Congratulations. You just succeeded in writing a paragraph that is, literally, nonsense.
From the SOED: "Belonging to neither of two specified, implied, or usual categories; occupying a middle position with regard to two extremes; indifferent, impartial, dispassionate. In early use also, made up of opposing elements able to neutralize each other."
Which is my point. Someone who is neutral about whether god exists or not is not going to believe a god exists. If he doesn't already believe a god exists (and this is why it's hypothetical, few people get to even 6 years of age without having religion hosed all over them) then he'll be able to evaluate all the evidence from a clean slate.
Where you and I disagree is on what conclusions that observer will reach. But you must admit you'd be worried as he started to read the Old Testament and then when he went on to read the bizarre theological back-flips imposed on christians by the early church fathers. And unless your god decided to visit our neutral observer with a 'personal experience' of him - which he's never done for me nor for millions of others - then it's pretty much game over.
I'll look forward to that.
Well, that's a two part answer. First, because not even the health service is immune from woo-woo claims (you can even get homeopathy on the NHS - I'd just like to say a big thank you to the bloke with the big ears who's going to be king soon); and second, acupuncture methods have been proven to be effective in some ways - pain relief, for example. However, like reiki acupuncture theory waffles on about 'chi' and flowing and balancing and blocking of 'energies' and 'forces' and so Acupuncture as a whole discipline is still unproven.Why is it possible to get acapuncture on the NHS? Has this type of healing being scientifically proven yet?
But as on the aromatherapy thread - I have no objections to useful practices being pirated from flaky theories and bolted onto 'western' medicine.
BO-OI-OI-ING!
oooooooooooooooo{moustache twitching}
oooooooooooooooo{more moustache twitching}
"Time for bed," said Zebedee.
Great news, Will.
I'm another religious nutter who firmly believes he's experienced divine healing, so I can relate. God is good.
(No, I'm not going into detail here, as the thread seems to have descended into yet another of Barry's atheism v. theism debates/crusades and I don't want to get bogged down with all that again.)
(No, I'm not going into detail here, as the thread seems to have descended into yet another of Barry's atheism v. theism debates/crusades and I don't want to get bogged down with all that again.)
Thought about putting this in a 'you cannot be serious' thread, but it works here.
Article
No further comment necessary.
Gravity is undetectable to any form of sensor equipment that we have. Yet we still know it is there as we can see it's effect every day.
...which is something everyone is guilty of on this forum, for sheer convenience - I trust other people to skip back and see what was originally written in full, if they wish to. And, Mr. Shnikov, coming from someone who inserts snip 'comments' in the way you do, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.
Yet you felt obliged to answer it...
Someone who is neutral about whether God exists will look at the evidence with no bias. How do you know whether he is going to believe in a God or not? He may look at a beautiful winter morning and see the start of a chilly day, or he may look at it and reflect on the possibility of a supreme being. You don't know how he'll react - by asserting this hypothetical observer would not believe in a God is putting your own views onto that person. It's a red herring of an argument, designed to be convincing, but it's only dressing up your views in another way.
For fun, why not have two hypothetical observers from the same background, education etc? They may both analyse the same evidence and come to different conclusions regarding the existence of God.
No, not really. I've read plenty of stuff about some branches of Christianity which seem a little weird to me. But I'm not going to start knocking them for it - I just won't do it. However, if you have any specific examples...?
He didn't visit me with a personal experience for 20 years...or maybe He did, but I wasn't being receptive. From my own experience, God can be quite easy to ignore. Just because you haven't had that experience yourself, don't knock the fact that people have. However, lots of people have had that personal experience of God. Therefore it isn't game over by a long shot.
However, I note you've side-stepped my previous point - that I find it a bit absurd you can't acknowledge the possibility of a God, as you are basing your reasoning on something that can't explain everything. There is therefore a logical possibility of God, as we can't explain or rationalise everything. What Wes said earlier in the thread says it wonderfully.
If you were to say that you find the existence of God highly improbable, that would be different.
God is indeed good.
Come on Baruch, you know you want to come out and play...
I suppose that if no-one posted what you call unsupported waffling about miracles and faith healing, you wouldn't answer with your unsupported waffling about science and how God can't exist.
Not true. We may not be able to measure gravity waves, but we can certainly measure secondary phenomena that can only be determined by gravity. What do you think scales are? (And don't say they measure mass, because in a zero-gravity environment they would do no such thing.) 'Life forces' are not measurable or detectable in any way at all. Plus, you snipped out the bit where I went on to explain how evidence for the effect of life forces on organisms has not, in 200 years, been stumbled into by scientists.
I was responding to your post as a whole, as well as pointing out the paragraph made no sense.Yet you felt obliged to answer it...
I suppose (he wrote, deleting three paragraphs that he'd just realised weren't well expressed) that our neutral guy would have to be agnostic, wouldn't he?Someone who is neutral about whether God exists will look at the evidence with no bias. How do you know whether he is going to believe in a God or not? He may look at a beautiful winter morning and see the start of a chilly day, or he may look at it and reflect on the possibility of a supreme being.
But that is a species of non-believer, which is what I was trying to get at.
Red herrings? Moi?You don't know how he'll react - by asserting this hypothetical observer would not believe in a God is putting your own views onto that person. It's a red herring of an argument, designed to be convincing, but it's only dressing up your views in another way.
I did not assert in my previous post that our neutral guy would end up not believing in god, it's just that he'd have to start off that way. Or how do you think it would work?
That's the trouble with theology. One complication is never enough for you guys, you want to multiply them so people end up not knowing where their own elbow isFor fun, why not have two hypothetical observers from the same background, education etc? They may both analyse the same evidence and come to different conclusions regarding the existence of God.
Old testament: rape, pillage, incest, murder, genocide, all enthusiastically endorsed by your god; Church fathers: invention of immaculate conception, transubstantiation and particularly the trinity (beware: offensive-type comic fun-poking)No, not really. I've read plenty of stuff about some branches of Christianity which seem a little weird to me. But I'm not going to start knocking them for it - I just won't do it. However, if you have any specific examples...?
First, many people have personal experience of being Napoleon, or being the one true love that is all Britney Spears needs to set her life right, or receiving radio communications from aliens via their fillings. The possibility of being mistaken is simply too huge to ignore.He didn't visit me with a personal experience for 20 years...or maybe He did, but I wasn't being receptive. From my own experience, God can be quite easy to ignore. Just because you haven't had that experience yourself, don't knock the fact that people have. However, lots of people have had that personal experience of God. Therefore it isn't game over by a long shot.
But taking it on your terms - isn't it dreadfully unfair of god to give personal experiences to some people, and not to others? Who was it who got two shots - dew on the sheepskin and not the grass one night, and the other way round the next night. It's a hell of a lot easier to pass the 'you will believe in me despite all doubts and temptations' if you get e-mails from him, innit?
You don't find it nearly as absurd as I find the idea that there is a god. The absurdities are so humongous that when you get down to thinking about them, your head spins. Why create a universe of infinite size and set it going for 14 billion years before the first soul comes along? Who had the first soul - when did it happen that the first hominid became the first 'man' (or woman)? Why inspire men to write the books of the bible and mis-inform them as to the true value of pi? There is a theoretical possibility of god, but I refer to my previous comparison featuring Keira Knightley.However, I note you've side-stepped my previous point - that I find it a bit absurd you can't acknowledge the possibility of a God, as you are basing your reasoning on something that can't explain everything. There is therefore a logical possibility of God, as we can't explain or rationalise everything. What Wes said earlier in the thread says it wonderfully.
The problem I have is that you and those like you feel that god explains everything, but it doesn't. It just gives us an even larger, more all-encompassing mystery, but one that - and here's the punchline, people - is a lot more comforting than the real mysteries, and you find that more reassuring.
You know the statement that .999 recurring is actually equal to 1? In that way, the 'degree of the improbability' of god is equivalent to 'impossible'.If you were to say that you find the existence of God highly improbable, that would be different.
Please, please, please, prove me wrong. Just point to anything that is persuasive evidence of the existence of god. You can't do it.
He wasn't very nice to Jonah. He was noticeably inattentive in the middle of the twentieth century, when millions of his flock died painfully and humiliatingly in places like Eastern Germany, Poland, Siberia, China and so forth. I know you don't realise this, and I apologise for upsetting you, but statements like that are offensively complacent.God is indeed good.
No unsupported wafflings = no forum. We can't have that!I suppose that if no-one posted what you call unsupported waffling about miracles and faith healing, you wouldn't answer with your unsupported waffling about science and how God can't exist.
I'm with you on that one () - I'd go further and say why would there be just one? As I said, it's the concept of god(s) as an omnipotent force that interests me, not the form people give to it, which is pretty irrelevant AFAIC.
euh... yes, why couldn't you?
I'm quite taken aback here. It's a bit like... building a box inside the box thinking...
First, the fact that pretty much every single civilisation on this earth has developped some sort of divinity system (or do you know of one which didn't?)should give you a clue that there might be something interesting to consider (I am not saying that makes it any more real, just that it is a striking constant in the human history).
However, why are you willing to limiting yourself to 'this universe' and its (supposed) commencement with the Big Bang? Can you really occult questions such as:
- what made the big bang happen, where did that come from, what was just before it?
Or is the fact that science has no answers (yet) to those questions too uncomfortable for you that you need to dismiss even their existence?
well why would it be 'fair' (assuming that's what you're getting at) in the first place? Do you think scientific processes are? Ever heard of stochastic effects? (think radiations for example...)
You could try, but if you talk about the concept of god aren't you going to have to consider the different gods people have believed in?
Well, not that interesting. It seems glaringly obvious to me that early humans were faced with a world that was just stuffed full of bizarre things that had no apparent explanation. Lightning, growth (and reproduction) of vegetation, earthquakes, flash floods, crop disease...and so on. They were screaming out for explanations and that's how gods were invented. I'm not a parent but we all know about the "Why?...Why?...Why?...Why?" question jags that small children get in. Or possibly the 'meaning of life' type questions came before the 'why' types. In any event, a race that suddenly woke up and found itself knowing everything we do about the physical and chemical laws of the universe, etc etc, would - it seems to me - be very unlikely to hit on the supernatural until a lot further down the road (if at all).First, the fact that pretty much every single civilisation on this earth has developped some sort of divinity system (or do you know of one which didn't?)should give you a clue that there might be something interesting to consider (I am not saying that makes it any more real, just that it is a striking constant in the human history).
Speculation about such things is fun. It will, however, make your brain hurt. Particularly when you have to remind yourself that there was no 'before' before the big bang. (Ouch! See what I mean?)However, why are you willing to limiting yourself to 'this universe' and its (supposed) commencement with the Big Bang? Can you really occult questions such as:
- what made the big bang happen, where did that come from, what was just before it?
It is unlikely that science can ever have anything other than speculation as to the origin of the universe. Whether we are in a cyclical universe, or whether multiverse theories are correct, it seems highly improbable that we can transcend the limitations of being within this universe to be able to collect date about 'without' this universe.Or is the fact that science has no answers (yet) to those questions too uncomfortable for you that you need to dismiss even their existence?
Though there is an interesting theory that gravity is a tenth dimensional side-effect of another universe alongside our own, interesting because it appears to clear up some problems we have with gravity otherwise.
Ah, 'fairness' wasn't what I was getting at. I was pointing out that the 'life force' (according to the woo-woo theories of medicine and health) makes us ill by being out of balance, which is why the hand-waving is needed to 'rebalance' everything. So it's not just 'curing' people in a way that seems miraculous, it's also causing the illness. (At the same time, of course, as disguising itself so that it looks like an infection, or a melanoma, to the stupid and easily fooled western doctors and physiologists who are thereby misled).well why would it be 'fair' (assuming that's what you're getting at) in the first place? Do you think scientific processes are? Ever heard of stochastic effects? (think radiations for example...)
Ooo, a question for the theologians. This has bothered me for years.
As I recall the creed, it goes something like Jesus was "crucified on the cross, and dead, and buried, and the third day he rose again..."
Now, the crucifixion was on Friday, right?
And the resurrection on Sunday?
So where did they squeeze in the extra day?
Last edited by straycat; 5th-April-2007 at 02:47 PM.
do we know that much really? yes we have clues as to how the universe works, but do you seriously think that we know enough to totally rule out the existence of 'something' which we don't grasp yet that makes it all work in that very way we understand?
Don't get me wrong Barry as I don't believe in the existence of god either, yet I wouldn't be as arrogant (and yet I'm French ) as to say that a god cannot exist (but I'll give you it's likely it doesn't).
Ignorance is the mother of all evils they say... I wonder if ignorance of ignorance is the God of all evils
with the current level of knowledge we have from science... yes.
See what I'm getting at?
Consider for a minute the development of sciences in the past 500 years. From Copernic to today scientists.
Do you really believe here that we have already uncovered most of what was to be uncovered?
At what sort of level scientific knowledge will we be in 500, or 5000 years from now?
Precisely. We can measure the effect of gravity but we can't measure gravity itself. I have a suitably open mind with regards to reiki and the like, and whilst you may not be able to measure the primary emission (gravity, healing energy and the like), you can still see its effect. Granted, the effect of gravity is a lot more measurable and constant, but I'm using this as an anlogy and not a direct comparison. Just because we can't measure healing energy etc doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
As an engineer, I have to be suitably pedantic and state that they don't measure mass but they do measure gravitational acceleration. Not to be confused with measuring the 'gravity waves' themselves, if indeed they are waves at all.
Just because it's not been stumbled across in the last 200 years doesn't mean it won't be stumbled across in the 200 years to come. Man greatly desired to fly from, I imagine, around about the first time he saw a bird. We only managed it at the beginning of the 20th century - just because it's not happened in arbitrary period doesn't mean it won't happen at all.
Yeah, I guess so. And yes, agnostics would be termed as non-believers. Agnostics can go both ways - I went to faith, I imagine others went to atheism.
Fair point, I think I was getting myself confused as to what you orignally wrote. Yes, you're correct - a neutral observer would have to start with no belief in God...if he already believed, he wouldn't exactly be neutral. I think what I must have been thinking of when I replied was this:
The issue I have is that it is your view that there is nothing this observer could accept as evidence of God. My view is different. Hence my point about you putting your views onto the observer - just as I have done. Sorry for the confusion.
Yes, I agree. There are a lot of things in the Bible that make for some pretty grim reading. However, there is also a lot of good in the Bible - the yin to your yang, maybe? But to your point, reading the Bible and seeing this sort of thing can be confusing when tying it up with an all-loving God.
Or the number of people experiencing God are so large that the hints towards the existence of God is too large to ignore? If they were all what we would term mentally unstable, I would be with you. But there are a staggering number of people from stable lives and backgrounds who also believe. Mass delusion, or is there something in what the Bible tells us?
Is it? I feel no resentment to those people who have been healed by faith etc. Before I became a Christian, stories of these happenings interested me, but I had no particular belief in God. I think I had to get to a certain stage of open-mindedness before I could start to relate to God. Perhaps God is trying to give us all a personal experience, but not all of us are at the stage where we're ready to accept it. That's not me having a go, by the way, just explaining it as best I can. No offence intended.
I'm guessing Gideon, not 100% sure but I know the story. However, just because God chose to be overtly obvious to one person doesn't mean He will do so again - but I can't remember the context of that narrative so I won't go anymore into it! Yes, it's a lot easier to believe if it is pretty much pointed out to you, but there are still one 'ell of a lot of folk who believe and they haven't had an experience of that magnitude. It can be argued that this particular narrative is in the Bible as a case to show how vanishingly small the chance of that type of interaction with God is.
It depends on where you stand. I look at the world and see the incredible level of sophistication in it, how everything inter-relates in nature etc etc. I'm an aerospace engineer - I can't relate enough to you how tricky it is to design, manufacture and support an aircraft. And that's just a machine. When I look at the world we live in and all of its sophistication, I find it hard to believe - as a professional engineer - that there isn't a God that orchestrated it all. You've touched on some very good questions there, by the way. My simple answer is that I don't know - but not knowing doesn't mean there isn't a good explanation.
Ladies and gentlemen, can I have your attention please...?
Perhaps. But perhaps not. Like (I imagine) the majority of other Christians, I do have doubts from time to time. In some ways, having faith in God isn't easy. However, you are right - it is comforting. But, and again I refer to personal experience, I became a Christian when I was 20. I didn't have any burning issue or serious dilemma that made God look more appealing than life without Him. It's only since I became a believer that things make a lot more sense to me - I'm not necessarily more comfortable in life than I was before.
As an engineer, I can very much relate to that. However, as I work in structures, I know that a reserve factor of 0.999 isn't quite as good as a reserve factor of 1. On a scale of 0 being utterly possible and 1 being utterly impossible, It's 'near enough' to impossible but it's also 'not quite' impossible.
Lol! I wish I could!
My personal little interest is prophecy. In the NT Christ prophesised that the Jewish Temple would be destroyed. About 30 or so years later, the Zealots went into open rebellion against the Empire and invited the wrath of the Romans who not only destroyed the temple (as Christ predicted) but also eradicated Israel from the map (again as Christ predicted). Christ also predicted that Israel would rise again and Jerusalem would be its capital.
Well, 1900 years later Israel did rise again and it does consider Jerusalem as its capital. I'm not expecting you to drop to your knees when you read this and convert (although that would be nice), but seeing as a lot of this was written a loooooong time ago, you have to agree it is one very big coincidence. Of itself, no, it doesn't prove God. But it may prove that Christ was more than an average Joe. And if he was, where did his power of prophecy come from etc? And that's only one prophecy - if you read Revelations and apply the context of today's world, there are a lot of parallels that can be drawn. Proof? No, not really. Food for thought? For sure.
(Note: I have previously stated that I consider prophecy proof, but that's more a personal thing than a sweeping statement. )
No apology necessary. Believe it or not, you're not offending me in the slightest. However, as a believer, I do believe that God is good - I would be a strange Christian if I didn't, no? Just as you feel free to express your opinions on this forum, I feel free to express mine. And one of those is, my friend, that God is good.
And on that, we can agree!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks