504 replies to this topic

[disastrousmaster]

Religious and political discussions are always full of so much fail. Hopefully nobody responds to me because this is so boring.

thanks for the vote of confidence in having a debate in a debate thread, hopefully you wont respond to my arguments against you because you see more sense in mine >_> see what I did there.

Religion and science have never been in conflict. The more you throw intellect at the subject, the worse off you are. Only someone who has an equal spiritual and scientific understanding can grasp the unity between the two. Lack of knowledge(and I mean true knowledge & understanding) of either one, will only lead to confusion.

really? that sure would seem to be the opposite of what history has shown what with religious groups and scientific groups attacking one another. (mostly the church, but scientific groups do so as well) oh and do explain what your true knowledge is, as far as I was aware there was no "true" knowledge on gods or goddesses.

 

Creationism and Evolution have no incompatibilities. He created science. He created evolution. He created us. All compatible. Even the smartest of us, as human beings, are too ignorant to understand this perfect existence.

not much evidence to say a god has to be male or female a god could be both or neither. so saying he makes me believe you think you know about a certain god in the absolute and even have confirmation on your gods gender.

 

Logic & Emotion, Physical & Spiritual all exist. Both sides of every argument will lead nowhere unless you find the balance.



Is God real? Yes, for me He is. How do I know? Just as logic is conflicted by emotion, you may have to abandon your logic long enough to find that answer...

personally there is no need to abandon logic to find a god/goddess, the true question you should ask yourself is this. how should I find a god? If you do find a god. what should I do? and what should I do if they wanted to destroy humanity? all arguments for gods/goddesses that I have seen assume they would be on our side. myself I am inclined to doubt that, especially if we actively seek them out and try to find them. Personally I choose to take a viewpoint of agnostic theist. I believe there are gods out there. I do not want to find them if they are out there. If they attempt to destroy humanity I as a human would look for a way to defend myself against one (possibility slim)

[theonlygeezy]

thanks for the vote of confidence in having a debate in a debate thread, hopefully you wont respond to my arguments against you because you see more sense in mine >_> see what I did there.

 

 

really? that sure would seem to be the opposite of what history has shown what with religious groups and scientific groups attacking one another. (mostly the church, but scientific groups do so as well) oh and do explain what your true knowledge is, as far as I was aware there was no "true" knowledge on gods or goddesses.

 

 

 

not much evidence to say a god has to be male or female a god could be both or neither. so saying he makes me believe you think you know about a certain god in the absolute and even have confirmation on your gods gender.

 

 

 

personally there is no need to abandon logic to find a god/goddess, the true question you should ask yourself is this. how should I find a god? If you do find a god. what should I do? and what should I do if they wanted to destroy humanity? all arguments for gods/goddesses that I have seen assume they would be on our side. myself I am inclined to doubt that, especially if we actively seek them out and try to find them. Personally I choose to take a viewpoint of agnostic theist. I believe there are gods out there. I do not want to find them if they are out there. If they attempt to destroy humanity I as a human would look for a way to defend myself against one (possibility slim)

 

 

To your first sentence, yes I see what you did there. You made yourself look like a jackass. You're forgiven.

 

I'm only responding to answer one question. HE is not male or female when it pertains to God. Notice the capitalizing in my last sentence.

 

As far as the rest of your post, you really should allow information to marinate for at least a few hours(or years) to allow some form of understanding instead of racing to respond.

[disastrousmaster]

To your first sentence, yes I see what you did there. You made yourself look like a jackass. You're forgiven.

 

I'm only responding to answer one question. HE is not male or female when it pertains to God. Notice the capitalizing in my last sentence.

 

As far as the rest of your post, you really should allow information to marinate for at least a few hours(or years) to allow some form of understanding instead of racing to respond.

to your response, I would like to see some backing on the fact of someone saying HE and the fact that it is capitalized means that it is a non gender, last I knew to call something a nongender it would be called it, not he. do give me a link to proper English if I am wrong though.

 

really? you are telling me to wait a bunch of years before responding to your post. now thats a bit of a stretch if you ask me. if you are telling me to wait a few years before coming to a complete answer, well honestly I dont have much of an answer. that is what it means to be agnostic. the theist part is the way that I lean more towards believing on if there are gods in this universe, I am afraid you will have to forgive me for not following by an over 2000 year old text with known alterations made to it word for word. or if I am mistaken and you are not christian, then I would like to know more about what you do follow as I am always open to learning more about religions.

Edited by disastrousmaster, 17 August 2013 - 03:34 AM.

[Sauron]

Religious and political discussions are always full of so much fail. Hopefully nobody responds to me because this is so boring.

 

Religion and science have never been in conflict. The more you throw intellect at the subject, the worse off you are. Only someone who has an equal spiritual and scientific understanding can grasp the unity between the two. Lack of knowledge(and I mean true knowledge & understanding) of either one, will only lead to confusion.

 

Creationism and Evolution have no incompatibilities. He created science. He created evolution. He created us. All compatible. Even the smartest of us, as human beings, are too ignorant to understand this perfect existence.

 

Logic & Emotion, Physical & Spiritual all exist. Both sides of every argument will lead nowhere unless you find the balance.

 

Is God real? Yes, for me He is. How do I know? Just as logic is conflicted by emotion, you may have to abandon your logic long enough to find that answer...

 

Who is he? Have you ever seen him?

[Tale]

When you read widely, that's when one discovers flaws in various topics, e.g Darwinism as it is primarily taught.

 

When you read widely, you will also find a lot of misinformation. Take what you read with a grain of salt. I note that you ignored almost everything in my post and answered with a bunch of vague assertions. We were talking about the incompatibility of science and religion. I asked you, when have scientists demonstrated that they are incompatible or otherwise?

 

 

String theory like time travel is theoretical physics that's why its always interesting to see people trying to build equipment for time travel when they clearly don't understand what it entails.

 

Again, we were talking about scientists saying "something came from nothing" and whether anyone should believe them or not. I pointed out that they do not state this as fact, and when they do, the nothing they talk about is not the philosophical concept of nothing philosophers talk about. I have no idea what the fact that string theory is theoretical physics has to do with anything.

 

 

 

As far as your comment on ancient civilisations is concerned you might want to start with the science of the Babylonians and Egyptians, NASA and similar agencies in the world are not going to tell people publicly that they are attempting/have already attempted to employ the same techniques ancients used thousands of years ago in their research. Coincidence? The evidence suggests otherwise.

 

Forgive me if I am skeptical. I've seen numerous claims in various documentaries that claim the Egyptians or other ancient civilizations must have had technology beyond ours (or at least as advanced as ours), and experts on those civilizations and engineers all have explanations that make such claims appear silly by comparison.

 

 

 

Dakwins is a hypocrite who largely looks down on people who don't share his ''brand of atheism'', i thought he was a very interesting individual previously until he became the very ''poison'' he claims to be fighting against.

 

It's irrelevant what Dawkins is (though your statement is stuffed with hyperbole). He is still correct in his field of expertise, more than his religious opponents imagine.
 

The world is a game with various chess pieces which have already been placed in motion a long time ago; we await the next phase.

 

 

As far as I'm concerned, this is a meaningless statement.

 

 

Religious and political discussions are always full of so much fail. Hopefully nobody responds to me because this is so boring.

 

Religion and science have never been in conflict. The more you throw intellect at the subject, the worse off you are. Only someone who has an equal spiritual and scientific understanding can grasp the unity between the two. Lack of knowledge(and I mean true knowledge & understanding) of either one, will only lead to confusion.

 

This is demonstrably false. 

Creationists and fundamentalists show daily that whenever science make a claim that enters their territory, they will reject science.

We're not talking about a physical conflict, by the way.

 

 

Creationism and Evolution have no incompatibilities. 

 

Which is why there's a nearly two-hundred year old history of fundamentalist Christians criticizing the theory of evolution?

 

 

He created science. He created evolution. He created us. All compatible. Even the smartest of us, as human beings, are too ignorant to understand this perfect existence.

 

What do you mean by "perfect existence"?

 

 

Logic & Emotion, Physical & Spiritual all exist. Both sides of every argument will lead nowhere unless you find the balance.

 

Proving the first three exist won't be that hard. Proving the spiritual exists is probably impossible. 

 

 

 

Is God real? Yes, for me He is. How do I know? Just as logic is conflicted by emotion, you may have to abandon your logic long enough to find that answer...

 

This assumes that "emotion" is just as good as logic/reason when it comes to acquiring and understanding knowledge properly. I have no idea what your specific beliefs are, but when people neglect logic, they arrive at vastly different conclusions. There are thousands of gods and thousands of religions because people rely on "emotion" to determine what they believe. There is a conflict between science and religion, creationism and evolution, facts and faith, because people rely on emotion.

Edited by Tale, 18 August 2013 - 12:22 AM.

[Alpha]

Whether there is a higher being in this universe or not , it did not create science. We created science to explain the world around us. We created Soap Operas to entertain us with drama. Even if a higher being exists , it did not create these things. It created us and we created these things.(or at least applied them for our own goals).

 

To say it created these concepts that do not exist naturally and were created by us out of nothing , is to say we have no control and everything we do and think is controlled by God. You are simply taking away all of free will to defend a point. Such a idea is horrible!

It is interesting with humans , how they will destroy the world to make their idea justified as correct.

Edited by Alpha, 18 August 2013 - 10:19 PM.

[Raijuu]

This assumes that "emotion" is just as good as logic/reason when it comes to acquiring and understanding knowledge properly. I have no idea what your specific beliefs are, but when people neglect logic, they arrive at vastly different conclusions. There are thousands of gods and thousands of religions because people rely on "emotion" to determine what they believe. There is a conflict between science and religion, creationism and evolution, facts and faith, because people rely on emotion.

 

That's inhuman though. A human being cannot strictly use logic to make every possible decision in their lives because it would take them years in order to calculate the simplest of things, e.g. "should I buy this ice cream or not? Let us think of every possible effect this could ever have in my life and pick the best choice."

 

And logic, as it stands, contradicts itself... because, simply put, this entire universe contradicts itself. "Matter cannot be created nor destroyed" - it is logical, because we have observed and proven that physical mass and energy only transforms constantly, but anyone that uses "logic" would also see that this makes no sense because how did the universe come to exist without matter being created?

 

I used to think mathematics was like "the language of God" since it's basically a set of rules that are universally truth, since there is no possible way they can be denied/contradicted. But when you take in consideration the fact that the universe itself has a flawed logic then... everything just crumbles.

 

And then there is quantum mechanics... fml... 

 

/basically said nothing but you get the idea XD

Edited by Raijuu, 19 August 2013 - 01:17 AM.

[disastrousmaster]

Whether there is a higher being in this universe or not , it did not create science. We created science to explain the world around us. We created Soap Operas to entertain us with drama. Even if a higher being exists , it did not create these things. It created us and we created these things.(or at least applied them for our own goals).

 

To say it created these concepts that do not exist naturally and were created by us out of nothing , is to say we have no control and everything we do and think is controlled by God. You are simply taking away all of free will to defend a point. Such a idea is horrible!

It is interesting with humans , how they will destroy the world to make their idea justified as correct.

technically, science is merely an act of doing something and recording the results of your observation of what you did. Therefor if a higher power did create us as well as our ability to observe the world around us as well as creating us, then science was indeed a product of this higher power. I/E if a god created our curiosity, then by extension it could be said that the god created the byproducts of said curiosity by extension. Humans did not create science, curiosity did.

 

At your second point, well most animals you see are curious and have been known to do things to try and get result, if not then only humanity would have tools. This is not the case. Other primates are known to use sticks and similar objects as tools. As well as this the act of noticing that something you did changed something and seeing if you can do it again happens with almost every animal, so long as they find what happened interesting. So science is completely natural. I believe your statement of saying their can be no control with a god having created science is horribly flawed. creating something does not mean controlling all actions and thoughts of what is created and the byproducts of said creations.

 

>_> just for the record though, if a god did create us and created curiosity then said god may also not have had the intention of us taking our observations and curiosity as far as we do. In most cases with things that we create as humans, we tend to find things that we did not expect. so it could also be true for a god/goddess.

[Alpha]

technically, science is merely an act of doing something and recording the results of your observation of what you did. Therefor if a higher power did create us as well as our ability to observe the world around us as well as creating us, then science was indeed a product of this higher power. I/E if a god created our curiosity, then by extension it could be said that the god created the byproducts of said curiosity by extension. Humans did not create science, curiosity did.

 

At your second point, well most animals you see are curious and have been known to do things to try and get result, if not then only humanity would have tools. This is not the case. Other primates are known to use sticks and similar objects as tools. As well as this the act of noticing that something you did changed something and seeing if you can do it again happens with almost every animal, so long as they find what happened interesting. So science is completely natural. I believe your statement of saying their can be no control with a god having created science is horribly flawed. creating something does not mean controlling all actions and thoughts of what is created and the byproducts of said creations.

 

>_> just for the record though, if a god did create us and created curiosity then said god may also not have had the intention of us taking our observations and curiosity as far as we do. In most cases with things that we create as humans, we tend to find things that we did not expect. so it could also be true for a god/goddess.

I'm sorry I stopped reading after technically. Technically is a word in this context used soley for logical reasons. A word used to describe the simplest logical inner workings of some idea , place or thing. So basically you are using logic to discredit logic(your opposing argument) and defend something you believe is beyond logic(Faith or God) which makes it illogical. And the fact you are have the idea that something is beyond logic in a debate is a logical fallacy.(i.e flawed logic).

 

Basically you are using logic to discredit logic and defend illogic which in itself makes it all illogical. Am I the only one who caught all of this?

I'm not saying you are wrong , just that this is fun to point out.

Edited by Alpha, 19 August 2013 - 02:35 PM.

[DarkNemesis]

That's inhuman though. A human being cannot strictly use logic to make every possible decision in their lives because it would take them years in order to calculate the simplest of things, e.g. "should I buy this ice cream or not? Let us think of every possible effect this could ever have in my life and pick the best choice."

 

And logic, as it stands, contradicts itself... because, simply put, this entire universe contradicts itself. "Matter cannot be created nor destroyed" - it is logical, because we have observed and proven that physical mass and energy only transforms constantly, but anyone that uses "logic" would also see that this makes no sense because how did the universe come to exist without matter being created?

 

I used to think mathematics was like "the language of God" since it's basically a set of rules that are universally truth, since there is no possible way they can be denied/contradicted. But when you take in consideration the fact that the universe itself has a flawed logic then... everything just crumbles.

 

And then there is quantum mechanics... fml... 

 

/basically said nothing but you get the idea xD

 

How do you know that the Big Bang was not just a dimensional rift where the energy poured from one dimension to another? Fact. We don't know. So the "lack of logic" is really just the lack of knowledge and understanding. Becoming more fluent in the "language of God" allows us to see and understand the logic of the universe.

[Alpha]

People are really confusing what is logical with what is true or fact. The facts and logic are not that same thing. For example , that fact that there is no sound in space , its not an argument. The argument is the set of premises that lead to the conclusion which is "there is no sound is space".

Now for the point I am trying to make. As long as the premises all lead to the same conclusion the result will be logically valid. But that does not mean it would be true. The premises do not have to be correct for it to be logical. Please realize logically valid =/= true/fact.

But despite that, remember something that is logically valid does not also have to be true/fact , but something can not be true/fact without also being logically valid.

Edited by Alpha, 19 August 2013 - 06:21 PM.

[Raijuu]

How do you know that the Big Bang was not just a dimensional rift where the energy poured from one dimension to another? Fact. We don't know. So the "lack of logic" is really just the lack of knowledge and understanding. Becoming more fluent in the "language of God" allows us to see and understand the logic of the universe.

 

We don't know how the universe was created. But I doubt using an approach that only works and makes sense within the universe itself and to our level of influence is going to really help. If you were to tell me that mathematics holds true, even outside the influence of our universe, then I would think it is possible that we can explain how our universe was created using it. 

 

Then again, my logic here is that "in order for the universe to be, there has to be something else that exists outside of it" and that is using a knowledge gathered from our own universe... so it could be completely wrong.... when explaining what is outside of it... /head explodes

 

It's just something to think about.

 

 

Now for the point I am trying to make. As long as the premises all lead to the same conclusion the result will be logically valid. But that does not mean it would be true. The premises do not have to be correct for it to be logical. Please realize logically valid =/= true/fact.

 

... by this theory, then God can be true, while being illogical?

Edited by Raijuu, 19 August 2013 - 06:36 PM.

[Alpha]

What theory? What I said is not a theory.  And no , read my post again. It does not work backwards. But then again God's existence never really fit in a logical proposition in the first place.

Edited by Alpha, 19 August 2013 - 06:29 PM.

[Raijuu]

"=" equality works both ways. That's why I figured this is what you meant.

 

So, something that is true MUST be logical, but something that is logical is not necessarily true...

 

Is this like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square type of deal? Basically there exists some things out there that are not true, yet are logical.

[Alpha]

"=" equality works both ways. That's why I figured this is what you meant.

 

So, something that is true MUST be logical, but something that is logical is not necessarily true...

 

Is this like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square type of deal? Basically there exists some things out there that are not true, yet are logical.

Now you are catching on. It actually makes perfect sense once you realize how logical propositions are created, using many premises.

Edited by Alpha, 19 August 2013 - 06:46 PM.

[Passingby]

St. Anselm has already proven God's existence with nothing but logic actually.

 

Whether you agree with the logic or not is another issue however.

 

http://www.princeton...ntological.html

Edited by Passingby, 19 August 2013 - 07:45 PM.

[theonlygeezy]

People are really confusing what is logical with what is true or fact. The facts and logic are not that same thing. For example , that fact that there is no sound in space , its not an argument. The argument is the set of premises that lead to the conclusion which is "there is no sound is space".

Now for the point I am trying to make. As long as the premises all lead to the same conclusion the result will be logically valid. But that does not mean it would be true. The premises do not have to be correct for it to be logical. Please realize logically valid =/= true/fact.

But despite that, remember something that is logically valid does not also have to be true/fact , but something can not be true/fact without also being logically valid.

 

How incredibly incorrect. Though the idea of emotions may be theorized logically, emotions cannot be reasoned logically. However, their existence is true/fact. There is a whole world out there that your brain does not understand. I do have a question though. Do you believe in souls?

 

Also, if you think I meant that God created the word 'science', then understanding my concepts are the least of your comprehension issues.

[Alpha]

How incredibly incorrect. Though the idea of emotions may be theorized logically, emotions cannot be reasoned logically. However, their existence is true/fact. There is a whole world out there that your brain does not understand. I do have a question though. Do you believe in souls?

 

Also, if you think I meant that God created the word 'science', then understanding my concepts are the least of your comprehension issues.

I said what I said under the obvious premise that emotions would never be part of a logical assertion. Try this : Go up to the best debater you know , and ask him to without a doubt prove you are feeling anger at this very moment.

Edited by Alpha, 19 August 2013 - 08:30 PM.

[theonlygeezy]

I said what I said under the obvious premise that emotions would never be part of a logical assertion.

 

Right, but this is the God debate.

[Alpha]

Right, but this is the God debate.

I'm glad you know where you are.