Fallacies in Christianity

[pockyD]

Well either the two things contradict one another or they do not. If they contradict each other, then they can't both be true at once. If they don't contradict one another, we just redefine the set of both of them as "one true thing." So it seems to be a logical necessity.

Two things that don't contradict each other don't necessarily share a true/false value.

 

[arrowhead]

I know that if I use God as a reason people won't take me seriously. It's because most of the people in here are atheists. That was a rather obvious statement Arrowhead. And of course the heart isn't "reliable" in finding truth. Like I just stated, things that appeal to the heart are things unexplained and things of emotion. It doesn't have to do with logic, unless you're looking for religious truth. Did you even read my post?

the way you said how both science and religion can both find truths implied that the heart could reliably find truth. if it couldn't, why would you compare it to science?

I do not agree with you on your second stanza though. I think that both can be correct. Either something is true or it isn't? Why can't more than one thing be correct? I support the field of science, I just don't support the views that most scientists have on life.

no. two things cannot contradict each other and both be true. and opinions cannot be true.

And on free will Alt, I think I explained it. It is the ability to make choices, and obviously to be intelligent enough to make them. A rock can't make a choice, and I don't think that bugs are intelligent enough to make choices, nor do I think they have a moral center. I think that humans making choices is a direct result of them developing a conscience and a sense of morality, or demonstrating the lack thereof. I also know that there are a lot of definitions of determinism, so shouldn't there then be a lot of definitions of free will?

so where is the cutoff point between "no free will" and "free will"?

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Two things that don't contradict each other don't necessarily share a true/false value.

But the initial assumption is that they are both true. In the case of them being irreconcilable, we have reached a contradiction in the assumption, and in the case of them not irreconcilable, we can make a redefinition into them being "one thing."

 

[DuskMarthWater]

Hmmm. Why do we need to believe in something unexplained? I don't think you NEED to, but that is the way religious people think. You raise a very good point about the heart Hyuga. This might be the reasoning behind what I said about both being correct. Things in the natural world should be explained by science, but science cannot nor ever will explain the supernatural, if you even believe in it. I guess I think that there are deeper truths to the world than only those presented by science and logic.

What I said earlier, however, is that I still support science. The findings of science are, without a doubt, correct about the natural world. I suppose I think that science and religion are connected somewhere, possibly explaining why I think that they are both true.

The cut-off point? I'm not sure I'm going to get what you mean, but I think that humans are the only things that effectively even know what free will is, let alone how to use it. So I'll say that the cut-off point is anything but humans. If I were to back this up with religious proof, I would tell you that in Genesis God says that he created humans in his own likeness, or as he once existed, and gave us domination over animals and plants. This would imply that humans are the only beings which are capable of learning about all the things we know. He did not give this "free will" to animals and plants, because they have no moral center, no understanding of right and wrong, no conscience, essentially no way to make a choice. Again, this part is assuming you believe in God in the first place. As we have observed, things like ants and bees think as one mind, and have no individuality: they even look the same. I would think humans would be more like that too if we could not think for ourselves.

 

[pockyD]

But the initial assumption is that they are both true. In the case of them being irreconcilable, we have reached a contradiction in the assumption, and in the case of them not irreconcilable, we can make a redefinition into them being "one thing."

that sounds pretty awkward

1) the sky is blue
2) there is a god

then the redefinition of "the sky is blue and there is a god" is simply no more than a simple logical conjunction whose meaning is exclusively derived from the two statements, and says nothing about the relationship between them

 

[arrowhead]

Hmmm. Why do we need to believe in something unexplained? I don't think you NEED to, but that is the way religious people think. You raise a very good point about the heart Hyuga. This might be the reasoning behind what I said about both being correct. Things in the natural world should be explained by science, but science cannot nor ever will explain the supernatural, if you even believe in it. I guess I think that there are deeper truths to the world than only those presented by science and logic.

because the supernatural isn't observable. NOTHING can explain it, not even the heart.

What I said earlier, however, is that I still support science. The findings of science are, without a doubt, correct about the natural world. I suppose I think that science and religion are connected somewhere, possibly explaining why I think that they are both true.

science and religion are related similar to bonding and antibonding

The cut-off point? I'm not sure I'm going to get what you mean, but I think that humans are the only things that effectively even know what free will is, let alone how to use it. So I'll say that the cut-off point is anything but humans. If I were to back this up with religious proof, I would tell you that in Genesis God says that he created humans in his own likeness, or as he once existed, and gave us domination over animals and plants. This would imply that humans are the only beings which are capable of learning about all the things we know. He did not give this "free will" to animals and plants, because they have no moral center, no understanding of right and wrong, no conscience, essentially no way to make a choice. Again, this part is assuming you believe in God in the first place. As we have observed, things like ants and bees think as one mind, and have no individuality: they even look the same. I would think humans would be more like that too if we could not think for ourselves.

can you explain to me how gorillas don't have free will even though they have many human similarities? they still care for their young, they play, they can get mad, etc.

and what about the timeline for the evolution of humans? where in that timeline do they start having free will?

 

[Hive]

HyugaRicdeau- thank you for your post, I appreciate that you handled it with patience and tried to clarify your points logically and without personal attack. This alone makes you fun to debate with.
I actually agree with you a lot in this, thank you also for not recognizing this as an attack against atheism, which was strictly not my intention. :D

I would say that my moral basis (and probably most atheists') is the notion of individual rights. In its simplest form, everyone has the right to seek their own happiness so long as it doesn't violate others' individual rights, others' own pursuits of happiness. Conversely, nobody else has the right to tell them what to do if it doesn't affect them.

I too believe that morals are subjective as I said above and that people SHOULD have the right to seek their own happiness as long as it doesn't violate another's right to life, choice, etc...
Actually I believe in it in many of same reasons as you guys do, maybe all of the same reasons you do... However, if I may, can I ask, do you guys think that the belief that everyone has the right to seek their own happiness as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others a completely logical belief or does it require a little bit of "hope," I suppose, for it to be true? My problem isn't that I don't believe exactly what you are saying, however I don't believe there will ever be a completely concrete scientific reason why one has to believe in such... regardless though...
...Hyuga, the last line of what you said that I quoted really caught my attention and is what I've been really trying to address all along... In situations where it doesn't effect the other person, I too believe that no one has the right to try to impose a belief upon another. I still agree though that if an action is against another's rights though, than yes, it needs to be addressed.... but this makes it more of a question of "actions that respect people's rights" vs. "actions that don't", rather than a question of atheism vs. theism, doesn't it? I'm not saying you can't disagree with them, that is obviously the entire point of debate hall, however I am addressing when people try to impose their beliefs on another, which some of the people here think is ok. Again, thank you for your response.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

that sounds pretty awkward

1) the sky is blue
2) there is a god

then the redefinition of "the sky is blue and there is a god" is simply no more than a simple logical conjunction whose meaning is exclusively derived from the two statements, and says nothing about the relationship between them

Erich was, at least how I understood him, asking why science and religion cannot arrive at different conclusions about the same thing and both be true, so I was arguing in that context. I agree if we aren't talking about things that already have a relationship then there is no point in talking about whether two things can be true at the same time or not.

I too believe that morals are subjective as I said above and that people SHOULD have the right to seek their own happiness as long as it doesn't violate anothers right to life, choice, etc...
Actually I believe in it in many of same reasons as you guys do, maybe all of the same reasons you do... However, if I may, can I ask do you guys do you think that the belief that everyone has the right to seek their own happiness as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others a completely logical belief or does it require a little bit of "hope," I suppose, for it to be true? My problem isn't that I don't believe exactly what you are saying, however I don't believe there will ever be a completely concrete scientific reason why one has to believe in such... regardless though...

I don't think science can really say anything about morals, it just tells you the consequences of an action (ideally), and it's up to us to decide whether it is moral or not. So if you're asking "why is individual rights better than any other basis?" I would say that since our actions are for the purpose of making us happy (ie ultimately that is why we do everything that we do, though of course we can be mistaken about what makes us happy etc), the basis of morals should be whatever gives us the most freedom in finding our happiness, and I can't think of a better one than individual rights.

...Hyuga, the last line of what you said that I quoted really caught my attention and is what I've been really trying to address all along... In situations where it doesn't effect the other person, I too believe that no one has the right to try to impose a belief upon another. I still agree though that if an action is against another's rights though, than yes, it needs to be addressed.... but his makes it more of a question of "actions that respect people's rights" vs. "actions that don't", rather than a question of atheism vs. theism, doesn't it? I'm not saying you can't disagree with them, that is obviously the entire point of debate hall, however I am addressing when people try to impose their beliefs on another, which some of the people here think is ok. Again, thank you for your response.

Yes it does make this discussion about that, but as I understood it we were talking about what basis for morals we can have if we are atheists and reject any absolute moral code handed down by some religion.

 

[Hive]

Hyuga, if you don't mind may I ask you another question that I would like to hear your answer for?
It has to do with the "identity" of a person that I have been thinking about lately.... anyways I really enjoyed your answer before and thought it was very helpful, so I was hoping you might be able to clarify something I've been thinking about again. (ps I was still wondering, can I borrow that "Neuromancer" book from you? ^^)

Okay, what I've been thinking about is this: Most of us assume our identities are stable and do not change every, say, 1 second, or everytime our atomic composition changes, which I tend to agree with.
However, my question is how is this supported by science, or does this require a sort of "hope" for it to be true?

My thought experiment is this: say you have an identity that remains completely constant over the course of a minute....
now say you have an identity that sort of "flickers" and changes its identity 99 times per minute...
if you are randomly one of these identities, though, which would be more likely? Would that make it 99x more likely that you would be placed inside one of those 1/99 of a second flickering identities? My feeling is that science in this case favors identities that change the most....

Also, if you can somehow pinpoint the time by saying that your identity only occurs at a specific point of time (since only two identities would exist at any point in time) this still only narrows it down to 50% for each and you would still have to hope that one of the answers is correct.

Also, how would identities be defined in this case? How does a person's identity stop at their skin, scientifically, instead of just extending infinitely into space? What I'm trying to say is, why do the atoms in your brain/skin/etc... have the ability to stop your identity from extending into the air around you, etc...

Finally, I think it would be easier in nature for it to create identities that flicker rather than remain constant, (a new identity per atomic configuration... for example...).

Anyways, I have a feeling that our answers will be in agreeance, but I could be wrong. ^^ However, I was wondering if there was anyway science by itself could support this notion of how our identity works?
Again thank you for listening. The point, I guess, that I'm trying to show is that people could still have the ability to believe that god accounts for identities existing and being constant... AS WELL AS not believe in god and believing that nature by itself accounts for these properties.... and they would both be just as logical. The point is not that any belief is better I guess, the point I want to make is that there can be more than one right answer, logically. This is a personal question by the way, I'm not trying to show how anyone's beliefs are established other than my own. Regardless of the answer, I still believe that if that belief doesn't harm another, than it is still appropriate to believe in.

 

[Hive]

Yes it does make this discussion about that, but as I understood it we were talking about what basis for morals we can have if we are atheists and reject any absolute moral code handed down by some religion.

I agree though. As atheist you shouldn't be forced to take ANY doctrine by a religious organization. Conversely, though, I believe a religious person shouldn't be forced into atheism either.
I do believe morals in atheism can exist by the way, i just don't believe any moral code can be completely logical either...
i.e. that science can completely account for it, which if I'm not mistaken you agree with. I believe its up to the people, and their their hopes/beliefs...
When science can't account for morals entirely, it means that there are many ways that people can believe that morals exist, and that it is subjective. When this happens, I think, it wouldn't matter if a person believes god created morals or if a person thinks morals exist naturally then, would it? As long as they believe in morality as a whole. So both belief systems would be just as "correct" then.
That isn't confusing is it? Should I clarify more?

 

[Zero Beat]

Like we established a couple of pages ago Hive. As long as religion isn't being forced as reality, most atheists will just not care if you're religious.

Edit:
We tend to have a "go on with your business" type of attitude.

 

[Hive]

Like we established a couple of pages ago Hive. As long as religion isn't being forced as reality, most atheists will just not care if you're religious.

Edit:
We tend to have a "go on with your business" type of attitude.

thank you zero beat. lol I guess I can shut up now then lol. I still think some people feel otherwise, but I am glad that you as well as others at least agree with me. I am theist, but my goal here was never to try to force that upon anyone else, which I think ended up confusing some people... My goal was to just show that both are acceptable, and that is why I ended up posting in this thread to begin with (i.e. someone said something opposing that right to belief). "Fallacies in Christianity" isn't really my topic lol.

 

[Proverbs]

Bible Contradictions
How about these. All KJV.

lolz.

 

[AltF4]

Yes, that link no longer exists. That post is from some time ago.

But... oh, man. A MacBook? Really? Maybe you should try getting a grown-ups computer some day.

 

[Zero Beat]

6. Biblical Reasons (1)

The Bible prescribes a host of detestable 'moral' guidelines. For example, if an Israelite man desires a female captive from war, he is permitted to force her to be his wife (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). If a virgin who is pledged to be married is ***** but fails to cry out, she is to be stoned along with her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), while if a virgin who is not pledged to be married is ***** and does not cry out, she must marry her attacker (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Psalm 137:9 touts the pleasure of dashing children against rocks (Psalm 137:9), and full-scale genocide is proscribed throughout the Old Testament (e.g., Deuteronomy 7:1-2, 20:16).

The Judeo-Christian God is clearly a hateful, racist, and sexist divinity. Though Christians rightly criticize militant Islamists for aiming to kill innocent bystanders, the only difference between these extremists and the biblical God is the desired target of murder. As Sam Harris notes, "it is only by ignoring such barbarisms that the Good Book can be reconciled with life in the modern world."[17]
7. Biblical Reasons (2)

The Bible is filled with superstitious beliefs that modern people rightly reject. It describes a world where a snake and a donkey communicated with human beings in a human language, where people could reach upward of 900 years old, where a woman instantaneously transformed into a pillar of salt, where a pillar of fire could lead people by night, and where the sun stopped moving across the sky or could even back up. In this imaginary world an ax head could float on water, a star could point down to a specific home, people could instantly speak in unlearned foreign languages, and one's shadow or handkerchief could heal people. It is a world where a flood can cover the whole earth, and a man can walk on water, calm a stormy sea, change water into wine, or be swallowed by a "great fish" and live to tell about it. This world is populated by demons that can wreak havoc on Earth and make people very sick. It is a world of idol worship, where human and animal sacrifices please God. Visions, inspired dreams, prophetic utterances, miracle workers, magicians, diviners, and sorcerers also populate this world. It is a world where God lived in the sky (Heaven), and the dead "lived" on in the dark recesses of the Earth (Sheol).

This is a strange world when compared to our world, but Christians believe that this world was real in the past. My contention is not that ancient people were stupid, but that they were very superstitious. As Christopher Hitchens puts it: "One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge."[18]

One can perform scientific tests for what I consider superstitious beliefs. One can compare what a meteorologist says about the weather with what someone who plans to do a rain dance says about it, and then test to see who's right more often. Testing and comparing results is science. The results of reason and science have jettisoned a great many superstitions. One can also test the superstitious practice of blood-letting, exorcisms, people who claim to predict things based on palm reading or tea leaves, and the effects of walking under a ladder, breaking a mirror, or stepping on a sidewalk crack. One can also test the efficacy of a shot of penicillin in providing recovery from sickness against the efficacy of prayer alone among those who refuse medicine for religious reasons. And we modern people are indebted to science for the advances in quality of life brought about by modern medicine. Science is what makes us different from ancient people.

Voltaire said: "Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives, and few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of their time."[19] The Bible describes so many prevalent superstitious beliefs within Gentile nations that there is little doubt that superstition reigned during biblical times. Moreover, these beliefs were so prevalent that the Bible even portrays God's "chosen people" regularly participating in foreign religious rituals and worshipping other nations' gods and goddesses. Evidently, then, the beliefs of the Israelites themselves—and later their Christian successors—were collectively forged within a highly superstitious cultural mindset.

In the modern world we no longer believe in a god of the sun, the moon, the harvest, fertility, rain, or the sea. We don't see omens in an eclipse, a flood, a storm, a snakebite, or a drought. This falling away is due to our better understanding of nature than that of our ancestors, made possible only by the advance of science. Thoughtful, educated people today do not see sickness as the result of possession by demons, nor do we believe that astrology can provide us with insight into the future. We do not think that we are physically any closer to God whether we're up on a mountaintop or down in a valley. But the citizens of ancient nations nearly universally believed such things. While it is conceivable that ancient Jews and Christians where unlike all of their neighbors and formed their beliefs on the basis of the evidence available to them, it is not very likely.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/john_loftus/christianity.html#bib1

 

[Proverbs]

Yes, that link no longer exists. That post is from some time ago.

But... oh, man. A MacBook? Really? Maybe you should try getting a grown-ups computer some day.

I was going to reply with some sarcastic remark but it's not worth it. If you really have such hollow arguments that you need to get to feel a bit better by making fun of my computer choice, you've got bigger issues going on.

But yeah, I have a MacBook. They're practical for college and work really well. It's the first Mac I've used and I'm glad I got it. From the features I've seen on here it's far advanced past any Vista crap.

Anyway, not sure why you posted that. Seems like a really useless comment. And from a debater and a moderator, too.

Spoiler

lolmaturity.

 

[AltF4]

The little winky emoticon was used to denote sarcasm, but apparently you missed that. Go to the computer cafe for OS debate, anyway.

But hollow arguments? Why don't you reply to some of my posts from a page or two ago, then? Judging from your response and screen name, I assume you're a christian. I would like to hear you try to define Free Will, or reconcile any one of the many inherent contradictions with an omnimax god.

 

[DuskMarthWater]

@Arrowhead: Geez, this thread is active lately. Anyways, I don't think that gorillas have free will because they still aren't smart enough to know what it is. They still can't speak, and they still can't do much other than react based on their instincts, or their gut feeling. Gorilla's have a set pattern of behavior, and all gorilla's follow that pattern. We can react based on a lot of different things such as morals, gut instinct, personal gain, service, etc. We're not primal. Pertaining to the evolution part...no idea.

And on the heart again...it can't explain the things of the supernatural, but that is the very reason why faith is called faith. There is no other way to explain it. Faith, however, should not be used to explain scientific things.

Proverbs...you're lucky you posted that toward Alt, because he's a nice guy. From what I saw, your post was the immature one. If you had told anyone else that, you'd be getting chewed out to no end right now.

 

[arrowhead]

how do you know they're not smart enough to understand your view of free will? gorillas can learn, they can understand human speech, they show emotion, etc. they definitely do NOT have a set pattern of behavior. they are just like stupid muted humans. do stupid mutes have free will?

how do you define supernatural?

 

[RDK]

@Arrowhead: Geez, this thread is active lately. Anyways, I don't think that gorillas have free will because they still aren't smart enough to know what it is. They still can't speak, and they still can't do much other than react based on their instincts, or their gut feeling. Gorilla's have a set pattern of behavior, and all gorilla's follow that pattern. We can react based on a lot of different things such as morals, gut instinct, personal gain, service, etc. We're not primal. Pertaining to the evolution part...no idea.

LOL, what? When I read this I literally keeled over laughing. This quite possibly wins the award for most ignorant post of the week, and that's saying something considering the quality of Lord of the Morning's posts in the Prop 8 thread.

We're not primal? What does that even mean? Both gorillas and humans are animals, and have a close common ancestor nonetheless. You say gorillas have a "set pattern of behavior" and can only act according to that? Where are you getting this information? Where is your degree in comparative zoology?

And where's the line of difference between gorillas and us? At what point does sentience occur? Of course gorillas can speak; just not in the same way as us. They have gut instincts (all animals have instincts), they do literally everything out of personal gain (survival of the fittest), and the whole point of a band / herd / pack of animals is to provide a service to the group as a whole.

And on the heart again...it can't explain the things of the supernatural, but that is the very reason why faith is called faith. There is no other way to explain it. Faith, however, should not be used to explain scientific things.

If there is no way to explain it, why believe in it? Honestly, you guys need to go to college or open a book or something.

 

[Zero Beat]

On your last assertion RDK, they will pull out the -faith- word on you and whatever you say will be blocked out by their unwillingness to take something, analyze it, and formulate an educated understanding of your words through reason.

I hope you're ready for the FAITH argument, again.

"I just feel.." does not signify anything.

And for the confused due to the fact that they're simply uneducated about evolution, let's see if this clarifies anything.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

[size=-11]Credit to Crimson King for the link.[/size]

 

[Smooth Criminal]

We're not primal? What does that even mean? Both gorillas and humans are animals, and have a close common ancestor nonetheless. You say gorillas have a "set pattern of behavior" and can only act according to that? Where are you getting this information? Where is your degree in comparative zoology?

And where's the line of difference between gorillas and us? At what point does sentience occur? Of course gorillas can speak; just not in the same way as us. They have gut instincts (all animals have instincts), they do literally everything out of personal gain (survival of the fittest), and the whole point of a band / herd / pack of animals is to provide a service to the group as a whole.

I think that what he was insinuating was that a gorilla's behavior becomes domesticated while in the care of human beings, forcibly enacting a "change" that's contradictory to their "true" natures. To say that they have a set pattern of behaviors on the whole is only partially correct. Yes, in most cases animals do have a sort of pre-destined course as guided by their natural instincts: Eat, ****, piss, screw, and die. But aren't human beings guided by this predilection as well? Of course. Strip away all of the petty bull-**** that enables us to go above and beyond the conventional multi-cellular organism and you'll find that much of what we do is as what RDK outlined in the last paragraph.

However, lemme get to the bit where he is incorrect. Animals, while not exactly as psychologically developed, are able to change their behaviors by either example or adaptation. There's mountains of examples to be given here. Circus animals, animals from multi-generational breeding, seeing-eye dogs, a starving animal in need of food....and these are just conventional examples, not case-studies.

Sounds like a lot like human beings too, doesn't it? Learning by example or adaptation? Hm.

Smooth Criminal

 

[DuskMarthWater]

Mmm, am I being ignorant, or are you? You claim I'm being ignorant by not knowing about science, but you clearly have no understanding of religion because you dislike its views. I respect what views you have, but I don't agree with you on your outlook on life, and I already said I'm not as smart as you because I don't have as much free-time devoted to these kinds of things as you. I debate with an open mind, but you apparently do not.

I don't know everything, and what I've said is the extent of my knowledge. I'm not professing to know everything either. I said what I thought, and that's that. And supernatural? That should be fairly obvious. Anything that cannot be explained by science. I don't think that science is the only way to explain something. And why I believe in my heart's impressions is a personal thing, but I know because...I know. I can't explain it to you, and besides you wouldn't understand it anyways, sir-ignorant.

 

[AltF4]

And supernatural? That should be fairly obvious. Anything that cannot be explained by science.

Things that cannot be explained by science? Or things that are not yet explained by science?

I would like to hear an example of something that can be proven to be inexplicable by science.

 

[arrowhead]

technically, NOTHING in this universe can be explained by science (with 100% accuracy). so is everything supernatural? or are you talking about being able to use science to attempt to explain something? because then that's everything observable. which means your god is unobservable, so it basically doesn't exist

I don't think that science is the only way to explain something.

science is the ONLY RELIABLE METHOD of explaining anything.

 

[Zero Beat]

I don't think that science is the only way to explain something.

What made you arrive at that assertion? Listen to what you're saying, I will replace the word with its definition.

"I don't think that a body of knowledge is the only way to explain something."

Huh???

And why I believe in my heart's impressions is a personal thing, but I know because...I know. I can't explain it to you, and besides you wouldn't understand it anyways, sir-ignorant.

/facepalm

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Erich, the point that people are trying to make is that "listening to your heart" has led people to thousands of conclusions (religions) in the past that all contradict one another. Isn't it a little arrogant and naive to say "well I know I'M right, MY heart could NEVER be wrong."

 

[DuskMarthWater]

Maybe both Alt, actually. I know that's probably contradictory, but whatever. Things that absolutely cannot are for sure, but other things that have not yet been proven...I don't know what would fall under that category myself. Well...the existence of a God in the first place seems pretty inexplicable to science. So does the way His son supposedly made the Earth. The existence of another world full of spirits mingling with our own at this very moment seems pretty unexplained as well. I don't think that science will ever attempt to explain these things, will they?

...Ok, I don't think that the scientific method is the only way to explain something.

Science can only "reliably" explain the explainable. You can't explain the things I just mentioned with science, can you?

@Hyuga: Hmmm, I don't think I was taking that view-point. That is a good point though. I didn't mean it to sound quite to condescending either. I will say this then to make it more clear: Your heart is not always right, no. I think we all know that. Everyone is capable of making a wrong decision. I've made more than I can count myself. But in my religion, I know my heart is not wrong. Why? Because I've tested out the things my religion says to test out. You can't live off of the testimony of someone else. You must discover for yourself whether it is true or not. I discovered, and what the scriptures say is supposed to happen, ACTUALLY HAPPENED. But that also means you have to want to know the truth. You can't just say, well I'd better find out if this is true or not, because you don't really care. The answer will come only to those who want it and desire to know. Anyways, I'm getting a bit off-topic...

 

[arrowhead]

Maybe both Alt, actually. I know that's probably contradictory, but whatever. Things that absolutely cannot are for sure, but other things that have not yet been proven...I don't know what would fall under that category myself. Well...the existence of a God in the first place seems pretty inexplicable to science. So does the way His son supposedly made the Earth. The existence of another world full of spirits mingling with our own at this very moment seems pretty unexplained as well. I don't think that science will ever attempt to explain these things, will they?

if it's observable, it can be attempted to be explain through science. if it's unobservable, it doesn't exist. so far nothing that points to god has been observed.

...Ok, I don't think that the scientific method is the only way to explain something.

Science can only "reliably" explain the explainable. You can't explain the things I just mentioned with science, can you?

re-read what you just typed. "science can only explain the explainable." that means your religion is unexplainable, so using your heart to explain it will be useless.

@Hyuga: Hmmm, I don't think I was taking that view-point. That is a good point though. I will say this then to make it more clear: Your heart is not always right, no. I think we all know that. But in my religion, I know my heart is not wrong. Why? Because I've tested out the things my religion says to test out. You can't live off of the testimony of someone else. You must discover for yourself whether it is true or not. I discovered, and what the scriptures say is supposed to happen, ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

and i'm sure people of ALL religions have felt the same way. are you telling us that they're all right?

edit: oh and the method of discovery you used is science in its most basic form. start with hypothesis (your religion is correct if what scripture says is true), test, and if the observations are in line with the expected results, your hypothesis is still a valid explanation. in your case, it was a success. you weren't following the method exactly, but you should know that you are using science to try to justify your beliefs

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Yeah, and so have the millions of other people in thousands of other religions supposedly experienced the same things.

How do you know these testing methods are meaningful, and that you aren't the victim of confirmation bias and all the other cognitive biases that go along with "your heart?" And EVEN IF your "tests" are meaningful, that wouldn't suddenly make true everything else that the religion claims to be true.

 

[Zero Beat]

...Ok, I don't think that the scientific method is the only way to explain something.

I'm going to repeat my question.

Why? And do you have your own way, since you "think" it isn't the only way. You say things based on some sort of previous knowledge, so provide another way to explain things.

 

[DuskMarthWater]

...No. I really don't know how to phrase that last part. I tried to edit it just now, but I'm not having any luck. I don't think that people of all religions have felt the same way, because only my religion has the Book of Mormon, which is, as far as I know, the only book of doctrine that asks you at the end of it to pray and ask God if it is true or not and also mentions what will happen if you receive an answer. That answer will probably not come when you want it to, nor will it come if you don't pray the way you are supposed to. Meaning, like I said earlier, you have to want it. And you have to actually read it first. The whole thing.

And to your second line, what I probably should have said is that science can only observe things it can see. Therefore it can only explain things that are visible in some spectrum or another. My religion has doctrine, not fact, as do most religions. The things my religion believes in are not observable, so therefore science cannot explain it. Your heart and your emotions can't necessarily explain it, but they can assure you that even though you may not understand everything about what you believe in, that it is actually there.

EDIT: I think that the scientific method is not the only way to explain things because it can't explain everything. I believe in these things which are not seen, and I know that facts and science aren't capable of understanding it, so there must be more than one way to explain things, yes? But...like I said in the paragraph above, it won't always necessarily "explain" it so much as assure that you aren't believing in something false. I suppose you are right, in a sense. Science can EXPLAIN things well, but faith isn't about receiving knowledge, otherwise its whole concept would be destroyed. Faith doesn't really explain things, you are correct, but it does assure you to know your faith is not false, if you exercise it. I suppose I didn't mean another way of explanation, but...I guess that was the best way to word it.

 

[Zero Beat]

Not really. I can't find the source(but I am looking, as I have read it) but, dark matter is invisible yet we are able to point out where it is. It's through the use of gravitational potential energy and some other forms of energy, I'll try to find the link.

The website is an ".edu" website, not a fan-site. If I can't find it I'll simply edit my post.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/hframe.html

This isn't exactly the explanation I read on, but it's a safe website.

 

[DuskMarthWater]

Hmmm. Sounds interesting. I mean things that you can't locate, can't see, can't prove the existence of. Still though, I would like to hear about dark matter. Is it visible in another spectrum? I know nothing about it.

 

[arrowhead]

...No. I really don't know how to phrase that last part. I tried to edit it just now, but I'm not having any luck. I don't think that people of all religions have felt the same way, because only my religion has the Book of Mormon, which is, as far as I know, the only book of doctrine that asks you at the end of it to pray and ask God if it is true or not and also mentions what will happen if you receive an answer. That answer will probably not come when you want it to, nor will it come if you don't pray the way you are supposed to. Meaning, like I said earlier, you have to want it. And you have to actually read it first. The whole thing.

people of other religions don't need to ask god if what they believe in is true, because the religion says so. this is exactly what your book is doing. the book says if you ask god if it's true and you feel something special, then your religion is true. how do you know the book is correct about that?

what you felt is probably some placebo anyways. tons of people have been tricked into feeling and seeing things that aren't there.

And to your second line, what I probably should have said is that science can only observe things it can see. Therefore it can only explain things that are visible in some spectrum or another. My religion has doctrine, not fact, as do most religions. The things my religion believes in are not observable, so therefore science cannot explain it. Your heart and your emotions can't necessarily explain it, but they can assure you that even though you may not understand everything about what you believe in, that it is actually there.

if your religion is unobservable then your verification from god about your religion wasn't actually a verification.

if something is unobservable, NOTHING can explain it. and your last part basically describes someone in denial.

EDIT: I think that the scientific method is not the only way to explain things because it can't explain everything. I believe in these things which are not seen, and I know that facts and science aren't capable of understanding it, so there must be more than one way to explain things, yes? But...like I said in the paragraph above, it won't always necessarily "explain" it so much as assure that you aren't believing in something false. I suppose you are right, in a sense. Science can EXPLAIN things well, but faith isn't about receiving knowledge, otherwise its whole concept would be destroyed. Faith doesn't really explain things, you are correct, but it does assure you to know your faith is not false, if you exercise it. I suppose I didn't mean another way of explanation, but...I guess that was the best way to word it.

as zero already demonstrated, seeing isn't the only way we can observe things.

and you're using circular logic. "your faith assures you that your faith is correct"... so are you telling me all known religions are correct?

 

[DuskMarthWater]

Why do I know the book is true about that? What you're asking me makes no sense to me. If you belong to a religion and thinks it's true just because you're a part of it, then that's ********. You have to investigate for yourself. That is not what my book is doing. Why don't you read it before you judge it? My book is saying that if you want to know if the book is true or not, then you need to pray and ask God sincerely if it is or not. It doesn't say the book is the only true book. We use the Bible too. How do I know the book is correct about the way you feel? I would rather not discuss this part on an internet forum. In place of what I do not wish to say is that how could you not believe in it after you live its teachings and find how great your life is and how happy you are when you do? You personally will probably never get an answer with the attitude you have towards it. That's not intended to be offensive either. If you ever read it or become interested in these spiritual things, you will not get very far if you use science.

What I meant by that last line is that if you exercise your faith you will get your faith strengthened. You do not receive a witness of the truthfulness of spiritual things until your faith has been tried.

 

[arrowhead]

Why do I know the book is true about that? What you're asking me makes no sense to me. If you belong to a religion and thinks it's true just because you're a part of it, then that's ********. You have to investigate for yourself. That is not what my book is doing. Why don't you read it before you judge it? My book is saying that if you want to know if the book is true or not, then you need to pray and ask God sincerely if it is or not. It doesn't say the book is the only true book.

and you got your answer telling you the book is true, right? so how do you know the book was right when it told you it is correct if you got your answer?

i never said your book says it's the only true book. but it DOES contradict all the other religions, so any book that is not a part of it would be wrong.

How could you not believe in it after you live its teachings and find how great your life is and how happy you are when you do? You personally will probably never get an answer with the attitude you have towards it. That's not intended to be offensive either.

there are many people who feel the EXACT SAME WAY as you, but are from OTHER RELIGIONS. are you telling us that they're all deluded from the fact and the people from your religion isn't?

basically, what you're saying here is in no way a justification for you to talk about your beliefs as if they were fact. if that were the case, contradictions would be flying all over the place

What I meant by that last line is that if you exercise your faith you will get your faith strengthened.

actually a lot of people find out that their religion doesn't make sense after trying to come to a deeper understanding of their religion.

You do not receive a witness of the truthfulness of spiritual things until your faith has been tried.

i have no idea what you're saying here.

 

[Zero Beat]

He's saying that unless you try with all your feelings in hopes of seeking truth, you won't receive this spiritual "proof."

When the funny thing is, you're not allowed to question God. You just have to trust that he is true. There are no verification purposes here. What religion do you practice, Erich?

 

[DuskMarthWater]

No, you can question God. I don't why you would assume otherwise. You rely on him, and he helps you through this life. But there will be times when you will doubt. After all, we are only human. I am Mormon sir, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Check it out if you're interested. We've got a website. Two in fact. If you want to know more about it, it definitely explains things better than I can or want to on an internet forum.

Zero Beat's first sentence pretty much said it. I'm not saying they are all false, but I don't think that they have the whole truth, only parts of it. I don't like saying that on the internet because it paints a bad picture on my own religion and people take it the wrong way. And I don't see how what I said contradicts other religions. It just contains the rest of the stuff that other religions don't have. The reason there are so many Christian denominations is because the Bible has so many different interpretations. This other book clears up the things that are uncertain in the Bible. Being part of a religion does not mean it is true. You have to find out if it is true. How do you find out if it is true if you don't even know what you're looking for? I still don't understand your argument on the book telling you the way to feel. It says that if you want to know the truthfulness of the book then you must pray and you will receive an answer. The answer you receive is not explainable in words, but you just know. The book describes how that answer will come. You probably won't hear a voice from 'oh high' saying "this is true". I don't want to get this deep into this stuff on an internet forum, so that's why I'm not very clear right now. Sorry.

 

[RDK]

So can you explain why the Book of Mormon is for some reason the only other truth besides the Bible, and how it can be so when it was purported be "found" by one man with no other witnesses?

And did God mess up or something when he wrote the first book, so much so that he miraculously wrote another one and left it for Joseph Smith to find?