• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

A Parable about Age

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by AV1611VET, Sep 8, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +42,005
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Ya -- I get sick of their bogus, johnny-on-the-spot, made-up claims.
     
  2. thaumaturgy

    thaumaturgy Well-Known Member

    +858
    Atheist
    Married
    Well, to be fair, if someone says something is "indisputable" and follows it up with a ton of caveats as to how there is no way to support that claim then it is acceptable to require them to support it in some way. Here's Raze's comment in part:

    "indisputable". Well, I'm personally curious what support there is for that claim.

    If he then goes on to say:

    Then I am immediately suspect. His claim is one of "indisputability" but then he systematically and unilaterally disallows any way of "disputing" it.

    It is only meaningful for something to be "indisputable" if, indeed, there is some way to test that.

    This comes back to the idea of "Falsifiability". In science if I make an hypothesis it has to have built into it some way to disprove it if it is indeed incorrect.

    That doesn't mean it is incorrect or that it WILL be disproven, just that it needs to have some way of testing against it such that if it were wrong it would show up as wrong.

    For instance:

    Let's say I claim there is a pink unicorn who can do 15 backflips in a row that lives in my refrigerator. If I then say it is:

    1. Invisible
    2. Microscopic in size
    3. Has no discernible mass
    4. Does not interact with any other aspect of the physical world
    5. Cannot be perceived by humans using any known or unknown test

    What I have proposed is an unfalsifiable claim.

    Even if it were untrue (which it IS, I can tell you, because it chose to reveal itself to me one day...it can do that) there is no way to prove it. You can't test for it, you can't test against it.

    So Raze merely feels that what he has experienced is "indisputable". And perhaps it was! Who knows? It is clearly disputable to those of us who have no such experience.

    Which is easier to assume in my above example of the invisible unicorn in my fridge:

    1. That I simply think there is a unicorn like that in my fridge?
    or
    2. That there actually is a unicorn like that in my fridge?

    Now Raze's prayer thing is a bit different in that he claims to have experienced this.

    This is good for him. It is useless to establish the "indisputable" nature of the effect. Could Raze have been wrong? Maybe. Not necessarily, but maybe.

    If you want to prove to me that prayer has a real effect there's going to be more to it than just taking the word of someone.

    I'm not saying Raze was right or wrong, not saying he didn't have the experience he had, I'm not even saying his failure to back up his claim of "indisputable" is evidence of prayer not being real.

    Just saying that asking the question is part of what we do in trying to understand the world.

    it is not "arbitrary denial". It is simply one of the "rules" you are forced to play by in science or as a materialist. It would be arbitrary if the questioner said "Ok, I will ONLY believe you are not going to steal my money if you can show me evidence of your honest business, but I'll take your word on invisible unicorns in the fridge".

    Now, in reality, we are all a bit arbitrary. We are not perfect computing machines, but we have to deal with our shortfalls as best we can.

    Why does anyone have to "kidding" anyone?

    Here's a bigger question: If God is real and He truly wants humans to know and love him and it pains Him to see people fail to believe in him and suffer the consequences, why would he make himself only clearly visible to some?

    Science is the only way we pitiful "mere humans" have to verify things for ourselves. So since God is omnipotent what possible good would it do to make himself anything less than as obvious as gravity ?

    Even if we don't fully understand the nature of gravity, we certainly all understand how it works. No one is "gravity agnostic" or "gravity atheistic". We let go of the keys and they fall to the ground. We cannot dispute that.

    And we even know when gravity will not be in certain places (ie no mass). We know whe gravity will be "weaker" and "stronger" (distance or mass differences).

    So why is God different?

    Especially when the stakes are so high and God himself doesn't want us to be mislead?

    My fear is that whenever someone constructs an artificial (and yes, arbitrary) barrier against science it says more about the thing that is being fenced off than it does about science.
     
  3. Nostromo

    Nostromo Brian Blessed can take a hike

    +48
    Atheist
    Private
    You're quite a funny guy when you want to be.
     
  4. sandwiches

    sandwiches Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

    +111
    Atheist
    Single
    Personally, I don't really care if you tell us or not what experiences you've had that have convinced you of your faith. However, keep in mind two questions:
    1) Are personal experiences by others, which contradict yours, evidence that what they're saying is true?
    2) Should I be able to believe what other people believe based on experiences they claim to have had, which I haven't experienced myself?

    Apply these questions to yourself and you'll see why your anecdotes are meaningless to me and many others here.

    While it may be true that you've had X and Y experience of some deity, I haven't had that experience. Why should I believe you? Why should I have the same faith you do without the experiences you have had? How can I?

    You have things backwards. I became an atheist BECAUSE of the lack of personal experience with faith or miracles, (among many other things.) I DID NOT stop believing in faith because I was an atheist or wanted to become an atheist.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2011
  5. sandwiches

    sandwiches Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

    +111
    Atheist
    Single
    I'm afraid you misunderstand what science is and how it works, then. Anything that can be empirically observed can be scientifically analyzed. Conversely, anything that cannot be scientifically analyzed cannot be empirically observed.
     
  6. sandwiches

    sandwiches Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

    +111
    Atheist
    Single
    I guess the alternative makes a lot more sense, right guys? We should just believe anything you say just because you say so? Do you believe anything I say just because I say so? Use your heads for just a second, kids, and you'll see why your claims alone are worthless.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2011
  7. thaumaturgy

    thaumaturgy Well-Known Member

    +858
    Atheist
    Married
    Question of the Millenia!

    FTW.
     
  8. Tiberius

    Tiberius Well-Known Member

    +97
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    That would explain a great deal about your posts...

    And this is a photo of this "quark soup" you mentioned? because those look like galaxies in that photo - which didn't come about until quite a bit later. So that is not a photo of the very beginning of the universe.

    What detector would you suggest?

    Then we aren't sciencing!

    Again, we aren't sciencing.

    And yet don't you believe in the one true God?

    If the results of prayer aren't meaningful, then why pray?

    Pick any one of these instances and show how prayer is the only [possible explanation.

    Remember - if it has an effect on reality, then it can be measured, and thus is science.

    Most of nature falls into this category. Is nature outside the realm of science as well?

    As I said before, if prayer makes a difference in reality, then it can be measured. Even if it as simple as the difference between what happened with it and what happens without it. if it can be measured, it is science.

    Ask God in God's name to move Mount Everest to the Australian outback for one month. If it happens, then I will believe.

     
  9. razeontherock

    razeontherock Well-Known Member

    +1,316
    Christian
    Single
    Sorry but here you completely fail to comprehend the nature of prayer, which goes back to how this odd de-rail got started in the first place: an atheist posted an absurd study claiming prayer has no effect. I pointed out the very nature of the claim demonstrates a lack of understanding.
     
  10. razeontherock

    razeontherock Well-Known Member

    +1,316
    Christian
    Single
    Nah. The types here would simply pretend it never happened.
     
  11. razeontherock

    razeontherock Well-Known Member

    +1,316
    Christian
    Single
    See those big, red words? What part of those words do you fail to see does not pertain to the topic of prayer?

    And this is fair! And there are more than a few of you here who I think could take part in a reasonable discussion on such a matter. Still, my own experiences are not the real key to understanding the part of our world that is the nature of prayer. Instead, there are key concepts, and I've outlined a few of them and shown how they really aren't measurable by science. If you find the exchange between sandwiches and myself, I think those are clarified pretty well.

    It's even more complicated than that:

    (John 1:18) "No man hath seen God at any time"

    And yet false gods have been visible to some, at times.

    What makes you think He is any less obvious? ;) IOW, you've heard of "third eye blind?"

    These are not only reasonable questions - but excellent ones! Finding answers to such this is very possible, but I'm not at all sure I'm the person to even attempt to put those into words. In my experience, it takes God Himself to answer that, and with me, He doesn't resort to words.

    Sorry but the context here is still what I clearly showed to be not measurable by any scientific means. There is no falsely constructed barrier, or anything else.
     
  12. razeontherock

    razeontherock Well-Known Member

    +1,316
    Christian
    Single
    Exactly! You can not possibly. The only problem this causes, is the same world holds people who have had such experience(s), and those that have not. And the answer to this that has escaped our species for so long, is to respect those differences. We can see varying degrees of that all across CF, and right here in this thread! (Is this our current frontier of evolution?)

    Well, that is what I meant. Sorry if my wording pointed to something else. At the same time, your phrase "believing in faith," does that reveal your mindset at the time? There really are Christians who actually believe in Faith, and they struggle. While it may seem like semantics, believing in God is quite a different thing, and then Faith develops.
     
  13. razeontherock

    razeontherock Well-Known Member

    +1,316
    Christian
    Single
    "The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation or experiments."

    You're only considering half the meaning of the word. Observation can take place in daily life, outside of a lab.
     
  14. razeontherock

    razeontherock Well-Known Member

    +1,316
    Christian
    Single
    Nope. And you agree with me, per the above.

    Again, based on merely the 2 Scripture passages already cited in this thread, it can be demonstrated this does not meet the criteria for a prayer God would answer in the positive. Science has no way of knowing that.

    Science therefore cannot measure the effectiveness of prayer.
     
  15. Nostromo

    Nostromo Brian Blessed can take a hike

    +48
    Atheist
    Private
    I appreciate that Freodin has already responded to this but I missed it the first time round and thought I'd add to it.

    The bottom line is that there is no difference between an old bunch of atoms and a new bunch. The forces between them don't behave any differently, and the particles which make them up are identical.

    There's no difference whatsoever between an electron that has been around since the dawn of the universe and one made yesterday.

    As a result, there is no property inherent to materials that we call age. The age of something is the amount of time that has passed while it's been around. The appearance of age is the result of physical processes occurring during that passage of time, altering the configuration of components.

    If we go by the (your) dictionary's definition of old, we have to accept that either something is old 1) as a result of time passing, or 2) it appears to have aged. The second definition doesn't appear in any dictionary I've seen.

    That would mean that, as we've said all along, embedded age is Omphalos.
     
  16. razeontherock

    razeontherock Well-Known Member

    +1,316
    Christian
    Single
    You contradict yourself here. It is only the second definition we measure, since as you point out in the first sentence here the first definition escapes us. (Over long periods) Your logic backs up AV's claim, rather than refuting it as you would like.
     
  17. Tiberius

    Tiberius Well-Known Member

    +97
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    And how do you not see that by definition, anything that makes a difference in the universe is measurable and therefore scientific?

    Genesis 12:7: And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

    Genesis 17:1: And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him....

    Genesis 18:1: And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre.

    Exodus 33:11: And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend.

    Numbers 14:14: For they have heard that thou Lord art among this people, that thou Lord art seen face to face.

    Deuteronomy 5:4: The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire.

    Judges 13:22: And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.

    Job 42:5: I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.

    Isaiah 6:1: In the year that King Ussiah died, I saw, also, the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up.

    Isaiah 6:5: For mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.

    Ezekiel 1:27: And saw ... the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward.... (his LOINS? Really?)

    Are all these false gods?

    So you don't have answers to those questions.

    Can you describe a non-scientific method of measuring?

    I do not agree with you, because science can take place in nature. Science is the study of nature. Any mechanism that causes a difference in the world is measurable in a quantitative manner, because we can measure the change produced. it doesn't have to be in a lab.

    Sorry, I don't feel like sorting through 200 something posts. Could you quote those two passages again?

    And can you give an example of a prayer that God would answer in the positive?
     
  18. quatona

    quatona "God"? What do you mean??

    +4,189
    Seeker
    I´m sure there is a reason why you prefer to talk about "the types here" (without naming names) instead of talking to me or adressing my statements in your responses to me.
     
  19. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +42,005
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    No, it's not.

    I have defined Embedded Age as: maturity without history.

    Then you guys want a definition of "age", and I give it to you; then you say it's Omphalos.

    You can't break the term down into its component parts, then claim its wrong.

    It's like the example I like to use: flying squirrel.

    You can't say that, because squirrels don't fly, a flying squirrel is not a flying squirrel.

    Same with terms like starfish, schoolhouse, northeast, hometown, etc.
     
  20. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +42,005
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    I agree -- :thumbsup:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...