Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |  [ show all ]
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Veritas]
    #8540322 -

Just popped in again to see the reference of 'flames'.  So I read the thread from beginning to end and saw no flames.  There are tickets available for those that see otherwise.

On topic though, I think Disco Cat makes a very good point.  It's easy to find someone else's assumptions silly while not questioning your own.  It seems that the God-created universe and the No-God universe both make assumptions in their own way.  Pointing out silliness brings us no closer to resolution of the problem.

Since science cannot delve into matters outside its purview, the matter cannot be resolved using science alone.  The matter is primarily philosophical.

Does God exist?  Do not ask a scientist.  Ask a philosopher (lover of wisdom).


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8540361 -

"Flaming" in the context of this forum is making negative assertions regarding the poster, as opposed to disputing their ideas.  The key to keeping a debate clean and on-topic is to avoid this nonsense.  A good example:  saying "you are closed-minded and ignorant" is a flame, whereas utilizing your intellect to show that someone's ideas are the result of being closed-minded and ignorant is debating.

Posters who are unable to effectively and reasonably demonstrate the flaws in someone else's ideas often resort to criticizing the other poster & making baseless claims about who the other poster is as a person.  :shrug:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Veritas]
    #8540384 -

Do you mean like this:

Quote:
Are you a parrot mimicking something you heard or a thinking human being?


I thought this was standard form around here.  :confused:

On topic though, why isn't a No-God universe just as silly as a God-created one?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8540406 -

Yes, that's also a flame.

I never argued that there was evidence supporting a "No-God Universe," as it is impossible to prove a negative.  My assertion was that the concept of the Biblical version of God was silly, and that opting to fill in the blanks of what we do not (and perhaps will not) know about the origins of the Universe with such an unsupported notion was also silly.

I'm agnostic, not atheist.  I see little to suggest the existence of a supernatural being who created and is in charge of all of us.  It is possible that some other type of "creator" exists, perhaps within what we can observe (energy, DNA, ??), but that explanation is adding further complexity without a definite indicator that it is necessary.

As this thread questions the scientific evidence supporting the Bible vs. evolution, my comments were addressed to this topic.  Anyone who wishes to engage in philosophical examination of the possible existence of some form of God is free to do so, but that was not the question posed.

Edited by Veritas (06/19/08 11:08 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Veritas]
    #8540482 -

Veritas said:
I never argued that there was evidence supporting a "No-God Universe," as it is impossible to prove a negative.  My assertion was that the concept of the Biblical version of God was silly, and that opting to fill in the blanks of what we do not (and perhaps will not) know about the origins of the Universe with such an unsupported notion was also silly.


Well, the notion may be silly in terms of empiricism.  However, philosophers may hold dissimilar views, finding that the arguments for/against the existence of God require research rather than dismissive labels.

Quote:
I'm agnostic, not atheist.  I see little to suggest the existence of a supernatural being who created and is in charge of all of us.  It is possible that some other type of "creator" exists, perhaps within what we can observe (energy, DNA, ??), but that explanation is adding further complexity without a definite indicator that it is necessary.


Within the domain of empiricism the God hypothesis is an encumbrance, a violation of the rule of parsimony.  Outside empiricism the hypothesis is alive and well.  The debate continues unencumbered.

Quote:
As this thread questions the scientific evidence supporting the Bible vs. evolution, my comments were addressed to this topic.  Anyone who wishes to engage in philosophical examination of the possible existence of some form of God is free to do so, but that was not the question posed.


Fair enough.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8540539 -

Quote:
the arguments for/against the existence of God require research rather than dismissive labels.


Which raises the question of how to research a proposed immaterial being whose existence is exempt from all natural laws?  As this thread was questioning scientific evidence, my response was aimed at the lack thereof as well as the difficulty (perhaps impossibility) of obtaining such evidence.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Diploid]
    #8540697 -

To everyone generally: stop it with the flames and the trolling.  If you can't make your case without flaming, then don't post here. Try OTD.

Debate the subject or I'll lock this thread.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Diploid]
    #8540718 -

Diploid is a poohead.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Diploid]
    #8540758 -



--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Veritas]
    #8541068 -

Veritas said:
Well, it is quite clear from your follow-up reply that you have little or no understanding of what a "flame" is.  Unsurprising.  :thumbdown:


The ironic thing for you is that I do understand, while you, likewise ironically, don't. A flame is a substanceless attack. In this case, I said your presentation of yourself in this thread (which is quite different than saying "you are") has been dumbfoundingly spaced-out. Dumbfounding means nothing resembling a personal attack, and spaced-out means oblivious. Several people have corrected your flawed conceptions and you don't seem to have picked up on it. Thus, "spaced-out" is an accurate description of your presentation, and is not a flame or a personalism. Nothing I said before that can be rationally said to be near flaming.

To then say "'Flaming' in the context of this forum" is to attempt to move the goalposts to accommodate your claim. You didn't know what flaming was, plain and simple. Secondly, your ideas were discussed and refuted, several times, without you noticing (hence the "spaced-out" description). "Negative assertions" were not made up concerning you, but some negative traits were observed in your "presentation."

Making an observation of negative conduct from a poster (in this case being oblivious to or rejecting of correction) is not a negative assertion of that poster, and the noting of that negative conduct is itself a positive observation. Relegating it to flaming is indiscriminately playing the victim.

Quote:
One cannot compare the nebulous concept of a supernatural being to a materially-evident fruit.  You redefine the Biblical idea of God in mid-discussion to mean "vibrating energy", assert negative things about who I am as a person, and then tell me to go to MR&P when I object to your obnoxious tone.  Lovely. 


One can accurately relate the composure of your behaviour in that analogical discussion to your behaviour in this discussion.

I said a definition of "the vibrating energy which comprises matter and that has always existed" is a much more accurate definition for a God concept than "a supernatural God who came from nothing, who is not subject to natural laws," and that's just plain fact. It's very clear that you are unaware of what the biblical, if you want to go with that one, conception of God is, as you expressed it to be 'a God who came from nothing and is separate from natural laws.' This isn't the biblical conception of God, which is a God that always was, with no beginning or end, who is "all in all," not separate from anything. The 'all in all' means that, according to the biblical concept, God would be the vibrating energy that makes up all things, and would be all natural laws. And also, God cannot be supernatural, by definition. This has been pointed out to you by a couple people already.

In the end, I asserted nothing about the person you are, a lack of comprehension is evident here. I gave my reasons for why you were wrong, and nothing I said was without explanation, including why your presentation was "dumbfoundingly spaced-out." In fact, I used a whole analogy to express that point after I'd already corrected your bits of wrong info individually. So suggesting that your ideas were not discussed is, again, falsely playing the victim.


Quote:
Let's let the mods sort this one out, as your irrational responses make it clear that you are not willing/able to participate in an reasonable discussion of ideas, as opposed to a mud-slinging attack upon my character.


Your flawed notions were addressed, in fact, several times. You seem to keep missing that point. Dismissing the refutations as "irrational" and "a mud-slinging attack upon my character," means that there are some other equally present points which you are missing.

Edited by Disco Cat (06/19/08 03:09 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Veritas]
    #8541107 -

Veritas said:
Yes, that's also a flame.

I never argued that there was evidence supporting a "No-God Universe," as it is impossible to prove a negative.


False. That's South Park philosophy and with no merit. Try proving that your head isn't a banana, you'll find that it's quite easy. Try proving that there isn't a living blue whale in your garage, see what you come up with.


Quote:
My assertion was that the concept of the Biblical version of God was silly, and that opting to fill in the blanks of what we do not (and perhaps will not) know about the origins of the Universe with such an unsupported notion was also silly.


When you say "fill in the blanks," you actually mean "leave the blanks un-addressed," and imply that belief in a God is equivalent to leaving the blanks un-addressed. Another false.

Quote:
I'm agnostic, not atheist.  I see little to suggest the existence of a supernatural being who created and is in charge of all of us.  It is possible that some other type of "creator" exists, perhaps within what we can observe (energy, DNA, ??), but that explanation is adding further complexity without a definite indicator that it is necessary.


God cannot be supernatural. Pointed out several times already. 'God' is also an identity and a title, not a substance or material. If you say "vibrating energy," that is a substance, not a title, as is DNA. If either of these things were the all-encompassing conscious creator of everything, then the title 'God' would apply to them. Likewise, the cells in my body are my materialization, but not my personal identity.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Disco Cat]
    #8541116 -

Quote:
Forum Rules
You are free to present pretty much anything of a philosophical or spiritual nature that you want to put up for consideration - you can even espouse ideas most people would find ludicrous or repugnant. What you can't do is attack the person making the ludicrous or repugnant statements. You can bring to bear all your rhetorical skills and articulate arguments in an attempt to expose the idea under discussion as ludicrous, repugnant or whatever - as a matter of fact you are encouraged to do so - but the acceptable method is to direct all your weaponry at the IDEA being presented, not at the person presenting the idea.


If you would like to present refutation of my ideas, go ahead.  Thus far, you have claimed that I am ignorant and have a flawed conception of God.  Since no one actually KNOWS what God is, or IF God is, I am interested to hear how it is that YOU know my concept is flawed and ignorant.

Can you "direct your weaponry at the IDEA," or is your refutation limited to deriding my ability to understand this ever-changing definition of God?  I am quite aware that others have disagreed with what I have said, yet NONE of them have presented evidence to support their lack of agreement.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Disco Cat]
    #8541137 -

I think believing in God is a sure sign of unconscious death anxiety. :monkeydance:

Not to mention a bad case of magical thinking.;)


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Edited by Icelander (06/19/08 03:25 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Disco Cat]
    #8541148 -

Let me clarify:  it is not reasonable to prove the complete non-existence of something.  How would one go about proving that flying purple people eaters do not exist?  Well, I've never seen one, no one I know has ever seen one, there are no videos or photos of them...does this prove their non-existence?  No.  It suggests that they do not exist, but until one had turned over every stone on every planet in the Universe, it would not PROVE that they do not exist.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Veritas]
    #8541151 -

, but until one had turned over every stone on every planet in the Universe, it would not PROVE that they do not exist.

Well then.:lol::monkeydance:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Icelander]
    #8541172 -

Yeah, but PPEs hear you coming and scurry from rock-to-rock hiding under one you already checked.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Veritas]
    #8541209 -

You would start with looking at their definition and see, first of all, what they are claimed to be, and where they are claimed to exist. If it is found that there is no definition of where they are supposed to be, or what they are said to be, then you have to ask yourself where the idea that they exist arose from, and why it came up. If there was no cause to say that they exist in the first place, then you have your answer.

Regarding God, you need to start with a definition for what God is. This is not an impossible task, and if it were, you wouldn't know what you were claiming doesn't exist with the statement "God doesn't exist," and therefore to give an answer on the subject would be empty talk. When you say "God is silly," you are obviously already working with a definition of what God is. However, since it is other people's conception of God which you're trying to tell them is silly, you have to use their definition in order to be able to have an opinion.

You brought up the God of the bible, and you also gave an erroneous suggestion for what this God was supposed to be (coming from nothing, separate from natural laws, supernatural). The bible's God is claimed to be all that is (therefore neither supernatural or separate from natural laws), aware of itself and everything, and eternal, with no beginning or end (therefore not coming from nothing).

Is this defined concept of God real? The all in all part is freebie, as stuff merely has to exist to be able to say that God = everything.
But is this everything unified and conscious? Whether existence is conscious as a whole can probably be observed by individuals on a personal basis, if they are keenly aware (Einstein, for one,  claimed to observe this), and as scientific study increases, public knowledge will eventually come to a consensus on this.
Eternal? I think it's a known that existence, conscious or not, is eternal and present by default, since something cannot come from nothing, and if there were nothing there'd be no environment or motive to cause something to begin.


Regardless, this definition of God does not present an un-knowable "negative."

Edited by Disco Cat (06/19/08 03:52 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Disco Cat]
    #8541235 -

If you had actually read my initial post, you would realize that I did not say "God does not exist" nor "God is silly."  But thanks ever so for misquoting me.  :grin:

The "definition" of God which you are attributing to me was, in fact, presented by Oblivious Seeker.  Here is my post in response to his definition:

Quote:
   
Quote:
    ObliviousSeeker said:
    The idea of God is a being that ALWAYS existed.. there was no "Who created God?"  because then that creator would be superior to God...

    The idea of God is that he exists outside of time, space, matter, and energy.  Therefore he is not bound by the resulting laws of these things.  It is not possible to comprehend how he exists.

    But is it really "silly", as one poster puts it, to believe in God, opposed to believing that everything came from nothing?  How does something come from nothing? There is no logic in that, so why say there is no logical reason to believe in a creator?


It is silly to believe in a God with all the impossible properties you have just proposed, as compared to believing that we do not yet understand how the Universe came to exist.  If it is possible that a Supernatural Being has "always existed," why is it impossible that the vibrating energy which comprises matter has "always existed," in ever-changing forms?

An all-powerful Creator who came from nothing, is not subject to natural laws, and whose existence is not evident sounds like fantasy.  Grasping onto such a fantastical and baseless belief appears to be a means of avoiding the mystery, not embracing it.

The fact is We DON'T KNOW, and filling in the blanks with tall tales of a Supernatural Being seems desperate and, yes, SILLY to me.  It might be true, but I see nothing to suggest that it is.  I don't believe that God definitely does not exist, but I find the concept unworkable and awkward as an answer to our questions.


Also, I did not bring up the God of the Bible.  This thread concerns scientific evidence for the Bible vs. evolution.  I clarified that I was addressing the thread topic, and the definition of God as presented by the OP.

Quote:
Whether existence is conscious as a whole can probably be observed by individuals on a personal basis, if they are keenly aware.


Or very imaginative.  :shrug:

Edited by Veritas (06/19/08 04:02 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Disco Cat]
    #8544298 -

Disco Cat said:
Veritas said:
Well, it is quite clear from your follow-up reply that you have little or no understanding of what a "flame" is.  Unsurprising.  :thumbdown:


The ironic thing for you is that I do understand, while you, likewise ironically, don't. A flame is a substanceless attack.


Incorrect.

Quote:
Flaming (internet)
Flaming is the hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users. Flaming usually occurs in the social context of a discussion board, Internet Relay Chat (IRC) or even through e-mail.

An Internet user typically generates a flame response to other posts or users posting on a site, and such a response is usually not constructive, does not clarify a discussion, and does not persuade others. Sometimes, flamers attempt to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority over other users. Other times, a flamer is simply an individual who believes he or she carries the only valid opinion. This leads him or her to personally attack those who disagree.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Icelander]
    #8544428 -

Icelander said:
I think believing in God is a sure sign of unconscious death anxiety. :monkeydance:

Not to mention a bad case of magical thinking.;)


I think accepting theories that you have barely any understanding of to comfort you is the same exact thing.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 9,434 61 12/08/03 03:34 PM
by Anonymous
* Gays and the Bible
( 1 2 3 all )		 Swami 4,931 42 03/03/04 12:11 PM
by Sclorch
* No Evolution threads allowed.
( 1 2 all )		 sir tripsalot 3,609 29 10/04/02 11:50 PM
by Anonymous
* Are you hostile to the idea of the evolution of consciousness?
( 1 2 3 all )		 exclusive58 3,296 42 01/08/05 05:03 AM
by Cosm
* Evidence that OBE's do not relate to the physical world?
( 1 2 all )		 PHARMAKOS 1,896 22 05/22/04 12:46 PM
by Zero7a1
* Philosophical evidence that God Probably does not exist.
( 1 2 3 all )		 SpecialEd 9,960 52 02/07/04 06:30 PM
by nubious
* UFOs and Scientific Research
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 Swami 13,669 116 11/11/02 09:58 AM
by Xlea321
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Anonymous 4,766 64 01/30/03 06:45 AM
by Teragon

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
8,863 topic views. 1 members, 68 guests and 15 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.