Religious/Evolutionary Debate Thread

[QUALTHWAR]

Hi Guys what can I say I missed you.

For old times sake. If you are constantly veiwing things outside the realm of your understanding as a negative or an impossibility. Does this form of thinking render them unreal?

Uhhh, i posted that comment for a friend of mine. However, it's a good question. One you'll no doubt dodge.

Not because you don’t want to answer it, but because you cannot answer it. It leads to a paradox.

However, I did offer you a question you could answer that wasn’t a paradox; my marble mind experiment. You didn’t choose the path of science with repeatable results, but what’s interesting is you also didn’t choose the path or faith; something you’re appended to.

 

[GoAt]

catfuzz still needs to explain why jews are gods chosen but christians arent.

 

[oosyxxx]

qualthwar where is that teleport in your avatar from? it looks quake 3ish.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

qualthwar where is that teleport in your avatar from? it looks quake 3ish.

Yeah, i think you're right. I made it quite awhile ago, but i think i did a search for teleports or something and found that, then added my pic in there.

 

[Chrysaor]

For old times sake. If you are constantly veiwing things outside the realm of your understanding as a negative or an impossibility. Does this form of thinking render them unreal?

I get what you're saying. The answer is Yes. They are unreal and do not exist in reality.

 

[ViSion]

Uhhh, i posted that comment for a friend of mine. However, it's a good question. One you'll no doubt dodge.

Not because you don’t want to answer it, but because you cannot answer it. It leads to a paradox.

However, I did offer you a question you could answer that wasn’t a paradox; my marble mind experiment. You didn’t choose the path of science with repeatable results, but what’s interesting is you also didn’t choose the path or faith; something you’re appended to.

You say your experiment proves your point, I say it proves mines. Guess it just depends on how you evaluate the data given, that reminds me of something, hmmmmm. I did choose, you just did not appreciate my answer. Sorry.

 

[ViSion]

where have i not?

Where have I given a crooked answer?

 

[ViSion]

I get what you're saying. The answer is Yes. They are unreal and do not exist in reality.

Now qualify reality, does reality only encompass objects in which we can only touch, taste, hear, or observe?

 

[ViSion]

catfuzz still needs to explain why jews are gods chosen but christians arent.

It was unmerited that Abram was chosen. The Hebrews failed to deliver or live up to the covenant that they agreed to at Sinai. Christians were given the proclamation to fulfill that covenant that was agreed to at Sinai. The sanctuary service was fulfilled in Christ. Same covenant, same promise, same people.

 

[Stilgar]

Now qualify reality, does reality only encompass objects in which we can only touch, taste, hear, or observe?

No.

I can think about them as well.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

You say your experiment proves your point, I say it proves mines. Guess it just depends on how you evaluate the data given, that reminds me of something, hmmmmm. I did choose, you just did not appreciate my answer. Sorry.

I think I said something like you answered my question when you avoided the question.

If you call that answering the question, you might want to think about going into politics, because most of the time, they tiptoe around questions, too. You answered my question like a politician in a presidential debate.

I was trying to see if you’d stick to your guns and go with faith and all the believers, and the religious leader who convincingly argued and explained that the marble would exit out tube 78, or go with repeatable science that offered tube 22.

You didn’t choose science with repeatable results, maybe because you don’t look at the world with scientific scrutiny or you wouldn’t be so affixed to some of your ideas.

But what was interesting was you abandoned the overwhelming religious numbers and didn’t side with them either. You didn’t SPECIFICALLY side with anyone, science or religion, because you didn’t say tube 22 or tube 78.

Maybe that does prove some point, but I posted the question for intellectual curiosity more than anything. Maybe it shows you don’t stick to your guns; I don’t know. Maybe it shows a response similar to what I’ve seen before where religious people won’t answer a specific question because the ramifications of an honest answer will be damning.

It was really a pretty good question, because it cut through all the crapolla. Here you have a leader who is obviously intelligent and charismatic enough to persuade 50,000 people that he is correct just by explaining his observations and thought process. Not unlike religious people today who assume the role of teaching others through reasoning and what they observe around them. People who don’t really make it their life’s work to disprove anything. On the flip side, you have scientists who have tried to take guesswork out of the equation and are curious if a result might change; otherwise they wouldn’t have attempted the experiment 112,327 times (or whatever it was) and the “so far” part means they aren’t planning on stopping.

On one side you have repeatable results where anyone could attempt the marble drop for themselves and observe the outcome. On the other side, you have a convincing leader who explains his point of view well enough to persuade a large group of people. In this block of people there will be some who aren’t all that bright and will believe just about anything, but you also have intelligent people who want a convincing explanation. Between these two extremes, you have people from all walks of life.

You say it proved some sort of point of yours? What point of yours did it prove?

 

[Chrysaor]

Now qualify reality, does reality only encompass objects in which we can only touch, taste, hear, or observe?

Yes, basically. Reality also comes from our experiences and their conclusions which are based on the information we get from the senses. Reality is limited by the senses, the ways in which we perceive.

Weird how other posts sometimes relate.

 

[ViSion]

I think I said something like you answered my question when you avoided the question.

If you call that answering the question, you might want to think about going into politics, because most of the time, they tiptoe around questions, too. You answered my question like a politician in a presidential debate.

I was trying to see if you’d stick to your guns and go with faith and all the believers, and the religious leader who convincingly argued and explained that the marble would exit out tube 78, or go with repeatable science that offered tube 22.

You didn’t choose science with repeatable results, maybe because you don’t look at the world with scientific scrutiny or you wouldn’t be so affixed to some of your ideas.

But what was interesting was you abandoned the overwhelming religious numbers and didn’t side with them either. You didn’t SPECIFICALLY side with anyone, science or religion, because you didn’t say tube 22 or tube 78.

Maybe that does prove some point, but I posted the question for intellectual curiosity more than anything. Maybe it shows you don’t stick to your guns; I don’t know. Maybe it shows a response similar to what I’ve seen before where religious people won’t answer a specific question because the ramifications of an honest answer will be damning.

It was really a pretty good question, because it cut through all the crapolla. Here you have a leader who is obviously intelligent and charismatic enough to persuade 50,000 people that he is correct just by explaining his observations and thought process. Not unlike religious people today who assume the role of teaching others through reasoning and what they observe around them. People who don’t really make it their life’s work to disprove anything. On the flip side, you have scientists who have tried to take guesswork out of the equation and are curious if a result might change; otherwise they wouldn’t have attempted the experiment 112,327 times (or whatever it was) and the “so far” part means they aren’t planning on stopping.

On one side you have repeatable results where anyone could attempt the marble drop for themselves and observe the outcome. On the other side, you have a convincing leader who explains his point of view well enough to persuade a large group of people. In this block of people there will be some who aren’t all that bright and will believe just about anything, but you also have intelligent people who want a convincing explanation. Between these two extremes, you have people from all walks of life.

You say it proved some sort of point of yours? What point of yours did it prove?

How did I avoid answering your question it was you who posed the scenario. Within your own scenario I offered you an answer based on your scenario. Your only true qualm here is I did not choose an option which you obviously felt would have proved your perspective. My stance is life is not an accident I am claiming by your own scenario, reproduction is consistent. Your scenario was aimed at soliciting a response that you presumed would support evolution. As a theory which it has remained it is full of inconsistencies your attempt to resolve it with your experiment does not account for its inconsistency. So as a result I chose none of the above and offered a answer based on a principle which can be observed. As opposed to being based on millions of years.

Do you mean dodging as in the sense you just dodged my last question completely?

 

[GoAt]

It was unmerited that Abram was chosen. The Hebrews failed to deliver or live up to the covenant that they agreed to at Sinai. Christians were given the proclamation to fulfill that covenant that was agreed to at Sinai. The sanctuary service was fulfilled in Christ. Same covenant, same promise, same people.

that made no sense

 

[ViSion]

Yes, basically. Reality also comes from our experiences and their conclusions which are based on the information we get from the senses. Reality is limited by the senses, the ways in which we perceive.

Weird how other posts sometimes relate.

From your response then reality maybe limited to observable experiences. What happens we have not experienced all that there is?

 

[ViSion]

that made no sense

Maybe that is why you are odds with its teachings, read the Bible it may become clearer.

 

[Chrysaor]

From your response then reality maybe limited to observable experiences. What happens we have not experienced all that there is?

Then it doesn't exist. Intuition and suggestions to something more are just residue from the fact that we can't experience everything. They grow in us because our subconscious is aware that there are many things we don't know.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

..

“How did I avoid answering your question it was you who posed the scenario. Within your own scenario I offered you an answer based on your scenario.”

You had a choice of tube 22 or tube 78, but you didn’t pick either one of them. It wasn’t a rhetorical question. You only had two choices to choose from. That’s avoiding the question.

Now, if you felt as though it was a loaded question, or it didn’t accurately represent the “general” concept of faith versus reproducible results, you should have explained why you felt this way. You should have provided some sort of proof and some examples how my question was unfair or flawed.

“Your scenario was aimed at soliciting a response that you presumed would support evolution.”

Actually, I wanted to see if you’d answer the question or not. When religious people are asked stuff like the question about god creating a rock so large that he can’t lift it, they avoid the question. They don’t think about how profound a question that really is. they just say something like we can’t fathom the complexity of god, so we shouldn’t even try to.

But what people miss all the time is that the same brains that reason there is a god, should be able to reason there isn’t a god. As soon as a paradox comes along that makes the idea of a god questionable, we’re supposed to forget about reasoning and fall back on something like we cannot understand the mind of god.

If you felt my question was leading, I'll present it in another way. I'll take Christians and scientists who don’t believe in a god completely out of the equation:

Let’s say an old man in the neighborhood created the device I spoke of. Plexiglas, one tube at the top, 100 tubes exiting the bottom. You have to decide which viewpoint to go with. That’s your task.

There’s a neighborhood nerd who has dropped the marble in the top 1,000 times and it has always come out of tube #22. Then there’s another neighborhood boy who is pretty smart and all the kids look up to him. He comes along and checks the device out and follows the path of the tubes and decides the marble will exit out of tube #78. He has 10 friends with him and he shows them the path he sees and they all believe him, because they look up to him and think he’s a cool guy.

You have the nerd with his 1,000 attempts: tube #22
You have the neighborhood hero, and his 10 friends: tube #78

Who do you go with?

 

[ViSion]

“How did I avoid answering your question it was you who posed the scenario. Within your own scenario I offered you an answer based on your scenario.”

You had a choice of tube 22 or tube 78, but you didn’t pick either one of them. It wasn’t a rhetorical question. You only had two choices to choose from. That’s avoiding the question.

Now, if you felt as though it was a loaded question, or it didn’t accurately represent the “general” concept of faith versus reproducible results, you should have explained why you felt this way. You should have provided some sort of proof and some examples how my question was unfair or flawed.

“Your scenario was aimed at soliciting a response that you presumed would support evolution.”

Actually, I wanted to see if you’d answer the question or not. When religious people are asked stuff like the question about god creating a rock so large that he can’t lift it, they avoid the question. They don’t think about how profound a question that really is. they just say something like we can’t fathom the complexity of god, so we shouldn’t even try to.

But what people miss all the time is that the same brains that reason there is a god, should be able to reason there isn’t a god. As soon as a paradox comes along that makes the idea of a god questionable, we’re supposed to forget about reasoning and fall back on something like we cannot understand the mind of god.

If you felt my question was leading, I'll present it in another way. I'll take Christians and scientists who don’t believe in a god completely out of the equation:

Let’s say an old man in the neighborhood created the device I spoke of. Plexiglas, one tube at the top, 100 tubes exiting the bottom. You have to decide which viewpoint to go with. That’s your task.

There’s a neighborhood nerd who has dropped the marble in the top 1,000 times and it has always come out of tube #22. Then there’s another neighborhood boy who is pretty smart and all the kids look up to him. He comes along and checks the device out and follows the path of the tubes and decides the marble will exit out of tube #78. He has 10 friends with him and he shows them the path he sees and they all believe him, because they look up to him and think he’s a cool guy.

You have the nerd with his 1,000 attempts: tube #22
You have the neighborhood hero, and his 10 friends: tube #78

Who do you go with?

I seem to rember you drawing a reference to Galileo as having gone against conventional thinking and observations, that would also include scientists of his day. You restated your question but it is still the same question with the same result. Indeed by your own words here your question was and still is a rhetorical question. Why does it matter that I only choose one of your answers if it was not intended to persuade or impress on a opinion. You just stated that you asked the question to see wether or not I would answer it. So basically you asked the question for effect making it a rhetorical question to which you have received more than one answer. Sorry try again.

 

[ViSion]

Then it doesn't exist. Intuition and suggestions to something more are just residue from the fact that we can't experience everything. They grow in us because our subconscious is aware that there are many things we don't know.

So this is from an individual perspective limited by the sum of experiences much like faith. Say a person is experiencing GOD, how does he then not exist?