Reality vs Non-Reality

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
My "hypothesis" holds equal weight with yours.
Do you think I'm trying to convince you to be a theist? Heavens, NO! I expect you to give more validity to your experience than you do to the experience of others. We all do.

However, I have to tell you that, overall, your hypothesis is much weaker because it requires you to ignore or dismiss evidence. That is never a strong position, in science or anywhere else.

I'm not going to asses all the alternatives of what we would never know exist.
We are not doing that. We are looking at alternatives for your personal experience! Why is your personal experience be different than that of theists? One hypothesis is that deity does not exist, therefore your experience correctly reflects reality. However, there are other explanations for your experience in which deity does, in reality, exist.

Also, aren't you trying to "know" whether deity exists or not? Why would you throw out alternatives that affect that question?

How is Thor falsifiable?
You don't know? Think about it and I'm sure it will come to you. Otherwise, I did that in the post following the one you are responding to.

If something wants to step outside of being falsifiable, then it rightly can do so. But if it wants to enter into the realm of existing, that is its problem.
You aren't getting it. Yahweh didn't "step outside" of being falsifiable. Rather, science is unable to do the testing required to falsify. Yahweh is falsifiable. Science cannot do the experiments. It's science's problem, not Yahweh's. Remember, the statements about Yahweh were made long before modern science was discovered.

Also, if you insist that things cannot exist unless they are falsifiable, then you shut down a lot of scientific research and scientific theories! As I said, tachyons are not falsifiable, but that is not the problem of tachyons or indicate that tachyons don't exist. It's science's problem.

Already addressed the issue of un-falsifiable claims.
If you mean the above, no, you didn't. Or, if you are serious, then you throw science under the bus. Do you really want to do that?

In science, if something is unfalsifiable, it remains as a possibility unless and until it is falsified. Tachyons, quite frankly, are a pain in the __s for physics. Since they travel faster than light, they violate causality. Still, because they travel faster than light, we can't very well see them, can we? So we are stuck with them:
"1. Tachyons: can we rule them out.

The special theory of relativity has been tested to unprecedented accuracy, and appears unassailable. Yet tachyons are a problem. Though they are allowed by the theory, they bring with them all sorts of unpalatable properties. Physicists would like to rule them out once and for all, but lack a convincing nonexistence proof. Until they construct one, we cannot be sure that a tachyon won't suddenly be discovered." Paul Davies, About Time, 1994.


I'll even grant you that it may not even be falsifiable right now, but possibly later. But then again, aren't a lot of things?
This is more fundamental. You are talking about new technologies. The problem with Yahweh stems from the basics of how we do experiments. If you do not understand how that is so, then ask.

One should have no more weight than the next.
You mean #1 or #2 possibilities that I wrote: Hebrews got the truth or got lucky as humans made up versions of deity? Now, I don't mind if you choose #2 to believe. If you state "I believe #2" that is OK.

However, in general, wouldn't you agree that we do give more weight when we have supporting evidence? That is, after all, how we do it in science and the rest of our lives. If you go to a restaurant 10 times and each time you get great service and great food, don't you think that the hypothesis "these people know how to run a restaurant" deserves more weight than "they just got lucky tonight"?

What we have is more supporting evidence for the existence of deity --even Yahweh -- than for the "they just got lucky". You have to decide what you, personally, are going to do with that. Again, let me emphasize I am not trying to lure you away from atheism. If you decide to stay with atheism, that is fine by me.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
What science is doing if nothing more than figuring out how God did it.

One clue to his existence is that so many people of different religions worship him. According to those who would have us disbelieve in God we are to see ourselves as the endproduct of billions of years of evolution.
Harry, those 2 statements contradict. Evolution is "how God did it". Having said science figures out how God did it, why then are you denying the evolution that science found?

If this is so, then where did the God concept come from?
From God communicating with people!

The facts are that we are hardwired to worship.
Scientific papers, please, to back that "fact"? Thank you.
 
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟38,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
It's not a difference of opinion on the senses. Everyone agrees on a sense of taste. What the disagreement is about is the particular data: taste of Brussels sprouts.

Not everyone agrees on the sense of "God". Some get that sense, others do not.

To imply that those who do not, "don't know how to interpret it" or "reject it" is begging the question.


I will address the following post, in the post...

An atheist -- David Hume -- established that all evidence is our senses. Those include, according to Hume, what we feel emotionally and what we think. No one since has shown Hume to be wrong.

No, you cannot taste a deity, but people do report feeling a deity and communicating with one. Millions of people over the millenia. If you say that "feelings" are not real, please consider that they are real enough that they play a part in many scientific papers. For instance, this paper -- 2. N Honkamp, A Amendola, S Hurwitz, CL Saltzman, Retrospective review of eighteen patients who underwent transtibial amputation for intractable pain. J. Bone Joint Surg. 83-A 1479-1483, Oct. 2001.

"Conclusion: In selected patients, a below-the-knee amputation may be a good salvage procedure for intractable foot and ankle pain that is unresponsive to all medical and local surgical reconstructive techniques."


They are dealing with the "feeling" of pain, and in particular "phantom limb pain".

"The purpose of this study was to assess the outcome of below-the-knee amputations performed to relieve intractable foot and ankle pain."

No mention of 'phantom pain'.


In traumatic amputations, the patient feels pain from the missing limb.

No where mentioned in the study.

For these 18 patients who underwent voluntary amputation of an injured foot because they were suffering intractable pain in the foot, there was no phantom limb pain following amputation.

This was no mention of 'phantom limb pain' in the study.

If you are trying to equate 'phantom limb pain' as 'pain from the surgery' then, "the patients reported a decrease in both pain frequency (9.8 to 1.7) and pain intensity (8.4 to 2.6)" and there was still a pain following the amputation.


Their "feelings" are real enough for those surgeons to suggest cutting off a foot in particular cases! You should also look up "SF 36" on the internet. The SF 36 is being used in nearly all medical studies dealing with outcome these days.

You have made 3 bold-faced lies and are misrepresenting the study, by actually adding things.

I deleted the rest of your post and will not respond to any future posts.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Those would be hypothesis put forward in/by the scientific community.

For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.
You admit that the hypotheses are put forward by scientists as scientific hypotheses. They are not testable. But then you say they are not scientific. Don't you see what is wrong with that?

The mistake is that the "scientific method" does not require that hypotheses be testable. Partly because there is no the scientific method (science uses a variety of methods) and partly because hypotheses/theories are statements about the physical universe. There's nothing about the statements having to be testable.
http://www.christianforums.com/t125211

You just accepted that definition as the definition.

I'm sorry you didn't find the unicorns that migrated out of our known reality.
LOL! What you are doing here is what is called making an "ad hoc hypothesis". Ad hoc hypotheses are made to avoid falsification of the original hypothesis. The reason I didn't find that unicorns had migrated out of our known reality is because you just made that up to avoid the falsification of unicorns.

ANY theory can be saved from falsification by ad hoc hypotheses. That's one reason we don't use what is called "naive falsification". However, within science there is a rule about the use of ad hoc hypotheses: they must be able to be tested indepedently of the theory they are trying to save. In science, one classic example of an ad hoc hypothesis was saving Newtonian gravitation from the observation of Uranus' orbit by hypothesizing another as-yet-unobserved planet orbiting outside the orbit of Uranus. That ad hoc hypothesis was tested by the theories of optics (telescope) independent of gravity. And thus Neptune was found. Your hypothesis cannot be independently tested. We cannot independently test realities other than ours or the migration of unicorns. So your ad hoc hypothesis is invalid and unicorns remain falsified.

You are assuming you know all there is to know about Thor and have been told lies about his true abilities, nature and activities.
:confused: I am accepting that what we have been told is the truth -- Thor swinging his hammer causes thunder. And that is all Thor is proposed to do.

I am always amazed at atheists in this position. They are so wed to their hypothesis that any deity cannot be falsified that they will not even accept standard scientific falsifications! You view scientific knowledge and methodology as valid, but when they are applied, you won't accept them. Amazing. Non sequitor, meet creationists. Pot, meet kettle.

You had me at, "they have tested the data until they have thrown out all the alterantive hypotheses they can think of. They one that is left is God."

They can't test what they don't know to test or how to test. Arriving at this conclusion can only arrive as "something else that I do not know of"... at best.
LOL! And here again you throw out science. Congrats. This is what we do in science all the time. We falsify all the alternative hypotheses we can think of and accept the one that is left. Haven't you ever heard that all scientific theories are "tentative"? If not, you should have. This is one of the reasons: there may be a theory out there that we haven't thought of yet. Do you accept natural selection? Well, there might be an alternative hypothesis out there we don't know and don't know how to test for. Should we not conclude natural selection?

What you are doing, Non sequitor, is Special Pleading. You are setting up conditions for belief in deity that we do not use in science! You are setting up conditions that, if we actually did accept them, would mean that we would have to reject all the scientific theories we accept. It's textbook Special Pleading.

You are assuming that I will never reach some experience, because I fail to look for it.
I am saying that if you don't look, you don't have a chance of reaching that experience. It's not an "assumption", it's a conclusion.

But you are asserting that there is an experience to be had and that it could even be found.
I am saying millions of other people have had such an experience, therefore the possibility is that it can be found.

Let's take this out of religion and consider this scientific research:
13. J Winters, Quantum cat tricks. Discover, 17(10): 26, Oct. 1996. This Discover article describes a scientific paper where 2 scientists report being able to have an object be in 2 places at the same time. Now, you and I have never experienced that, have we? That lies completely outside our experience. Now, should we dismiss this because the scientists "are assserting that there is an experience to be had and that it could even be found"? You seem to be trying to tell us that you can tell us this experience is bogus. How do you do that? If we don't look for that experience, we are not going to have it, are we? Do

How you can honestly make these claims, I do not know.
You "do not know" because you are being dishonest. You are using Special Pleading trying to dismiss claims about deity only because they are claims about deity.

In science and the rest of our lives, we do not claim an experience is wrong because we have never had it. Think of Dr. Seuss' Green Eggs and Ham. Don't we try a lot of new food because someone we know has asserted "there is an experience to be had and that it could even be found" if we taste the food? Of course we do. The same applies to travel, music, movies, etc. Think of people who do movie reviews. They assert "there is an experience [the movie] to be had and that it could even be found" if we watch the movie.

Stop the Special Pleading.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
In traumatic amputations, the patient feels pain from the missing limb.

No where mentioned in the study.

For these 18 patients who underwent voluntary amputation of an injured foot because they were suffering intractable pain in the foot, there was no phantom limb pain following amputation.

This was no mention of 'phantom limb pain' in the study.

You have made 3 bold-faced lies and are misrepresenting the study, by actually adding things.

I deleted the rest of your post and will not respond to any future posts.
The first lines of the text in the paper:
"In 1871, Mitchell1 used the term “phantom limb” to describe
the commonly reported sensation that an amputated
limb is still present. In the intervening years, many
studies have been performed to evaluate pain, including

phantom-limb pain, after amputation
2-8."

So yes, the paper does discuss phantom limb pain. They are testing to see whether their voluntary patients have it.

The Discussion starts with:
"The present retrospective cohort study demonstrated
substantial improvement in patient outcomes after
below-the-knee amputations performed for intractable foot
and ankle pain in limbs that were considered unreconstructible."


Later in the Discussion we find a contrast in the results of the study to:
"Many studies have been performed to assess the levels of
pain and function in amputees


4-10,12-15,20, but none of those studies
focused specifically on the results of below-the-knee amputations
performed because of intractable pain due to a
posttraumatic, degenerative, or anatomically focal pathological
condition of the foot or ankle. The relevance of the information
derived from studies of patients with different disease
processes, different indications for amputation, and different
levels of amputation is uncertain.
Similar levels of pain frequency and intensity have been
documented in studies of amputations due to trauma. In an
analysis of 2694 amputees who were veterans of the United
States military, Sherman et al.


14 reported that 78% of the individuals
had some phantom pain and, of those, 56% reported
that their pain decreased or resolved completely. No correlation
was noted between the preamputation level of pain, the
development of phantom pain, and the ultimate level of pain.
In a similar analysis of 526 amputees who were veterans of the
British military, Wartan et al.

8 reported that 55% of the individuals
had some phantom pain and, of those, 53% reported
that the pain decreased or resolved completely. Both of those
studies, however, included both upper and lower extremity
amputations as well as amputations proximal and distal to the
knee. ...
Parkes


5, in a study of forty-six patients with both
upper and lower extremity amputations, found that 50% of the
patients had persistent phantom-limb pain. The persistence of
phantom-limb pain was correlated with unemployment, persistent
illness, and a rigid, self-reliant personality."

This is what they are comparing their results to. They are studies in the literature with high levels of phantom-limb pain. But their patients don't have any. Instead, the pre-op pain they have been experiencing goes away with a below the knee amputation. No feeling a limb that isn't there.

Now, why you wanted to lie about what was in the study is unknown. Apparently it was an excuse not to listen to what I have to say. If what you wanted to do was put your fingers in your ears and yell "Nyahh, nyahh, I can't hear you." you could have done that. You didn't need to lie about what the study said or what I wrote about it.

Fortunately, the boards are set up so that I can still respond to what you say to others, so my fellow Christians can see the arguments. :wave:

 
  • Like
Reactions: jacks
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Not everyone agrees on the sense of "God". Some get that sense, others do not.
For those who do have a personal experience of God, the experience is remarkably consistent.

But I am agreeing that not everyone has personal experience of God. I've said that at least 3 times so far. In fact, I stated it was the valid reason for being an atheist: pitting the personal experience of no experience (for atheists) against the personal experience of God by theists.
 
Upvote 0

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Pluto was recategorized as a dwarf planet, because of new IAU classifications. It didn't clear the neighborhood around its orbit.

I see nothing relevant in your ramblings.
10 years ago Pluto was a planet like any other in this solar system. a few years ago scientific "truth" changed, and Pluto lost it's planetary status. The reason you see nothing is because you have chosen to only focus on Pluto's planetary status rather than addressing the blatant hypocrisy that allows you to demand absolute unchangeable always verifiable truth, when dealing with God, but will accept whatever the popular scientific "truth" is currently being taught with out question (according to the correction about Pluto's dwarf planet status, you insightfully left for me.):smarty:


No God is even close to being falsifiable.

That's the difference.
What's the difference? that with the previous statement you have proven you have completely closed your mind to the idea of God.

If that situation happened, I would ask your god, "Why did you go to such measures to hide yourself?"
Perhaps you should have looked past yourself and you peers to find Him.

Knocked, asked, begged, cried.

No answer.
Again according to Luke 11. "Knocked Asked Begged, cried." what do they all have in common? They are in the past tense. meaning you are not Ask Seek or knocking. Your effort is not consistent with how we have been instructed to look for God. So why are you surprised you did not find him? What if you took this same effort to a bar or on a blind date? would an emotional stable woman/person look to connect with you if knock asked begged and cried? why would God? what did you think? that because you were in need God would be there? God seeks more from you than the codependency you were looking for from Him. That is why Knocking was included in the list. What is knocking? it is the repetitious persistent actions of a determined man. The knocking illustrated in Luke 11 did not have a time limit nor a stipulation that tells us only to ask and seek when we are in the mood to do so, and quit when God did not obey or run to your calling efforts..

If you wish to ask then do so in prayer, we seek in places like this, in church and in the bible, and again we knock by repeating this process till we find what we have diligently sought after.

Asking seeking and knocking is not an event. (One can never put this act in the past tense) It is indeed the way you are to spend the rest of your life.

Learn to better detect quality questions.
Perhaps it would be easier if they were made available. All i have been presented with so far, is contempt and anger. when ever I start to explore or rational break down and try to explain anything you have asked you take a childish personal jab as a way to try and deflect the conversation away from a rational process into a argumentative one.

Look my confused brother the quality of question is simply not there. Even when I try and salvage the conversation, any legitimate efforts on my part are met with a juvenile deflection on yours.

Eg:

Already did and already told you that.
Your equipment must be acting up, again.
The last two "witty" retorts were perfect examples of a juvenile deflections. Keep them coming. :comeon:

You embarrass yourself when you try to act clever and cute. Those icons are the most effeminate and least effective to use to make a real point.
And another.. Now we have turned out and out personal! These are truly the last vestiges of a desperate intellect. What's next "your mama jokes?"

It's like watching a 4 year-old making an "I'm upset and you will understand me" face.

Hand to your god, I blushed a little.

I'll try to illustrate how silly it looked...

"Oh goody-gumdrops, I so pawned you! I am right and you are wrong!" :happyblush:
I was close :)
 
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟38,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
You admit that the hypotheses are put forward by scientists as scientific hypotheses. They are not testable. But then you say they are not scientific. Don't you see what is wrong with that?

The mistake is that the "scientific method" does not require that hypotheses be testable. Partly because there is no the scientific method (science uses a variety of methods) and partly because hypotheses/theories are statements about the physical universe. There's nothing about the statements having to be testable.
http://www.christianforums.com/t125211


LOL! What you are doing here is what is called making an "ad hoc hypothesis". Ad hoc hypotheses are made to avoid falsification of the original hypothesis. The reason I didn't find that unicorns had migrated out of our known reality is because you just made that up to avoid the falsification of unicorns.

ANY theory can be saved from falsification by ad hoc hypotheses. That's one reason we don't use what is called "naive falsification". However, within science there is a rule about the use of ad hoc hypotheses: they must be able to be tested indepedently of the theory they are trying to save. In science, one classic example of an ad hoc hypothesis was saving Newtonian gravitation from the observation of Uranus' orbit by hypothesizing another as-yet-unobserved planet orbiting outside the orbit of Uranus. That ad hoc hypothesis was tested by the theories of optics (telescope) independent of gravity. And thus Neptune was found. Your hypothesis cannot be independently tested. We cannot independently test realities other than ours or the migration of unicorns. So your ad hoc hypothesis is invalid and unicorns remain falsified.


:confused: I am accepting that what we have been told is the truth -- Thor swinging his hammer causes thunder. And that is all Thor is proposed to do.

I am always amazed at atheists in this position. They are so wed to their hypothesis that any deity cannot be falsified that they will not even accept standard scientific falsifications! You view scientific knowledge and methodology as valid, but when they are applied, you won't accept them. Amazing. Non sequitor, meet creationists. Pot, meet kettle.


LOL! And here again you throw out science. Congrats. This is what we do in science all the time. We falsify all the alternative hypotheses we can think of and accept the one that is left. Haven't you ever heard that all scientific theories are "tentative"? If not, you should have. This is one of the reasons: there may be a theory out there that we haven't thought of yet. Do you accept natural selection? Well, there might be an alternative hypothesis out there we don't know and don't know how to test for. Should we not conclude natural selection?

What you are doing, Non sequitor, is Special Pleading. You are setting up conditions for belief in deity that we do not use in science! You are setting up conditions that, if we actually did accept them, would mean that we would have to reject all the scientific theories we accept. It's textbook Special Pleading.


I am saying that if you don't look, you don't have a chance of reaching that experience. It's not an "assumption", it's a conclusion.


I am saying millions of other people have had such an experience, therefore the possibility is that it can be found.

Let's take this out of religion and consider this scientific research:
13. J Winters, Quantum cat tricks. Discover, 17(10): 26, Oct. 1996. This Discover article describes a scientific paper where 2 scientists report being able to have an object be in 2 places at the same time. Now, you and I have never experienced that, have we? That lies completely outside our experience. Now, should we dismiss this because the scientists "are assserting that there is an experience to be had and that it could even be found"? You seem to be trying to tell us that you can tell us this experience is bogus. How do you do that? If we don't look for that experience, we are not going to have it, are we? Do


You "do not know" because you are being dishonest. You are using Special Pleading trying to dismiss claims about deity only because they are claims about deity.

In science and the rest of our lives, we do not claim an experience is wrong because we have never had it. Think of Dr. Seuss' Green Eggs and Ham. Don't we try a lot of new food because someone we know has asserted "there is an experience to be had and that it could even be found" if we taste the food? Of course we do. The same applies to travel, music, movies, etc. Think of people who do movie reviews. They assert "there is an experience [the movie] to be had and that it could even be found" if we watch the movie.

Stop the Special Pleading.

I'm just going to respond to the last one, since this is getting to be exponentially all-over-the-place.

How you can honestly make these claims, I do not know.

You "do not know" because you are being dishonest. You are using Special Pleading trying to dismiss claims about deity only because they are claims about deity.

I'm dismissing claims, not because they are about a deity, but because entertaining the idea is special pleading.

If I make a claim based on experiences, that does not conform to any of the realities that we currently know, to say that, "I am right" only makes it so in my mind.

Now everything is game for being right.

Unfortunately, now you will be left will lots of people saying they are right and others are wrong and imposing their "thoughts" on what is "right" abo- oh, that's already happening and we see how well that is working...
 
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟38,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
10 years ago Pluto was a planet like any other in this solar system. a few years ago scientific "truth" changed, and Pluto lost it's planetary status. The reason you see nothing is because you have chosen to only focus on Pluto's planetary status rather than addressing the blatant hypocrisy that allows you to demand absolute unchangeable always verifiable truth, when dealing with God, but will accept whatever the popular scientific "truth" is currently being taught with out question (according to the correction about Pluto's dwarf planet status, you insightfully left for me.):smarty:

Nothing changed about Pluto, except for the it's category.

If taxonomists reclassify cats to fall under canis lupus familiaris, did any physical features change on the cats?

This sounds like the, "You can't trust science, they are always changing their minds" tripe...

What's the difference? that with the previous statement you have proven you have completely closed your mind to the idea of God.

Perhaps you should have looked past yourself and you peers to find Him.


Again according to Luke 11. "Knocked Asked Begged, cried." what do they all have in common? They are in the past tense. meaning you are not Ask Seek or knocking. Your effort is not consistent with how we have been instructed to look for God. So why are you surprised you did not find him? What if you took this same effort to a bar or on a blind date? would an emotional stable woman/person look to connect with you if knock asked begged and cried? why would God? what did you think? that because you were in need God would be there? God seeks more from you than the codependency you were looking for from Him. That is why Knocking was included in the list. What is knocking? it is the repetitious persistent actions of a determined man. The knocking illustrated in Luke 11 did not have a time limit nor a stipulation that tells us only to ask and seek when we are in the mood to do so, and quit when God did not obey or run to your calling efforts..

If you wish to ask then do so in prayer, we seek in places like this, in church and in the bible, and again we knock by repeating this process till we find what we have diligently sought after.

Asking seeking and knocking is not an event. (One can never put this act in the past tense) It is indeed the way you are to spend the rest of your life.


Perhaps it would be easier if they were made available. All i have been presented with so far, is contempt and anger. when ever I start to explore or rational break down and try to explain anything you have asked you take a childish personal jab as a way to try and deflect the conversation away from a rational process into a argumentative one.

Look my confused brother the quality of question is simply not there. Even when I try and salvage the conversation, any legitimate efforts on my part are met with a juvenile deflection on yours.

Eg:



The last two "witty" retorts were perfect examples of a juvenile deflections. Keep them coming. :comeon:

And another.. Now we have turned out and out personal! These are truly the last vestiges of a desperate intellect. What's next "your mama jokes?"


I was close :)

if-the-shoe-fits.jpg
 
Upvote 0

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Nothing changed about Pluto, except for the it's category.

If taxonomists reclassify cats to fall under canis lupus familiar is, did any physical features change on the cats?

This sounds like the, "You can't trust science, they are always changing their minds" tripe...
Nope.

what it actually It sounds like is someone trying to avoid answering to his own hypocrisy

Again, The reason you see nothing is because you have chosen to only focus on Pluto's planetary status rather than addressing the blatant hypocrisy that allows you to demand absolute unchangeable always verifiable truth, when dealing with God, but will accept whatever the popular scientific "truth" is currently being taught with out question

This has nothing to do with discrediting science. My point was that we use an equal measure of faith to believe in science as we do God. Because after all a faith in facts is still faith. You have this faith in facts but no faith in God. From God you Demand complete verifiable proof. Where the hypocrisy comes in is that you do not hold your belief in science to this same level of scrutiny.

Because as I have illustrated from global warming, Mini ice ages, holes in the ozone, and Pluto's planetary status is that scientific "truth" is constantly changing. Truth does not change truth is a constant. This means your belief in ever changing scientific "fact" can indeed be classified as a faith. Faith that what you believe now is indeed true.

Understand I am not shunning science in anyway. In fact I have made for myself a very comfortable living for my self and a few others, completely dependent on some sound scientific theories in the thermal dynamic field. The difference between you and I is that I see my faith both in science and in God and not afraid to admit to either of them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟38,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
This has nothing to do with discrediting science. My point was that we use an equal measure of faith to believe in science as we do God. Because after all a faith in facts is still faith. You have this faith in facts but no faith in God. From God you Demand complete verifiable proof. Where the hypocrisy comes in is that you do not hold your belief in science to this same level of scrutiny.

A god demands verifiable proof, because of it's claims.


No matter how you rewrite gravity, it still functions as we know it and is demonstrable.

A god is not, therefore it has the luxury of functioning how ever anybody wants it to.


That's why there is a difference between the two.

Not because I want there to, because there has to be.
 
Upvote 0

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
:mmh:
A god demands verifiable proof, because of it's claims.


No matter how you rewrite gravity, it still functions as we know it and is demonstrable.

A god is not, therefore it has the luxury of functioning how ever anybody wants it to.


That's why there is a difference between the two.

Not because I want there to, because there has to be.

:mmh:I don't seem to recall listing "gravity" in my failed scientific theory list. Why? perhaps because Gravity is one of the few theories/Laws that can be consistently verified. Here is the thing. Not everything you believe in science is a verifiable constant like gravity. I pointed to some of the theories and scientific "truths" that fall under this category (Fail scientific truths) several times now.

As I have also pointed to the hypocrisy that has one believe in all aspects of science, as if he were believing in the laws of gravity, when in fact He is taking a leap of faith when he excepts any one of the new scientific truths I mentioned.

This is the same hypocrisy i want an answer for that allows you to accept the blind faith of scientific "truth," that has you demand absolute verifiable truth of God.

Last chance. Stop deflecting by trying to turn this into a discussion about scientific "fact," and answer for the hypocrisy I have pointed to 5 times now.

Or can you?
 
Upvote 0

leftrightleftrightleft

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2009
2,644
363
Canada
✟22,986.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
I posted this question, but it received no response, so I'm hoping it can be answered here...

Prelude:
If we are stating that a god "exists", it must either:

a) Exist completely inside our reality.
b) Exist completely outside of our reality.
c) Exist in both inside and outside our reality.


What if God is the Reality?

How can something exist outside of reality? Reality is reality, if something is not part of reality, then that thing is not real and therefore doesn't exist.

Reality is a really tricky word. First, you must assume that an objective truth exists because this objective truth would have to perfectly describe Reality. If you don't believe objective truth exists, then no reality exists because everything is subjective. However, are you defining "reality" as the "observable universe"? In that case, I would disagree that you are describing reality. I think Reality is that which is regardless of our ability to discern it. Reality is ultimately a philosophical abstraction which can not be known and each person must simply put their faith in the fact that they're worldview has got a somewhat correct glimpse of the Reality.

My belief is that God is the Reality. He is the entity or philosophical abstraction that we are all attempting to catch glimpse of and understand regardless of whether we acknowledge it or not. (My views on God are also a little bit more complicated because I believe he has a Will and is relational)

If something is posited as "existing", one must first be able to tell the difference between what is real and not-real, within the confines of our ability to do so, before making such truth claims.

Can you do this? You're such a skeptic that you're bound to doubt whether you've got it right, just like me. When you get down to these fundamental basics, you realize that we are ALL using faith and putting our trust in something whether it is God, the Bible, scientific authorities, parents, government or (most commonly) your own rational faculties and sense impressions.

Christians have simply chosen to put their faith in something different than you.

1. Are leprechauns real?

No.

2b. If they are not, how do you determine this?

There is no evidence for them.
 
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟38,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
:mmh:

:mmh:I don't seem to recall listing "gravity" in my failed scientific theory list. Why? perhaps because Gravity is one of the few theories/Laws that can be consistently verified. Here is the thing. Not everything you believe in science is a verifiable constant like gravity. I pointed to some of the theories and scientific "truths" that fall under this category (Fail scientific truths) several times now.

As I have also pointed to the hypocrisy that has one believe in all aspects of science, as if he were believing in the laws of gravity, when in fact He is taking a leap of faith when he excepts any one of the new scientific truths I mentioned.

This is the same hypocrisy i want an answer for that allows you to accept the blind faith of scientific "truth," that has you demand absolute verifiable truth of God.

Last chance. Stop deflecting by trying to turn this into a discussion about scientific "fact," and answer for the hypocrisy I have pointed to 5 times now.

Or can you?

Because of the claims made.

- If I don't believe in climate change, I won't end up burning in someone's hell forever.

- The denial of Pluto's (now a dwarf planet) existence doesn't now make me someone who has no idea about what is right or wrong.

It's different.

Do you really not get the difference between accepting a scientific claim proposed and accepting/believing a deity?
 
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟38,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
What if God is the Reality?

How can something exist outside of reality? Reality is reality, if something is not part of reality, then that thing is not real and therefore doesn't exist.

Reality is a really tricky word. First, you must assume that an objective truth exists because this objective truth would have to perfectly describe Reality. If you don't believe objective truth exists, then no reality exists because everything is subjective. However, are you defining "reality" as the "observable universe"? In that case, I would disagree that you are describing reality. I think Reality is that which is regardless of our ability to discern it. Reality is ultimately a philosophical abstraction which can not be known and each person must simply put their faith in the fact that they're worldview has got a somewhat correct glimpse of the Reality.

My belief is that God is the Reality. He is the entity or philosophical abstraction that we are all attempting to catch glimpse of and understand regardless of whether we acknowledge it or not. (My views on God are also a little bit more complicated because I believe he has a Will and is relational)

I am abstaining from metaphysical conversations today.


Originally Posted by Non sequitur
If something is posited as "existing", one must first be able to tell the difference between what is real and not-real, within the confines of our ability to do so, before making such truth claims.

Can you do this? You're such a skeptic that you're bound to doubt whether you've got it right, just like me. When you get down to these fundamental basics, you realize that we are ALL using faith and putting our trust in something whether it is God, the Bible, scientific authorities, parents, government or (most commonly) your own rational faculties and sense impressions.

Christians have simply chosen to put their faith in something different than you.

Of course I can tell the difference between what is real and not-real, within the confines of our ability to do so. Can't most?

To a degree, yes, we are all using "faith" in a sense. Like seeing and hearing and eating.

But I don't think you can honesty talk about "putting our trust in something" and use 'government' and 'God' in the same sentence, like the require equal levels of faith.

No.

There is no evidence for them.

No evidence for any deity, either.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Because of the claims made.

- If I don't believe in climate change, I won't end up burning in someone's hell forever.

- The denial of Pluto's (now a dwarf planet) existence doesn't now make me someone who has no idea about what is right or wrong.

It's different.

Do you really not get the difference between accepting a scientific claim proposed and accepting/believing a deity?

I get that it is an exercise in faith, and I get you choose to exercise this faith in a place that allows you to dictate your own morality. I also get that you are desperately trying to burry your head in the sand about the faith you do have and are currently involved with. Perhaps this is apart of your judgment day defense strategy or perhaps you have truly convinced yourself in thinking you can claim ignorance because you claim to value evidence and verifiable truth over "religious belief." The problem with that strategy is that you are infact a man of faith. It's just you choose a faith that suits your version of Morality, rather than God's standard of Righteousness.
 
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟38,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
I get that it is an exercise in faith, and I get you choose to exercise this faith in a place that allows you to dictate your own morality. I also get that you are desperately trying to burry your head in the sand about the faith you do have and are currently involved with. Perhaps this is apart of your judgment day defense strategy or perhaps you have truly convinced yourself in thinking you can claim ignorance because you claim to value evidence and verifiable truth over "religious belief." The problem with that strategy is that you are infact a man of faith. It's just you choose a faith that suits your version of Morality, rather than God's standard of Righteousness.

I responded (your god-knows why) to your question about supposed hypocrisy, by stating the outcomes of "scientific truths" vs "Christian faith-truths". It was not subjective and there were no falsehoods in it.

And you come back with assertions, ad hominem statements and (as always) begging the question.

You are starting to act like raze and Mach, here. I thought you were better than that and I thought intelligent enough to try and at least address the issue...
 
Upvote 0

leftrightleftrightleft

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2009
2,644
363
Canada
✟22,986.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
I am abstaining from metaphysical conversations today.

Haha...the title of this thread is "reality vs. non-reality". How were you expecting to avoid metaphysics when the title of the thread is metaphysical in nature?

Of course I can tell the difference between what is real and not-real, within the confines of our ability to do so. Can't most?

It seems you've already decided what is reality for yourself and because you've assumed it, it seems self-evident. The whole topic of this thread is questioning this very assumption. You've assumed that what is real must be physical and material. To you, anyone who says otherwise is just deluded.

To a degree, yes, we are all using "faith" in a sense. Like seeing and hearing and eating.

But I don't think you can honestly talk about "putting our trust in something" and use 'government' and 'God' in the same sentence, like the require equal levels of faith.

Its true that you can put your faith in the government and God in similar ways but most people aren't having to the put their faith in the government's actual existence. Even if someone does not put their faith in the government, they'll likely still acknowledge the government's existence. You're right, its not the same with God. Generally, those that don't put their faith in God also don't even acknowledge his existence.

No evidence for any deity, either.

One of the primary differences between God and leprechauns is that leprechauns are posited as being physical and material objects. Since you are defining reality as things that are physical and material, it is easy to say that leprechauns don't exist because they have not been observed, have left no evidence etc.

However, with God, the only way you can ever acknowledge God's existence is that if you acknowledge that things can exist that are not physical and material. The only way you can acknowledge God's existence is if you get rid of your assumption of materialism. Because I agree that God does not physically exist. He is not like a leprechaun.

There are thousands of things that we say "exist" that do not fulfill your definitions of "existence". Love, consciousness and the sky are three examples I often give. Even if you are a reductionist and you reduce love down to its constituent parts of brain chemicals and molecular interactions you still must admit that "love" as a thing in itself "exists" insofar as it is a thing that people acknowledge, recognize, experience and even need. Even if it is an emergent property from a complex system of physical things, you must admit that love itself is not a material or physical property or thing. Consciousness follows in a similar way except it is not even a unique experience like love but it is Experience itself; without consciousness, experience doesn't even exist. The sky exists insofar as when you look up you recognize it as the sky but if you kept going up and up you wouldn't ever really "reach" the sky because it has no physical existence.
 
Upvote 0

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I responded (your god-knows why) to your question about supposed hypocrisy, by stating the outcomes of "scientific truths" vs "Christian faith-truths". It was not subjective and there were no falsehoods in it.
Falsehood in what? all of the false scientific truths I pointed out and how belief in ever changing truth is akin to simple faith?

And you come back with assertions, ad hominem statements and (as always) begging the question.
Do you really want to start pointing out logical fallacies in each others statements?

You are starting to act like raze and Mach, here. I thought you were better than that and I thought intelligent enough to try and at least address the issue...
Which is what? How Satan and Lucifer could not be the same person? Asked and answered. To which I might add that you did not respond. So again, what "issue" are we speaking of now? Because it seems every time I answer one, you start another rather than seeing the last to it's logical end.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums