|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
If they weren't hard to believe then that sort of takes all of the "miracle" "mystery" and "faith" part out of it doesn't it? I mean if Noah was a fisherman by the sea and it rained so he put his wife, 2 kids, and a dog on a boat and they floated around for a week until the water went down.. well that really doesn't display God's power at all now does it? 
So - what you're saying is that religion is defined by things that are unrealistic?
That's an interesting definition, I guess
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,767
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,767 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649 |
I can't......stop..........laughing. - Glad I watched that now and not in one hour - I would have woke my daughter up. That was hilarious... "Butt sex with this thing"  x 1 million.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649 |
As I laugh at the non-believers: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070810_gm_gravity.html"Physicists want to squeeze little old gravity into the standard model—the crown-jewel theory of modern physics that explains three other fundamental forces in physics—but none has succeeded. Like a runt at a pool party, gravity just doesn't fit in when using Einstein's theory of relativity, which explains gravity only on large scales "Gravity is completely different from the other forces described by the standard model," said Mark Jackson, a theoretical physicist at Fermilab in Illinois. "When you do some calculations about small gravitational interactions, you get stupid answers. The math simply doesn't work." So wait, you mean to tell me that like religion, science is based on something that none of us can see, touch, or understand?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
As I laugh at the non-believers:
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070810_gm_gravity.html
"Physicists want to squeeze little old gravity into the standard model—the crown-jewel theory of modern physics that explains three other fundamental forces in physics—but none has succeeded. Like a runt at a pool party, gravity just doesn't fit in when using Einstein's theory of relativity, which explains gravity only on large scales
"Gravity is completely different from the other forces described by the standard model," said Mark Jackson, a theoretical physicist at Fermilab in Illinois. "When you do some calculations about small gravitational interactions, you get stupid answers. The math simply doesn't work."
So wait, you mean to tell me that like religion, science is based on something that none of us can see, touch, or understand?
I think you miss the very important distinction between "not presently understood" and "not understandable"
Furthermore - you're misinterpreting the article to mean that we don't understand gravity. We do, at about the 1 part in a million level. That, in and of itself, is incredible.
It is true that we don't fundamentally understand how gravity is incorporated with the other 3 fundamental forces (and maybe it isn't - but we didn't used to think the other three forces were unified either). Scientific (testable) theories like String theory and loop quantum gravity (while not yet based in evidence) would be able to do just that.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
I think you miss the very important distinction between "not presently understood" and "not understandable"
Furthermore - you're misinterpreting the article to mean that we don't understand gravity. We do, at about the 1 part in a million level. That, in and of itself, is incredible.
Did I understand that right?
Quote:
It is true that we don't fundamentally understand how gravity is incorporated with the other 3 fundamental forces (and maybe it isn't - but we didn't used to think the other three forces were unified either). Scientific (testable) theories like String theory and loop quantum gravity (while not yet based in evidence) would be able to do just that.
So, science doesn't understand how gravity is incorporated with the other 3 fundamental forces. Or even if it is?
But string theory and loop quantum gravity would be able to prove that - IF they were based on evidence?
That sounds like Al Gore speaking if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
So, science doesn't understand how gravity is incorporated with the other 3 fundamental forces. Or even if it is?
Yup.... that's currently an open question.
Quote:
That sounds like Al Gore speaking if you ask me.
que?
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
So wait, you mean to tell me that like religion, science is based on something that none of us can see, touch, or understand?
No ... and I think you're grasping at straws even using that argument. Directly seeing and touching aren't necessary to understand something. Lyoukdea did a good job explaining why.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,418
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,418 |
Quote:
Quote:
If they weren't hard to believe then that sort of takes all of the "miracle" "mystery" and "faith" part out of it doesn't it? I mean if Noah was a fisherman by the sea and it rained so he put his wife, 2 kids, and a dog on a boat and they floated around for a week until the water went down.. well that really doesn't display God's power at all now does it?
So - what you're saying is that religion is defined by things that are unrealistic?
That's an interesting definition, I guess
Miracles are miracles for a reason. While life is filled with "minor miracles" ..... and they can and do demonstrate God's power and love for those who believe ........ belief that God has a hand in the major miracles demonstrates God's power through faith.
It is probably hard to accept for someone who does not believe in anything that they cannot quantify, examine, and test ..... but God is, by His very definition, beyond quantification, examination, and testing. If you are looking for God through scientific means, you will never find Him. He is everywhere, at all times. Whan you examine an atom, you are seeing a small part of God. When you see a mountain, you are seening a small part of God. This physical world is all part of God .... but a very small part. That which lies beyond the merely physical (no matter how closely and intently a person examines the physical) is where the vast greatness and power of God is expressed.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Quote:
That sounds like Al Gore speaking if you ask me.
que?
I think he's using a non-sequitor argument to paint gravity as something akin to global warming. Poking fun though, hence the smiley 
Quote:
But string theory and loop quantum gravity would be able to prove that - IF they were based on evidence?
Both are hypotheses that attempt to rectify the dichotomies seen in current astronomical theory. Neither is even testable yet if I remember correctly. But, as soon as either is able to be properly tested we should have a better idea of the processes going on.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
If they weren't hard to believe then that sort of takes all of the "miracle" "mystery" and "faith" part out of it doesn't it? I mean if Noah was a fisherman by the sea and it rained so he put his wife, 2 kids, and a dog on a boat and they floated around for a week until the water went down.. well that really doesn't display God's power at all now does it?
So - what you're saying is that religion is defined by things that are unrealistic?
That's an interesting definition, I guess
Sort of.. but not exactly. Unrealistic? To me, having a giant ball of cosmic matter (nobody knows where it came from) explode (nobody knows how or why) and end up where we are now with planets and galaxies and LIFE is, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the single most unrealistic thing anybody has EVER asked me to believe. so it's not completely defined by being unrealistic.
But God proved himself through his miracles.. Jesus proved himself through his miracles. Without the miracles Jesus would, in fact, be written up in history as just another really nice and intelligent guy with a prophetic nature (if he was written about at all)..
So what I'm saying is that FAITH is defined by that which cannot be proven.. that is the very definition of faith and is also what seperates it from science.
See, this is where I think the person who said science and religion are alike has it wrong.. and where he has it right.....
He is wrong in that true scientists act as you have said.. replicating experiments, doubting findings, empirical data, etc... those who really have a solid grasp of the Christian faith are also the most skeptical of these kinds of "finds" like Mary's face in a bagel, a piece of wood from the ark, the shroud of turin.. etc But where they are alike is the lay people, those who are not the scientists and are not the Christian scholars but who desperately want to believe in the science or the religion, they are the gullible ones who are the most likely to latch onto whatever "finding" supports what they want to believe even before it is provem..
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
they are the gullible ones who are the most likely to latch onto whatever "finding" supports what they want to believe even before it is provem
I think it's best to say that people as a whole are gullible to some degree. We're extremely easy to manipulate and believe each other based on our word and memory more so than any type of factual evidence. However, our memories are horrible and there are always people out there looking to get a leg up on everyone else so they lie, cheat, and steal in any way possible. Just look at some of these alternative remedy scams. There is no solid evidence in the way of proven efficacy, they exist only on word-of-mouth and anecdotes from websites.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
But God proved himself through his miracles.. Jesus proved himself through his miracles. Without the miracles Jesus would, in fact, be written up in history as just another really nice and intelligent guy with a prophetic nature (if he was written about at all)..
Yet, there's preachers who claim to heal people even today, yet most think they are quacks, and that it's all a set-up.
Before I go on, let me say, I do believe in God. But there's part of me that questions the stories in the bible, and I don't subscribe to the belief that you have to accept the entire bible as factual accounts to have faith in God.
Belief that the bible are true accounts of the life and times is based solely on faith, as there has yet to be any physical proof of any of the events being as they are written, and not exaggerated or dramatized. Especially since all the books were written by others who wrote down their account of the stories they heard, not by John, Paul, Mathew, Luke, Peter, Timothy, etc.
None of us were there when these miracles were performed, so we are accepting in faith that the words written tell the story as it truly happened, yet if someone wrote the same story today, it is easily discounted as a hoax.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Yet, there's preachers who claim to heal people even today, yet most think they are quacks, and that it's all a set-up.
I think most of them are quacks and/or scam artists.. I also think it is POSSIBLE that some are for real
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 45
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 45 |
Quote:
Quote:
Yet, there's preachers who claim to heal people even today, yet most think they are quacks, and that it's all a set-up.
I think most of them are quacks and/or scam artists.. I also think it is POSSIBLE that some are for real
You must love Sci-Fi & great fiction..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
He is wrong in that true scientists act as you have said.. replicating experiments, doubting findings, empirical data, etc... those who really have a solid grasp of the Christian faith are also the most skeptical of these kinds of "finds" like Mary's face in a bagel, a piece of wood from the ark, the shroud of turin.. etc But where they are alike is the lay people, those who are not the scientists and are not the Christian scholars but who desperately want to believe in the science or the religion, they are the gullible ones who are the most likely to latch onto whatever "finding" supports what they want to believe even before it is provem..
To add on to what DraftDayz said:
All people are gullible and make mistakes, to some degree - that is why science is based in a procedure designed to test your gullibility, and make you, time and time again, prove that you understand what is going on.
I don't know of any established scientific theories which are based on only one piece of evidence (or even evidence from just one source). The whole establishment is set up so that "if this theory is not correct - it should fail the next test", and most accepted theories have passed too many tests to count.
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." - Feynman
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
I also think it is POSSIBLE that some are for real
Then they should step forward and put their abilities to the test. It would go a long way toward converting people as well as open up new fields of study. As of right now though, prayer and distance healing has been shown to not have any benefit over doing nothing in double blind trials.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
Then they should step forward and put their abilities to the test. It would go a long way toward converting people as well as open up new fields of study. As of right now though, prayer and distance healing has been shown to not have any benefit over doing nothing in double blind trials.
They would also make cold $1M for doing it - http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 05/04/10 01:28 PM.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Right I was going to bring it up, but wasn't sure if anyone really knew about. So I take it you're a SGU listener?
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
Right I was going to bring it up, but wasn't sure if anyone really knew about. So I take it you're a SGU listener?
No - i just know about the bet....
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
I apologize I sort of did a hit-n-run with my posts yesterday, it was not my intent, but work got in the way I am sort of glad that I did because it sort of showed a few things that philosophically run religion and science together. In fact, religion and science at times in history were greatly intertwined. For instance, if people observed that many got sick from eating a particular animal, then the local religions would say that they were being punished for eating the animal and that it was protected by their deity. People would stop eating that animal, and people would stop getting sick. I understand that science attempts to test, repeat, and eventually prove how something works. However, the fundamental concept of science is to explain the universe and there are a great many things that we do not understand at any point in time that science still tries to explain to the best of their knowledge. String theory is often one that is thrown out there today as it is above in a post. Dark Matter is another (what is dark matter? If it is a ‘void’ of existence as is being explained how does that mesh with the Conservation of Mass Law. Or how does the ‘big bang theory’ mesh with that law either?). Quantum Computing is actually one of my favorite reading materials as if it really can be harnessed in the ways some theorized, it could lead to true A.I. Anyways, these items when explained may completely contradict many of the scientific laws that we presently hold as truth. But, these truths will not be changed until new results are heavily scrutinized and challenged (much like how difficult it is for the Catholic Church to change. Some of the changes in the Second Vatican Council in 1969 were actually originally proposed by Luther in the 16th century and then brought up through the next 400 years). Note: I am not saying that either situation is bad incidentally. I actually admire (in most cases) the ability to not be knee-jerk with decisions and to allow time to make changes necessary. Another example was brought up by my response about scientists believing the Earth being flat being the “fault” of the Catholic Church and that its methods of proof were by observation and not true experimentation. Of course, there are many historians who have brought up that as a historical inaccuracy and though there may have been debate as to it’s shape through the years, Aristotles observations seemed to be the driving factor in the Western world (that it was in fact spherical). Flat Earth Myth: http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.htmlThe seemingly overwhelming response to my post seems to jive with Richard Dawkins quote: Quote:
Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices
However, this is simply not wholly true. It may be the goal of science, but in practice it is not easily achieved. One recent example from these boards is the vaccine-autism link. A scientist 15 years ago did a study and found that he believed there was a link between vaccines and autism. As a result, many families stopped getting vaccines for their children. Many other pointed out what they believed were similar links in their own experience. Now, even though the study has been debunked, there is still a general feeling among many that there is some type of link between them. I realize this paragraph will open me to criticism, as science was able to prove out the inaccuracies and fix the issue. But, this is just one example and even then it took 15 years to debunk. And will take another set of years before it becomes nothing more than a “wives tale.” The point of this is that when science comes out and proclaims something to be true, there are a great many people who take what it says with ‘blind faith.’
Autism/vaccine link retracted: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1960277,00.html
Finally, there is global warming/cooling. There are geologists who do nothing but study the different layers of the core along with temperature readings at different spots on Earth and they will swear that global warming is real. There are other geologists and chemists who believe that the overall effect we are having on our environment is a global cooling (which interestingly enough would raise the temps near the equator and cool nearer the poles). Still others, believe that any effect we have will be anti-climatic to the sudden shifts the Earth could have from a rotating axis. So, who is right? To this, I show how even in similar religions you can have a sectional divide. If one is proven in hindsight, you can bring that divide whole again, but often once broken it remains.
Stanford Review on the current status: http://stanfordreview.org/old_archives/Archive/Volume_XXXVI/Issue_8/Opinions/opinions1.shtml
Highlight on the cooling effect study: Quote:
The most interesting study detailed the effects of airplane contrails in the wake of 9/11, when all but a few military planes dotted the sky for 3 days. NASA’s Langley Research Center found that these few contrails dissipated into cirrus clouds covering thousands of square miles. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin then analyzed climate variation in the air traffic-heavy Midwest within the same period. They observed average daily temperatures variations of roughly 1° C hotter in the day and cooler at night in the absence of contrails, the largest deviation in three decades for the area.
Ok, that is probably too long for one post anyway, so I’ll leave this post off with 2 quotes from Albert Einstein (one short and the expanded version of it)
Quote:
science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind
Quote:
We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.
It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
The point of this is that when science comes out and proclaims something to be true, there are a great many people who take what it says with ‘blind faith.’
Like I said in my post, there will always be people who will do anything for themselves and when put in a place of power will abuse it. Lay people have the idea that if a scientific study shows it, it must be true. However, those in the science field generally don't admit it as fact until it has been reproduced in some manner at least two other times. The media hype doesn't help either. However, in science the number one rule is "be skeptical."
Quote:
I realize this paragraph will open me to criticism, as science was able to prove out the inaccuracies and fix the issue. But, this is just one example and even then it took 15 years to debunk. And will take another set of years before it becomes nothing more than a “wives tale.”
As someone who's followed this story for the past 10 years, let me say that within the first year there were meta-analyses that were performed of past data that showed no link of MMR to autism. In the same year as it was published (1998) 11 co authors removed their names from the paper. At that point science began disproving the idea. It hasn't been until the past 5 years that andrew wakefield has been shown to be negligent in his research by Brian Deer of Times London. As such he's fallen from grace. My point is that the correction process has been underway 6 months post publication and has been self-correcting ever since. That's the beauty of science as a way to examine the world, if it's wrong, it will end up changed. Sometimes the process can take a while though. If you're looking to blame someone, blame people like Jenny McCarthy and her mommy warriors that keep promoting the fully debunked idea that vaccines or certain chemicals in the vaccines cause autistic behavior.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Just a general FYI, there is a post over at a blog called Neurologica today that examines the brain activation of intense Christians who listen to a faith healer and listen to someone with a counter viewpoint. The main point is that you're more likely to listen and be captivated by someone of similar viewpoint than someone with a counter viewpoint. It's a neuroscience based blog but tends to keep it laymen friendly. I'd encourage everyone who has an interest in how each brains differently interprets the same stimuli or with just a general thirst for knowledge. That being said, remember what I said in my previous post, be skeptical! This is just one study. Hyponotized by Charisma
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
Yet, there's preachers who claim to heal people even today, yet most think they are quacks, and that it's all a set-up.
I think most of them are quacks and/or scam artists.. I also think it is POSSIBLE that some are for real
You have GOT to be kidding............
Edit:
Nevermind, I get it now. If you believe miracles not only can happen, but HAVE happened, then you are forced to believe that it's possible some holy man can have healing powers.
Whatever I do believe, I can tell you I DON'T believe God would give any single man or woman the power to heal................
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
If you believe miracles not only can happen, but HAVE happened, then you are forced to believe that it's possible some holy man can have healing powers.
I believe they happen all the time... all around us. I'm not forced to believe anything but Jesus bestowed healing powers upon his disciples.. so why not?
Quote:
Whatever I do believe, I can tell you I DON'T believe God would give any single man or woman the power to heal................
God did before, but that's neither here nor there. I'm inclined to agree with you actually... Do I believe that God has the power and ability to heal and that he uses it? Absolutely. Do I believe Ned in accounting, or some self-proclaimed prophet on a hill, or the pope can cure blindness by touching a persons eyes? Not really but if somebody claimed they could, I would probably not dismiss them as a quack quite as quickly as most.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
I can live with that. I don't agree at all, but I get it.
Now a question I'd ask not as a sneaky-way to catch you (could be a first for me? ) but rather to understand you and anyone else who'd choose to answer:
Do you believe that God reaches into the concept of time which he created, to make what we'd view to be a conscience decision on his part to help any given specific person in their moment of need a helping hand? Would you fit that scenario into the definition of a "miracle?"
Or...........Do you and/or anyone else simply look around at a blade of grass, at the sun, at any individual complex life-form and call the construct of the Universe a miracle?
I ask because my own personal definition of a miracle fits into the latter but not the former.
And DC, or anyone else, don't give me any biblical gobbledigook or pretty, vague words which leave too much open interpretation. It's a question that is very straight-forward and can be expounded upon, but to do anything but say yes or no regarding whether or not you believe God reacts to the instantaneous need of any given human would be disingenuous at best.
To be very fair, if I ask a question I have to be open to answering the same question. To that end, I believe God (in whatever form he may exist, which I also believe is beyond our ability to comprehend) built something which isn't just our Universe but includes it, and that he also built into this construct a randomness which keeps fate from playing a role in our lives. I don't believe everything "happens for a purpose" but rather the machine he built (for lack of a better term) allows us to either take lessons from what happens or ignore the lessons and risk having negative things happen. I can buy the vague statement that learning a lesson is the "why" something happened, but not in a defined finite way that says "God wanted you to learn this lesson at this moment, so he made this happen to you." Another way to say it is I don't believe that God would hear me curse, then decide that in this exact moment of time to to take action and punish me to "learn my lesson."
Now to muddy the waters even more,  I believe in Karma, though my definition may not jive with someone else's.
I believe the grande machine is built in such a way that the vast majority of us are built instinctually knowing good from bad, right from wrong, and that certain things tend to happen to those who choose to do bad more often than those who would do good, and vice-versa.
And since I'm ranting, I believe that we aren't meant to fully understand God.
A horribly over-simplified analogy is that the Universe is a billiard-table and God made the break. The laws of physics dictate how the balls roll and interact with each other, but that how they interact isn't planned ahead of time or interfered with. The X-factor is that we can affect how things happen with freedom of choice. Other rules such as Karma can also affect how things play out.
There's more, but it gets really blurry and I've ranted enough. So, back to the question I posed to you and anyone else who'd care to answer.
I believe the Universe is a miracle, though perhaps only because we're simply too stOOpid to get it. I do not believe God would interact with our world at any given moment of a person's need. I don't believe in that kind of "miracle."
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 626
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 626 |
I'll believe in miracles if the Browns win a Super Bowl, and not a minute before. Not even Jesus attempted such an impossible undertaking.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 560
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 560 |
I believe in the big bang theory and Darwin. I think that God is a concept that was invented by numerous people in numerous ways for numerous reasons. One reason is that people are curious and need answers to things even if the answers are wrong. What made the earth? I don't know, so I am guessing God. This was an easy way to explain a lot of what wasn't known. Another reason is for comfort. The thought that we could just turn to dirt and bones after we die with nothing else scares people. How could there just be nothing after we die? Another reason is power. If you declare yourself a person that can communicate with God or have some of his powers given to you then you can lead people into believing things that you say. Many countries are / were ruled by religious figures.
I have to admit, even though I was raised Catholic, I have never read the whole bible. I know many of the stories. Does it explain in the Bible what was up with those dinosaurs? Were they made by God or did they just run around until God made a plan for man? One more question.....what happens when our star (the sun) burns out? I know it won't happen in any of our lifetimes, but all stars eventually die. Does it get replaced by God like replacing a light bulb? I know, not our worry!!!
I know many people disagree with me about God and many are probably upset. I'm sure there were many people years ago who didn't believe in the other Gods like Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo etc. These people disagreed with the majority of other people and were considered outcasts and probably punished or murdered. Does anybody believe in these Gods today?
The universe is really big (understatement). I have no idea how the first rock or planet or star came to be. Did God create the whole universe or just Earth? I believe that the universe is big enough that a random planet might just be perfectly close to an energy source (our sun) and had elements (including water) that made it possible for the very first creature to live. This creature due to DNA mutations kept evolving into different organisms. Some of these lived and some of them died. The question of which came first the chicken or the egg is a religious question. If you believe in God, then the very first chicken was created by God and that chicken then made an egg. If you don't believe in God, then you might believe that a creature evolved over many years that became very close to that of a chicken. This creature's genes mutated very slightly while reproducing and it laid the egg of the very first chicken. I know, enough already!
Having said all that, I do believe in the healing powers of "God". I believe that spiritual people can heal themselves if they believe that there is a God. Our bodies have healing powers within that can be tapped with this faith. You can access these same healing powers without God though too. For example, I believe that an atheist that has cancer can declare "I am going to beat this cancer and not let it kill me". If this person believes this, this belief in themselves can access those same healing powers (I'm not sure, but it might have something to do with the bodies natural ability to produce things like steroids and adrenaline). I also believe that a belief in God can motivate people. People ask God for the strength to do a task and I believe they become more motivated thinking that God is helping them. When I got my first pair of Zips sneakers, I thought I could run faster. It's possible that I wasn't really running any faster than I had ever run before. It is also possible that I WAS running faster because my belief in the Zips made my body release chemicals like adrenaline to actually make me run faster. The idea of God also gives many hope which can motivate and help somebody. I also believe that the world is a safer place with the majority of people believing in God because they think he is watching so they better be good. On the other hand, I believe that God can make people do really bad things too. Wars are fought because people believe that their belief in God is the only way. Personally I could care less what others believe and wouldn't hurt anyone that believed differently but I know there are many people who would (I'm sure there are more than just the radical Islamic people that feel this way).
This is just my honest opinion, so try not to rip me too bad!!! I easily could be wrong so don't worry.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
When I got my first pair of Zips sneakers, I thought I could run faster.
I thought I was the only kid that did that. Got 1 new pair of shoes every year when I was young. As soon as we got home I'd put them on and say "mom, look how fast I can run with these shoes."
Okay, back to the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Many thought provoking points Toad.. Where to start.... I'll start with a quick question. Do you believe "definition of a miracle fits into the latter but not the former." because you don't think the former happens or that it does happen and you just don't consider it a miracle? Quote:
Do you believe that God reaches into the concept of time which he created, to make what we'd view to be a conscience decision on his part to help any given specific person in their moment of need a helping hand? Would you fit that scenario into the definition of a "miracle?"
Or...........Do you and/or anyone else simply look around at a blade of grass, at the sun, at any individual complex life-form and call the construct of the Universe a miracle?
Yes... and yes.
As for the second one, the simple fact that we are here, the fact that nature works in such perfect harmony and is self-correcting etc is definitely a miracle.... the only other plausible explanation is that it is a big cosmic accident.. and I'm not buying that for a second.
And obviously if God inserts His hand into somebodys life, that is a miracle. This is the one that I struggle with daily and one that I have recently spoken to my pastor about and continue to struggle with. We had a couple familys in our church who recently had some devastating illnesses and the family members came out of those illnesses fine and they give credit to God and the power of prayer.... I struggle with that. What about the familys who suffer through illness and they do all of the same praying to the same God and they don't come out of it? Does God love them less? Are they less deserving of that helping hand? It just seems too convenient for me when you get what you want you give credit to God for giving it to you but when you don't you just say, "well, that's God's plan"... If God has a plan, then was it predetermined outcomes anyway? Did the praying help or not? I'm a believer but I struggle with this stuff every day.
Quote:
I don't believe everything "happens for a purpose" but rather the machine he built (for lack of a better term) allows us to either take lessons from what happens or ignore the lessons and risk having negative things happen.
I don't either. I believe that after things happen to us and we have a chance to react, then we look back and assign a reason to the things that happened and those reasons are often based more on the outcome than on the event itself.
Quote:
I can buy the vague statement that learning a lesson is the "why" something happened, but not in a defined finite way that says "God wanted you to learn this lesson at this moment, so he made this happen to you." Another way to say it is I don't believe that God would hear me curse, then decide that in this exact moment of time to to take action and punish me to "learn my lesson."
It is common within the Christian faith to say that God will not allow things to happen to us that we cannot handle.... so becaue I'm a stronger person than you, God will allow my parents to die and my house to be washed away by flood and my crops to die but he will protect you from it because you are not as strong as me?... well that hardly seems fair. I do believe that God is active in our world and in our lives, how much and when and why and for what purpose.. I'm still working those details out.
Quote:
I believe that we aren't meant to fully understand God.
i would agree with that. It seems to me to be impossible for something which is finite in its ability to think and process information (people) to understand something that is infinite (God)
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
Many thought provoking points Toad..
If something I said did provoke thought, I'm glad, though I wouldn't be honest if I said I did it for that purpose. I simply didn't feel it'd be fair to ask that question to others without first answering it myself.
Blecht! Playing nice and fair tain't no fun.
Quote:
Where to start.... I'll start with a quick question. Do you believe "definition of a miracle fits into the latter but not the former." because you don't think the former happens or that it does happen and you just don't consider it a miracle?
To bring this back into understandable context (even I had to go back and read what I'd written to be sure, hehe) you asked whether or not I don't believe in God interacting with our lives, or that the act of interacting isn't a miracle.
To answer your question, I would say that I don't personally believe God gets involved in one person's life at their moment of need by lending a helping hand.
Now, taking my answer a step further because your question requires it, if God did get involved in any person's life, would I believe that to be a miracle?
Perhaps I'm neither literate nor eloquent enough to properly convey my thoughts, but I'll give it a shot.......
I'm not sure I believe in the term "miracle." Granted, I referenced the term earlier in the thread, but if you put a gun to my head and made me be exacting with my answer, I would say that I believe a "miracle" is a term used to quantify the amount of disbelief a person has regarding the chance of any specific positive thing happening, then witness it happening.
So what does that mean?
Ten doctors diagnose a person with terminal cancer and say there's no hope for a cure or recovery. That person is walking through a field at night and is struck by lightning. Two weeks later that person begins to recover from cancer, and eventually does recover.
Some religious folks would say that's a miracle, defined by saying God helped when nothing else could. (Maybe that's a pathetic example, but I tried to use something outlandish to make the point....)
Now, a Priest is walking through that same field one day for no other reason than he went for a walk. A tiny thing the size of a pea strikes him in the head and he dies instantly from the trauma. When investigators look at the object they pass it along to some Astronomers who identify it as a small piece of a body formerly known to exist in the Oort Cloud (A ring of comets and asteroids outside of our solar system) which was struck by something some five-hundred million years ago, and that piece fell into our gravity then struck the priest in the head.
That isn't a miracle. Nobody would call that a miracle. They'd call that just dumb, crap-ass bad luck! 
So.............My point is that I don't believe in "miracles" when defined as God lending a helping hand in a persons moment of dire need. I tend to believe that our minds as a race aren't intelligent enough to wrap our minds around things we don't understand, and therefore quantify any good thing that happens which goes against immeasurable odds as a "miracle."
Quote:
As for the second one, the simple fact that we are here, the fact that nature works in such perfect harmony and is self-correcting etc is definitely a miracle.... the only other plausible explanation is that it is a big cosmic accident.. and I'm not buying that for a second.
I do think pure chance things happen, and feel that is the way of the Universe, even though I also say that I fully agree with something Chinchy said, which is that the body can heal itself when the mind helps out. This means believing in things such as God and prayer and the power of positive thinking helping the body heal itself. In essence, bringing it fully back around to what I said in an earlier post, which is that while I may not believe God answers prayers, I FULLY believe in the power of prayer.
It's a subtle but critical difference.
Now, taking your question a step further, Quote:
And obviously if God inserts His hand into somebodys life, that is a miracle.
If I don't believe in it, yet it happened and could be proven, then absolutely I would consider that a miracle, and you can be sure I'd change my tune. 
Going backwards a tough...Quote:
As for the second one, the simple fact that we are here, the fact that nature works in such perfect harmony and is self-correcting etc is definitely a miracle.... the only other plausible explanation is that it is a big cosmic accident.. and I'm not buying that for a second.
I'm perfectly fine with that even though I feel differently.
Since I don't really feel that God intervenes in our lives, that leaves me with two options: Either the Universe is filled with cosmic accidents, or I'm forced to believe in "fate." I absolutely do not believe in fate. No point to that. Just sayin'.
Quote:
This is the one that I struggle with daily and one that I have recently spoken to my pastor about and continue to struggle with.
Just out of pure curiosity, do you consult any other smart people when struggling with questions? I only ask because I feel that a Pastor, Priest, or Clergyman would clearly come with an answer based on divinity. For good or ill, my nature is such that I'd take it with a grain of salt, and seek out someone with a scientific base to balance the equation. I'd then try and wrap my mind around the problem with information from both sides.
Not saying that's how it should be done, just asking another question.
Quote:
It just seems too convenient for me when you get what you want you give credit to God for giving it to you but when you don't you just say, "well, that's God's plan"... If God has a plan, then was it predetermined outcomes anyway? Did the praying help or not? I'm a believer but I struggle with this stuff every day.
I've asked the same questions numerous times. Since I don't believe in fate, that leaves me asking why God would help some but not others. I cannot simply leave it all in God's hands by praising him when he answers a miracle, then simply accept something bad happening by saying it's ok because that's what he wants. I feel that's a coping mechanism to try and find a way to accept something bad happening by putting closure to it by saying "Well, God wanted it that way. Who am I to argue with God?" I can't do that.
Quote:
I believe that after things happen to us and we have a chance to react, then we look back and assign a reason to the things that happened and those reasons are often based more on the outcome than on the event itself.
I read that about ten times in order to be absolutely sure of what you were saying. I totally agree. I think that's part of the coping mechanism which gives us closure to an open question. Without closure we cannot positively move on with our lives.
Quote:
I do believe that God is active in our world and in our lives, how much and when and why and for what purpose.. I'm still working those details out.
Since I say we're neither smart enough nor supposed to understand God and the Universe, I can say I don't believe as you do, but I cannot say you're wrong.
I'd also add that when you figure it out, let me know. I could use some answers too.
Now, I'd say thanks to you and Chinchy for answering. I THOUGHT that with all the people willing to chime in before that more than two folks would answer during the last sixteen hours or so. 
Any person can adamantly state their opinion. It takes a braver soul to ask questions which is an admittance that one doesn't know everything.
Chinchy, I agree with a bunch of what you said man.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 560
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 560 |
I believed in God my whole life until I took all the science classes in college. This was when I started to question things. I remember I even used to pray to God for doing well on tests (like God had time to care how I did on my Bio test!) I didn't have anything bad happen to me which made me turn against God, if anything I feel very fortunate.
My wife knows that I question the big guy, but that is about it. I am the Godfather to my nephew. If my brother found out I didn't believe I would be afraid he would want to replace me. We are very close and I tell him just about everything, but I choose not to bring up God.
I still go to church and I am raising my 3 young chinchillas Catholic. They pray to God before bed. Why? Like I said before, I think having "God" is a healthy thing. I don't dislike church because it gives me time to think about important things going on in my life and it also becomes a social thing. I also tell my kids there is a Santa Claus even though I don't believe in him either.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
My views are nearly identical to yours. The issue you have with your brother as it pertains to God is EXACTLY the same issue I have with my best bud. He and I are closer than each of us are to our respective siblings.
But don't bring up God.
He was raised by two very VERY religious parents. They are great people but simple. I don't mean that in a way to suggest they are stupid or dumb. They just reject critical thinking. They were raised in deeply religious households. His dad runs everything, which means his mom kept the house and raised the kids while dad earned the keep and made the decisions. Nothing wrong with that. However, that meant critical thinking was never going to be allowed.
To put a face to him that everyone would recognize, he's a sterner Hank Hill. He is EXACTLY Hank Hill in terms of Texas simplicity. Replace his propane business with installing and servicing AC's and you've got the same man, hehe.
So..........my buddy was raised that way. He, like his parents, is a simple guy. He isn't cultured. He was never book-smart, though ask him to fix something with his hands or tools and he'll lap me with one of those hands tied behind his back. He, like his dad, married a woman who yields to his decisions. When she questions his ideas or decisions he gets ornry. And one thing he hates debating is God. He's recently started going to church twice on Sunday's, not because of he and his wife, but because he doesn't want his two kids "going to Hell." We've got into the debates about science versus faith many times, and he's become exceedingly prickly about it recently. So, we agreed that we simply wouldn't talk about it anymore. He says he'll pray for me in church, to which I say I wish he wouldn't because if God DOES answer prayers, I don't want him to waste his time, energy, or efforts on me. I'd rather we as a race pray less for everyone and everything, and save them for those times when they are REALLY needed..........like your Biology tests.  whoops.........I mean 
In spite of all the horrific things the christian churches have done in the name of God over the centuries, and in spite of the BS that many of them continue to try and push today, the good that church's create outweigh the bad.
Besides, when push comes to shove, I think it'd do a great many of us good to taste a little fear of God once in a while, just to keep us in check...............
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802 |
You sound quite like me up to how both of us respond to it. I have to be in the open with my non-belief. I don't know. I either go deep ball for anything or I don't go at all, so I can't fathom the idea of going to church while inwardly rejecting most everything about its beliefs and worldview. As far as your intentions for your kids and other relationships I like why you do what you do and identify with how uncomfortably tense people you know closely are about non-belief. I think that's one of the biggest strains in talking about this matter. I despise and laugh off the narrow minded idea of people thinking differently of me simply over dogmas, my idea of an answer to a question on the cosmos, things along those lines. Eerily similar to racism in that form of ugliness. It's not something I'd ever do to anyone and it happens all the time. It's one category where I'm legitimately in the minority on. Believers in general do tend to distrust atheists and agnostics more than people of other faiths. I find any thinking along those lines to be bigotry. In a recent relationship my non-belief was a strain. Girl stated a chapter in Corinthians about not yoking with non-believers and it turned into quite the argument. The passage went on to say something along the lines of "for what bond do light have with darkness?" as well as, "What path good with evil?" Just because I don't believe in the idea of a higher power doesn't mean I don't have a good, keen moral sense about me. I don't see myself teaching my kids something I don't even believe in. I'm starting to think I may not even teach junior about Santa Claus. I might just tell him straight up at age three.  "Yeah, boy, junior gotta tell ya you sure are special. There's a fat old white guy who lives out in a chilly BFE who's going to- despite the vast array of technology at his unlimited wealthy disposal going to saddle up some reindeer in a sleigh. After that he's gonna fly you and everyone else in the world toys for being good so we can strictly enforce the idea of consequentialism. All he asks for in exchange is leaving a burnt plate of cookies and warm milk by a tree we just decided to haul indoors for the hell of it. (Pause) Yeah, needless to say, junior, I don't mean what I just said and don't feel like lying to ya. It's a crock. It's just something somebody made up. Our society does this a lot. Keep your eye and ears open and make your own choices." I'm a bit fed up with institutions in society that go unchallenged and are mindlessly accepted. Nothing is beyond question and challenge. I don't mean to come off so cold and sarcastic but again, that's the way I am so that's how it comes out.  I relate with you a good bit, Toad. You really hit home with things that rub me the wrong way like beliefs being forced onto you (how do you think I feel after 20 years of Catholic schooling ), people just sheepishly being led (and therefore potentially manipulated and thought FOR) by middlemen and intermediaries, and also that I find it equally as arrogant to say, "There is no God" and to say, "There is no God." Like I've probably unloaded on the dead horse, I don't get the lack of questioning or the judgment that comes for said questioning. For the life of me, I don't get it.
Politicians are puppets, y'all. Let's get Geppetto!
Formerly 4yikes2yoshi0
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
how do you think I feel after 20 years of Catholic schooling
If I had to endure 20 minutes of Catholicism I'd end up a Pagan.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
You are entitled to your belief's/feelings just as much as I am.
I would like you to know that almost daily I question myself and my beliefs. And almost daily, I reinforce my belief's.
I don't believe you've ever seen my pushing my belief's on anyone, have you?
I do believe you have seen my stick up for my belief's.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109 |
Quote:
He's recently started going to church twice on Sunday's, not because of he and his wife, but because he doesn't want his two kids "going to Hell."
I told you to get NFL Sunday Ticket, then this wouldn't bother you so much.
I'm just reading along here. I don't know enough about what I believe to get into this discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Quote:
Quote:
He's recently started going to church twice on Sunday's, not because of he and his wife, but because he doesn't want his two kids "going to Hell."
I told you to get NFL Sunday Ticket, then this wouldn't bother you so much.
I'm just reading along here. I don't know enough about what I believe to get into this discussion.
You and me both.
I believe the Bible is "a translation of history for people in a time where it was too difficult to comprehend."
I do believe there was a Christ, a Great Flood and important people in Biblical history, but I don't think it's all meant to be taken literally.
And I believe different translations of the Bible (such as the Islamic Quran) are basically trying to tell a similar story of history, but the translation is different due to a different perspective on it. (Think the difference in history books based on country, but harder to keep track of due to people simply not having the knowledge of forensics, carbon dating and such that we have now)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Hehehe.............I don't really believe he goes to church twice. I just think he doesn't want me to see him dress his family all up in those matching Ricky Williams jersey's with matching fake dreadlock-hair hats while he sits in his living room with the blinds pulled down so nobody can see him rubbing his Dan Marino bobblehead doll, muttering to himself.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,133
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,133 |
Quote:
And I believe different translations of the Bible (such as the Islamic Quran) are basically trying to tell a similar story of history, but the translation is different due to a different perspective on it....
The Q'ran is just a different translation of the Bible?
Some of the characters are the same (Jesus is actually mentioned in the Q'ran), but the story is quite different.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Noah's Ark Found
|
|
