Do you believe in Heaven and Hell?

[crowTrobot]

I suppose it's just a matter of me interchanging the word 'belief' with 'reality'.

because it allows you to believe whatever makes you feel good without otherwise justifying it.

I happen to believe in God (my faith comes from my belief that what He says has, is, and will happen.....is absolute truth.) You apparently don't believe in God. Therefore, we have two entirely different frames of mind/perspective.

yeah i'm concerned with objective truth. you aren't.

 

[crowTrobot]

ABM-

A) Have you read and studied the ENTIRE Bible?

B) Do you believe ALL of it as you say?

C) Do you adhere to ALL of it? ALL of it?

D) How do you CHOOSE to reconcile its inconsistencies? (Jesus contradicting the Old Testament)

E) Do you believe homosexuality is a biblical sin and if so how do you reconcile that with the scientific view that it is genetic, and why isn't god a huge bigot?

 

[Denny Crane]

because it allows you to believe whatever makes you feel good without otherwise justifying it.



yeah i'm concerned with objective truth. you aren't.

The objective truth is that God exists (at least in some abstract form). Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about him.

 

[Bob Dobalina]

E) Do you believe homosexuality is a biblical sin and if so how do you reconcile that with the scientific view that it is genetic, and why isn't god a huge bigot?

There's a gay gene?

 

[Denny Crane]

There's a gay gene?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8332896&dopt=Abstract

 

[crowTrobot]

The objective truth is that God exists (at least in some abstract form). Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about him.

nobody is talking about the concept of god. we are debating the existence of an actual god, or at least everyone but ABM is.

 

[Denny Crane]

nobody is talking about the concept of god. we are debating the existence of an actual god, or at least everyone but ABM is.

The concept clearly exists. It's also interesting that so many cultures have such a similar concept even though they existed vast distances from one another and had no contact with one another.

As an objectivist, I can't say I believe in the existence of an actual god, but if you take a massive dose of LSD and try to read your scientific instruments, it's hard to say that's particularly objective. Meaning, the concept of "reality" needs to be part of the equation, IMO.

 

[Bob Dobalina]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8332896&dopt=Abstract

Sounds like the answer is still no. Thanks.

 

[crowTrobot]

The concept clearly exists. It's also interesting that so many cultures have such a similar concept even though they existed vast distances from one another and had no contact with one another.

As an objectivist, I can't say I believe in the existence of an actual god, but if you take a massive dose of LSD and try to read your scientific instruments, it's hard to say that's particularly objective. Meaning, the concept of "reality" needs to be part of the equation, IMO.

part of what equation? are you arguing for solipsism?

 

[huevonkiller]

You don't understand the concept of an "edge", "bruh". Plus, you just blew up Einstein's theory of relativity, and I doubt you know why.

Hmm not quite.

Relativity is flawed for different reasons, it's called Quantum Mechanics famz so this is not exactly news to anyone. My pops knows a lot more about Physics than you do too, he teaches this stuff.

Also you use the word "theory" incorrectly. Saturn existing is not a "theory", the expansion of the universe is not a "theory", but the Big Bang is indeed a "theory". I don't think you understand the concept.

You just said all Science is like global warming which is scary. Chill out dude, don't take it THAT far.

 

[huevonkiller]

Um, you obviously haven't read my other posts in this thread.

Hint - I don't believe in a God, but I don't disbelieve, either.

Nah dude I read your posts, they don't spell it out as clearly as I did.

I'm improving upon your views bruh.

 

[huevonkiller]

lots of physicists think general relativity is likely to just be an approximation of reality simply due to the fact that it appears to be incompatable with quantum mechanics.

Ah nice post. :]

 

[huevonkiller]

Someone address the massive inconsistencies in this link:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/fv/long.html

The Bible was written poorly and I don't take it seriously.

The concept clearly exists. It's also interesting that so many cultures have such a similar concept even though they existed vast distances from one another and had no contact with one another.

As an objectivist, I can't say I believe in the existence of an actual god, but if you take a massive dose of LSD and try to read your scientific instruments, it's hard to say that's particularly objective. Meaning, the concept of "reality" needs to be part of the equation, IMO.

Omg one of those fake Libertarian Ayn Rand things right? No wonder you're so war hungry. Just messing with you.

 

[ABM]

because it allows you to believe whatever makes you feel good without otherwise justifying it.



yeah i'm concerned with objective truth. you aren't.

Objective truth about what, exactly? That God has been "proven" not to exist? Sorry, there's no proof of that, whatsoever.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Objective truth about what, exactly? That God has been "proven" not to exist? Sorry, there's no proof of that, whatsoever.

Did you see Kingspeed's questions on page 11? He's very curious about you, lol.

 

[crowTrobot]

Objective truth about what, exactly? That God has been "proven" not to exist? Sorry, there's no proof of that, whatsoever.

you're self-admittedly not concerned with proof, so why bother to comment on whether there is or not?

 

[ABM]

ABM-

A) Have you read and studied the ENTIRE Bible?

Yes. Always an ongoing process, though. I try to read portion every day. It's great reading.

B) Do you believe ALL of it as you say?

Yes. All of it.

C) Do you adhere to ALL of it? ALL of it?

I make it my effort to, yes. However, even as Paul describes in Romans 7, it's an impossibility to adhere to all of it...all the time. (It's why Christ came. He's my advocate and ultimate "Savior". It's not about "rule following".)

D) How do you CHOOSE to reconcile its inconsistencies? (Jesus contradicting the Old Testament)

Inconsistencies? Jesus didn't contradict the Old Testament. He was God's solution to fix the mess that resulted in Adam & Eve's rebellion.

 

[SantaDora]

lots of physicists think general relativity is likely to just be an approximation of reality simply due to the fact that it appears to be incompatable with quantum mechanics.

Yup. Unfortunately, the work done to try and unify them gave us string theory which makes general relativity look like a coloring book in complexity.

 

[Ed O]

I doubt there is a heaven or a hell. I don't have any proof one way or the other.

Ed O.

 

[Denny Crane]

part of what equation? are you arguing for solipsism?

Not exactly, though no two people can literally see the same thing since different photons hit each's eye.

I'm thinking more about frame of reference. It could be that everything was blue shifted 100,000,000 years ago, but since nobody was around to detect it, we simply don't know that reality. Not saying its likely, just we take some things on faith. Ya know?

 

[Eastoff]

Please prove Santa Claus doesn't exist. He works through other people. He was written about in the santa bible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Visit_from_St._Nicholas

 

[crowTrobot]

Not exactly, though no two people can literally see the same thing since different photons hit each's eye.

I'm thinking more about frame of reference. It could be that everything was blue shifted 100,000,000 years ago, but since nobody was around to detect it, we simply don't know that reality. Not saying its likely, just we take some things on faith. Ya know?

no i don't know. science doesn't take anything on faith in any sense that corresponds to religious faith.

 

[Denny Crane]

Ok, I'll put it a different way. The universe might be many times larger than we perceive it to be, but we only know what's going on for as far as we can see. The age of what we see might be 13.7B years, but what's beyond might be significantly older or even newer.

 

[crowTrobot]

Ok, I'll put it a different way. The universe might be many times larger than we perceive it to be, but we only know what's going on for as far as we can see. The age of what we see might be 13.7B years, but what's beyond might be significantly older or even newer.

there are many things we don't or can't know. science doesn't pretend to know things it can't (unlike theists).

 

[Denny Crane]

there are many things we don't or can't know. science doesn't pretend to know things it can't (unlike theists).

I get that, but what we perceive as reality simply may not be. As I pointed out, when people believed the sun revolved around the earth, sailors were able to navigate by the stars. The reality was "good enough" to make navigation possible, but wasn't even close to what we now believe to be reality.

We take, on faith, that the speed of light is the maximum speed limit of anything, and we base a LOT of theory on that. If it turns out to not be true, that the speed of light is something we currently don't really understand, the rest is a house of cards. It is our best faith guesstimate, the best we can do, sure. Like I said, "reality" has to be part of the discussion.

(And "something we don't or can't know" is what people are arguing that God is one of those things)

 

[crowTrobot]

We take, on faith, that the speed of light is the maximum speed limit of anything, and we base a LOT of theory on that. If it turns out to not be true, that the speed of light is something we currently don't really understand, the rest is a house of cards. It is our best faith guesstimate, the best we can do, sure. Like I said, "reality" has to be part of the discussion.

accepting the best current evidence for reality as a matter of practicality doesn't correspond to believing in a religion based on faith. ABM isn't concerned with evidence at all.

(And "something we don't or can't know" is what people are arguing that God is one of those things)

who's arguing that? not ABM.

 

[Denny Crane]

Ah, but what you accept as evidence and what he accepts are different, but not unreasonable.

God made the butterfly. We see the butterfly. How can it be denied? The butterfly IS the evidence. It's not how I think about things, but I can see how someone else might.

 

[barfo]

We take, on faith, that the speed of light is the maximum speed limit of anything, and we base a LOT of theory on that. If it turns out to not be true, that the speed of light is something we currently don't really understand, the rest is a house of cards.

Not really. First of all, we don't take it 'on faith' that the speed of light is the maximum speed. That is not an article of faith, but rather a result of reason. The reasoning may turn out to be faulty or incomplete, but it is reason, not faith.

Secondly, if the speed of light is exceeded by some particle, that doesn't overturn all existing physics, or even all existing particle physics. Most likely, it would be that there was some special case or conditions that the current equations didn't consider. It wouldn't mean that everything we've learned about nature is wrong. It would just mean that our prior theory was incomplete.

Science isn't an all-or-nothing proposition like modern-day religion. Science can add or discard things as needed.

barfo

 

[crowTrobot]

Ah, but what you accept as evidence and what he accepts are different, but not unreasonable.

God made the butterfly. We see the butterfly. How can it be denied? The butterfly IS the evidence. It's not how I think about things, but I can see how someone else might.

you're describing how a delusional person thinks about things.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not really. First of all, we don't take it 'on faith' that the speed of light is the maximum speed. That is not an article of faith, but rather a result of reason. The reasoning may turn out to be faulty or incomplete, but it is reason, not faith.

Secondly, if the speed of light is exceeded by some particle, that doesn't overturn all existing physics, or even all existing particle physics. Most likely, it would be that there was some special case or conditions that the current equations didn't consider. It wouldn't mean that everything we've learned about nature is wrong. It would just mean that our prior theory was incomplete.

Science isn't an all-or-nothing proposition like modern-day religion. Science can add or discard things as needed.

barfo

When is the last time you personally verified what the speed of light is? Or do you accept what it is on faith?