I don't see how God could plausibly exist (Christian definition of God)

[Zarathustra]

We're talking about the Biblical God, right?

That's all up for interpretation.

 

[Lark]

Documented evidence that there is life after death:

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research10.html

How about being dead in a hospital bed, the blood from your brain depleted, your lungs collapsed, your heart stopped beating - and you saw exactly how the doctors operated on your body for emergency surgery. Luckily, they were able to revive this woman, and later she remembered and recited every word the doctors spoke to the nurses, the exact incisions they made, and she even told the doctors at what time they were able to get her heart beating again because she was able to see the clock in the operating room.

Did you ever watch TAPS? Its a show on discovery that investigates and scientifically documents evidence of paranormal activity.

If you are a scientifically orientated person, you would obviously concur with the notion that there is in fact a spiritual realm whereby "ghosts" and "spirits" manifest themselves in the real world.

If you don't believe in the real-world manifestation of spirits, you are either mentally challenged or lack the ability to fully comprehend simple scientifically documented evidence of which I presume we all here on Typology Central are capable of.

Thereto, I presume that if spirits and postmortem phenomenon are real - then there must be something that is spiritual in nature after death.

I havent seen TAPS, dont know what that is, I've highlighted/bolded the part of your post which actually makes discussion difficult if not impossible, I want you to think about this. I'm going to list just a couple of reasons, which appear obvious to me, why this sort of dialogue makes discussions difficult and is unhelpful:

- You dont know from the quotation what my views are on this topic but you have adopted a very definite position which to all appearences you believe is contra my own.

- Suggesting that people who disagree with your perspective are mentally challenged or lack an ability to comprehend is insulting and impeads discussion. Ridiculing perspectives or points in a topical discussion does not invalidate them however.

- The statement we all here on Typology Central are capable of is an appeal to an imaginary "gallery" or group of individuals, I've seen people do that to solicit the agreement of other in a kind of "me too" manner and to validate their arguments or invalidate those of others through "weight of numbers". The truth of a thing is not dependent upon "weight of numbers", consensus or the popularity of an opinion or its being shared by others.

I will consider your contribution here, and link, I appreciate that you have made one and taken the time out to respond to the post which I created, I hope that you'll consider what I've had to say to you in this post. Thanks.

 

[MoneyTick]

I havent seen TAPS, dont know what that is, I've highlighted/bolded the part of your post which actually makes discussion difficult if not impossible, I want you to think about this. I'm going to list just a couple of reasons, which appear obvious to me, why this sort of dialogue makes discussions difficult and is unhelpful:

- You dont know from the quotation what my views are on this topic but you have adopted a very definite position which to all appearences you believe is contra my own.

- Suggesting that people who disagree with your perspective are mentally challenged or lack an ability to comprehend is insulting and impeads discussion. Ridiculing perspectives or points in a topical discussion does not invalidate them however.

- The statement we all here on Typology Central are capable of is an appeal to an imaginary "gallery" or group of individuals, I've seen people do that to solicit the agreement of other in a kind of "me too" manner and to validate their arguments or invalidate those of others through "weight of numbers". The truth of a thing is not dependent upon "weight of numbers", consensus or the popularity of an opinion or its being shared by others.

I will consider your contribution here, and link, I appreciate that you have made one and taken the time out to respond to the post which I created, I hope that you'll consider what I've had to say to you in this post. Thanks.

Lark,

My post wasn't directed at you in particular.

I quoted your former post, but it was intended at making a point about people's beliefs on life after death. You just raised the question so I quoted it. It wasn't a personal response I edited the post.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Documented evidence that there is life after death:

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research10.html

How about being dead in a hospital bed, the blood from your brain depleted, your lungs collapsed, your heart stopped beating - and you saw exactly how the doctors operated on your body for emergency surgery. Luckily, they were able to revive this woman, and later she remembered and recited every word the doctors spoke to the nurses, the exact incisions they made, and she even told the doctors at what time they were able to get her heart beating again because she was able to see the clock in the operating room.

Did any of you ever watch TAPS? Its a show on discovery that investigates and scientifically documents evidence of paranormal activity.

I've met some people that don't believe in this kind of stuff because they use science as the basis for their their beliefs.

If you are a scientifically orientated person, you would obviously concur with the notion that there is in fact a spiritual realm whereby "ghosts" and "spirits" manifest themselves in the real world.

If people don't believe in the real-world manifestation of spirits, then they must be either mentally challenged or lack the ability to fully comprehend simple scientifically documented evidence of which I presume we all here on Typology Central are capable of.

Thereto, I presume that if spirits and postmortem phenomenon are real - then there must be something that is spiritual in nature after death.

Aside from the fact that there are millions of people believing or willing to believe and that there are no doubt a few of those who would go as far as to 'create' stories to gain either followers or attention/fame. There may even be a scientific-ish explanation to this particular phenomenon.

If there is but a little bit of oxygen in her brain, it may still be able to register details, dialogue, even register sight. No one really looks forward to testing just how far this goes, but it stands to reason that even minutes after clinical death, parts of the brain may still function quite well. So it may as well just been a memory, rather than an 'after death' experience.

Which of those two possibilities is the truth. No body knows.

Is seeing believing? Or does believing lead to seeing things? :>

 

[Nicodemus]

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds#Critical_Analysis

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

That's all up for interpretation.

Okay. (Ahaha)

 

[Lark]

Aside from the fact that there are millions of people believing or willing to believe and that there are no doubt a few of those who would go as far as to 'create' stories to gain either followers or attention/fame. There may even be a scientific-ish explanation to this particular phenomenon.

If there is but a little bit of oxygen in her brain, it may still be able to register details, dialogue, even register sight. No one really looks forward to testing just how far this goes, but it stands to reason that even minutes after clinical death, parts of the brain may still function quite well. So it may as well just been a memory, rather than an 'after death' experience.

Which of those two possibilities is the truth. No body knows.

Is seeing believing? Or does believing lead to seeing things? :>

I'm skeptical about out of body experiences and disembodied experiences, although that doesn mean that I could or would dismiss it altogether, to be honest though some of the rationally supported metaphysical speculation from physicists which I'm familiar with appears at least as bizarre as some of the world religions or spiritualisms suggestions.

The idea that expanding and collapsing universes mean that we are likely to repeat the same life over and over, is this life even the first time that we have lived it? Could a lot of psychic or quasi-spiritual experience be explained by residues of reoccuring lives, like scratches in a record? Or the idea that matter dispersed can recombine and not necessarily in the form of a human, certainly not the same human, its a life but not as we know it, that's just some of what I've heard or read.

Although there seems to be disagreement as to whether or not any consciousness, essense or personal survival is involved, so for all intents and purposes you may have lived a number of lives, you may live other ones but you will never be conscious of any of it so for all intents and purposes who you are now will die, it will be an end as though there where no other or after lives.

I dont believe it all, I certainly dont hope its true, but I do find it much, much more interesting than the unsophisticated hating on God or religion which passes for the stock and trade of most atheism.

 

[Tamske]

Okay, Liquid Laser, I'm back to our discussion, which I indeed find very interesting.

God has told us what the better method is. That is one reason that religion is universal. The real question is, "Why does anyone insist on using an inferior method, when superior methods obviously exist?"

Well, what is this better method then?

I could say that every measurement is measuring God's interaction with ordinary matter. However the problem would be differentiating these measurements from measurements which do not originate from God. Essentially this goes back to the original problem of trying to measure something which is infinite. I have already answered this question.

And I already pointed out a problem with your answer: by this means, you can not distinguish between "infinite" and "nonexistent". If something doesn't exist, it effects can't be measured either!

Things which exist outside the boundaries of time do not need a beginning.

Things that don't exist don't need it either... The universe has a beginning.

Everything else does. (As an aside: the popular scientific view nowadays is that the universe does have a cause.)

But why does it have to be a supernatural one? Why do we have to call it a god and assign properties to that cause like "infinite" and "good" and "cares about humans"?
I do not know what is the beginning of the universe. However, unless it is proven otherwise, I assume that this cause is natural. Like the cause of the Earth turned out to be, after generations of thinking that god was there. Maybe the cause of the universe doesn't obey the known laws of nature which reign in our universe, but then I'd like to know which laws it does obey. I would want to investigate that and expand science to beyond the beginning of the universe.
You can say that this is impossible. But I want to try(*) first. After all, people thought once traveling to the moon was impossible because the realm of god started there and any human who attempted that would be striked down by fire (or something else).
(*) I'm not going to try myself. Not any more. I've done it and I failed. But my failure doesn't have to mean the task is impossible. Maybe smarter people than me can do it!

Ok, I misinterpreted your earlier post. If I understand you now correctly you see the purpose of religion as to explain the natural world. If this is true, then I would agree that there would be no point to religion anymore. Because the purpose of science is to explain the natural world, and it does a better job at it.

Not only. I see religion as one of the effects coming naturally from how our brains work. We humans have a tremendous ability to learn things. To accept things from parents and teachers and priests without questioning them. That's of course a good thing. This is what allows all sorts of progresses, in philosophy, ethics, science and generally, in civilisation. Just imagine for a moment every new generation has to invent everything again!
A "born sceptic" who doesn't believe the authorities will stagnate in progress, if he's not killed by disobeying warnings.
Now the point is that false ideas can get into tradition as well as true ones. Most of those handed-down ideas are true, of course, hence the beneficial effect of that learning system. But how can a single individual separate the false ones and discard them? It's impossible to test them all. It's also advisable to start testing only if you know enough for safe testing. (Eg, give the poisonous berries to a mouse and look if a single one doesn't heal instead of kill).
This has to do with trust - you've mentioned it yourself a bit ago. If several authorities say different things about something, you start to doubt. I've had this with religion. I needed to get it right, to get it consistent with my other beliefs - like my belief in the scientific method. And for me the outcome was atheism. Is this a progress or did I actually discard a true idea and adopted a false one? I don't know for sure.

And I can see where you might get this view from, because in ancient religions the priests were often the only scholars, so they performed all of the roles that a scholar should perform. Not only were they the scientists, but they were also historians and keepers of law. And they did not perform these functions separately, but they wholistically put them all together, because being a priest (or shaman or whatever you want to call it) naturally included all of these things so there was no reason to separate them out.

However there are other functions that religion performs that are still important today.
1) It helps people to understand their place in the world.
2) It guides people toward living a wise life.
3) It provides a way for people to deal with the fear of death.
4) It helps people to connect with that which transcends the "here and now".

I know. There's a lot of things to say in favour of religion. There are some negative things too, but all this doesn't carry one iota to our argument.
The question is not whether religion is beneficial or not. The question is whether it is true or not. Religion can be beneficial without the existence of a god. I don't want to practise a religion, even if it will make me happier, console me in times of grief and more appreciative of the world, if I don't believe the main claim of that religion (which has something to do with the existence of a god) is true.

 

[Ginkgo]

From the furthest Eastern climb
Came the Ass in olden time,
Comely, sturdy for the road,
Fit to bear a heavy load.

Sing then loudly, master Ass,
Let the tempting tidbit pass:
You shall have no lack of hay
And of oats find good supply.

Say Amen, Amen, good ass,
Now you've had your fill of grass;
Ancient paths are left behind:
Sing Amen with gladsome mind.

 

[Lark]

If God was plausible, would it still be God?

 

[Nicodemus]

If God was plausible, would it still be God?

Yes. Next question.

 

[Mole]

Ohh boy, really?

I think you skipped out on reading the last couple of posts.

Did evolution here on earth start before the earth was formed?

Certainly, the Big Bang was the catalyst that created the earth.

But the Big Bang was a random event made possible by gravity, the elements found in a nebula, and time.

SO ... If God did not ordain the Big Bang - Who or what created existence, time, and space?

Did existence, time, and space create itself?

Did the distant stars create themselves out of nothing?

If I see a beautiful painting in an art gallery - is it fair to say that the painting did not have a painter? Did the painting create itself out of nothing?

I see a chemistry textbook on my shelf. Is it safe to say that my college chemistry textbook did not have a writer? Did the chemistry textbook write itself?

Please, don't confuse this with the Bible's version of creationism. The Bible's version of creationism does not jive well with scientific fact.

I am talking about the fact that there must have been a "higher power" that created the universe in the first place, or that directs the intricacies of its existence.

Evolution? WHAT?

Who cares about evolution? Evolution is a fairly recent phenomenon, creationism deals with the creation of the universe and subsequent events thereafter.

HENCE,

If the earth wasn't created FIRST, there WOULD BE NO evolution. Unless of course, evolution created the earth. In which case we would have to merge the two words "evolution" and "big bang," which would make no sense.

The creation of the universe comes FIRST, the development of cellular tissue and organisms comes SECOND (after the universe and earth were created).

Creationism deals with the former, evolution deals the the latter.

Thereto, you can't say creationism is "silly." Because evolution would be quite silly if the earth wasn't created in the first place.

If time, gravity and matter were not present to create the nebula that developed into the big bang, that slowly created the form of the earth, that slowly fostered the formation of cellular tissue and bacteria, that slowly evolved into us humans - we wouldn't even be here at all.

So the question isn't evolution, it's what do we do when science hits a brick wall and can't explain the unexplainable.

My understanding of creationism is that it refers to the creation of individual species by God.

Now if we read that delightful book, "The Origin of Species", by Charles Darwin, we find it hard to maintain that God created each individual species.

 

[Zarathustra]

My understanding of creationism is that it refers to the creation of individual species by God.

Now if we read that delightful book, "The Origin of Species", by Charles Darwin, we find it hard to maintain that God created each individual species.

Well, considering I was able to conceive of a different understanding of creationism when I was about five, I'm sure you can right now...

Hint: it starts with the Big Bang.

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

Well, considering I was able to conceive of a different understanding of creationism when I was about five, I'm sure you can right now...

Hint: it starts with the Big Bang.

Your concepts are in the Bible?

Expound.

 

[Zarathustra]

Expound.

The Bible is a metaphor.

Done.

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

This isn't chess guys, obviously you have to elaborate on your statements. Effing INTJs... lol

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

The Bible is a metaphor.

Done.

 

[Zarathustra]

This isn't chess guys, obviously you have to elaborate on your statements. Effing INTJs... lol

What needs to be elaborated on?

I don't see what's difficult about this...

It is extremely easy to reconcile Christianity with the Big Bang and evolution.

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

What needs to be elaborated on?

I don't see what's difficult about this...

It is extremely easy to reconcile Christianity with the Big Bang and evolution.

Expound.

 

[Zarathustra]

Expound.

Why?