The Religion Discussion

Postby **Duane 3NE 2NR** » September 15th, 2009, 3:19 pm

slimshiney wrote:Thank you bro( Razkal), I understand your response..So yes there is plenty our five senses can't "pick up".

I just need answers so forgive me if i keep throwing questions? Here it goes.........

Within the parameters of the scientific explanation of the five senses.....Is it possible to believe in something that is and at the same time that isn't? (due to the fact that it's humanly impossible to do such as a result of parameters in the senses)..

If yes .....What is it that triggers the mind into believing in something, although, naturally speaking...It would be an outright illogical action.....

one love...

LOL seriously?

infrared light
you use it every day to turn your TV on and off
We cannot see it with our human eyes.
until science was applied and came up with the discovery of it we could not perceive it either - but it has always existed

tahts just one of the infinite number of things we cannot perceive but have proven through science to exist.

RBphoto · Postby **RBphoto** » September 15th, 2009, 3:28 pm

^^one thing which everyone takes for granted and is used every day is magnetism. There are only theories regarding the nature of magnetism.

We are thought electromagnetic theory in the classroom, we see applications of it every day...it used in just about everything that automates our life, but at the end of the day, magnetism only has theories and mathematical equations to explain it's behaviour, but not understanding of it's exsistance or nature.

Postby **Duane 3NE 2NR** » September 15th, 2009, 4:31 pm

^ true and a couple centuries ago we thought eclipses were acts of God. Later on we only understood that it was the sun and the moon's movement that caused it but not much more. Now we understand planetary movement within our solar system as an exact science and can accurately predict eclipses to the minute for millenia to come.

Humes · Postby **Humes** » September 15th, 2009, 5:12 pm

slimshiney wrote:Has science fully yet understood this...?

Science says we use five senses we use to identify and observe finite things around us...So my question...Is there anything in this world that our five senses can't "pick up".

First question: Science obviously doesn't fully understand brain activity yet as it's still a major area of study.

Second question: There are tons of forces and objects we can't pick up with our five senses...that's why we use technology like microscopes and Geiger counters.

When we can't perceive an object or a force, we can assume it's there when we record objective, predictable effects.

I was going to use the atom or radiation as examples, but magnetism and infrared light are great examples as well. We can't see, feel, taste etc magnetism, but we can see its effects. We know that something must be keeping those objects stuck together. All we have to do now is hypothesize, test etc and gain as much information about this force as possible.

Now someone's going to come with some sort of philosophical "reasoning" about invisible forces that give them comfort or saved them from an accident or gave men consciences...again, we're talking about objective evidence, not subjective.

IMPREZZING · Postby **IMPREZZING** » September 15th, 2009, 5:20 pm

IMO darkness is a lack of light just as evil is an absence of good.

true and a couple centuries ago we thought eclipses were acts of God. Later on we only understood that it was the sun and the moon's movement that caused it but not much more. Now we understand planetary movement within our solar system as an exact science and can accurately predict eclipses to the minute for millenia to come

does this disprove the existence of a creator?

Postby **Duane 3NE 2NR** » September 15th, 2009, 5:37 pm

IMPREZZING wrote:IMO darkness is a lack of light just as evil is an absence of good.

true and a couple centuries ago we thought eclipses were acts of God. Later on we only understood that it was the sun and the moon's movement that caused it but not much more. Now we understand planetary movement within our solar system as an exact science and can accurately predict eclipses to the minute for millenia to come

does this disprove the existence of a creator?

it also doesnt prove the existence of a creator either

I didnt say it did - why would I want to do that?
I am not an atheist.

IMPREZZING · Postby **IMPREZZING** » September 15th, 2009, 5:42 pm

Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:
IMPREZZING wrote:IMO darkness is a lack of light just as evil is an absence of good.

true and a couple centuries ago we thought eclipses were acts of God. Later on we only understood that it was the sun and the moon's movement that caused it but not much more. Now we understand planetary movement within our solar system as an exact science and can accurately predict eclipses to the minute for millenia to come

does this disprove the existence of a creator?

it also doesnt prove the existence of a creator either

I didnt say it did - why would I want to do that?
I am not an atheist.

i only asked because scientific discoveries are often times used by some in an attempt to disprove the existence of a creator.

Humes · Postby **Humes** » September 15th, 2009, 5:44 pm

Scientific discoveries disprove supernatural explanations for various phenomena.

IMPREZZING · Postby **IMPREZZING** » September 15th, 2009, 5:47 pm

Humes wrote:Scientific discoveries disprove supernatural explanations for various phenomena.

supernatural explanations are disproved but not the idea of an intelligent creator.

Humes · Postby **Humes** » September 15th, 2009, 6:02 pm

You mean the existence of an intelligent creator? Science doesn't try to disprove that.

But when we've been taught for so long that so many things are proof of God's existence, and bit by bit we find out that they aren't, it makes some people wonder.

slimshiney · Postby **slimshiney** » September 15th, 2009, 6:12 pm

Razkal wrote:
you wrote:If yes .....What is it that triggers the mind into believing in something, although, naturally speaking...It would be an outright illogical action.....

ahhhh! great question....i'm sorry i have no conclusive answer to that, but i'm positive it has alot to do with human nature, and our unique thought processes.
also, the human mind is as fragile and malleable as it is unique and amazing

So Raz Can you say then that by "nature" we are believer?

If yes, apart from culture and the elements one is in exposed during his life, What does "Nature" mean? Is it similar to instinct?

If so, where does instinct come from..Apart from a genetical point of view, is there a scientific explanation for Instinct

p.s. please mention if i'm confusing myself or you..... :lol:

....

slimshiney · Postby **slimshiney** » September 15th, 2009, 6:17 pm

Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:infrared light
you use it every day to turn your TV on and off
We cannot see it with our human eyes.
until science was applied and came up with the discovery of it we could not perceive it either - but it has always existed

tahts just one of the infinite number of things we cannot perceive but have proven through science to exist.

we agree with you...think you missed it dere bro.. :wink:

i was commenting based on response earlier...in same manner there are many things not yet discovered...still yet to be proven by science...agreed?

Humes · Postby **Humes** » September 15th, 2009, 6:26 pm

slimshiney wrote:If so, where does instinct come from..Apart from a genetical point of view, is there a scientific explanation for Instinct

How can there be a scientific explanation for instinct "apart from genetics" when genetics are the main scientific explanation for instincts?

That's like asking if there's a scientific explanation for how gravity works apart from the physics point of view.

Instincts are patterns of thought that are passed down through generations. Genes contain information that is passed down from parents to offspring.

Belief is not an instinct...curiosity is closer to an instinct. Curiosity about the way the world works is what fuels both spiritual belief and science. Some people are satisfied with spiritual explanations written by mostly unknown men thousands of years ago, and others seek more solid, verifiable knowledge.

bluefete · Postby **bluefete** » September 15th, 2009, 7:44 pm

Skanky wrote:bluefete debating with you is pointless.

I'll be the first to admit that I want to believe,I really do, that there is a god....but until there is evidence of such I'll just live my life the way I know how.I think I'm doing fine thus far.I think every non believer in this thread will believe if given sufficient reason/evidence,but some quotes from a book....allyuh cyar be serious.

Another thing...suppose god turns out to be ancient beings from other planets...what then?You can't really believe ancient man toted all dem huge blocks of stone to build pyramids?

Ancient man was a lot smarter than we give him credit for. Maybe that's why we have problems understanding the perfectly "rational" way they went about building the pyramids or stonehenge or the statues on Easter island. Remember Archimedes / Euclid and others who were not recorded in history.

Skanky: I appreciate your perspective. As for proof of God, it is all around you. But you prefer to place a "rational" natural world slant to it rather than admit that there is an all-encompassing Creator responsible for everything.

Actually, I am starting to rationalise that "flying saucers" are not controlled by beings from other planets but are truly human inventions. It seems that the Germans during WW2 were working on stealth propulsion and their research may have been carried on in the USA post ww2. But I suppose that is not rational thinking as well.

bluefete · Postby **bluefete** » September 15th, 2009, 7:55 pm

slimshiney wrote:
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:infrared light
you use it every day to turn your TV on and off
We cannot see it with our human eyes.
until science was applied and came up with the discovery of it we could not perceive it either - but it has always existed

tahts just one of the infinite number of things we cannot perceive but have proven through science to exist.

we agree with you...think you missed it dere bro.. i was commenting based on response earlier...in same manner there are many things not yet discovered...still yet to be proven by science...agreed?

Thank you Duane; Thank you Duane, Thank you Duane.
One day science will prove the existence of God. He exists just like infrared light is "one of the infinite number of things we cannot perceive". But when the time is right, scientists will come up with the conclusive proof needed.

Every "rational"discovery brings us closer to that truth.

Postby **Duane 3NE 2NR** » September 15th, 2009, 8:20 pm

bluefete wrote:
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:infrared light
you use it every day to turn your TV on and off
We cannot see it with our human eyes.
until science was applied and came up with the discovery of it we could not perceive it either - but it has always existed

tahts just one of the infinite number of things we cannot perceive but have proven through science to exist.

Thank you Duane; Thank you Duane, Thank you Duane.
One day science will prove the existence of God. He exists just like infrared light is "one of the infinite number of things we cannot perceive". But when the time is right, scientists will come up with the conclusive proof needed.

bluefete, as Humes said you never fail to contradict your self in these threads.
how is it you start a thread on "your best encounter with God" and now you say "He exists just like infrared light is "one of the infinite number of things we cannot perceive". Isn't your personal encounter and experiences with Him your own proof that he exists? They are your own perceptions aren't they?

slimshiney wrote:we agree with you...think you missed it dere bro.. i was commenting based on response earlier...in same manner there are many things not yet discovered...still yet to be proven by science...agreed?

NO ONE here ever said science has proven everything - in fact the ones supporting science have bent he most open minded and the first to say they do not know.

hopefully one day soon science will reveal our great Creator to us.
Science has not been too kind to religions though.

bluefete wrote:Every "rational"discovery brings us closer to that truth.

a discovery is a discovery - a discovery cannot be irrational nor illogical.
Our reaction to each discovery is what can be irrational or illogical - and unfortunately it often has, despite the stark reality the discovery has made apparent.

bluefete · Postby **bluefete** » September 15th, 2009, 8:25 pm

Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:^ true and a couple centuries ago we thought eclipses were acts of God. Later on we only understood that it was the sun and the moon's movement that caused it but not much more. Now we understand planetary movement within our solar system as an exact science and can accurately predict eclipses to the minute for millenia to come.

" ... and knowledge shall be increased" (Daniel 12:4).

Humes: "Scientific discoveries disprove supernatural explanations for various phenomena."

Well that is why we no longer call it "Demon Possession" because demons do not exist. They are a figment of the imagination. So to sanitise this, we "rational" people call it "Multiple Personality Disorder."

In this case it is easier to say that the person is pretending to be inhabited by many different characters.

Humes · Postby **Humes** » September 15th, 2009, 8:27 pm

It's possible that one day science will discover the fairy who lives at the edges of cliffs and saves people who bawl "Slight pepper!" when they jump off.

So...jump off a cliff and bawl, "Slight pepper!"

The fairy will save you. Remember, there's no evidence that it doesn't exist, so that means it exists. And it's only a matter of time before science discovers it.

bluefete · Postby **bluefete** » September 15th, 2009, 8:31 pm

Humes wrote:It's possible that one day science will discover the fairy who lives at the edges of cliffs and saves people who bawl "Slight pepper!" when they jump off.

So...jump off a cliff and bawl, "Slight pepper!"

The fairy will save you. Remember, there's no evidence that it doesn't exist, so that means it exists. And it's only a matter of time before science discovers it.

Well written.

But with respect to jumping off the cliff - Well even gravity has its limits. Or does it? Does gravity hold the universe together or cause it to expand?

Who or What controls gravity?

Postby **Duane 3NE 2NR** » September 15th, 2009, 8:35 pm

bluefete wrote:
Well written.

he was being sarcastic

Humes · Postby **Humes** » September 15th, 2009, 8:39 pm

bluefete wrote:Humes: "Scientific discoveries disprove supernatural explanations for various phenomena."

Well that is why we no longer call it "Demon Possession" because demons do not exist. They are a figment of the imagination. So to sanitise this, we "rational" people call it "Multiple Personality Disorder."

In this case it is easier to say that the person is pretending to be inhabited by many different characters.

bluefete, yuh really need to get your facts straight and apply some more thought to these explanations.

Firstly, multiple personality disorder is extremely rare (some argue it doesn't even exist as we've come to know it), and is rarely behind the type of behavior that people have traditionally referred to as demonic possession. A range of different mental issues, from Tourette Syndrome to epilepsy to ADHD to bipolar disorder to simple anger issues are more responsible for demonic possession claims. So to say that MPD is some secular way of referring to the many demons in demonic possession is flawed...the vast, vast majority of people who've been seen as possessed weren't afflicted with a multitude of anything.

More importantly though...how can the removal of supernatural elements be an affirmation of the supernatural? If the Bible says it's demons, and it requires prayer, and we find out it's a illness, and it requires medicine...how can that possibly be strengthening the Bible's claims?

bluefete · Postby **bluefete** » September 15th, 2009, 8:39 pm

Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:
bluefete wrote:
Well written.

he was being sarcastic

I know.

bluefete · Postby **bluefete** » September 15th, 2009, 8:47 pm

Humes wrote:
bluefete wrote:Humes: "Scientific discoveries disprove supernatural explanations for various phenomena."

Well that is why we no longer call it "Demon Possession" because demons do not exist. They are a figment of the imagination. So to sanitise this, we "rational" people call it "Multiple Personality Disorder."

In this case it is easier to say that the person is pretending to be inhabited by many different characters.

bluefete, yuh really need to get your facts straight and apply some more thought to these explanations.

Firstly, multiple personality disorder is extremely rare (some argue it doesn't even exist as we've come to know it), and is rarely behind the type of behavior that people have traditionally referred to as demonic possession. A range of different mental issues, from Tourette Syndrome to epilepsy to ADHD to bipolar disorder to simple anger issues are more responsible for demonic possession claims. So to say that MPD is some secular way of referring to the many demons in demonic possession is flawed...the vast, vast majority of people who've been seen as possessed weren't afflicted with a multitude of anything.

More importantly though...how can the removal of supernatural elements be an affirmation of the supernatural? If the Bible says it's demons, and it requires prayer, and we find out it's a illness, and it requires medicine...how can that possibly be strengthening the Bible's claims?

Any form of illness can be treated with medicine. Even demon possession, if so diagnosed by a psychiatrist. But of course, no medical doctor worth his/her salt will use those terms. It is safer to use the term MPD. A famous study was done in the 1970's on a young lady who had a severe case of MPD.

After the medicine fails, some people find out that the prayer really works. Or is it that the medicine coincidentally kicks in at the time of prayer?

Are there "unexplainable" cases in medical history where people have been "healed/cured/recovered" from an illness that doctors were unable to handle?

Are these cases of superior natural selection at work? Or is it ....

Physician, heal thyself.

Sky · Postby **Sky** » September 15th, 2009, 8:50 pm

Loorrrdddd you still on this?!?!?

kiamotors · Postby **kiamotors** » September 15th, 2009, 8:57 pm

^ent! this topic have been beaten to a pulp so many times already... :lol:

Humes · Postby **Humes** » September 15th, 2009, 9:01 pm

bluefete wrote:Any form of illness can be treated with medicine. Even demon possession, if so diagnosed by a psychiatrist. But of course, no medical doctor worth his/her salt will use those terms. It is safer to use the term MPD. A famous study was done in the 1970's on a young lady who had a severe case of MPD.

After the medicine fails, some people find out that the prayer really works. Or is it that the medicine coincidentally kicks in at the time of prayer?

Are there "unexplainable" cases in medical history where people have been "healed/cured/recovered" from an illness that doctors were unable to handle?

Are these cases of superior natural selection at work? Or is it ....

Physician, heal thyself.

bluefete, if the case is so famous, cite it for me. Find me a name or an account of the event.

I've been bringing you hard facts throughout this thread, and I've been verifying my information and correcting myself when necessary. I'd rather not waste time debating some anecdotal evidence that was made up for some e-mail forward.

I'll also advise you to look up evolution and natural selection and educate thyself. Your constant attempts to shoehorn them into contexts where they don't belong are only making you look clueless and very close-minded.