GOD

[Tim_Lou]

if you think that people are lying about the NDEs, i can say that some other people are lying in science too. like the element 118, it is found that scientists made fake information about it.

 

NDEs might be fake, but there are over thousands of these experience. just like other experience done by scientists.

[Tim_Lou]

 

We'll make it easy on you. Rather that only relying on YOUR ability to see whether a claimed proof IS a proof or not, show us ANY proof you claim to have and we will examine it right here.

 

 

 

Or do you not have these proofs you claim to have?

 

 

 

We will not hold our breath.

 

 

ok, here, prove the uncertain principal to me, see what you can come up with.

if you cant prove it, what you believe in QMs??? since scientific proof is that important to you.

[Tormod]

Tim, why is Freethinker narrow-minded? He has shown an incredible breadth of knowledge on many things and have managed to put some spark into this discussion.

 

The uncertainty principle is a *theory*, which means that it is a set of ideas which try to explain a physical phenomenon, observations or other data. The principle does not need to be proven. Rather, it is in itself proof that quantum mechanics is a strange beast indeed. I think it was Niels Bohr who said that "anyone who is not shocked by quantum mechanics, has not understood anything about it." (correct me if I'm wrong here).

 

Like Freethinker says, quantum mechanics forms the basis of what we consider everyday electronics. There is no need to "prove" it. Do you need to prove that a TV works every time you turn it on? No - because it DOES work every time you turn it on. And when it doesn't, that does not mean QM is wrong (because other TVs work). It is due to hardware failure. It can be helpful to take a step forwards and say, "okay, what if QM is correct. What impact does that have on my opinions about things?".

 

However, when OP5 argues that God can be used as a pain reliever he can offer no proof except his own personal experience. That is not a good way to successfully argue a point. There is a *huge* difference between one person's inner feelings and a large body of scientific evidence.

 

Freethinker may come forth as a die hard and vehement opponent against creationism. He does use strong words to preach his belief in science, which he has no less right to do than everyone else around here who tout their religous belief in every single discussion we have.

 

Remember, though, that science is based upon a set of theories which can never be proven true. There is always a possibility that a scientific theory can be wrong. In addition, Gödel proved that we can never know everything about something. There is always something more to learn (known as his incompleteness theorem). Nobody can know everything. This discussion is not about who knows how much. It may not even be a discussion about "GOD". It has become a discussion of how scientific evidence can be applied to learn and understand things. That scientific evidence has a tendency to refute claims about religion.

 

If you or anyone else here are offended by Freethinker, I would like to point out that instead of throwing new arguments at him, claiming "this has been proven x number of times by so and so", try to show him what you are talking about, and provide him with the proof he asks for.

 

Freethinker told you that NDE can be explained scientifically, and that (as far as he knows) there is not one single case of NDE which cannot be explained scientifically. You are free to believe otherwise. Just because someone is of a different opinion there is no need to feel hurt when someone argues a case against you! Bring up the proof you are talking about (give us websites, scientific evidence and other useful items, not just "this was said by Dr. X in 1989"). I am not even sure what you want to use NDE's as proof of! I know you have a personal view of how the world was created, and that you think "god is in science", which in my eyes is a valid point of view. But like Freethinker I would like to ask for the reasons you have this view. And how does it relate to NDEs? And are NDEs a proof of a divine being? Could they possibly be caused by something else (like imagination, or reading too many books about stairways to heaven)?

 

Sorry for the long post...just wanted to sum things up but I guess it is too early for that.

 

Tormod

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

freethinker, i got nothing else to say here, in my opinion, your just way too narrow minded.

 

Ya gotta love it! To claim *I* have a narrow mind, because *I* ask for proof for claims Tim_lou makes. What a kick!

 

Yes Tim, if being narrow minded means "one that does not blindly accept false claims but asks for proof instead", then YES I am narrow minded. And PROUD of it!

 

However it is much more obvious that you are not able to provide FACTS to support your assertions. And we can all see that it is much easier to attack the person asking for proof, rather than being honest enough to admit you do not have any support for your claims.

 

I have been here before. Quite often in fact. Actually EVERY TIME I get into these discussion this happens.

 

Believers toss out mindless rhetoric and meaningless rejoinders, being used to talking with other believers that also blindly accept and parrot the same empty tautology. Then they run into a Skeptic. Someone that actually respects our own personal POV enough to REQUIRE proof before accepting something. We dare to challenge the unsupportable claims. This causes a panic! Suddenly the blind believer is faced with their own lack of substance. They develop a cognitive dissonence as they realize they can not even convince themselves that they have any valid proof. They KNOW their lack will be exposed if they even TRY.

 

So instead they go on the offensive!

 

So if you want to label your inability to actually provide valid support for your claims as my being narrow minded, I understand. But you are not fooling anyone but yourself.

 

OK, maybe I am wrong? It is easy to find out. I asked for proof. Supply it. Show us all that *I* am narrow minded rather than you lacking factual support. Show the factual support and prove to everyone how narrow minded I actually am.

 

what makes you believe in science?? have you ever question it???

 

I continually question. I questioned you did I not? The difference is that I give support when asked. I constantly look for new information. And when presented, I use it either to provide further acceptance of an idea or to reject the previously held idea. EVERYTHING in my POV is subject to OPEN evaluation... and CHANGE when shown it is needed.

 

How open minded are you?

 

I am ready to admit that I may be wrong about god. I am willing to evaluate any and all evidence for ANYTHING that would support a god belief.

 

Are YOU willing to admit that YOU COULD BE WRONG?

 

Are you willing to admit that your god belief is NOT 100%? THat you ARE willing to reject your god belief if needed?

 

Now who is narrow minded?

 

try to feel god,

 

OK, be glad to. Is it a matter of how high I can reach? Do I need a ladder? Climb on my roof? a 10ft pole? I have a fairly good sense of touch. Show us all where to feel for your god and we will all try to feel him.

 

and read something about it (i bet you never read many of them), then judge it and see the value of it.

 

Well, I've read the bible (KJV and the Catholic Ignatius Bible), The Urantia, Tibetan Book of the Dead, Bhagavad-Gita, I Ching, The Nag Scrolls, ... and large numbers of books laying out the history and philosophy behind many of them like McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict or Joseph Daleiden's Final Superstition. I recently finished LaHaye's Mind Seige. I also recently finished Plato's Republic (and other works), Einstiens Relativity, Special and General, Amir D. Aczel's Probablity One (on the Drake equation), Gribbin's Schrodinger's Kittens (followup to Schrodinger's Cat), Kimberly Blaker's The Fundamentals of Extremism , Paul Kurtz's Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? along with every issue of Free Inquiry, Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic... With the exc

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

if you think that people are lying about the NDEs, i can say that some other people are lying in science too. like the element 118, it is found that scientists made fake information about it.

 

Don't forget Piltdown man and Cold Fusion.

 

That is the beauty of Science. As I have posted many times, Science is self correcting. It was other scientists that exposed these false assertions. And when they were exposed, they were openly rejected.

 

Yet when any of religion's claims are shown to be lies, extensive Apologetic efforts kick in. All kinds of twists and obfuscation is invented to try and cover it upl New translations appear, trying to turn, thou shalt not kill, into thou shalt not murder because the obvious contradictions are finally too much to overcome by just telling people to shut up about it.

 

As to whether "people" are lying about NDE's. That depends on who and what is being said. Those that have experienced an NDE are just relating a NATURAL experience. But those that are desperate to find a straw to cling to and promote NDE's as something more than the natural event they are, THEY are lying.

 

What of people that repeat tyhe nonsense? Well that depends on how much they know and how much they bothered to validate things before spewing them.

 

You gave an example of an NDE. I asked for verification.

 

You have failed to do so.

 

Did you LIE about the NDE?

 

Or did you just (once more) blindly accept what you were told?

 

Can you actually support your assertion?

 

If not, will you repeat the claim to others?

 

I will give you the benifit of the doubt. I will assume you just uncritically accepted and thus while yoou may have passed a lie along, did not intentionally lie yourself.

 

But now are you going to either prove it is NOT a lie or be honest enough to admit you do not have any evidence? These are the only two intellectuallyl honest approaches there are.

 

However, if you now repeat the claim on the NDE, knowning you have no proof of it, that next time, YOU would be lying.

 

NDEs might be fake, but there are over thousands of these experience. just like other experience done by scientists.

 

NDE's are NOT "experience done by scientists". They are experiences individuals have. Scientists do do research on them.

 

Can you provide verification for those you have claimed, or not?

 

Are you honest enough to admit if you can't?

[Tormod]

Tim wrote:

what makes you believe in science?? have you ever question it???

That statement makes me wonder...what do you define "science" as?

 

To anyone who is interested in science, I'd argue thata personwho does *not* question scientific results, has a big credibility problem. However, science is not "one thing" or "one theory".

 

According to my dictionary (a battered MW Collegiate), "science" is (I have abbreviated this slightly):

 

1. 
   <LI>The state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
   <LI>knowledge or a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena ("natural science")
   <LI>knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws esp. as obtaind and tested through scientific method.
    
   

Now, the interesting thing here is the scientific method: "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of the hypotheses".

 

My question is: What is there to "doubt" in science? Science is a method, a way of learning. The goal is knowledge. However, as opposed to religion, it is not used toseek absolute truths, but "general" truths, as stated through theories. Through scientific method, a scientist tries to achieve understanding by proposing hypotheses and testing them. You don't buy into anything until it has been tested enough times to be accepted - at which point a scientist must (read: should)prove this in peer reviewed journals.

 

One can doubtwhether any method used is correct (that is why testing is so important to scientists!). One can doubt whether any result obtained is correct. One can disagree over whether results state this or that (which we call interpretation of results).

 

But it makes no sense to doubt "science". That is like saying you doubt "English" because you can use it to make lies.

 

Tormod

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

 

 

 

We'll make it easy on you. Rather that only relying on YOUR ability to see whether a claimed proof IS a proof or not, show us ANY proof you claim to have and we will examine it right here.

 

Or do you not have these proofs you claim to have?

 

We will not hold our breath.

 

Ah yes, this is the process I am so used to seeing.

 

As a believer, YOU make a claim.

 

When asked to provide support for your claim, you attack the person asking, rather than provide the proof.

 

So I ask again, very directly.

 

Do you actually show you have ANY substance to your claims WHAT SO EVER?

 

NOPE, rather you try another argument fallacy, "dragging a red herring"

 

You hope that by trying to change the subject, your lack of substance will not be noticed!

 

OK,, I will play your game, only to show how a person that actually knows something about what they claim to know, I will answer your question. Then if once more you fail to do tha same, EVERYONE will see just how empty your stance is.

 

ok, here, prove the uncertain principal to me, see what you can come up with.

 

Radioisotopes have a specific decay rate. A block of one would release electrons at a well established rate. The block of radioisotopes would consist of some large number of individual atoms. Each atom is a potential source for the next electron to be released. We KNOW the rate, we KNOW when and how many electrons will be released over a given time. We KNOW these things with great accuracy. This is why cesium atomic clocks are so extremely accurate. However it is IMPOSSIBLE to know WHICH atom will be the next one to give up an electron.

 

We know WHEN.

 

but we can only use probability to guess which one MIGHT be the next donor.

 

This is one example of the Uncertainty Principle.

 

We can be CERTAIN that it will happen and EXACTLY WHEN.

 

But we are COMPELETELY *Uncertain* as to WHICH.

 

Zeno's Arrow paradox is another example and Zeno developed it 2500 years ago.

 

if you cant prove it, what you believe in QMs??? since scientific proof is that important to you.

 

OK, I have PROVEN it. I am now fully justified in supporting my claim.

 

I have shown I have full intellectual integrety. I stand behind things a claim.

 

Now it's YOUR TURN!

 

You have made two claims requiring PROOF. Let's see your intellectual integrety.

 

Provide verification of the 3 day dead NDE.

 

Provide ANY valid evidence to support the existence of your god.

 

Or failing those, show you have the integrety to admit you were wrong.

 

Well? We're waiting!

[Tim_Lou]

lol, your not really proving it lol.

 

uncertain principal is base on math description of monentum and positions.

 

it stats that the product of them cannot less than a certain number, which is the constant (forgot the name), its equal to h/4pi.

 

you dont really know the principal lol...

[§olid§nake]

I believe that God is an essential part of my life. Without Him to fall back on I'd be lost completely. I believe that God is the reason we exist. I don't understand how some people can not believe that there is a God. The thought of there being nothing after life would freak me out. As far as the Bible goes, I believe that while much of it is based on fact, some of the parts in it are parables. The story of Adam and Eve for example. I don't think there actually was an Adam and Eve, just that this is a story to teach us about temptation. For God being a he or a she, I dunno myself, but I believe that God is such a being that one cannot say for sure. I think that the reason everyone refers to him as a He is because of the history of the world mostly being a patriarchal society. I believe that it us up to the person to decide how they wish to picture God. I feel that God helps me get through the smallest things as well as the biggest problems in my life. If I'm feeling just a little uncomfortable I've found myself quietly asking God for strength. I especially do this when I have a test in math.... Anyway, I think that a person has to decide for themself what to believe.

 

-Matt Pankratz

Tucson, AZ

[rileyj]

We'll make it easy on you. Rather that only relying on YOUR ability to see whether a claimed proof IS a proof or not, show us ANY proof you claim to have and we will examine it right here.

 

 

 

Or do you not have these proofs you claim to have?

 

 

 

We will not hold our breath.

 

first of all you don't have to make it easy on me slick, your the one that seems to have problems with things. I never said I had proof of god, but on the other hand by your way of thinking, if it is true that god doesn't not exist then you should have indisputable proof that he doesn't. So if your holding out on some critical piece of information that has eluded all of mankind to weather there is a god or not please share it. if not, try to accept that fact that even an obviously brilliant man like yourself might not have the intellectual capability to understand how something great than you could exist.

[rileyj]

"Even if we give physicists credit for their remarkable discoveries, we have to realize that their research takes place in an isolated field of knowledge. Physics does not concern itself with issues outside its own domain. For example, the subjects of biology, life, and chemistry, as well as the phenomena of mind and consciousness cannot be explained in physical terms."

[Tormod]

Rileyj - Freethinker has not presented himself as a "brilliant man". He has stated his claims and refuted other's claims. yet none of you are prepared to argue with him in any rational way.

 

"Even if we give physicists credit for their remarkable discoveries, we have to realize that their research takes place in an isolated field of knowledge. Physics does not concern itself with issues outside its own domain. For example, the subjects of biology, life, and chemistry, as well as the phenomena of mind and consciousness cannot be explained in physical terms."

 

Where did you get this quote - and do you really think it is true? How does physics not concern biology, life and chemistry? The periodic table is indeed an important part of physics, as it lists the physical properties of all known elements. Life is studied in physics (or what do you make of DNA?). The instruments used in medicine are built by engineers who are physicists (like CAT scanners).

 

Mind and consciousness are also areas of study which is important to physicists (take robots and artificial intelligence, for example). Physicists study how our eyes work, how our neurons are connected, for example.

 

Do a search on Google for "physics in life science" and you might be surprised at what you find.

 

Tormod

[sanctus]

Sorry freethinker, I liked very much your arguments and your sarcasm, but it is really a pity you didn't bring the "real" proof of the uncertainity principle, that destroyed much of what you said before.

I don't know if your example can be proven with the inequality stated by the uncertainity principle, but as this principle applies to all operators ("mesurables", not just to momentum and position that is just how Heisenberg has done it!!) it might be possible....

[Tormod]

Okay, sanctus - enlighten us. What is the "real" proof of the uncertainty principle?

 

Tormod

[Freethinker]

Today we get to see a very well established view into the mind of a believer. We will see how a believer, locked into a POV that lacks ANY substance, when asked to actually provide support for their empty views, does everything thing they can to refuse any direct questions, any request for validation of their hollow claims. When I first came to this discussion group I read a post from a member in which they VERY SPECIFICALLY state their god exists and they can prove it!

 

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

god does have evidence, such as NDEs, near-death experiences. read some posts in the "after life section"..

 

So in one of my first posts, I ask for those specific details.

 

Originally posted by: Freethinker

 

It is simple. If yoou have PROOF that some god exists, present it. Then I will not be able to claim god does not exist.... I have an appropriately open mind. Which is why I said the answeer is simple.

 

You simply need to provide VALID proof of a god.

 

It was OBVIOUSLY a QUESTION. and anyone involved in an intellectual discourse would know that when one asks a DIRECT QUESTION, you ANSWER the question, especially if the question is a request to supply proof for an assertion. So we would expect that Tim woould provide this PROOF he claims to have. Thus expecting an actual answer/ supplying of PROOF, we view Tim's next reply to find that proof.

 

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

ok, let me ask you some questions....

 

Well we start out very badly, instead of an ANSWER, he asks a question. This is a very obvious ruse used to avoide ANSWERING questions.... But we read further to see if he can eventually live up to his claims...

 

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

about the NDE's. i post many of them in after life section, anyway, i'll post it again.

 

a man is said to be dead and is frozen for 3 days for whatever reason.

 

Well, it is an ATTEMPT anyway. He throws uot some unsupported CLAIM as if it is actually PROOF. But we all know better, so I try to help Tim understand what PROOF actually consists of...

 

Originally posted by: Freethinker

 

 

There are always these anecdotal claims. They ALWAYS go away when one tries to actually find the specific incidence. So here is your chance. You CLAIM this happened. Show us the SPECIFIC DETAILS. Give us name of patient, Dr's records ... It does not ahve to be extensive, just reference details so we can confirm it independantly. Otherwise it is just another fairy tale.

 

OK, so know we have had to ask Tim a couple times to actually provide some facts to substantiate his claims. We even educated him on WHAT facts consist of. We would naturally expect the requested facts to be supplied in his next reply. That is if we are involved in an intellectually honest discourse. Not just listening to religious dogma being parrotted.

 

But what do we get?

 

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

freethinker, i got nothing else to say here, in my opinion, your just way too narrow minded.

 

??? Where is the PROOF? Where is even a basic attempt at supporting his claims? After all this started with an absolute statement of the existence of this evidence!

 

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

god does have evidence,

 

So it would be EASY to provide it if it so obviously existed! But that post didn;t even address the issue! Perhaps he was just holding back for the next reply? Let's check IT out. See what PROOF is supplied in the next post!

 

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

if you think that people are lying about the NDEs, i c

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: §olid§nake

I believe that God is an essential part of my life. Without Him to fall back on I'd be lost completely. I believe that God is the reason we exist.

 

Therapists hear these things from people addicted to any number of things. From hard drugs, alcohol, tobacco to any number of physcological obsession addictions. The famous A 12 step program is based on substitutuing a psychological addiction for a physical one. While adherents for these programs claim high success rates, actual studies show success rates for 12 step as low as 5%. (George Vaillant, Harvard University, "The Natural History of Alcoholism") GOD is NOT tha answer. It is just another of the problems.

 

I don't understand how some people can not believe that there is a God.

 

Your ability or inability to comprehend has nothing to do with whether god beliefs are real or not. It is simply a matter of the application of Logic and Critical Thinking. God myths are not capable of standing up to CT or Logic. It's that simple. Then it becomes a matter of whther the individual is capable of accept this reality or not. Some just are not capable of accepting reality. They have too many personal issues they can not deal with... such as...

 

The thought of there being nothing after life would freak me out.

 

Others do not have thing holding them back from the acceptance of reality.

 

As far as the Bible goes, I believe that while much of it is based on fact, some of the parts in it are parables. The story of Adam and Eve for example. I don't think there actually was an Adam and Eve, just that this is a story to teach us about temptation.

 

Yes, I will even agree that there are parts of the bible that have basis in fact. The same can be said about Mother Goose and every other fairytale. That is what makes them interesting, a margin of truth with the myth spun around it.

 

What we find is each supposed Christian will draw their personal line in the sand somewhere. They will blindly accept some parts while allowing themselves to see how absurd some parts are. Often thes parts violate the sensibilities of the reader,. Being desperate to not acknowledge the fallacy of the entire concept of the bible, they find any number of excuses to cover the absurdities and blantant errors. Many Christians DO accept the Adam and Eve story as FACT.

 

I believe that it us up to the person to decide how they wish to picture God.

 

Ya, as long as we are intentionally ignoring reality, it doesn't matter how we twist thiings past that!

 

I feel that God helps me get through the smallest things as well as the biggest problems in my life. If I'm feeling just a little uncomfortable I've found myself quietly asking God for strength. I especially do this when I have a test in math....

 

While there are those of use that do not need something to blame for success or failure. We are capable of accepting full personal responsibility for oour actions. If you need something to be addicted to, something to blame, you are welcome to invent what ever god myth wou need.

 

Just don't ask me to pay for it or force laws on us based on it.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: rileyj

first of all you don't have to make it easy on me slick, your the one that seems to have problems with things. I never said I had proof of god,

 

I apologize if I confused one poster from another. One reply was started one day and finished the next. I snatch a few minutes here or there to assemble responses and do lose track of who's post I may be resonding to at times. (See how that works? I am always ready to apologize when I make a mistake, just as I am ready to supply proof for assertions I make.)

 

q] but on the other hand by your way of thinking, if it is true that god doesn't not exist then you should have indisputable proof that he doesn't.

 

Not this again. Unfortunately I am at work, not home. At home I have a file I just copy over when this fallacy is presented. It explains the fallacy of "Shifting the burden of proof". It is one of the argument fallacies taught to 1st year philo students. Here is one of MANY sites that present some of the Fallacies and specifically Shifting the Burden of Proof, from San José State University.

 

http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/burden.html

 

1st year philo students are taught early that it is impossible to DIS-prove the existence of something. Try to PROVE that Santa does not exist. It is IMPOSSIBLE. You can give any number of reasons as to why it is absurd to accept such a belief. It is possible to show how the stories about him violate laws of physics and rationality. We can show why it is rediculous to accept his existence, but NOT that he DOES NOT EXIST.

 

But since believers are never able to provide valid proof to support their myth, they resort to any fallacy they think they will get away with.

 

Sorry, you can't get away with it with me. I know better.

 

So if your holding out on some critical piece of information that has eluded all of mankind to weather there is a god or not please share it. if not, try to accept that fact that even an obviously brilliant man like yourself might not have the intellectual capability to understand how something great than you could exist.

 

There is little question in my mind that "something great than (me) could exist". I have no problem with that what so ever. I would be amazed if it were not so in fact.

 

But, to use YOUR statement..

 

So if your holding out on some critical piece of information that has eluded all of mankind to weather there is a god or not please share it.

 

Well? what FACTUAL EVIDENCE are you holding out "that has eluded all of mankind" that once and for all PROVES that a god exists?

 

Please refrain from trying to use any more of the Argument Fallacies instead of ACTUAL FACTS.