Mind

[Michael]

I find it odd that an all powerful entity wouldn't .....

I find it highly amusing that atheists like to second guess the motives of a creature they don't even believe in.

Sure, we could have come as preprogrammed "Data" units from Star Trek, complete with emotion chips and all sorts of cool features. Apparently that wasn't the intent of life on Earth, but go ahead and question the motive of God. It's always good for a chuckle from my perspective.

 

[Davian]

What a crock. The same can be said of scientific forms of faith which often fall into the same category.

"...fall into the same category"? What category is that?

Show me a scientific hypothesis that makes a truth claim about "spirit" and "salvation" in the context used by Strathos.

That doesn't mean that *no* forms of religion and *no* forms of science are valid.

I never said that. I could claim that the small round pebble in my hand is a deity, and her only power is to suppress the ability of other gods to make themselves known as anything but characters in books. She is a powerful little god. What is not valid about that?

You *assumed* that all forms of religion require such behavior, which makes it that statement your 'personal statement of faith".

Not at all. My claim is entirely falsifiable. Strathos could have come back with a testable definition for "spirit" and demonstrable evidence for its existence, and blown me out of the water. He didn't.

 

[Michael]

"...fall into the same category"? What category is that?

Show me a scientific hypothesis that makes a truth claim about "spirit" and "salvation" in the context used by Strathos.

I can show you *many* scientific parallels. Lots of scientific theories begin with a "truth claim" (redshift is related to/caused by "space expansion) which defies empirical laboratory support, and requires some amount of "faith" on the part of the believer since it cannot be demonstrated empirically in a lab. String theory requires faith in *several* extra spacetime dimensions in fact. How would you demonstrate *any* of them actually exist in a lab?

I never said that. I could claim that the small round pebble in my hand is a deity, and her only power is to suppress the ability of other gods to make themselves known as anything but characters in books. She is a powerful little god. What is not valid about that?

Not at all. My claim is entirely falsifiable. Strathos could have come back with a testable definition for "spirit" and demonstrable evidence for its existence, and blown me out of the water. He didn't.

Define "space expansion" for me and how I might define a "test" to demonstrate "space expansion" has some effect on a photon. How do I 'test' for extra dimensions of spacetime? Is it my fault you can't do these things too?

The fact a concept can't be fully physically defined doesn't prevent "science" from attempting to study it. SUSY theory has failed three key "experiments" in a row in fact, yet plenty of people still have "faith" in that "scientific concept".

I'd have to go find the links again, but I do know that there are mathematical definitions/models of "soul" that have been written about over the years.

 

[Michael]

Not at all. My claim is entirely falsifiable. Strathos could have come back with a testable definition for "spirit" and demonstrable evidence for its existence, and blown me out of the water. He didn't.

I'm not sure how you intend to test it but:
Scientists offer quantum theory of soul's existence | News.com.au

 

[Davian]

I can show you *many* scientific parallels. Lots of scientific theories begin with a "truth claim" (redshift is related to/caused by "space expansion) which defies empirical laboratory support, and requires some amount of "faith" on the part of the believer since it cannot be demonstrated empirically in a lab. String theory requires faith in *several* extra spacetime dimensions in fact. How would you demonstrate *any* of them actually exist in a lab?

Those are not truth claims, but theories to explain observations, lab or not.

Define "space expansion" for me and how I might define a "test" to demonstrate "space expansion" has some effect on a photon. How do I 'test' for extra dimensions of spacetime? Is it my fault you can't do these things too?

The fact a concept can't be fully physically defined doesn't prevent "science" from attempting to study it. SUSY theory has failed three key "experiments" in a row in fact, yet plenty of people still have "faith" in that "scientific concept".

Must you bring your tired rant into virtually every thread in this forum?

I'd have to go find the links again, but I do know that there are mathematical definitions/models of "soul" that have been written about over the years.

 

[Davian]

I'm not sure how you intend to test it but:
Scientists offer quantum theory of soul's existence | News.com.au

Not my problem, and I have no idea if this is what anyone's particular religion regards as a "soul".

 

[Michael]

Those are not truth claims, but theories to explain observations, lab or not.

A quick gander at the rule system over at Cosmoquest demonstrates that scientists do make "truth claims", and they even hold virtual witch hunts to weed out any heretics too.

 

[Michael]

Not my problem, and I have no idea if this is what anyone's particular religion regards as a "soul".

Is there any particular religion that you can think of that would *necessarily* have a problem with it?

 

[Davian]

A quick gander at the rule system over at Cosmoquest demonstrates that scientists do make "truth claims", and they even hold virtual witch hunts to weed out any heretics too.

Best not to act like a witch then.

 

[Davian]

Is there any particular religion that you can think of that would *necessarily* have a problem with it?

Should you not first determine if the concept is of any significance?

 

[Strathos]

I did demonstrate it. I knew which questions to ask for which you could only provide assumptions.

I am not saying that I understand how it feels to you, but from an objective standpoint, what I have said (religious faith is a state of the mind in which the critical faculty (CF) of the human mind is bypassed, and selective thinking established) has explanatory power. It explains why you can only provide assumptions where you need definitions, something testable. It has parsimony - religious faith can exist in the absence of actual deities, particularly with religions that come with built-in excuses for why there is no objective evidence for its deity(s).

That may be how you perceive it. But that's not what it is.

Case in point. " Jesus Himself said..."? He did? Or were the writers of the bible already perpetuating this "complexity"?

So you're saying you understand the true meaning of every Biblical passage written?

I find it odd that an all powerful entity wouldn't make all people literate, and so the text could be fully understood and correctly interpreted by all, from the time they were first written. Wouldn't that be nice?

God wants us to come to the conclusion to follow Him of our own free will.

Also, think about the potential for abuse by the few who were literate back in the day. They could add to what the text says, subtract from it, and generally make up anything they want, and none of the masses would be the wiser.

Yes, they could and did. Good thing we have versions of the Scriptures from the past very close to the originals (Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.)

 

[TheBear]

I find it highly amusing that atheists like to second guess the motives of a creature they don't even believe in.

Like with a movie, just because someone criticizes a character or the storyline, doesn't mean they think the storyline is true or the character is real.

Is that too difficult for you to comprehend? Is it impossible to wrap your head around that concept? Really? Wow.

 

[Davian]

That may be how you perceive it. But that's not what it is.

Back to telling me what it isn't. Have we not been down that dead end?

If it is more than that, feel free to demonstrate.

So you're saying you understand the true meaning of every Biblical passage written?

No. What has that to do with complexity? Are there not complex works of fiction?

I find it odd that an all powerful entity wouldn't make all people literate, and so the text could be fully understood and correctly interpreted by all, from the time they were first written. Wouldn't that be nice?

God wants us to come to the conclusion to follow Him of our own free will.

Or the deity in question intended his religion(s) to appeal to the more credulous of us. Or, religious texts are simply the work of men. Again, parsimony.

Yes, they could and did. Good thing we have versions of the Scriptures from the past very close to the originals (Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.)

Yet we still call it religion, and not reality.

 

[Michael]

Like with a movie, just because someone criticizes a character or the storyline, doesn't mean they think the storyline is true or the character is real.

Is that too difficult for you to comprehend? Is it impossible to wrap your head around that concept? Really? Wow.

It's simply amusing to me since one would have to actually know the *motives* of God to do any real 'critique' of his "creation".

 

[Michael]

Should you not first determine if the concept is of any significance?

How might we do that?

 

[sandwiches]

I find it highly amusing that atheists like to second guess the motives of a creature they don't even believe in.

We're questioning this god character many theists believe in and describe. It's a way to point out the incoherences, contradictions, and other nonsense in their beliefs.

 

[Michael]

We're questioning this god character many theists believe in and describe. It's a way to point out the incoherences, contradictions, and other nonsense in their beliefs.

I'll buy that explanation, but only because it comes from you.

 

[TheBear]

It's simply amusing to me since one would have to actually know the *motives* of God to do any real 'critique' of his "creation".

Do you have to know the *motives* of a school shooter in order to know what they did was horrific?

Got any more idiotic retorts, Michael? How far down that rabbit hole are you willing to go in order to save face?



Here. I'll rephrase my initial remarks for the benefit of the intentionally slow -

If there were an all powerful entity, and if that entity created writings for everyone to know, I find it odd that an all powerful entity wouldn't make all people literate, and so the text could be fully understood and correctly interpreted by all, from the time they were first written. Wouldn't that be nice?

Address that, not your fake "amusement" sidetrack.

 

[Davian]

How might we do that?

Who is this "we", Kimosabe?

 

[Michael]

Here. I'll rephrase my initial remarks for the benefit of the intentionally slow -

If there were an all powerful entity, and if that entity created writings for everyone to know, I find it odd that an all powerful entity wouldn't make all people literate, and so the text could be fully understood and correctly interpreted by all, from the time they were first written. Wouldn't that be nice?

Address that, not your fake "amusement" sidetrack.

A lot of things might "be nice" from your personal perspective, but how is that even a valid scientific argument for or against an intelligent creator? You're also making an *assumption* in the red part that I'm not even personally making. As far as I know, every book ever written was written by humans.