Show me the evidence.
- Thread starter snow
- Start date
whatsup,
Again to date everything that science has investigated and researched to the degree that it is ”clearly understood” is based entirely on natural events and laws. Now again if you believe I am wrong then you can simply show me a scientifically based proof that includes the alleged supernatural as a primary cause.
The issue of the creation of life is still on the leading edge of science and so this is not something that is ”clearly understood”, hence my qualifying phrase “when something is clearly understood”.
You seem to be desperately trying to accuse me of things I haven’t said. Twisting my words and adding your own phrasing and interpretations doesn’t add anything to your arguments but does instead make you appear completely lost for anything else to say. It certainly doesn’t help your case for a proof for the existence of your alleged god, for which of course you still have not presented a shred of credible evidence.
Perhaps when we “Clearly Understand” life then maybe there will be an opening for a supernatural opportunity. But to date science has a 100% record of discovery that shows no need of gods or the supernatural.
However, with such a perfect record it is not unreasonable to speculate on the basis of probability that when science does “clearly understand “life then it seems highly probable that a god won’t be involved in that either.
Provide some credible scientific evidence for your god or admit there is none and all you have are dreams and fantasies.
Science has to date not shown that anything supernatural exists. All of science is therefore based on the natural world simply because we know of nothing else.
Again to date everything that science has investigated and researched to the degree that it is ”clearly understood” is based entirely on natural events and laws. Now again if you believe I am wrong then you can simply show me a scientifically based proof that includes the alleged supernatural as a primary cause.
The issue of the creation of life is still on the leading edge of science and so this is not something that is ”clearly understood”, hence my qualifying phrase “when something is clearly understood”.
You seem to be desperately trying to accuse me of things I haven’t said. Twisting my words and adding your own phrasing and interpretations doesn’t add anything to your arguments but does instead make you appear completely lost for anything else to say. It certainly doesn’t help your case for a proof for the existence of your alleged god, for which of course you still have not presented a shred of credible evidence.
Perhaps when we “Clearly Understand” life then maybe there will be an opening for a supernatural opportunity. But to date science has a 100% record of discovery that shows no need of gods or the supernatural.
However, with such a perfect record it is not unreasonable to speculate on the basis of probability that when science does “clearly understand “life then it seems highly probable that a god won’t be involved in that either.
Done. So now how about some evidence for your alleged god? Or are you going to make even more excuses, or accuse others of saying things they haven’t said, and all the time making belligerent assertions of how everyone else is stupid except for you?
Provide some credible scientific evidence for your god or admit there is none and all you have are dreams and fantasies.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Evidence refuted
Jesus said that if you have faith the size of a mustard seed nothing will be impossible and used the moving mountain as an example.
~Raithere
Yes, it does matter because the addition is technically unconstitutional.
No. It doesn't.
Then please do show me the passages from the Bible that advocate Democracy. Please... I'll be quite interested.
If a 6 year old could respond to it why can't you?
No. A parable is a story that illustrates a lesson.
Jesus said that if you have faith the size of a mustard seed nothing will be impossible and used the moving mountain as an example.
So you don't believe Christianity offers people security and forgiveness of their sins?
Exactly my point. So how do you know who died for truth and who died for falsehood? That they died obviously does not indicate whether their belief was true or not.
Lovely notion, that.
Yes, yes, yes, yes! Most of them did. Of course, the point is tertiary. There are plenty of examples; this is only one of them. Or are you trying to deny the fact the people have died for false beliefs.
~Raithere
I agreed 100% with this post except for the following:
The bible for instance is most dangerous in my opinion because it is not entirely based in fantasy. It has in it what were likely... real people doing real things. The problem with it's authenticity is difficult for most people to understand because they do not have the motivation or capacity to realize the following: As the bible was being written (in all the various sections across all of the various years when PEOPLE were writing it (that was for the christians, pardon (I'm sure they're all "oh yeah, well, god told them to" the morons) they had no scientific context by which to establish events that seemed incredulous to them. Drought, famine, anything and everything had divine implication because there was no context established by which to make a rational assertion.
So basically, (and they might have been THE MOST BRILLIANT people of the time) people saw something real happen, then made up whatever bullshit story satiated their need for context at time (due to no fault of their own at the time, how many as a percentage of the populous do you think COULD write any of their bullshit down?... if so, given this rarity (of being able to write it), it may have held more weight than schmucks like us writing down what we see now eh?). The sad part IMHO, is that people don't understand this.. and attempt to prove that things in the bible were "true". IMHO, you have to be a freakin MORON to buy the bible in a literal sense.. and you're a needy bitch if you try to find the "parabolic" (so to speak) meaning in it.
Ya think?
The bible for instance is most dangerous in my opinion because it is not entirely based in fantasy. It has in it what were likely... real people doing real things. The problem with it's authenticity is difficult for most people to understand because they do not have the motivation or capacity to realize the following: As the bible was being written (in all the various sections across all of the various years when PEOPLE were writing it (that was for the christians, pardon (I'm sure they're all "oh yeah, well, god told them to" the morons) they had no scientific context by which to establish events that seemed incredulous to them. Drought, famine, anything and everything had divine implication because there was no context established by which to make a rational assertion.
So basically, (and they might have been THE MOST BRILLIANT people of the time) people saw something real happen, then made up whatever bullshit story satiated their need for context at time (due to no fault of their own at the time, how many as a percentage of the populous do you think COULD write any of their bullshit down?... if so, given this rarity (of being able to write it), it may have held more weight than schmucks like us writing down what we see now eh?). The sad part IMHO, is that people don't understand this.. and attempt to prove that things in the bible were "true". IMHO, you have to be a freakin MORON to buy the bible in a literal sense.. and you're a needy bitch if you try to find the "parabolic" (so to speak) meaning in it.
Ya think?
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
The Bible "is not entirely" a religious text. It is layered myth conflated with beautiful poetry, valuable folklore, intriguing social discourse, and nationalist propaganda. It is, in fact, a remarkable text. I find it a bit sad that so many atheists hold it in such contempt.
Religion bases its hope on superstitious fantasies and myth. How it attempts to rationalize this dependency is a different issue.
To Chris, I'm ready with the evidance to show you proof for thesitic view. I think this is very relevant to this site.
- Life is a non existance or fantacy to the dead people.
- Life is a reality to the living, Death is also a reality for the living.
- Life is then a (quasi reality) to the living.
- Death is also a (quasi reality) for the dead and the living.
- Judgement must be a phasiatic stage to transform a person from quasi reality to absolute reality.
Please send me comments on this, so I may refine
- Life is a non existance or fantacy to the dead people.
- Life is a reality to the living, Death is also a reality for the living.
- Life is then a (quasi reality) to the living.
- Death is also a (quasi reality) for the dead and the living.
- Judgement must be a phasiatic stage to transform a person from quasi reality to absolute reality.
Please send me comments on this, so I may refine
Well, I'd certainly say it's remarkable from the circulation perspective, but I do not appreciate your implication. I was merely trying to make a point which you did not directly refute. Much of the superstious fantasy and myth you are so adamant about is derived from many different interpretations of the "remarkable text" you seem to be so impressed with. Indeed, from a perspective it is definately impressive.. but not when applied as "god's word" or any such BS.
Many agnostics dislike it as well, for many aithiests and agnostics have fundamental problems with the idea of religion. Since in the western world it is the book that represents religion moreso than any other, it is not difficult to see where people who dislike religion might have a problem with it.
You can say "the bible is not entirely a relgious text" all you fucking want to, but ask T and W about that. Then you can go debate them for all I care. I was trying to offer you additional insight which you don't bother to refute specifically and then you go and reiterate your original point.. adding a little flavor about history and how pathetic you think some people are for disrespecting the bible. Now I think it's pathetic or.. sorry, you said "sad" that you would disrespect ME, for having attempted to bolster your argument..
Maybe I took you wrong, in that case, maybe the jackass is typing this message... but other people have valuable input, jackass. It would do you well to contemplate it deeply before snidely remarking about how "sad" you think they are.
heflores,
- Life is a non existence or fantasy to the dead people.
This is phrased as if dead people have some degree of awareness. If something is dead it has an absence of life and cannot experience fantasies or anything.
- Life is a reality to the living, Death is also a reality for the living.
Life and death are mutually exclusive. One is either alive or one is dead. The transition is from life to death with no return. If someone is alive then they can experience reality. If they are dead they cannot experience anything. It follows then that it is impossible for something living to be aware of being dead in which case death is NOT reality to the living.
- Life is then a (quasi reality) to the living.
This is now invalid since the first two premises are invalid. Life can only be a reality to the living since the living cannot experience anything else, especially not death.
- Death is also a (quasi reality) for the dead and the living.
This is also invalid since the dead cannot experience anything and the living can only experience life. Reality only has meaning to the living.
- Judgment must be a phasiatic stage to transform a person from quasi reality to absolute reality.
Since the other premises are invalid then this conclusion is equally invalid. From the above explanations we can see that there is only one reality - i.e. that experienced by living. The only other state is death and it is not possible for the dead to experience anything let alone any form of reality, and neither is it possible for the living to also be dead.
Does that help?
I see your train of thought but I have several objections to the premises which invalidates your syllogism.
- Life is a non existence or fantasy to the dead people.
This is phrased as if dead people have some degree of awareness. If something is dead it has an absence of life and cannot experience fantasies or anything.
- Life is a reality to the living, Death is also a reality for the living.
Life and death are mutually exclusive. One is either alive or one is dead. The transition is from life to death with no return. If someone is alive then they can experience reality. If they are dead they cannot experience anything. It follows then that it is impossible for something living to be aware of being dead in which case death is NOT reality to the living.
- Life is then a (quasi reality) to the living.
This is now invalid since the first two premises are invalid. Life can only be a reality to the living since the living cannot experience anything else, especially not death.
- Death is also a (quasi reality) for the dead and the living.
This is also invalid since the dead cannot experience anything and the living can only experience life. Reality only has meaning to the living.
- Judgment must be a phasiatic stage to transform a person from quasi reality to absolute reality.
Since the other premises are invalid then this conclusion is equally invalid. From the above explanations we can see that there is only one reality - i.e. that experienced by living. The only other state is death and it is not possible for the dead to experience anything let alone any form of reality, and neither is it possible for the living to also be dead.
Does that help?
I politely disagree. I have to go to bed after this post, I'll come back tomorrow to continue.
- Life is a non existence or fantasy to the dead people.
This is phrased as if dead people have some degree of awareness. If something is dead it has an absence of life and cannot experience fantasies or anything.
heflores: I disagree, because I said life is non existance or fantacy, so the or command dictates that you must explore the option that life is non existance for the dead, which make us agree.
- Life is a reality to the living, Death is also a reality for the living.
Life and death are mutually exclusive. One is either alive or one is dead. The transition is from life to death with no return. If someone is alive then they can experience reality. If they are dead they cannot experience anything. It follows then that it is impossible for something living to be aware of being dead in which case death is NOT reality to the living.
heflores: I disagree, life and death are not mutually exclusive. Death is a result of life, death can not happen if life didn't happen. One can not die if one did not live. So they are not mutually exclusive.
I'll stop here, because it's useless to continue until we agree on that point.
Chris, I appreciate your help in developing my logic.
- Life is a non existence or fantasy to the dead people.
This is phrased as if dead people have some degree of awareness. If something is dead it has an absence of life and cannot experience fantasies or anything.
heflores: I disagree, because I said life is non existance or fantacy, so the or command dictates that you must explore the option that life is non existance for the dead, which make us agree.
- Life is a reality to the living, Death is also a reality for the living.
Life and death are mutually exclusive. One is either alive or one is dead. The transition is from life to death with no return. If someone is alive then they can experience reality. If they are dead they cannot experience anything. It follows then that it is impossible for something living to be aware of being dead in which case death is NOT reality to the living.
heflores: I disagree, life and death are not mutually exclusive. Death is a result of life, death can not happen if life didn't happen. One can not die if one did not live. So they are not mutually exclusive.
I'll stop here, because it's useless to continue until we agree on that point.
Chris, I appreciate your help in developing my logic.
I've skimmed all the posts on this topic and frankly, I'm amazed (perhaps dazed is a better term). I'm a Christian, and so far, I think Vienna has posted the most intelligent observation I've read so far:
There are boundaries to rational thought (deductive reasoning et al), but human intelligence and awareness are not limited to those boundaries. August Kekule discovered the structure of benzene not by plodding along a line of reasoning from beginning to inevitable end. He fell asleep and had a dream that a snake was swallowing its tail. In other words he had a vision, a revelation. The image contained information that was relevant to the context framed by his rational mind. You might argue that this was inductive reasoning, but that's a stretch and I don't agree with it. I think it's an entirely different mode of intelligence that for the most part atrophies in the Western mind through lack of attention. It's treated as a curiosity or as a branch of psychology that doesn't have much to offer in day to day living or scientific inquiry. And I rebuke that idea.
To rely solely on the logical mind is to deliberately commit yourself to being a half-wit. To Vienna's point, the madness begins when you seriously consider the possibility that the vision, dream, sign, symbol emotion, thought comes from 'outside yourself'. How do I explain all the times that I've had a memorable, intense dream about someone, and then called them up only to find out that they were in trouble and needed help? Coincidence? Perhaps. Perhaps not. (The phone rings. "Oh - it's YOU! What a coincidence. I was just thinking about you!). So I'm mad. Prove it. Show me the evidence.
Whatsupyall - please re-read Luke 18:10-11, Proverbs 9:5-8 and Ephesians 4:29-32. If you are going to treat atheists like they're your enemies, then please follow Jesus' teaching regarding how we are to treat our enemies. You need to repent, brother and seek forgiveness.
I'm declaring Vienna the winner, because I can't find a single argument against in this statement. There is no empirical evidence to prove the existence of God. I consider myself to be an intelligent Christian (stop snickering, it's not an oxymoron) and I wouldn't be caught dead trying to make an empirical argument providing evidence for the existence of God, especially to someone who has no need of God. (Trying to prove that God doesn't exist is also futile, but I don't expect that statement will stop Cris for one second
There are boundaries to rational thought (deductive reasoning et al), but human intelligence and awareness are not limited to those boundaries. August Kekule discovered the structure of benzene not by plodding along a line of reasoning from beginning to inevitable end. He fell asleep and had a dream that a snake was swallowing its tail. In other words he had a vision, a revelation. The image contained information that was relevant to the context framed by his rational mind. You might argue that this was inductive reasoning, but that's a stretch and I don't agree with it. I think it's an entirely different mode of intelligence that for the most part atrophies in the Western mind through lack of attention. It's treated as a curiosity or as a branch of psychology that doesn't have much to offer in day to day living or scientific inquiry. And I rebuke that idea.
To rely solely on the logical mind is to deliberately commit yourself to being a half-wit. To Vienna's point, the madness begins when you seriously consider the possibility that the vision, dream, sign, symbol emotion, thought comes from 'outside yourself'. How do I explain all the times that I've had a memorable, intense dream about someone, and then called them up only to find out that they were in trouble and needed help? Coincidence? Perhaps. Perhaps not. (The phone rings. "Oh - it's YOU! What a coincidence. I was just thinking about you!). So I'm mad. Prove it. Show me the evidence.
Whatsupyall - please re-read Luke 18:10-11, Proverbs 9:5-8 and Ephesians 4:29-32. If you are going to treat atheists like they're your enemies, then please follow Jesus' teaching regarding how we are to treat our enemies. You need to repent, brother and seek forgiveness.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
So? You don't even appreciate the explication.
You took objection to my assertion that "Religion bases its hope on superstitious fantasies and myth." You then proceded to preach about how insidious the Bible is. I was focused on clarifying that assertion and at no time thought that you had raised a point warranting refutation.
Derived or codified? The superstitious fantasy and myth far preceded Jewish and Christian canon.
So? I'm sure that many agnostics and atheists dislike books on solid geometry and the history of opera. Furthermore, argumentum ad numerum is pretty underwhelming.
How very democratic and mature ...
They are most welcome to comment.
In truth, I find you more vulgar than insightful. As for refuting your attempts as insight, see above.
I did not say:
- "some people are" "pathetic" "for disrespecting the bible".
- "I find it a bit sad that so many atheists hold it in such contempt. "
You don't handle disagreement very well, do you.
A noble beast. For example:
Other people, yes. You, apparently not.
Due to either ignorance or dishonesty, this is the second time that you've distorted what I said. How sad ...
[Edited to correct formatting - RD]
Last edited:
- Life is a reality to the living, Death is also a reality for the living.
Chris said : Life and death are mutually exclusive. One is either alive or one is dead. The transition is from life to death with no return. If someone is alive then they can experience reality. If they are dead they cannot experience anything. It follows then that it is impossible for something living to be aware of being dead in which case death is NOT reality to the living.
heflores says: I disagree, life and death are not mutually exclusive. I will show you that they're not only related by cause and effect, but are subset of one another.
Case and Effect:
- Death is a result of life, death can not happen if life didn't happen. One can not die if one did not live.
Life and death overlap and are subset of one another:
-Our skin is constantly dying and replacing.
-Our body cells are constantly dying and replacing, while we are
still alive.
- What may be percieved as a dead seed, gives life, so life must be contained within death.
Please note that cause and effect implies a very strong subsety of one another, Something can't cause another without being related to it. (I thought that's what Atheists tell Theists all the time)
Awaiting patiently your reply.
I'll stop here, because it's useless to continue until we agree on that point.
Chris, I appreciate your help in developing my logic. [/B][/QUOTE]
Chris said : Life and death are mutually exclusive. One is either alive or one is dead. The transition is from life to death with no return. If someone is alive then they can experience reality. If they are dead they cannot experience anything. It follows then that it is impossible for something living to be aware of being dead in which case death is NOT reality to the living.
heflores says: I disagree, life and death are not mutually exclusive. I will show you that they're not only related by cause and effect, but are subset of one another.
Case and Effect:
- Death is a result of life, death can not happen if life didn't happen. One can not die if one did not live.
Life and death overlap and are subset of one another:
-Our skin is constantly dying and replacing.
-Our body cells are constantly dying and replacing, while we are
still alive.
- What may be percieved as a dead seed, gives life, so life must be contained within death.
Please note that cause and effect implies a very strong subsety of one another, Something can't cause another without being related to it. (I thought that's what Atheists tell Theists all the time)
Awaiting patiently your reply.
I'll stop here, because it's useless to continue until we agree on that point.
Chris, I appreciate your help in developing my logic. [/B][/QUOTE]
It may be perceived in this way, but would you say a woman's eggs are dead until they are fertilized? As you say, death requires life to have happened beforehand. A seed is never really alive before it grows into a tree, so it cannot be dead.
I see one flaw in your arguement here. You say life and death overlap, because we are alive but our cells are constantly dying and being replaced correct? I contend that cells and the human concsiousness are not the same entity. For a cell, it is alive, then it dies and does not return. A new cell forms to replace it, but this cell is seperate from the one that died. The deaths of cells have nothing to do with the death of a human being, they are two seperate entities.
I think what Cris meant with 'mutually exclusive' is that one cannot be alive and dead at the same time, not that they are completely unrelated. And this is true, a cell cannot be alive and dead at the same time, just as a human being can't.
well the snake doesnt have a foot, i guess that was the closest thing it could find
heflores,
In a similar manner we could extend the analogy to the human race. Individual people die and are replaced, but the human race continues to be alive. Only when the last person dies can we say the human race is dead. Many species have already experienced extinction in this manner. All the time there is at least one human then the human race will be considered alive. The fact that individuals are replaced have no bearing on the question of whether the human race is alive or dead.
At no time can something be alive and dead concurrently.
However, the seed analogy is interesting because seeds are often not considered alive either. A seed is a package containing most of the components needed to create new life; it could be considered potential life or dormant life but lacks some key catalysts. When the seed casing is penetrated and the final components are added, i.e. oxygen, water, heat, and light, then the seed begins a new life. However, if seeds are not properly protected then they can rot and effectively lose their potential to start life, and at that time the seed could be considered dead and incapable of returning to life or starting life.
No this is incorrect. Death is the result when life fails.
True, but death cannot begin until life ends.
Agreed. This is a necessary dependency.
Only to the extent that the dying process of anything living tends to be a short transition rather than an instantaneous on/off switch. When a person "dies" their neural networks remain intact to some extent depending on environmental temperature and related conditions. The final disintegration of such networks occurs over time (minutes) through a lack of nourishment and other supporting infrastructures, i.e. the hormonal systems.
Death is not a subset of life; death is strictly the result of a transition from one state (life) to a fundamentally different state (death).
Yes but each of these structures are separate entities. A cell can be alive or dead, it cannot be both. The appropriate comparison with people is that when you die you are replaced by your son or daughter. The replacement process of cells is a generational process.
In a similar manner we could extend the analogy to the human race. Individual people die and are replaced, but the human race continues to be alive. Only when the last person dies can we say the human race is dead. Many species have already experienced extinction in this manner. All the time there is at least one human then the human race will be considered alive. The fact that individuals are replaced have no bearing on the question of whether the human race is alive or dead.
At no time can something be alive and dead concurrently.
As you state, a seed can be perceived as dead. But that is a false perception, since the seed is not dead. A false perception such as this further supports my argument that at no time can life and death coexist or be a subset of one another. They are distinct and separate, with only a transition from one to the other in a single direction.
However, the seed analogy is interesting because seeds are often not considered alive either. A seed is a package containing most of the components needed to create new life; it could be considered potential life or dormant life but lacks some key catalysts. When the seed casing is penetrated and the final components are added, i.e. oxygen, water, heat, and light, then the seed begins a new life. However, if seeds are not properly protected then they can rot and effectively lose their potential to start life, and at that time the seed could be considered dead and incapable of returning to life or starting life.
No it doesn't. In fact quite the reverse is equally if not more likely. Several years ago the rate of death in Europe due to colder than usual weather was caused by warmer than usual currents in the Pacific Ocean. How can one be a subset of the other?
Incorrect. See my example above. However, we can conclude that a relationship is formed because of the resultant effect. But this opens up another vast debate concerning the philosophy of determinism, and I am quite sure you don't want to explore that just yet.