follows the course of theory -> application - > conclusion

Knowledge:
acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.

the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

Just as a brief example, suppose someone is saying that they know who their father is. Does that mean they were personally present to witness their conception or that they have performed the required genetic tests? Or do they rely on a means different from empiricism?

Or even just to play the card of empiricism; suppose one wanted to directly perceive the president. Would the only prerequisites to verify that claim require that one has the ability to open a few doors and walk a few flights of steps at the appropriate building? Or are there are essential factors that come into play to enable one to get past the front desk of the first of his 100 secretaries that lie outside of a standard empirical analysis of the problem?

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes and on that note Physical world you can see taste touch smell and interact with = True

Mythical being floating in the clouds = False.

So therefore the Bible and the mythical being in the clouds is wrong.

the essence of the debate is whether religion offers a means to interact with god.

Simply to come in and say "see I proved you are wrong by saying its mythical" is begging the question.

 

[iceaura]

what makes you think someone has to be told or read about god in order for them to believe in god?

Lack of examples otherwise. No missionaries from the heathen, missionaries to the heathen always find it necessary to inform, persuade, etc.

the essence of the debate is whether religion offers a means to interact with god.

Simply to come in and say "see I proved you are wrong by saying its mythical" is begging the question.

The first sentence is as calculated and deceptive an example of question begging as can be accomplished in one sentence.

 

[lightgigantic]

The first sentence is as calculated and deceptive an example of question begging as can be accomplished in one sentence.

you don't think there's one camp advocating there is a means and another there isn't?


or are you simply trying to whitewash the issue by saying there is only one camp, namely yours?