Do you believe in God?

[Tesla]

Because you won't, can't or refuse to acknowledge the dimension of the Spiritual, don't get mad at me.

I'm just trying to tell you, it absolutely does exist.
It's not discovered, learned about, or accessed through, science.
Something for which I have no say so about, and therefore cannot be held accountable for.
Likewise it is undoubtedly, a science unto itself.

Nothing can definitely exist without being proven to exist in the first place. Just because you say that it can't be proven through science isn't a get out of jail free card to say that it exists.

 

[Famine]

One of the reasons they were chosen, was because they would consent.

No need to ask though, right. That's great relationship advice.

 

[Scaff]

No need to ask though, right. That's great relationship advice.

Its all OK however, as even if you don't have the consent as long as you pay her Dad 50 silver he has to then force her to marry you.

More great relationship advice.

 

[Liquid]

Its all OK however, as even if you don't have the consent as long as you pay her Dad 50 silver he has to then force her to marry you.

More great relationship advice.

Bargain.

 

[Dennisch]

Foreskins are also a great marriage present.

 

[homeforsummer]

Because you won't, can't or refuse to acknowledge the dimension of the Spiritual, don't get mad at me.

And once again, you ignore the requests of us wishing to delve deeper into it, instead preferring to argue yourself into dead-ends in subjects you've demonstrated you know nothing about.

Are you going to answer the spiritual questions of myself, Azuremen and Liquid, or not?

 

[Famine]

Its all OK however, as even if you don't have the consent as long as you pay her Dad 50 silver he has to then force her to marry you.

More great relationship advice.

Still, if you're unhappy you can repay them according to what they've done to you - seize their infants and dash them against the rocks.

I see it really speaks to modern relationships.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You know a lot of us have asked you other questions extending well beyond science, as hfs pointed out.

You've ignored them in favor of arguing the definition of clearly defined words.

I haven't necessarily ignored them.
I was primarily focused on other aspects.
Apparently, clearly defined words to some, are not so clear.

And once again, you ignore the requests of us wishing to delve deeper into it, instead preferring to argue yourself into dead-ends in subjects you've demonstrated you know nothing about.

Are you going to answer the spiritual questions of myself, Azuremen and Liquid, or not?

Well, in view of such a overwhelmingly complimentary request, how could I refuse?

In light of my recent untimely absence, if it's not too much of an imposition, perhaps you could direct me to the specific questions to which you are referring?

 

[Liquid]

hfs

Me

I can't find Azuremen's posts, but I'm sure a quick back scroll will lead you to them.

 

[homeforsummer]

Well, in view of such a overwhelmingly complimentary request, how could I refuse?

Initially my requests were fairly light-hearted, but you'd ignored three of them previously (in recent days at least - many more throughout the thread as a whole) so I'm in less mood to ask nicely. Had you spent less time arguing with people then you might have spotted them.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I'm not disputing that. But whether you were talking about either (in reference to your estimation of '5000 years') you are still off by several orders of magnitude.

Rubbish. Science is very effective at ruling out possibilities and honing in on the truth. The fact that the universe is not thousands of years old will never be overturned - so your estimation will never be anywhere close to being correct.

And it's done, just as I said, with trial and error.
I don't know how old the universe or man is, and neither does anyone else for sure.
Maybe, maybe not.

No. I maintain the right to an opinion and my right to express it in a civil manner. I pity those who have been misled or who have not been exposed to the evidence that contradicts what they've been told. But I have no time for those who know full well that there exists contradictory evidence but choose to ignore it. There's a big difference in my book, just as there is a big difference between making an honest mistake and making deliberately misleading comments..

Cool your jets TM.
I have already chosen to acknowledge evidence for the age of the Universe.
How accurate it is, I'm not sure.
Age of man, as I've said repeatedly is another matter, IMO.

Science qualifies itself by being open to new evidence, and is therefore open to the discovery of new things all the time. But being open to new evidence doesn't mean that there can be no such thing as an established fact - far from it actually. What you are describing is an overwhelming skepticism that cannot accept anything as factual and where evidence ultimately means nothing. All of mankind's scientific achievements stand in direct contradiction to this view.

Not exactly.
Evidence exists for four or five different conspiracy theories of who was behind the assassination of John Kennedy.
Which one are you ready to convict on?

Estabished facts, carry the burden of overwhelming conclusive evidence.
This is a far cry in my book, from theories and hypotheticals.
These categories, supported as they may be, are still subject to the establishment of conclusivity.

If you believe that science is a 'guessing game', then you clearly don't understand jack about how science works - although your previous posts regarding science have already demonstrated this beyond any doubt.

In the theory and hypothetical stages, thats exactly what they are.
Granted, educated to some extent.

Something I think we have talked about before, I will bring up again here, is science is inseperable from man and man from science.
Therefore science is always subject to the propensity for intentional or unintentional, error, misinterpretation, misconception, misrepresentation, and all failings and limitations attributible to man.
Since this is the reality, I personally can never frame science in a class as the The great I am.
Now having said that, doesn't imply it cannot be correct, beneficial or dependable much of the time.
That is also a reality.
However, under that framework, if science openly claims something, irreconcilable and in direct contradiction to God's account, I'm going with God.
Now if that makes me, in the view of science, ignorant, skeptical, whatever, whatever, so be it.
God claims he cannot lie, and his integrity is, IMO, due to the previously stated reasons, above science.
At this point in time, excluding evolutional theory, subject to interpretation, I don't see where reconciliation with the Biblical account is not possible.

 

[Famine]

"Theory" still doesn't mean what you think it does. Theories are explanations that cover all available evidence - they encompass all observations and all experimental results in that field. For something to attain the status of "theory" it has to be very vigourously tested indeed.

A theory is not a guess.

 

[lalaurentide]

Not exactly.
Evidence exists for four or five different conspiracy theories of who was behind the assassination of John Kennedy.
Which one are you ready to convict on?

If we could repeat the experiment that is the assassination as many times as we wanted, not a simulation, the actual events, we could then tell what happened with 100% certainty. All we'd need are people or cameras covering every angles, every windows and rooftops.

 

[Scaff]

This is a far cry in my book, from theories and hypotheticals.
These categories, supported as they may be, are still subject to the establishment of conclusivity.



In the theory and hypothetical stages, thats exactly what they are.
Granted, educated to some extent.

Now the first time around you could have been simple un-informed when you misrepresented scientific hypothesis, however as you had already been provdied this...

....it now simply appears that you are willfully ignoring the reality of how scientific theory works. Given that accusations of closed mindedness towards the rest of us are a little hypocritical.

Something I think we have talked about before, I will bring up again here, is science is inseperable from man and man from science.
Therefore science is always subject to the propensity for intentional or unintentional, error, misinterpretation, misconception, misrepresentation, and all failings and limitations attributible to man.
Since this is the reality, I personally can never frame science in a class as the The great I am.
Now having said that, doesn't imply it cannot be correct, beneficial or dependable much of the time.
That is also a reality.

Which is exactly why no one takes the 'word' of a scientist at face value, its the purpose behind the entire scientific method and peer review. Its to a very large part the difference between science and pseudoscience (such as young earth).

However, under that framework, if science openly claims something, irreconcilable and in direct contradiction to God's account, I'm going with God.
Now if that makes me, in the view of science, ignorant, skeptical, whatever, whatever, so be it.
God claims he cannot lie, and his integrity is, IMO, due to the previously stated reasons, above science.
At this point in time, excluding evolutional theory, subject to interpretation, I don't see where reconciliation with the Biblical account is not possible.

Yet the exact same reason why you claim (incorrectly) that science can be flawed can be applied to God and the Bible, but these you accept at face value with no outside corroboration at all?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

So what is it? Am I a bad person? A bad Christian? Are some people simply not cut out for "faith", even if they're well-meaning in other ways?

What if I simply can't believe, even if I want to? Or do I have to remove my brain in order to make sense of something that makes not a jot of sense?.

God says he has given everyman the measure of faith.
It's like a tool, if you leave it in the tool box, it can't help you accomplish anything.

Other than that, I don't know what else to tell you.

SCJ, do you think that science only means chemistry vials and men with ray-bans in lab coats?

The word science comes from the Latin word scientia, which literally means knowledge. The word science means knowledge and all knowledge falls under the jurisdiction of science.

Sorry to disappoint you, but all knowledge does not come under the jurisdiction of science.

Unfortunately, your belief, is a ongoing misconception of many here.

Spiritual knowledge does not come through science.
Never has, and IMO, never will.

Science is man's jurisdiction, not God's.
Spiritual matters, are reserved unto God's jurisdiction, not man's.
Thats why you will not get spiritual knowledge from science.
There is only one exclusive administrator and distributor of spiritual knowledge, God and his appointed representative to man, Jesus.
It's that simple.

 

[Famine]

Sorry to disappoint you, but all knowledge does not come under the jurisdiction of science.

The word means "knowledge". Science is that which can be known.

Your statement above thus says "Sorry to disappoint you, but all knowledge does not come under the jurisdiction of knowledge.".

Do you not see the inherent flaw in that line of reasoning?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

"Theory" still doesn't mean what you think it does. Theories are explanations that cover all available evidence - they encompass all observations and all experimental results in that field. For something to attain the status of "theory" it has to be very vigourously tested indeed.

A theory is not a guess.

Ok, it's an educated guess.

Yet the exact same reason why you claim (incorrectly) that science can be flawed can be applied to God and the Bible, but these you accept at face value with no outside corroboration at all?

This is a good point.

There is plenty of outside corraboration, but it's only among those that know the spiritual aspect side of the equation.
You can only find it among Holy spirit filled people.
The reality for me was, the more I examined the Biblical God for flaws and
error, the less flawed and the more accurate he became.
Particularly on the core level of existence for again, causes and effects.

One thing to remember too, is God is all about relationship.
The relationship aspects are always first and foremost.
Another is order.(orderly)
Thats why I attempt to draw attention to one's relationship with your wife.
That is on a similar plane, in having a relational exchange with God.
It can be about as non intellectual, at times as anything I know of.
But it is of great priority and importance at the same time.

The word means "knowledge". Science is that which can be known.

Your statement above thus says "Sorry to disappoint you, but all knowledge does not come under the jurisdiction of knowledge.".

Do you not see the inherent flaw in that line of reasoning?

For you I do.

Your reasoning exclusively in the "carnal man box", or under what I refer to as "the carnal male operating system".

In your defense, since it is your only operating system, you really don't have another perspective, from which to operate.

Science is knowledge, but it's not the only knowledge.
Here is the quote:

"Sorry to disappoint you, but all knowledge does not come under the jurisdiction of science".

Since you have no concept of any other knowledge, it is outside the carnal man's reasoning.

 

[Famine]

Ok, it's an educated guess.

It's not a guess of any kind. It's an explanation for all known information, observation and experimentation.

Since this is the fourth or fifth time you've been reminded of this in the last month, you have no excuse for still confusing the terms other than doing so on purpose. If that is the case, it poses you a very specific problem.

For you I do.

Your reasoning exclusively in the "carnal man box", or under what I refer to as "the carnal male operating system".

In your defense, since it is your only operating system, you really don't have another perspective, from which to operate.

Science is knowledge, but it's not the only knowledge.
Here is the quote:

"Sorry to disappoint you, but all knowledge does not come under the jurisdiction of science".

Since you have no concept of any other knowledge, it is outside the carnal man's reasoning.

No, we're not talking about knowledge acquired through any set of means. We're talking specific definitions of words. The word "science" is a direct derivation of the Latin verb "scire" - "to know". When the Romans wrote of knowledge they used derivations of the verb. The word "science", very specifically, means "knowledge". Not any type of knowlege, not any flavour of knowledge, not any subset of knowledge, just "knowledge".

"Knowledge" is "science". "Science" is "knowledge". No reasoning is required. No sex is required. No perspective is required. This is what the word means.

 

[orimarc]

Your reasoning exclusively in the "carnal man box", or under what I refer to as "the carnal male operating system".

In your defense, since it is your only operating system, you really don't have another perspective, from which to operate.

What, you can dual-boot or something?

Does a screen appear to you when you wake up like:

[CENTER]Choose OS

Carnal Male Operating System (CMOS) <--

Spiritual Male Operating system (SMOS)[/CENTER]

 

[Liquid]

"Knowledge" is "science". "Science" is "knowledge". No reasoning is required. No sex is required. No perspective is required. This is what the word means...

...whether you agree with it or not.

 

[homeforsummer]

God says he has given everyman the measure of faith.
It's like a tool, if you leave it in the tool box, it can't help you accomplish anything.

Other than that, I don't know what else to tell you.

So what if the box remains closed? It was clearly open to me as a child. What if I simply cannot open the box? Metaphorically doing so would, to me, feel like a step backwards from what I already know.

It, to me, would be the difference between ignorance and stupidity - if I knew nothing of what I already know now and was content with it, that would be ignorance. If I suddenly dumped all the knowledge I have of how the world works and accepted the word of the bible as a substitute, that to me would be stupidity.

And in contrast to what you might think, I'm not completely closed-minded to the ideals of deism. I'm sure it feels wonderful to have a god watching over you, to be part of a church community, and to believe that everything, no matter how complicated, is the work of an almighty being. One of my closest friends, and his wife, are Mormons. He enjoys being part of that faith.

Personally, I cannot take anything from it. It would go against every fibre of my being to abandon the collective knowledge of humankind in favour of some hazy ideals from an ancient book.

The toolbox isn't closed because it's locked, the toolbox is closed because all the tools inside are made of chocolate. They'd be briefly satisfying, but ultimately have no use in my life.

 

[JediRage]

About this,

Ah, but should we view them in relation to Earth we would see that they revolve around a planet that revolves around Sun that revolves around Earth. If drawn on a paper this creates somewhat a complicated trace, but everything revolves around Earth (that doesn't move directly away from the Earth), if we view it in relation to Earth.

And your subsequent arguments about the Earth taken as a stationary point ...

Well said XoravaX. I'm not saying that the Earth is at the centre of the Universe, but considering basic Physics problem-solving practices of selecting an object to be the origin of the co-ordinate system, anything can be selected to be the centre of the Universe.

Of course, it's easier to do calculations using the larger mass as the centre even though the centre is not exactly at the core of the larger mass but if you wanted to be mathematically-savvy, you could take the smaller mass as centre and explain the relative motions.

Are you suggesting that the geocentricity of biblical times was a natural error of the state of science then or are you saying geocentricity holds some truth now?

I don't mean to be antagonistic at all; it's just that I've read back a few posts of yours and can't work out why you are disagreeing with heliocentriciry (within the solar system) ... if you are.

Not specifically directed at you, but the tendency of wanting to know the other person's position to colour your views regarding their statements is wrong.

It shouldn't matter if he is agreeing or disagreeing with heliocentricity as long as what he says makes sense.

I'm just trying to tell you, [dimension of the spiritual] absolutely does exist.
It's not discovered, learned about, or accessed through, science.
Something for which I have no say so about, and therefore cannot be held accountable for.
Likewise it is undoubtedly, a science unto itself.

I think spirituality can be discovered through science but for that, people should be open-minded for revising and adding to present accepted means of scientific methods in addition to developing technology to aid said new scientific methods. I also think spirituality can co-exist with science and religious texts may help but one should be wary of taking everything literally in those texts.




Now my view is that all the people who have experienced spirituality in history cannot be said to be motivated simply by the hunger for power or explaining away natural phenomena lazily. There is a grain of truth to what they are saying but it is either buried in allegory or it is just not possible to verify their claims using present methods. Nevermind the fact that religion has been used for power and the automatic anti-religion stance some people developed has transmuted into an anti-god or anti-spirituality stance. The ancients admittedly did not have the same principles of 'scientific method' we do now, so they haven't documented the details of the conditions surrounding their 'spiritual experiences' with the same care scientists do now but to entirely ignore thousands of years of observations (however imperfectly written down) is IMO excessive and smacks of the intolerance of the clergy of yore.

 

[XoravaX]

About this,

And your subsequent arguments about the Earth taken as a stationary point ...

Well said XoravaX. I'm not saying that the Earth is at the centre of the Universe, but considering basic Physics problem-solving practices of selecting an object to be the origin of the co-ordinate system, anything can be selected to be the centre of the Universe.

Of course, it's easier to do calculations using the larger mass as the centre even though the centre is not exactly at the core of the larger mass but if you wanted to be mathematically-savvy, you could take the smaller mass as centre and explain the relative motions.

Yeah. Everything is relative.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

What, you can dual-boot or something?

Does a screen appear to you when you wake up like:

[CENTER]Choose OS

Carnal Male Operating System (CMOS) <--

Spiritual Male Operating system (SMOS)[/CENTER]

As a matter of fact, you are confronted 24/7 with that very "choice" scenario.

It's not a guess of any kind. It's an explanation for all known information, observation and experimentation.

And thats why it is called a "theory", and not a "scientific fact".

No, we're not talking about knowledge acquired through any set of means. We're talking specific definitions of words. The word "science" is a direct derivation of the Latin verb "scire" - "to know". When the Romans wrote of knowledge they used derivations of the verb. The word "science", very specifically, means "knowledge". Not any type of knowlege, not any flavour of knowledge, not any subset of knowledge, just "knowledge".

"Knowledge" is "science". "Science" is "knowledge". No reasoning is required. No sex is required. No perspective is required. This is what the word means.

I know exactly what it says and means.
I'm not confusing anything.
It is representative of "carnal knowledge".
Known and percieved by the intellect.

I contend that what I am saying, completely stands to reason, since faith in God is excluded in the scientific method.
However faith is the only method that can be used in pursuit of spiritual knowledge.

Therefore the two are in completely different operative realms.
This does not discount either, but instead provides an arena for both.

It also explains why about 60% or more of the worlds population, have historically and presently, participate in some form of religious practice and/or observance.
Science, sure as hell didn't encourage them to do it.
So now, suppose you tell me, what is your explanation for this unprecedented number of people, since the beginning of time pursuing spiritual enlightenment, if it's not personal faith and some results from using it.

I need you to name just one person that you know.
Use a fictitious name if you like.

...whether you agree with it or not.

Oh I agree completely.
However, I must quailfy it with this:

It is the only knowledge, if you have no spiritual knowledge.

Whether you agree with it or not, there are absolutely two types of knowledge, carnal and spiritual.

 

[homeforsummer]

As a matter of fact, you are confronted 24/7 with that very "choice" scenario.

As a non-spiritual person, I don't think I am. I've no choice between "spiritual" or "carnal" if I don't believe in the spiritual, surely?

And thats why it is called a "theory", and not a "scientific fact".

Really? You went there? Again?

 

[Famine]

And thats why it is called a "theory", and not a "scientific fact".

Theories are above facts. They explain facts. They include facts. Facts are nothing without theories above them.

I know exactly what it says and means.

Yet you continue to pretend otherwise.

It is what the term means. You can't separate the Latin word from the English word. You can't pretend that there's "science knowledge" and "non-science knowledge" any more than you can pretend that there's "electrical electricity" and "non-electrical electricity". There are no kinds of knowledge that are not "science" because the word "science" means "knowledge".

There is no demarcation of "science" and "knowledge". They are one and the same because that's what the word "science" means.

Whether you agree with it or not, there are absolutely two types of knowledge, carnal and spiritual.

And both are "science", because the word means "knowledge".

Incidentally, my daughter believes in no gods at this point and has never had sex. Presumably she knows nothing at all, by this benchmark?

 

[Scaff]

And thats why it is called a "theory", and not a "scientific fact".

I've posted (twice) a perfectly good explanation of what a scientific theory is, now I can only come to one of two conclusions:

1. Your not actually bothering to read what others post and are simple troting out the same lines again and again
2. You are reading what others post but are deliberately ignoring it.

I'd be interested to know which.

Because aside from not understanding what I posted (and I honestly think you are more than smart enough to understand it) I can only see that its one of the above.

So which one is it?

 

[Touring Mars]

And thats why it is called a "theory", and not a "scientific fact".

Theory is a higher level of explanation than fact. Theories are made of facts. Theories put facts into context, and serve as a basis for the creation of new hypotheses - predictions of future observations - and future observations determine which hypotheses are rejected (due to the presence of contradictory evidence) and which become part of the theory (due to the presence of supporting evidence). Hypotheses are not merely pulled out of nowhere, but must be consistent with all of the facts (i.e. the theory) in the first instance.

Frankly, I'm a little surprised (and quite disheartened) by how difficult you are finding it to grasp this idea of what the term 'scientific theory' really means, as it has been explained many, many times.

So now, suppose you tell me, what is your explanation for this unprecedented number of people, since the beginning of time pursuing spiritual enlightenment, if it's not personal faith and some results from using it.

Not knowing any better? Or not testing whether faith/prayer really is responsible for making the 'results' actually happen? Wrongly attributing improbable events as miracles?

 

[Bobalob]

SuperCobraJet how do you explain "lost tribes" throughout the world never finding the christian god?
Surely if 60% of all humans Who have lived believed in god and the messege is true, these people could find it aswell? With 0 contact from the outside world.

What about the rest of the religions? Nutters right?

What about christian sects which disagree with your interpretation of the bible? Are they misguided? Stupid? In the wrong arena?

With all the bull faith healers and various church scandals It is not the unity of 60% of the human race you claim it to be.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

And thats why it is called a "theory", and not a "scientific fact".

I know others have already posted about this but I'll just help drill it home (hopefully).

" Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory."

Soucre.