Questions and Statements about God...

[alissowack]

Where are the scientist that act and think like this?

You are so lost it aint even funny.

Do you think that people would admit to lying if they can get away with it? It's not my place to say who does what. I'm not questioning the occupation. I'm questioning people in the occupation. If you are not that person, then that's alright...not that I need to know that.

 

[alissowack]

I don't care if someone is "trustworthy" nor "loving", because I neither trust or love people. I just care about who's correct, an honest scientist could be wrong about the mechanics of an observed process while a dishonest scientist could be correct about the same thing. What will ultimately determine things, is which scientist's work can hold up to scrutiny or be replicated by others. And even then, I will not accept it without scrutinizing it myself. Their personalities, character, or motives are irrelevant.

Well, if the dishonest are the one responsible for proving something to be true, then what reasons would you have to think that they should care about you, respect who you are...or think that you are fit to know the truth?

 

[alissowack]

I don't see you as a threat. I see this as a discussion. Stop taking it so personal. Why are you and BA telling me not to be so serious? That's really condescending. Is this some sort of defensive maneuver? I've said this to you before but here it goes again. Separate the man from the method and analyze the latter. If you don't trust the evidence, then become a scientist and challenge that evidence yourself. There are many types of scientist btw so even if you wanted to as you claim your not doing, you can't typecast scientist into a position. Science is not infallible and it doesn't claim to be. Man makes that claim.

I didn't say I was a threat...just this thread. And I didn't accuse you of being serious. I just said it's not that serious. I don't know you to make one claim about you...though it's a habit I have sometimes with trying to. The issue isn't with the evidence. The issue is not with science. The issue is with people. Science didn't exist until people created it. People say the same about God. Before that, we had certain beliefs whether conservative or radical. But it took the trustworthiness of people to determine how life was pursued. Though I can't be absolutely certain about this for everybody, but I believe that a lack of trust is a hidden factor in why people don't believe in a higher power. People are not just wanting the truth. People want trust as well and people like to know they have that trust in whoever or whatever.

 

[fiat_money]

Well, if the dishonest are the one responsible for proving something to be true, then what reasons would you have to think that they should care about you, respect who you are...or think that you are fit to know the truth?

It doesn't matter to me how they feel about me, if they are correct then they are correct. They could want me dead, I wouldn't care.

 

[alissowack]

It doesn't matter to me how they feel about me, if they are correct then they are correct. They could want me dead, I wouldn't care.

Oh, I don't mean it in that sense though it could just as well be. Who knows? Someone may say that because they are correct, then you should be dead; that because they are correct, you owe them your life.

 

[fiat_money]

Oh, I don't mean it in that sense though it could just as well be. Who knows? Someone may say that because they are correct, then you should be dead; that because they are correct, you owe them your life.

They can say that, if they wish. That wouldn't make it a scientific or logical conclusion.

To reference my earlier statements:

...the reason things determined or discovered by using the scientific method have influence is because they are replicable/observable/calculable by others. Scientific theories and even laws aren't just accepted at "face value", they are tested repeatedly by others to further substantiate or disprove them.[...]So any "influence" isn't there simply because an individual states something, but because many verified the same thing...

...And even then, I will not accept it without scrutinizing it myself...

 

[Jabu_Rule]

I didn't say I was a threat...just this thread. And I didn't accuse you of being serious. I just said it's not that serious. I don't know you to make one claim about you...though it's a habit I have sometimes with trying to. The issue isn't with the evidence. The issue is not with science. The issue is with people. Science didn't exist until people created it. People say the same about God. Before that, we had certain beliefs whether conservative or radical. But it took the trustworthiness of people to determine how life was pursued. Though I can't be absolutely certain about this for everybody, but I believe that a lack of trust is a hidden factor in why people don't believe in a higher power. People are not just wanting the truth. People want trust as well and people like to know they have that trust in whoever or whatever.

Its not that serious implies that I'm being too serious about the topic. I'm having a serious discussion so yes this deserves serious responses unless you want me to throw pies and make fat jokes. The automobile didn't exist until humans invented it yet you trust it enough to drive in one right? You think scientist and engineers had nothing to do with creating the car? Or the Plane? or even modern Boats? The word science only came after a proper method was derived and agreed upon to review and judge data accurately. This allowed unrelated individuals to review and proof theories as well as counter false claims.

20 people who don't know each other arrive at the same conclusion using differing methods. This occurs all the time and if you visit science websites, you would see this occurring all the time. A good example would be motion technology in videogames. 3 different research groups created 3 unique types of motion control for three different consoles. All do virtually the same thing in tracking motion but all derived at this point separately. You get unique yet related experiences depending on the implementation. This is science. Everything else is your own personal bias.

 

[alissowack]

They can say that, if they wish. That wouldn't make it a scientific or logical conclusion.

To reference my earlier statements:

I mean...to use science to come to an unscientific conclusion. The answers are correct; the evidence is there, but the person sincerely feels your life doesn't matter...or anybody else for that matter. Yeah, yeah they can say whatever they want. But what if someone decides to test this conclusion? How would we know if a person is doing this or whether we can convince this person they are wrong when technically they are right?

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

Why are you and BA telling me not to be so serious? That's really condescending.

I told you life ain't that serious because you seemed to be putting in way more effort into the thread than I was(in all truthfulness), however I wasn't intending to be condescending. I'm not siding with anyone, I just felt I happened to be catching Alissowack's drift and responded as such, and that's where you came in.

 

[fiat_money]

I mean...to use science to come to an unscientific conclusion. The answers are correct; the evidence is there, but the person sincerely feels your life doesn't matter...or anybody else for that matter. Yeah, yeah they can say whatever they want. But what if someone decides to test this conclusion? How would we know if a person is doing this or whether we can convince this person they are wrong when technically they are right?

Then clearly there'd be a flaw with their method or reasoning. Say someone shows that there is a connection between Solar flares and migraines in humans on Earth, and concludes "fiat_money's life doesn't matter."; this would clearly be malformed conclusion or just their opinion. Therefore, the answer would be incorrect. Now, if instead, they show there is a connection between Solar flares and migraines in humans on Earth, then conclude that "Solar flares cause migraines in humans on Earth." and attribute this conclusion to the increased geomagneticism caused by the Solar flare; yet they also say "fiat_money's life doesn't matter.". It wouldn't mean that the latter statement is true simply because the first conclusion was derived scientifically and properly supported. So, technically, they'd be wrong.

If some hypothetical person decided to test that hypothetical conclusion, it'd be their hypothetical decision. Another hypothetical person could go about deciding to test a hypothetical Neo-Nazi singer's hypothetical conclusion that "Black people's lives don't matter" in the same manner. In either hypothetical example, the hypothetical outcome would be the product of the hypothetical person's actions; meaning neither example provides a valid argument against the profession of the the hypothetical persons who came up with the conclusion.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

I told you life ain't that serious because you seemed to be putting in way more effort into the thread than I was(in all truthfulness), however I wasn't intending to be condescending. I'm not siding with anyone, I just felt I happened to be catching Alissowack's drift and responded as such, and that's where you came in.

I just put in what i put in as long as it's relevant to the discussion. There isn't a minimum for me to get my point across. Sometimes it looks like I'm trying to write a book. I guess i should learn how to write an abridged version in my post. I feel what you're saying though. I like to argue and sometimes i can get too intense and I'm ready to do battle with the world.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

I just put in what i put in as long as it's relevant to the discussion. There isn't a minimum for me to get my point across. Sometimes it looks like I'm trying to write a book. I guess i should learn how to write an abridged version in my post. I feel what you're saying though. I like to argue and sometimes i can get too intense and I'm ready to do battle with the world.

That's a respectable position, no complaints from me no more.

 

[alissowack]

Its not that serious implies that I'm being too serious about the topic. I'm having a serious discussion so yes this deserves serious responses unless you want me to throw pies and make fat jokes. The automobile didn't exist until humans invented it yet you trust it enough to drive in one right? You think scientist and engineers had nothing to do with creating the car? Or the Plane? or even modern Boats? The word science only came after a proper method was derived and agreed upon to review and judge data accurately. This allowed unrelated individuals to review and proof theories as well as counter false claims.

20 people who don't know each other arrive at the same conclusion using differing methods. This occurs all the time and if you visit science websites, you would see this occurring all the time. A good example would be motion technology in videogames. 3 different research groups created 3 unique types of motion control for three different consoles. All do virtually the same thing in tracking motion but all derived at this point separately. You get unique yet related experiences depending on the implementation. This is science. Everything else is your own personal bias.

I don't think you read my post. I was essentially saying that people created science...which in turn created the cars, boats, etc. I'm guilty of selective reading so I won't hold it against you. I've probably done it to you. This seem more like you are fighting this than just letting this thread be just a discussion. I'm aware of the influence that science has on the world. I'm not trying to convince you to submit to my ideas, but at the end of the day science didn't create man. Man created science.

 

[alissowack]

Then clearly there'd be a flaw with their method or reasoning. Say someone shows that there is a connection between Solar flares and migraines in humans on Earth, and concludes "fiat_money's life doesn't matter."; this would clearly be malformed conclusion or just their opinion. Therefore, the answer would be incorrect. Now, if instead, they show there is a connection between Solar flares and migraines in humans on Earth, then conclude that "Solar flares cause migraines in humans on Earth." and attribute this conclusion to the increased geomagneticism caused by the Solar flare; yet they also say "fiat_money's life doesn't matter.". It wouldn't mean that the latter statement is true simply because the first conclusion was derived scientifically and properly supported. So, technically, they'd be wrong.

If some hypothetical person decided to test that hypothetical conclusion, it'd be their hypothetical decision. Another hypothetical person could go about deciding to test a hypothetical Neo-Nazi singer's hypothetical conclusion that "Black people's lives don't matter" in the same manner. In either hypothetical example, the hypothetical outcome would be the product of the hypothetical person's actions; meaning neither example provides a valid argument against the profession of the the hypothetical persons who came up with the conclusion.

This is unscientific so you've been warned. I don't know if there is any truth to this, but there was a case where a man was watching a Nike commercial and afterwards he goes and kills some. And in pleading his case, he say that the commercial said to "Just Do It". Sure, it didn't fly with the judge, but what is going to stop someone to doing things like that? What if because natural selection is true, someone decides to be show you that he or she is "stronger" than you. People do that with God; that because they are God's chosen, then they think they are better than you.

 

[fiat_money]

This is unscientific so you've been warned. I don't know if there is any truth to this, but there was a case where a man was watching a Nike commercial and afterwards he goes and kills some. And in pleading his case, he say that the commercial said to "Just Do It". Sure, it didn't fly with the judge, but what is going to stop someone to doing things like that? What if because natural selection is true, someone decides to be show you that he or she is "stronger" than you. People do that with God; that because they are God's chosen, then they think they are better than you.

Humans can find innumerable reasons to kill others, this doesn't meant that any potential thing/concept that humans can use as a basis for killing others is at fault.

If someone decided to show me that they are stronger than me, then--as redundant as it sounds--they would've simply decided to me show that they are stronger than me.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

I don't think you read my post. I was essentially saying that people created science...which in turn created the cars, boats, etc. I'm guilty of selective reading so I won't hold it against you. I've probably done it to you. This seem more like you are fighting this than just letting this thread be just a discussion. I'm aware of the influence that science has on the world. I'm not trying to convince you to submit to my ideas, but at the end of the day science didn't create man. Man created science.

Science didn't create anything, the discoveries in science were used to create things. I'm saying that it is not the fault of science, but people that negative outcomes and attitudes occur. Science is a process that does not hold bias towards any position. The data will always be there. What one does with it is what creates the ethical trouble. I gave an example once before dealing with the creation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear energy would exist without us but by observing how it works, we learned how to harness it. Some used it for evil (Hiroshima) and some used it for good (energy, space probes).

It's all relative really because some would say that it's good we ended the war in Japan while others would say that the fallout made the decision unethical. No one complained about the deaths because firebombing killed as much people and destroyed as many homes. This lead to an Arms race yet it also led to a more stable world with the big boys afraid to fight one another. You can't blame science for the fallibility of man. science is just a process with no morals attached to the data. How you acquire that data can be an ethical concern. Volunteers vs Victims.

I also pointed out that Scientology has attempted to make science into a religion and they fail miserably because it's purely a religion and has nothing to do with science other then in name. It terms of people feeling that science answers all, well it attempts to but if you have better method, the please let me know. You seem to be thinking that scientist are elitist and you would be right, but that doesn't make them religious, that just makes them smart. That also doesn't make them infallible.

 

[Hyde Parke]

Everyone believes in something for whatever reasons. I wonder at times, why do we have beliefs in the 1st place. Is it a necessity, or could it possibly be the ego constantly at work to sustain identity? I question the significance.

 

[John Prewett]

A major breakthrough for me, before Jesus made a beleiver out of me,...

was when I realized "science" does not have it all figured out. That there is mystery in the world.

Science has never made this claim.

How right you are.

For ME, it was a breakthough to see that my misunderstanding was a misunderstanding.

Your Jesus myth has. It's it's been proven wrong on these forums time

and time again only to be met with straw man arguments.

No one has ever DISPROVED Jesus nor God. Nor will they.

 

[andthencameSHA]

to correctly and fully insert my opinion on this topic

i would first like to understand what YOU think GOD is

because if you think GOD is simply "the creator"

then i would have to ask you who created science

you would probably say

"man created science"

then i would say who created man

then you would answer that question

 

[Jabu_Rule]

How right you are.

For ME, it was a breakthough to see that my misunderstanding was a misunderstanding.

No one has ever DISPROVED Jesus nor God. Nor will they.

No one has proven it either John, nor will they. See how that works. That's why agnostics exist. I go one step further and throw the whole thing out because man created the whole thing without offering any proof. Also, the concept God doesn't fit for me because the very nature of to universe.