Philosophical question?

[magnifier661]

I don't think you made your point. Or, rather, you made no point to me. And in a discussion, to make your point, you would have to get it across to the person in the discussion. So....you have morals because of god. If that's your point that you tried in 6 pages to get across, then, ok. Good for you, I guess.

Well I guess I didn't then. And if you think finally making someone conform to your belief determins if you had a good debate, then I guess all the great debators on this planet have failed. Why are they even speaking then? The point of debating is to try and express your opinion on another. Does that mean you must win the debate and have everyone witnessing that debate agree; or maybe one person agrees that didn't before? What is the determining factor here?

 

[Sedatedfork]

Nature/Nurture -- it is impossible to answer. We are all products of biases. What we think is inevitably framed by how we were raised, the fact we live in a civilized society, and all of the input we received until the moment we type our thoughts out on a forum. You can not answer this question from inside a construct. So, here is my suggestion, why don't we adopt a Sportstwo baby (Denny Crane can fund this) and monitor the baby as it tries to survive in the wild. Then, when the baby (I suggest we name the baby Mixum) reaches the age of 18, let's interview Mixum and see if Mixum thinks murder is okay.

 

[magnifier661]

Nature/Nurture -- it is impossible to answer. We are all products of biases. What we think is inevitably framed by how we were raised, the fact we live in a civilized society, and all of the input we received until the moment we type our thoughts out on a forum. You can not answer this question from inside a construct. So, here is my suggestion, why don't we adopt a Sportstwo baby (Denny Crane can fund this) and monitor the baby as it tries to survive in the wild. Then, when the baby (I suggest we name the baby Mixum) reaches the age of 18, let's interview Mixum and see if Mixum thinks murder is okay.

LMAO!!!!!! repped!

 

[crowTrobot]

Well if you believe science, there is such a thing as Quantum Physics, time and space can be one. That would mean there could be a possibility that there is an Alpha and Omega. Basically meaning that he, just like morality was always here.

this is so inane it's like you're mocking christians here. still wondering if you aren't really a covert atheist playing everybody. if so, good one.

if not... yikes.

 

[magnifier661]

this is so inane it's like you're mocking christians here. still wondering if you aren't really a covert atheist playing everybody. if so, good one.

if not... yikes.

Here you go again, Calling me silly and stupid and generalizing Christian belief.

It's pretty obvious that you hold yourself to a much higher regard to everyone else in this place. Or maybe you just think you are better than Christians because you believe in science. NEWSFLASH!!!! There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions or billions of Christians that embrace, embraced and will embrace science. Just because we don't believe in your god "Darwinism" doesn't make us stupid. And just because you don't believe in our God, Christianity, makes you stupid.

And I guess those physicist got it all wrong. I guess their theory that there must be an end all is wrong. I guess everyone is wrong huh crow? You are thinking only in 1 dimension. The relative theory is 3 dimensions, and the possibility that even more dimensions can exist.

Think of you and I as a 1 dimensional being. Someone that is restricted to time and space. Then think of a being that is 2 dimensions. Someone that isn't bound by time and space. He wouldn't have the constraint to follow the laws of time or space. But it goes even beyond that. What if there is a being that is a million dimensions? No constrant of time, space, etc, etc, etc. That would mean this being would have all the tools to know everything; create anything; and invent everything. It's not like I'm speaking out of my ass here.

Look at even our civilization. The advances we have made in the last hundred years catapulted us into another way of thinking. So many more things are possible and there is so much more to learn. You are acting just like the mid-evil times that burned scientists at the stake for doing witchcraft. Because you don't know, you condem. So you are just admitting your ignorance.

 

[Denny Crane]

There is a pretty big difference between religion and philosophy.

Thomas Paine was a philosopher, and I bet he had ideas about right and wrong that had nothing to do with religions.

 

[magnifier661]

There is a pretty big difference between religion and philosophy.

Thomas Paine was a philosopher, and I bet he had ideas about right and wrong that had nothing to do with religions.

That was my point all along. That philosophy isn't about Religion, but about possibility. Science has a philosophy. The Wright Bro's had a philosophy that you can fly, that we can make a device that can defy what many thought was impossible. There is a deep romance with science, just like there is with poetry or painting or even love itself. It is inatimate. It has a soul. And it's not something that comes from nothing because it was imprinted, programed or always was there.

All it proves is many of us know very little and even the most intelligent people on this planet right now maybe know nothing in comparison to what is truly here. But as it stands now, there isn't a single scientific evidence that supports God doesn't exist, nor is there any that supports he does. It's all theory and God bless science for its pursuit to find the answers. My theory is it will only prove that there is God and he does exist.

 

[Sedatedfork]

That was my point all along. That philosophy isn't about Religion, but about possibility. Science has a philosophy. The Wright Bro's had a philosophy that you can fly, that we can make a device that can defy what many thought was impossible. There is a deep romance with science, just like there is with poetry or painting or even love itself. It is inatimate. It has a soul. And it's not soemthing that comes from nothing because it was imprinted, programed or always was there.

All it proves is many of us know very little and even the most intelligent people on this planet right now maybe know nothing in comparison to what is truly here. But as it stands now, there isn't a single scientific evidence that supports God doesn't exist, nor is there any that supports he does. It's all theory and God bless science for its pursuit to find the answers. My theory is it will only prove that there is God and he does exist.

I really don't think you can prove that god exists with science. It just doesn't seem possible to me. There is circumstantial evidence, but it is all up to interpretation. In the end there is only faith. Your comments remind me of the 2 part South Park episode Go God Go and Go God Go XII. If you can stomach the vileness of South Park you should watch it some time.

 

[magnifier661]

I really don't think you can prove that god exists with science. It just doesn't seem possible to me. There is circumstantial evidence, but it is all up to interpretation. In the end there is only faith. Your comments remind me of the 2 part South Park episode Go God Go and Go God Go XII. If you can stomach the vileness of South Park you should watch it some time.

Pop the link on another off-topic thread. I'll watch it.

 

[ABM]

So their sin is being gay?

Yep.

That said, the Bible also says that hetero "friends with benefits" is sin, as well. Truly, the only sexual relationship that God "endorses" is....male and female in the confines of a married relationship......period.

 

[crowTrobot]

Here you go again, Calling me silly and stupid

i don't think you're stupid, just completely uninformed about any of the scientific topics you keep referring to. i'm sure you're capable of learning about them (evolution, quantum mechanics, cosmology etc) if you wanted to do so. the trick is to listen to and read what actual scientists say, not what creationists say they say.

It's pretty obvious that you hold yourself to a much higher regard to everyone else in this place. Or maybe you just think you are better than Christians because you believe in science.

not about me. any informed person, religious or otherwise, would tell you every single reference to the positions of science you've made in your arguments is either incoherent or false.

 

[ABM]

read what actual scientists say, not what creationists say they say.

Of course, there's no such thing as scientists who are also creationists.

 

[crowTrobot]

That was my point all along.

no it wasn't

All it proves is many of us know very little and even the most intelligent people on this planet right now maybe know nothing in comparison to what is truly here

yet you seem to know morality can't exist without god

 

[magnifier661]

no it wasn't

Okay what was my point then?

yet you seem to know morality can't exist without god

No what I know is morality is real yet it holds no mass. Explain that scientifically. And explain why a fish doesn't care to eat its own kind yet man knows killing each other is morally wrong? Is it a learned behavior? Can't wait for your answer cuz I got a scientific study that will knock it out of the park.

 

[Denny Crane]

That was my point all along. That philosophy isn't about Religion, but about possibility. Science has a philosophy. The Wright Bro's had a philosophy that you can fly, that we can make a device that can defy what many thought was impossible. There is a deep romance with science, just like there is with poetry or painting or even love itself. It is inatimate. It has a soul. And it's not something that comes from nothing because it was imprinted, programed or always was there.

All it proves is many of us know very little and even the most intelligent people on this planet right now maybe know nothing in comparison to what is truly here. But as it stands now, there isn't a single scientific evidence that supports God doesn't exist, nor is there any that supports he does. It's all theory and God bless science for its pursuit to find the answers. My theory is it will only prove that there is God and he does exist.

I think you got it wrong about philosophy.

Karl Marx was a philosopher (and economist). His economic model (Communism) is Godless (anti-religion, even), yet has strong concepts of good and evil.

I don't think the Wright brothers' inspiration had anything to do with philosophy. It was more of a race between several groups of people to become the first to fly (not counting air balloons).

 

[crowTrobot]

Of course, there's no such thing as scientists who are also creationists.

if you mean YEC's there's a handful out of millions, none of them working in relevant fields, but that's not the point. the incoherent arguments mags is trying to paraphrase from creationist material are not written by working scientists, and misrepresent what working scientists would say.

 

[Denny Crane]

if you mean YEC's there's a handful out of millions, none of them working in relevant fields, but that's not the point. the incoherent arguments mags is trying to paraphrase from creationist material are not written by working scientists, and misrepresent what working scientists would say.

Father of Calculus and Physics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views

Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, theologian and alchemist. He also wrote many works that would now be classified as occult studies. Newton wrote a number of religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible, as he considered himself to be one of a select group of individuals who were specially chosen by God for the task of understanding Biblical scripture.[1]

Newton’s conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.[2][3] Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity;[4] in recent times he has been described as heretical to orthodoxy.[5]

 

[ABM]

if you mean YEC's there's a handful out of millions, none of them working in relevant fields...

I suppose, but they're still out there.....

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

 

[crowTrobot]

No what I know is morality is real yet it holds no mass. Explain that scientifically.

you'll have to specifically define what you mean by morality, and then define "real". if you mean how we feel about certain behavior, that's evolved chemical-based emotional response, and/or emotional response to the undesireable consequences of certain actions.

And explain why a fish doesn't care to eat its own kind yet man knows killing each other is morally wrong? Is it a learned behavior?

what do you mean "knows" is wrong? "feels" is wrong? or "knows" the consequences?

 

[magnifier661]

I think you got it wrong about philosophy.

Karl Marx was a philosopher (and economist). His economic model (Communism) is Godless (anti-religion, even), yet has strong concepts of good and evil.

I don't think the Wright brothers' inspiration had anything to do with philosophy. It was more of a race between several groups of people to become the first to fly (not counting air balloons).

Yes the funding may have been from a "race for advantage"; but you need to people to think outside the box. To believe that someone can work, even though the 'technology" at the time didn't. Like the scientists during the mid-evil times were at risk of being called a "witch". Why do people want to evolve? And no, not physical evolution. We strive for knowledge. It seems the more we learn, the more learning we need to be kept fed. And this is why I believe it has "philosophy".

And Karl Marx, describing right from wrong doesn't answer how we know what is right and wrong. It is just a movie or example of someone doing right or wrong.

 

[magnifier661]

Father of Calculus and Physics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views

Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, theologian and alchemist. He also wrote many works that would now be classified as occult studies. Newton wrote a number of religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible, as he considered himself to be one of a select group of individuals who were specially chosen by God for the task of understanding Biblical scripture.[1]

Newton’s conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.[2][3] Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity;[4] in recent times he has been described as heretical to orthodoxy.[5]

Thank you for being open minded. I am trying to be just as open minded.

 

[Denny Crane]

Originator of the Big Bang Theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

 

[ABM]

what do you mean "knows" is wrong? "feels" is wrong? or "knows" the consequences?

Well, for one.....

26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid. ~John 14:26-27

 

[Denny Crane]

Thank you for being open minded. I am trying to be just as open minded.

What's right or wrong is what's generally accepted as right or wrong. There's nothing more to it. In some places and at some times, what is accepted as right or wrong is driven by religious ideology. In many muslim countries, it's ok to cut off the hands of a thief, restrict women from becoming educated, etc. It's not seen as wrong to them, but through our lens/perspective, it's hideous.

 

[crowTrobot]

I suppose, but they're still out there.....

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

you should research the names on that list. i'm guessing they are all either long dead from periods when modern evidence wasn't available, not working in relevant fields, or christian scientists who believe in creation but accept that the earth is old.

 

[Denny Crane]

Father of genetics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

 

[magnifier661]

Tell me this isn't romantic!

Honestly, tell me how awesome a painter one would be to create this. I just can't believe this happened by chance. And yes I will respect you believing it was.

 

[magnifier661]

So far, Denny just showed 3 very important pilgrims to science that had a very religious background.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

And yes homosexuality is a sin according to my Hebrew God.

Prove it. I'm serious: prove that "your Hebrew God" has decreed that homosexuality is a sin.

 

[ABM]

What's right or wrong is what's generally accepted as right or wrong. There's nothing more to it. In some places and at some times, what is accepted as right or wrong is driven by religious ideology. In many muslim countries, it's ok to cut off the hands of a thief, restrict women from becoming educated, etc. It's not seen as wrong to them, but through our lens/perspective, it's hideous.

I think the Old and New Testaments are pretty clear as to what the standard was (accepted) for then....compared against what the standard is now....that is, in response to the advent (birth/life/death/resurrection...and coming again) of Jesus.