[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A question for those who.....

[ToddNotTodd]

IF i am wrong then it really doesn't matter because the alternative is that there is no eternal life and that God doesn't exist. I will die after living a very short life and there will be nothing left for me or of me. If im right though, and God is leading me, then my future is promising, i have eternal life to look forward to.

Pascal's Wager fail
If you die and you've picked the wrong god, you might end up in a different hell...

 

[Freodin]

Im sorry but i do believe that much of the study in evolution is just fantasy. Im not trying be a creationist hardliner, its just what i believe.

This is what a creationist hardliner believes. At least be honest in your claims, if you fail to be honest in your representation of others.

 

[Freodin]

Thanks for your honest reply. You admit that its mind boggling and that science doesn't understand it all. I agree that its very complex. Im not discounting science and i happen to like science. I find scientific knowledge fascinating. WE use science everyday in many ways. I'm not a scientist but i do enjoy things that we discover through scientific investigation. Things like metallurgy for example. I'm fascinated with how man forges steel, and with the heat treating process of annealing, hardening and tempering carbon steel. IT's something i enjoy learning about. I dont think God just snapped his fingers and things magically appeared, but he created them. I do believe in God, i believe he created us and that we have a purpose outside this natural world which is far more exciting and full of wonder than this world is. I believe that God leads me in his truth, to seek him spiritually, not naturally. IF i am wrong then it really doesn't matter because the alternative is that there is no eternal life and that God doesn't exist. I will die after living a very short life and there will be nothing left for me or of me. If im right though, and God is leading me, then my future is promising, i have eternal life to look forward to. Where would the first scientists be without some measure of faith? They didn't always understand what to look for or what they may find, but they followed something that was in their heart and mind and eventually discovered what they were looking for. That's all im doing, im following what God has put in my heart and mind, and i do believe i am on a great path of discovery that will lead me to understand the meaning to life itself, and to find my purpose and find fulfillment.

Metallurgy, huh? Just a bunch of hogwash. Fantasy! I find it highly improbable that you can influence the sacred elements of earth, water, fire and air by just banging on them with hammers! Obviously, there need to be a deity - Vulcanus most likely - who by his divine powers 'creates' steel for those who go through the correct ritual of adoration and praise for his majesty. Sorry, this is just what I believe. Anything that might tell me differently I will ignore.

But of course Vulcanus doesn't just snap his fingers and do this magically... no, he "creates" this. Which is just a generic term that I do not need to further explain, but definitly does NOT mean anything that can be scientifically analysed.

 

[Poster0]

This is what a creationist hardliner believes. At least be honest in your claims, if you fail to be honest in your representation of others.

I believe that there are things that we don't understand about how life exists on earth, and that people are looking for an answer, but they are looking at something so complex that its easily misinterpreted, and its is still very much just theory. Much of it doesnt make sense to me. I do find it hard to believe that humans lived like savage cavemen for 200,000 years but then all of a sudden they became enlightened and discovered the things we see today. Science seems very intelligent but i think that our ignorance far outweighs our understanding, and for that reason we dont actually understand what we are looking at.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You will see how serious it is one day. One day you will know that God created you. It wont be funny then.

If I am wrong, then I am wrong, but at least I will have my integrity.

Sorry, but I don't respond to empty threats. I might as well threaten you with reincarnation as a cockroach. "It won't be funny then!"


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

There are no 65M year old dinosaur bones.

Perhaps, but there is preservation of soft tissue.

http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Poster0]

Metallurgy, huh? Just a bunch of hogwash. Fantasy! I find it highly improbable that you can influence the sacred elements of earth, water, fire and air by just banging on them with hammers! Obviously, there need to be a deity - Vulcanus most likely - who by his divine powers 'creates' steel for those who go through the correct ritual of adoration and praise for his majesty. Sorry, this is just what I believe. Anything that might tell me differently I will ignore.

But of course Vulcanus doesn't just snap his fingers and do this magically... no, he "creates" this. Which is just a generic term that I do not need to further explain, but definitly does NOT mean anything that can be scientifically analysed.

I see nothing sacred with fire, water and air. The scriptures use those things as analogy to help us understand spiritual things of God. We use analogies everyday in life. I'M also not as religious as you may think. I am a believer and follower of God yes, but im not some church goer who needs the "correct ritual of adoration and praise for his majesty" (your words not mine) My faith is simple. I believe God has put the truth inside me, the knowledge of right and wrong, and i do pray to him but not with any special ceremony. I talk to him like i talk to you. I cry out to him from my heart and talk to him. I follow the teachings that the scriptures give to us and believe them to be a simple path of faith, but not full of ceremonial things. The ceremonial things are really analogies themselves which are supposed to teach us about spiritual things. There is no need for those things however. Faith is quite simple and uncomplicated. Its just am mater of following that truth that God has given us, the knowledge of right right and wrong. It also about following the hope that he gives us, hope in eternal life. It actually makes a lot of sense if you look at it the way God meant it to be seen. Its about hope that this world doesnt have.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Some speculate that a "tiered cosmos" is wired into the brain. We see things in terms of higher and better, or lower and worse, as a matter of neurological course. SO heaven and hell are artefacts of neurology rather than existing realms. But if we have such a brain mechanism, what influence does religious programming (acculturaltion to certain concepts) have on us. Or, for an atheist, with a lack of tiered cosmos, where does that leave the brain?

 

[Freodin]

I believe that there are things that we don't understand about how life exists on earth, and that people are looking for an answer, but they are looking at something so complex that its easily misinterpreted, and its is still very much just theory.

So it is "easily misinterpreted". And somehow that means that all the scientists who spend their life in analysing and testing their hypotheses... they all get it wrong and make stuff up. But you, who have only the slightest idea about the topic - as shown by your constant errors in simple things - you get it right and have all it takes to identify it as "hogwash" and "fantasy".

Are you really sure about that?

Much of it doesnt make sense to me.

Yes, I see that. It doesn't make sense... to you. Because you don't know what you are talking about, and you are not willing to learn.

I do find it hard to believe that humans lived like savage cavemen for 200,000 years but then all of a sudden they became enlightened and discovered the things we see today.

Yes, I see that. You find that hard to believe. Because you don't understand, and do not even try to understand. You keep ignoring everything that might challenge what you don't believe.

200,000 years and then sudden enlightenment is hard to believe? Why is it easier to accept 6,000 years and the sudden enlightenment?

Science seems very intelligent but i think that our ignorance far outweighs our understanding, and for that reason we dont actually understand what we are looking at.

Science seems very intelligent (what a phrase!)... in every regard that you agree with. But it becomes ignorant and made-up hogwash in every instance you disagree with.

Shouldn't you at least have some expertise in science, or present some scientific evidence, before making such general claims?

 

[Poster0]

If I am wrong, then I am wrong, but at least I will have my integrity.

Sorry, but I don't respond to empty threats. I might as well threaten you with reincarnation as a cockroach. "It won't be funny then!"


eudaimonia,

Mark

It wasn't a threat. I don't mean any harm to you in any way. BTW, i didnt put an exclamation point on the end of those words, and it was not intended to have one. Thats was only your interpretation of what i was saying.

 

[Freodin]

I see nothing sacred with fire, water and air. The scriptures use those things as analogy to help us understand spiritual things of God. We use analogies everyday in life. I'M also not as religious as you may think. I am a believer and follower of God yes, but im not some church goer who needs the "correct ritual of adoration and praise for his majesty" (your words not mine) My faith is simple. I believe God has put the truth inside me, the knowledge of right and wrong, and i do pray to him but not with any special ceremony. I talk to him like i talk to you. I cry out to him from my heart and talk to him. I follow the teachings that the scriptures give to us and believe them to be a simple path of faith, but not full of ceremonial things. The ceremonial things are really analogies themselves which are supposed to teach us about spiritual things. There is no need for those things however. Faith is quite simple and uncomplicated. Its just am mater of following that truth that God has given us, the knowledge of right right and wrong. It also about following the hope that he gives us, hope in eternal life. It actually makes a lot of sense if you look at it the way God meant it to be seen. Its about hope that this world doesnt have.

And it seems you are also completely unable to understand an differing postion... another thing about (creationist) religious hardliners.

You even mention analogies in your post... but you are not able to understand them when other people make them.

See, there are things that you believe, and there are things that you don't believe. And you think that "God has put the truth inside me, the knowledge of right and wrong". You think that this somehow enables you to discern, perfectly, everything about this world. You can, with just your belief and a cursory glance, determine where thousands of dedicated people - many of them Christians like you - are wrong.

But when someone else uses exactly this same position against you... you are baffled. You just cannot imagine what they are talking about. How can they talk about something other that YOU? Impossible!

So to spell it out:

Here you are, stating that you don't believe what science tells you in regard to evolution... that it is "fantasy evidence", that is is so easily misinterpreted - and therefore wrong. You affirm that you love science, except where it disagrees with your beliefs.
Just here, look, metallurgy for example! That is "true science". Something that this hogwash evolution isn't. Here you state your belief: it isn't as science says, it is God who "created".

And now I counter that. Metallurgy as science tells you is hogwash. It is made up fantasy. So easily misinterpreted. Promoted by people who want to believe in it. Not real.
Oh, I do love science! Mechanics for example. Every so intelligent and just as science says. But not metallurgy. I definitly believe that it is the god Vulcanus who "creates" steel.


See, what I presented here as "my position" is completely rational. It is easy to believe. It is so hard to believe that by banging on hot iron with a hammer you transform it into steel. How is that to work?

But this isn't a scientific approach. We can - and did - research into the topics of metallurgy, and we found out how it works. By science. By evidence.
Just as with evolution.

If you can do away with the evidence for evolution with a simply denial, I can do so with any evidence for anything.

Where is the difference?

 

[Poster0]

Some speculate that a "tiered cosmos" is wired into the brain. We see things in terms of higher and better, or lower and worse, as a matter of neurological course. SO heaven and hell are artefacts of neurology rather than existing realms. But if we have such a brain mechanism, what influence does religious programming (acculturaltion to certain concepts) have on us. Or, for an atheist, with a lack of tiered cosmos, where does that leave the brain?

Its interesting what you have said. I believe that science looks at the brain through Neurological examination and they observe effects but dont actually know the cause. Correct me if i misunderstand your intention. Neron's fire in the brain when we get sad, (if that is what happens, correct if im wrong) but that's not why we get sad.

For example- We get sad because something outside the brain made us sad. That doesn't mean that the thing which made us sad doesnt exist, does it? Isnt that what you are saying though? Are you not saying that if you make me sad and my brain shows some activity that can be scientifically measured, then that activity is the only truth, but you yourself, who made me sad, does not exist?

 

[Poster0]

Yes, I see that. You find that hard to believe. Because you don't understand, and do not even try to understand. You keep ignoring everything that might challenge what you don't believe.

200,000 years and then sudden enlightenment is hard to believe? Why is it easier to accept 6,000 years and the sudden enlightenment?

I believe that 6000 years is a very short time compared to 200,000 years. Its more plausible to believe in sudden enlightenment in that time range.

 

[Freodin]

I believe that 6000 years is a very short time compared to 200,000 years.

I believe that 6000 years is a very long time compared to the average time that humans can directly comprehend (which is about 100 years).

Its more plausible to believe in sudden enlightenment in that time range.

Based on what? You need to have some structure, some method of elaboration, to make a statement about what is "more plausible".

 

[Poster0]

And it seems you are also completely unable to understand an differing postion... another thing about (creationist) religious hardliners.

You even mention analogies in your post... but you are not able to understand them when other people make them.

See, there are things that you believe, and there are things that you don't believe. And you think that "God has put the truth inside me, the knowledge of right and wrong". You think that this somehow enables you to discern, perfectly, everything about this world. You can, with just your belief and a cursory glance, determine where thousands of dedicated people - many of them Christians like you - are wrong.

But when someone else uses exactly this same position against you... you are baffled. You just cannot imagine what they are talking about. How can they talk about something other that YOU? Impossible!

So to spell it out:



Here you are, stating that you don't believe what science tells you in regard to evolution... that it is "fantasy evidence", that is is so easily misinterpreted - and therefore wrong. You affirm that you love science, except where it disagrees with your beliefs.
Just here, look, metallurgy for example! That is "true science". Something that this hogwash evolution isn't. Here you state your belief: it isn't as science says, it is God who "created".

And now I counter that. Metallurgy as science tells you is hogwash. It is made up fantasy. So easily misinterpreted. Promoted by people who want to believe in it. Not real.
Oh, I do love science! Mechanics for example. Every so intelligent and just as science says. But not metallurgy. I definitly believe that it is the god Vulcanus who "creates" steel.


See, what I presented here as "my position" is completely rational. It is easy to believe. It is so hard to believe that by banging on hot iron with a hammer you transform it into steel. How is that to work?

But this isn't a scientific approach. We can - and did - research into the topics of metallurgy, and we found out how it works. By science. By evidence.
Just as with evolution.

If you can do away with the evidence for evolution with a simply denial, I can do so with any evidence for anything.

Where is the difference?

No, metallurgy is pretty basic. It cannot be compared to the vast complexities of genetics and other scientific studies. The more complex something is, the more room for error and the easier it is to misinterpret data as well..

 

[Freodin]

No, metallurgy is pretty basic. It cannot be compared to the vast complexities of genetics and other scientific studies. The more complex something is, the more room for error and the easier it is to misinterpret data as well..

Who are you to decide on what is "pretty basic" and what is "vast complexities"? Wouldn't you have to have a detailed understanding about the concept that you so simply discard as "too complex to understand"?

Have you ever heard about the Dunning-Kruger effect?

 

[Eudaimonist]

It wasn't a threat. I don't mean any harm to you in any way. BTW, i didnt put an exclamation point on the end of those words, and it was not intended to have one. Thats was only your interpretation of what i was saying.

I didn't think that you personally would wield divine judgment. By "threat" I meant that you were warning me of a danger that I could only escape by agreeing with you.

For instance, "you might not believe in fire breathing dragons like I do, but you'll be sorry one day if you ignore my advice to stay inside and happen to be eaten by one."

Perhaps "threat" isn't precisely the right word, and I'm open to suggestions for a better one.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Poster0]

I believe that 6000 years is a very long time compared to the average time that humans can directly comprehend (which is about 100 years).


Based on what? You need to have some structure, some method of elaboration, to make a statement about what is "more plausible".

6000 years is short in comparison to 200,000 years. It seems far more likely that sudden enlightenment would occur in a short period as apposed to a much longer one. Its 333 times longer and the law of averages would seem to be on my side, in my opinion. If i not mistaken science has changed its understanding of how long certain time periods were, and so it has already admitted to being wrong in the past and its probable that it can be wrong still. Its interesting that when i read something concerning when humans originated on earth, that it usually says that it's "thought" to be around 200,000 years ago. This would indicate that its more of a theory than a proven fact.

 

[Poster0]

I didn't think that you personally would wield divine judgment. By "threat" I meant that you were warning me of a danger that I could only escape by agreeing with you.

For instance, "you might not believe in fire breathing dragons like I do, but you'll be sorry one day if you ignore my advice to stay inside and happen to be eaten by one."

Perhaps "threat" isn't precisely the right word, and I'm open to suggestions for a better one.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Friendly warning.

Who are you to decide on what is "pretty basic" and what is "vast complexities"? Wouldn't you have to have a detailed understanding about the concept that you so simply discard as "too complex to understand"?

Have you ever heard about the Dunning-Kruger effect?

Not till now, but thanks for sharing. I don't think im superior in understanding anything. I just think that Science cannot possibly understand all the complexities of life and they are only scratching the surface of that iceberg. How can they expect me to believe they know the things that they cannot see? I can study a thing and tell others what i have learned but that doesnt mean that i know everything and cannot be wrong. I believe that humans are often wrong and science is no exception. Science can admit that its only speculating and theorizing about many things. Its no crime to admit that you have no idea about how most things actually work. Science has only scratched the surface and there are so many unexplained things. Why should i just accept a theory that i evolved from the same lineage as an ape or perhaps a chimpanzee? Is science infallible? I choose to think that its more likely that science has only misinterpreted its observation concerning this. IT is still a theory despite what you may claim. A theory can, and has many times before, been proven either flawed or completely wrong. Not every theory is proven and many times its based on incomplete data and is easily misinterpreted. Im sorry but i dont believe that we evolved out of some primordial soup, then slowly evolved from an ape like creature into what we are now. This is only a bunch of theory and is far from being proven.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If evolution then fossils etc,
fossils etc...

therefore evolution....

i.e. affirming the consequent.