Author Topic: A question for any theist.  (Read 8473 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 17215
  • Darwins +346/-19
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #58 on: April 03, 2009, 03:54:10 PM »
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/CliffsReviewTopic/The-Big-Bang-Theory.topicArticleId-23583,articleId-23576.html
Quote
Using the same physical principles for understanding stars, the theory does account for the evolution of the universe after a time of about 30 seconds.....According to the Big Bang Cosmology, the universe “originated” at infinite temperature and density (not necessarily true, because the conventional rules of physics do not apply to the exceedingly high temperatures and densities at a time before 30 seconds, which was in a state that scientists are only now beginning to understand).
"originated" does not mean created nor does it mean location.
if the word created was intended the word created would be used.
notice the words after and before....

really? ;)

Originate: : to take or have origin : begin http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/originate

Origin : 2 a: rise, beginning, or derivation from a source b: the point at which something begins or rises or from which it derives <the origin of the custom> ; also : something that creates, causes, or gives rise to another <a spring is the origin of the brook>3: the more fixed, central, or larger attachment of a muscle 4: the intersection of coordinate axes
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3306
  • Darwins +30/-11
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #59 on: April 03, 2009, 04:34:47 PM »
really? ;)

Originate: : to take or have origin : begin http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/originate

Origin : 2 a: rise, beginning, or derivation from a source b: the point at which something begins or rises or from which it derives <the origin of the custom> ; also : something that creates, causes, or gives rise to another <a spring is the origin of the brook>3: the more fixed, central, or larger attachment of a muscle 4: the intersection of coordinate axes
notice the use of quotes around the word originate
the quotes were used because the idea of a fixed point was absent, as I extrapolate from the article:
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/CliffsReviewTopic/The-Big-Bang-Theory.topicArticleId-23583,articleId-23576.html
Quote
...the conventional rules of physics do not apply to the exceedingly high temperatures and densities at a time before 30 seconds...
in other words space was different because the conventional rules of physics do not apply.
in my research of the big bang theory there is no credible idea to support the idea of creation, only that a change occured in a particle.

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3306
  • Darwins +30/-11
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #60 on: April 03, 2009, 05:07:54 PM »
FYI the big-bang-theory.com site it is run by jesus followers who are misrepresenting the big bang theory.

just click on the about us section.

notice they use :
Quote
Many people refer to us as “Christians,” but we consider ourselves followers of Jesus.
instead of the word scientists or philosophers.

Offline Wade

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #61 on: April 03, 2009, 09:53:46 PM »
...space was different because the conventional rules of physics do not apply.
in my research of the big bang theory there is no credible idea to support the idea of creation, only that a change occured in a particle.
there is a quote function, wade.  You should use it.  Trying to sift through all the inserted quotes can be trying for an old man.

Using coincidence as "evidence" for God has one major problem, you can't be sure it is your particular deity doing it. You are also stuck with every coincidence being God's work.  Which is why I can't prove or deny that any other particular diety doesn't exist either, but I chose not to believe it just as you chose not to believe any diety exisits at all.

The BBT does theorize where matter came from.  
Quote
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

 What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. http://www.big-bang-theory.com/


We don't know the wheres or whys because it defies our current understanding of physics and boggles the mind, and so, we have those who have faith that science will one day "prove" all this, and some that have faith that God (or some other diety) will.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2009, 09:55:29 PM by Wade »

Offline holybuckets

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
  • Darwins +3/-34
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #62 on: April 04, 2009, 10:18:55 AM »
     What compels you to believe?

     With no physical evidence and basing your life on a book that you believe is special and original, why do you turn a blind eye towards the evidence your are afraid of? 

If you wont believe, accept, or acknowledge the events of 2000 years ago, then why would anything I say satisfy your question? I don't have to prove anything to you or provide you with any evidence, that has already been done and you refuse to accept it.
See, I could give you physical evidence and you wouldn't accept it. I could provide proof and you wouldn't accept it... I could put it on a silver platter and show it to you right before your eyes.. and you would not accept it...
How do I know this? Because it's already been done. But you and your small minority refuse to listen.
It's not what I believe... it's what you don't!

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +107/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #63 on: April 04, 2009, 10:21:23 AM »
If you wont believe, accept, or acknowledge the events of 2000 years ago, then why would anything I say satisfy your question?

You could provide evidence for it.

Quote
I don't have to prove anything to you or provide you with any evidence, that has already been done and you refuse to accept it.

Oh really? Where?

Quote
See, I could give you physical evidence and you wouldn't accept it. I could provide proof and you wouldn't accept it... I could put it on a silver platter and show it to you right before your eyes.. and you would not accept it...
How do I know this? Because it's already been done. But you and your small minority refuse to listen.
It's not what I believe... it's what you don't!

Where has evidence been provided?
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +107/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #64 on: April 04, 2009, 10:31:37 AM »
Which is why I can't prove or deny that any other particular diety doesn't exist either, but I chose not to believe it just as you chose not to believe any diety exisits at all.

I'm often stumped by the asinine stupidity of anyone claiming that 'belief' is a choice.

Why can't I walk outside and 'choose' to believe there is a dragon in my driveway ready to speed me to work?  No matter how many times I do it, its still a high mileage sub compact that replaced my nice truck last summer.

Why can't I choose to believe there are invisible pink unicorns/leprechauns/fairies that push the moon around the earth, hold us to the ground, and do everything gravity is supposed to do?  No matter how many times I think about it, I simply can't.

The irony is that if 'belief' were really a choice in the manner being described, then the ability to know if anything were true would be meaningless.  There wouldn't really be any choices much less objective things to believe, god would be as much as a fantasy as the dragon in my driveway ( like it is now anyway ).  You would essentially be lying every time you uttered the statements I believe X, because you wouldn't know if it were true or not and it would all be irrelevant.  You couldn't even say,"I dont know" to anything because there wouldn't be anything to say I don't know too.  You could just make up more imaginary bull for previous bull.

So excuse me, if I call you on your 'belief is a choice' nonsense.  I'm never so arrogant to claim I know something I do not and I'm humble enough to say,"I don't know."

« Last Edit: April 04, 2009, 10:33:35 AM by Omen »
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Wade

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #65 on: April 04, 2009, 12:20:26 PM »
Which is why I can't prove or deny that any other particular diety doesn't exist either, but I chose not to believe it just as you chose not to believe any diety exisits at all.

I'm often stumped by the asinine stupidity of anyone claiming that 'belief' is a choice.
Wow!  I "choose" not to respond.

Why can't I walk outside and 'choose' to believe there is a dragon in my driveway ready to speed me to work?  No matter how many times I do it, its still a high mileage sub compact that replaced my nice truck last summer.

Why can't I choose to believe there are invisible pink unicorns/leprechauns/fairies that push the moon around the earth, hold us to the ground, and do everything gravity is supposed to do?  No matter how many times I think about it, I simply can't.

The irony is that if 'belief' were really a choice in the manner being described, then the ability to know if anything were true would be meaningless.  There wouldn't really be any choices much less objective things to believe, god would be as much as a fantasy as the dragon in my driveway ( like it is now anyway ).  You would essentially be lying every time you uttered the statements I believe X, because you wouldn't know if it were true or not and it would all be irrelevant.  You couldn't even say,"I dont know" to anything because there wouldn't be anything to say I don't know too.  You could just make up more imaginary bull for previous bull.

So excuse me, if I call you on your 'belief is a choice' nonsense.  I'm never so arrogant to claim I know something I do not and I'm humble enough to say,"I don't know."  Did I imply that I knew something I do not?  And if you read my past posts, do I not say, or imply that "I don't know either?
Which is why I can't prove or deny that any other particular diety doesn't exist either, but I chose not to believe it just as you chose not to believe any diety exisits at all.
Let me rephrase this statement: I can't prove or disprove that any diety exists (whether you want to call it God or Zeus or Thor or Pan).  You can't prove the existence or non-existence of any diety either.  I believe there is one diety - God.  If you want to believe there's a pink unicorn in your driveway - go for it.  I may not see it, but I can't disprove it.

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3306
  • Darwins +30/-11
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #66 on: April 04, 2009, 12:23:43 PM »
...If you want to believe there's a pink unicorn in your driveway - go for it.  I may not see it, but I can't disprove it.
aha we have a unicorn believer.

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2791
  • Darwins +80/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #67 on: April 04, 2009, 01:58:06 PM »
Quote
Let me rephrase this statement: I can't prove or disprove that any diety exists (whether you want to call it God or Zeus or Thor or Pan).  You can't prove the existence or non-existence of any diety either.  I believe there is one diety - God.  If you want to believe there's a pink unicorn in your driveway - go for it.  I may not see it, but I can't disprove it.

You're right that we can't disprove the existance of Yahweh or any other gods.  But then, we don't have to.  The burden of proof falls on those professing that god(s) exist.  If I say that I have every episode of Star Trek on dvd, all I have to do to prove it is to show you my collection.  Saying "I have every episode of Star Trek on dvd, but I can't prove it, and don't ask me to" would be ground to think that maybe I'm lying or that there's no reason to believe my claim.  Same thing with god(s).  Since there's no proof/evidence, there's no good reason to assume that one exist.

On that note, why do you believe that Yahweh exist, and that he is the one and only true god?  If the existance of Baal/Zeus/Horus, etc can't be dismissed, why not be safe and worship them all?
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline I_fight_stupidity

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #68 on: April 04, 2009, 04:11:49 PM »
     What compels you to believe?

     With no physical evidence and basing your life on a book that you believe is special and original, why do you turn a blind eye towards the evidence your are afraid of? 

If you wont believe, accept, or acknowledge the events of 2000 years ago, then why would anything I say satisfy your question? I don't have to prove anything to you or provide you with any evidence, that has already been done and you refuse to accept it.
See, I could give you physical evidence and you wouldn't accept it. I could provide proof and you wouldn't accept it... I could put it on a silver platter and show it to you right before your eyes.. and you would not accept it...
How do I know this? Because it's already been done. But you and your small minority refuse to listen.
It's not what I believe... it's what you don't!



Actually, i believed in god for 15 years of my life.  I have never been given any real evidence that there is a god.  You all use the same "evidence", i.e., the human body is proof, the earth is proof, the bible is proof... thats not proof of anything at all.  Why do Christians insist on answering a question like this if they don't come prepared.  I was hoping for an intelligent debate, not a claim with nothing to back it up.

Offline Jman

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #69 on: April 06, 2009, 06:11:17 PM »
God isn't a concept or a term.  It's an actual entity.

According to some. Some believe God is "all that is." Is "all that is" an entity for you?

 
Quote
Physical is a term used to describe us and the universe we live in.  As such, we're proof the physical exists.

Materialism is also used to claim particular things exist as entities.
By your "proof" statement, physicality exists in my night dreams. Within that paradigm, there is evidence all around "me" that I and life are physical. Thus not imagination?

 
Quote
If you use the term aphysical to describe us and the universe we live in, then we would be proof that aphysical exists.  You'd be causing unnecessary confusion, but you wouldn't be wrong that the "aphysical" exists.

And I'm saying it is both possible and plausible that aphyiscal is overlapping physical. That physical is a projection of aphyiscal - really at the core, a projection of thought that (perceives it) is separate from ItSelf.

Quote
Same if you say God is Love.  Love would be evidence of "God"; of course God would be meaningless though. Sorry if you can't grasp the difference between proof of a concept and proof of an entity.

From all you have conveyed here, you seem to suggest that by using the term, that (alone) is proof for it. The idea that the Bible uses the term "Word of God" is proof of God's existence, by this (faulty) logic.

Your evidence of the physical universe is that physical things exist. Sorry if you can't see circular reasoning as entirely subjective, and not objective proof(s).

You now claim that it is the "evidence" that is subjective. If so, then you still shouldn't have a problem in grasping that hot iron bar.  I'm sure if you did, you'd be burnt to the bone and I would see that and yuo would see that and so would everyone else.  You would have the added benefit of agony to show you how real the evidence was.

Disagree, I would not have evidence that it is real. Pain doesn't make it real. It is appealing to emotion which is akin to another logical fallacy. I've addressed this already. In a night dream, if *you* asked me to do something that I felt was harmful, I might not. Why? Because *you* and all the witnesses in the dream would then realize how "real" the existence is due to my experience of pain? Or because I desire, while I am in a body, to avoid pain. Incidentally same logic applies both to night dream and this existence. Interesting overlap, huh?

Quote
I can see that the concept of heaven, God and a soul exist but you claim that they are actual things.  So, are the claims of Santa as being "real" and your "soul" being real equal?   

I don't believe I am saying that Heaven / God is an actual thing. Likewise, I would generally not say that God is a mere concept. For me God is Thought. And is thus at the Cause / Source of All that Is. Just like physical things are proof that physical universe exists (subjective reasoning), I believe that God / Universe / Love / Life exists, because we collectively and individually think it. It is subjective reasoning. But at same time, there is a collective to it as well. I don't think that I am the only entity that exists, and there is no mind / existence outside of my individuality. Instead, I believe my sense of individuality is, along with entire Universe (and much much more) within the Mind of God.

I agree the Universe may have no meaning to it at all.
Yet, it appears way way way more like it has existence / meaning based on the meaning we, intelligent beings, give to it. Like many sci-fi narratives, I can imagine an Universe without intelligent beings, but since I don't live in that Universe, I consider it illogical to say that it applies to our reality. (As a side note: I believe that scientists and scientific methodology is "proof" of intelligent designers. As if Big Daddy G intended Science to be this way.) 

Again, I don't see God as outside of me, over there, way on yonder. I see us / me within Mind of God. And likewise, I see Mind of God within me / us. We have capability of blocking that from awareness (consciousness), but even the block is imaginary. It doesn't mean it isn't a "powerful" block. It is of the caliber of grabbing hot physical object with your cooler physical appendage, that you just happen to have mental / physiological attachment to.

Offline xTigerx

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1910
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWFSMD?
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #70 on: April 06, 2009, 07:05:37 PM »
God isn't a concept or a term.  It's an actual entity.

According to some. Some believe God is "all that is." Is "all that is" an entity for you?

That 'god' is pointless.  It's like saying God is love.  Ok.  So what's so significant about God?  I could just as easily say kla!ld is all that is or kla!ld is love.  All you're doing is giving a new name to something we already know exists.

 
Quote
Physical is a term used to describe us and the universe we live in.  As such, we're proof the physical exists.

Materialism is also used to claim particular things exist as entities.
By your "proof" statement, physicality exists in my night dreams. Within that paradigm, there is evidence all around "me" that I and life are physical. Thus not imagination?

How did you get that from my reasoning?  I didn't say what we see or think we see is physical.  I said we're physical.  Your dreams are a manifestation of your mind.

 
Quote
If you use the term aphysical to describe us and the universe we live in, then we would be proof that aphysical exists.  You'd be causing unnecessary confusion, but you wouldn't be wrong that the "aphysical" exists.

And I'm saying it is both possible and plausible that aphyiscal is overlapping physical. That physical is a projection of aphyiscal - really at the core, a projection of thought that (perceives it) is separate from ItSelf.

I wasn't using aphysical to mean non-physical.  This is your biggest problem now.  You're reading what isn't there.

Quote
Same if you say God is Love.  Love would be evidence of "God"; of course God would be meaningless though. Sorry if you can't grasp the difference between proof of a concept and proof of an entity.

From all you have conveyed here, you seem to suggest that by using the term, that (alone) is proof for it. The idea that the Bible uses the term "Word of God" is proof of God's existence, by this (faulty) logic.

Your evidence of the physical universe is that physical things exist. Sorry if you can't see circular reasoning as entirely subjective, and not objective proof(s).

Once again, you fail to actually read my post.  We observe things (such as attachment and intimacy), and apply terms to them (love).  The terms themselves don't really matter... they're only used for identification and communication purposes.  So physical is used to describe us and the environment we observe.  Those are known to exist (unless you're a solipsist, which you are so I have no idea why I'm discussing this with you).  When you ask for proof of the "physical", all I have to say is: you exist, don't you?

Nowhere did I insinuate that using a "using the term... is proof for it".  Your misrepresentations are getting tiresome.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2009, 07:07:35 PM by xTigerx »
God, if you're real, show yourself.  ...still waiting...
...

...




...

Offline Jman

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #71 on: April 06, 2009, 07:38:03 PM »
That 'god' is pointless.  It's like saying God is love.  Ok.  So what's so significant about God?  I could just as easily say kla!ld is all that is or kla!ld is love.  All you're doing is giving a new name to something we already know exists.

We know love exists? Where's the physical evidence for that?
Are you sure it's not giving an old name to something we already know exists.
Also, it isn't just giving the name, it is exploring and understanding. Theology is concerned with understanding God's Love as Agape rather than Eros. So, it is not just equating terms and calling it a day. It can be that for some, but is not that for all theists.

 
Quote
Physical is a term used to describe us and the universe we live in.  As such, we're proof the physical exists.

Quote
Materialism is also used to claim particular things exist as entities.
By your "proof" statement, physicality exists in my night dreams. Within that paradigm, there is evidence all around "me" that I and life are physical. Thus not imagination?

How did you get that from my reasoning?  I didn't say what we see or think we see is physical.  I said we're physical.  Your dreams are a manifestation of your mind.

I agree you didn't say what you are claiming. I helped you out as you didn't provide any reasoning. At all. Your proof is not a proof or is as much proof that God exists, because Bible says it is Word of God. It's not saying it thinks God exists or we can see this as idea that God exists. It asserts it. Thus, according to your (poor) logic, it is explained and proof has been given.

I wasn't using aphysical to mean non-physical.  This is your biggest problem now.  You're reading what isn't there.

Could you clarify what you mean by "aphysical." My dictionary doesn't have that term. I don't believe I stated it as non-physical and do believe I may stand by my point given your usage of the term.

Quote
Once again, you fail to actually read my post.

Dude, I'm quoting your words back to you. Stop saying where you THINK my failures are. Or don't.

 
Quote
We observe things (such as attachment and intimacy), and apply terms to them (love).  The terms themselves don't really matter... they're only used for identification and communication purposes.  So physical is used to describe us and the environment we observe.  Those are known to exist (unless you're a solipsist, which you are so I have no idea why I'm discussing this with you).  When you ask for proof of the "physical", all I have to say is: you exist, don't you?

Which is a non sequitur. Same thing could be said about Spiritual existence. If you are unable to provide meaningful, and more importantly objective evidence of "physical," then the term is meaningless. Why not just substitute "spiritual" for every instance you use the term "physical." How would it lose any meaning from the way you are currently putting things together.

Btw, if you really believe I'm a solipsist, and you have now claimed twice that it is your choice not to discuss things with me if that is true, why do you continue? I'm okay if you stop addressing me on this site. I may still address your words, but feel free to go on avoiding me, if you feel I am something that you feel you cannot dialogue with for whatever reason.

But you claiming that the physical is known to exist without providing objective evidence for it, makes it clear to me that you don't know what you think you know.

Offline Jman

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #72 on: April 06, 2009, 07:42:04 PM »
Nowhere did I insinuate that using a "using the term... is proof for it".  Your misrepresentations are getting tiresome.

Physical is a term used to describe us and the universe we live in.  As such, we're proof the physical exists.

Offline xTigerx

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1910
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWFSMD?
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #73 on: April 06, 2009, 09:05:17 PM »
Nowhere did I insinuate that using a "using the term... is proof for it".  Your misrepresentations are getting tiresome.

Physical is a term used to describe us and the universe we live inAs such, we're proof the physical exists.


The key bit is the bolded portion, not the underlined portion.  Where did I say the use implies proof?  Where did I say "we use the term physical, therefore the physical exists"?

It's kind of sad if you still don't get what I'm saying.  But here let me explain to you in case:

It's a given that we exist (like I said, only solipsists will argue this point).  "Physical" is used in reference to this fact.  I even went on to say that we can use any term we like to reference this fact.  The term itself doesn't matter.  If we used the term "God" to refer to our existence, and "Physical" to refer to some omnipotent creator deity, then "God" would definitely exist, whereas "Physical" would remain unproven.

So no, my argument wasn't circular (though I understand how it may seem that way to a solipsist).  You asked for proof that the physical (i.e. ourselves and our environment) exist.  I simply pointed out that it's a given that we (and hence the physical) exist.
God, if you're real, show yourself.  ...still waiting...
...

...




...

Offline xTigerx

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1910
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWFSMD?
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #74 on: April 06, 2009, 09:29:40 PM »
That 'god' is pointless.  It's like saying God is love.  Ok.  So what's so significant about God?  I could just as easily say kla!ld is all that is or kla!ld is love.  All you're doing is giving a new name to something we already know exists.

We know love exists? Where's the physical evidence for that?

Let's not go down this path.

Are you sure it's not giving an old name to something we already know exists.
Also, it isn't just giving the name, it is exploring and understanding. Theology is concerned with understanding God's Love as Agape rather than Eros. So, it is not just equating terms and calling it a day. It can be that for some, but is not that for all theists.


Which is exactly my point.  "God is all that exists" renders the term god useless.  We can simply call all that exists... all that exists.  Now if God were in reference to some omnipotent, omnibenevolent being, then we can actually have a meaningful discussion on whether God exists or not.

Quote
Physical is a term used to describe us and the universe we live in.  As such, we're proof the physical exists.

Quote
Materialism is also used to claim particular things exist as entities.
By your "proof" statement, physicality exists in my night dreams. Within that paradigm, there is evidence all around "me" that I and life are physical. Thus not imagination?

Quote
How did you get that from my reasoning?  I didn't say what we see or think we see is physical.  I said we're physical.  Your dreams are a manifestation of your mind.

I agree you didn't say what you are claiming. I helped you out as you didn't provide any reasoning. At all. Your proof is not a proof or is as much proof that God exists, because Bible says it is Word of God. It's not saying it thinks God exists or we can see this as idea that God exists. It asserts it. Thus, according to your (poor) logic, it is explained and proof has been given.

I'm sorry, I was working on the assumption that we all know we exist.  I forgot there's a solipsist among us.

Quote
I wasn't using aphysical to mean non-physical.  This is your biggest problem now.  You're reading what isn't there.

Quote
Could you clarify what you mean by "aphysical." My dictionary doesn't have that term. I don't believe I stated it as non-physical and do believe I may stand by my point given your usage of the term.

*sigh* I arbitrarily came up with the term aphysical to make a point that the term 'physical' was irrelevant.  What's relevant is whether we exist or not.  We do.  We call this existence physicality.  So physicality exists.  If we called our existence aphysicality, then we'd say aphysicality exists.

By the way, you did imply that aphysical is something not physical.  Are you denying this?

Quote
Once again, you fail to actually read my post.

Dude, I'm quoting your words back to you. Stop saying where you THINK my failures are. Or don't.

No you're not.  You're presenting your own (incorrect) interpretations of what I said.  Your misunderstanding of what I meant by aphysical is proof of this.

 
Quote
We observe things (such as attachment and intimacy), and apply terms to them (love).  The terms themselves don't really matter... they're only used for identification and communication purposes.  So physical is used to describe us and the environment we observe.  Those are known to exist (unless you're a solipsist, which you are so I have no idea why I'm discussing this with you).  When you ask for proof of the "physical", all I have to say is: you exist, don't you?

Which is a non sequitur. Same thing could be said about Spiritual existence. If you are unable to provide meaningful, and more importantly objective evidence of "physical," then the term is meaningless. Why not just substitute "spiritual" for every instance you use the term "physical." How would it lose any meaning from the way you are currently putting things together.

Still not getting what I'm saying.  If you want to say we and our environment are "spiritual", then go ahead.  I don't care if you want to call it walksidl.  In regular English language, though, we tend to use the word "physical"; the word spiritual is usually used to describe something non-physical; the word walksidl doesn't even exist... I just randomly typed some letters.  The fact is that we exist.  If you want to continue to argue over terminology, then this is futile.

Btw, if you really believe I'm a solipsist, and you have now claimed twice that it is your choice not to discuss things with me if that is true, why do you continue? I'm okay if you stop addressing me on this site. I may still address your words, but feel free to go on avoiding me, if you feel I am something that you feel you cannot dialogue with for whatever reason.

Because sometimes I just don't know when to stop.  Why do I respond to the crazies in the failbag?  Because it's entertaining despite being pointless.  I'm so at awe with the level of ... displayed here that I'm compelled to continue to learn more about this ... viewpoint.

But you claiming that the physical is known to exist without providing objective evidence for it, makes it clear to me that you don't know what you think you know.

Let me ask you this: do you believe we exist?

If no, then good day (night) sir.

If yes, do you believe the word "physical" is used to describe that existence?

If no, then we just have different terminologies.

If yes, then what's the problem here?

edit: fixed quotes.
edit 2: fixed word.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2009, 09:33:47 PM by xTigerx »
God, if you're real, show yourself.  ...still waiting...
...

...




...

Offline GamerGirl

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1065
  • Darwins +11/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • aka Lillium
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #75 on: April 07, 2009, 01:56:11 AM »
Are you willing to concede that the available evidence for the human body exceeds the available evidence for any gods?

No. Thanks for asking.

Oookay.

>ksm quietly backs out the door<

Seriously?!

/lesigh

Uhm... For anyone to read really:

Unwillingness to acknowledge another person's opinion saddens me.  It would be the same as me sharing my opinion about God to a non-believer and then having the nonbeliever laugh in my face (Actually, that's happened to me before so....), it's extremely inappropriate to enter a discussion and refuse to, at the very least, acknowledge that another possibility may exist.

On that note, I think it a moot point to reitterate an opinion several times over when an audience may not exist.  For me to argue that God exists seems pointless.  Stating why I believe, meaningful.

And so, I believe because I can believe and because I like my beliefs... *mock pout* so there.  But seriously though, believing in a higher power does not hurt anyone.  It's what people do in the name of their given belief system that, in my opinion, truly can hurt anyone--even the believer.

Offline xTigerx

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1910
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWFSMD?
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #76 on: April 07, 2009, 07:27:44 AM »
Are you willing to concede that the available evidence for the human body exceeds the available evidence for any gods?

No. Thanks for asking.

Oookay.

>ksm quietly backs out the door<

Seriously?!

/lesigh

Uhm... For anyone to read really:

Unwillingness to acknowledge another person's opinion saddens me. 

I don't think there's a lack of people who acknowledge opinions here.  Did you mean respect?

It would be the same as me sharing my opinion about God to a non-believer and then having the nonbeliever laugh in my face (Actually, that's happened to me before so....), it's extremely inappropriate to enter a discussion and refuse to, at the very least, acknowledge that another possibility may exist.

Unless that other possibility is completely ludicrous.  Such as saying there isn't more evidence for human body than there is for gods.  Are you willing to acknowledge that possibility?
God, if you're real, show yourself.  ...still waiting...
...

...




...

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 17215
  • Darwins +346/-19
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #77 on: April 07, 2009, 07:52:55 PM »
Quote
Unwillingness to acknowledge another person's opinion saddens me.  It would be the same as me sharing my opinion about God to a non-believer and then having the nonbeliever laugh in my face (Actually, that's happened to me before so....), it's extremely inappropriate to enter a discussion and refuse to, at the very least, acknowledge that another possibility may exist.
as has been said, acknowledgment is no problem. Respecting?  Well, that's only earned.  Opinions that are unsupported should be questioned, if not laughed at outright. 
Quote
On that note, I think it a moot point to reitterate an opinion several times over when an audience may not exist.  For me to argue that God exists seems pointless.  Stating why I believe, meaningful.
so, you are just preaching to hear yourself say how great and right you are.  Not useful on a forum like this. 
Quote
And so, I believe because I can believe and because I like my beliefs... *mock pout* so there.  But seriously though, believing in a higher power does not hurt anyone.  It's what people do in the name of their given belief system that, in my opinion, truly can hurt anyone--even the believer.
Have you been ignoring everything on this site? Yes, belief in a higher power does harm people.  it makes them think they are better than others and have some divine right to do what they will.  It makes them stop thinking.  What they do in the name of their given belief system is teh same as the belief itself.  One can't exist without the other. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline justaguy_1

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #78 on: April 09, 2009, 10:30:26 AM »
What compels me to believe?  It is something that you have to experience for yourself to be able to answer that question.  Until you have experienced God there is no way for you to understand what "believers" are experiencing.  Question me this then..... the claim is made that God has a requirement for sin and the punishment for sin is eternal damnation.  Notice that I said eternal damnation.........it never ends.......... Are you willing to risk eternity seperated from God and live in total torment forever?  I guarantee that if you truely seek God ........... you will find Him.......he doesn't hide.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 17215
  • Darwins +346/-19
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #79 on: April 09, 2009, 11:30:37 AM »
What compels me to believe?  It is something that you have to experience for yourself to be able to answer that question.  Until you have experienced God there is no way for you to understand what "believers" are experiencing.  Question me this then..... the claim is made that God has a requirement for sin and the punishment for sin is eternal damnation.  Notice that I said eternal damnation.........it never ends.......... Are you willing to risk eternity seperated from God and live in total torment forever?  I guarantee that if you truely seek God ........... you will find Him.......he doesn't hide.

I was a believer.  And ooh, I know, you'll claim that "realtrueChristianstm" wouldn't ever ever doconvert.  Sorry, I did.

You're making pascal's wager for the billionth time.  No suprise, and you assume that only your God is real.  What if *you* are the one who is wrong?  Even if your God was the real one, I would rather be tortured for eternity than worship something that needs to torture people for eternity.  You also seem, like every other theist who brings up Pascal's Wager, to think that God can be fooled by professing belief and that anyone can force themselves to believe in whatever they want.  If so, can you force yourself to believe in fairies with no evidence?

I have been occasionally sending up a prayer to see if God's paying attention yet to show a "Thomas" that he exists.  Nothing yet, and it's been nearly 30 years now.  Let me guess, the response will be "you aren't doing it *right*" or "you aren't being sincere".  If so, tell me the "right" way and tell me how you can tell how sincere I have been.   
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline justaguy_1

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #80 on: April 09, 2009, 11:41:37 AM »
I have only stated what I believe.  I don't try to force my views upon anyone.  I was just stating one of the tennants of my faith.  I didn't write it.........so don't blame me.

IF I am wrong...........what have I lost??  I am willing to take that gamble.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2009, 11:53:09 AM by justaguy_1 »

Offline Dkit

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2113
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Nemesis Ridiculii
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #81 on: April 09, 2009, 12:00:11 PM »
IF I am wrong...........what have I lost??  I am willing to take that gamble.
That all depends.  Are you going to insist on a false dichotomy?  Your God or no God?  There are more gods to choose from than just yours, you know.  What if the muslims are correct?  You'll be roasting in Islamic hell with the rest of us infidels. 
"The Bible is a Banquet table not a snack tray!" - Anonymous Facebook User

Offline justaguy_1

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #82 on: April 09, 2009, 12:02:05 PM »
LOL.......us infidels........already one if I follow after Christ.  Jesus is the only one that said He was the way to the father.  So yes I am willing to make that gamble.

Offline Dkit

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2113
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Nemesis Ridiculii
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #83 on: April 09, 2009, 12:05:18 PM »
The Qu'ran states Allah is the sustainer of all.  How is that different than what is stated in the bible?  How is the bible more reliable than the Qu'ran?


And Jesus wasn't the first godman sacrifice to be worshipped.  Recycled mythology.
"The Bible is a Banquet table not a snack tray!" - Anonymous Facebook User

Offline justaguy_1

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #84 on: April 09, 2009, 12:23:04 PM »
The Qu'ran states Allah is the sustainer of all.  How is that different than what is stated in the bible?  How is the bible more reliable than the Qu'ran?


And Jesus wasn't the first godman sacrifice to be worshipped.  Recycled mythology.
Jesus stated that He was the way to the father.  That is the difference between what I believe and what the Qu'ran teaches.

Offline Dkit

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2113
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Nemesis Ridiculii
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #85 on: April 09, 2009, 12:25:38 PM »
How do you know what Jesus stated is true?  Do you have any evidence besides the bible?  Anything besides, "the bible is true because the bible states it is true"? 



Just asking.
"The Bible is a Banquet table not a snack tray!" - Anonymous Facebook User

Offline justaguy_1

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: A question for any theist.
« Reply #86 on: April 09, 2009, 12:29:27 PM »
Yes I have evidence.........I have experienced God working in my life.