The Religion Discussion

[megadoc1]

^ in ALL the text books?

so what? because it in a text book it must be true? ..lol yet yet when I say the bible say so...the circular reasoning photo comes out!! wow!

there no difference between you posting from an evolution website
and me posting from a christian website both are faith based
it just a matter of which one we believe.......

[maj. tom]

^ in ALL the text books?

so what? because it in a text book it must be true? ..lol yet yet when I say the bible say so...the circular reasoning photo comes out!! wow!

there no difference between you posting from an evolution website
and me posting from a christian website both are faith based
it just a matter of which one we believe.......

Scientific Peer Review.

How Scientific Peer Review Works

Then the authors write the textbook based on all these references. Each topic of each subject can be experimentally proven by anyone who wants to perform the experiments and gather results will arrive at the same conclusions. But we don't have to because we trust scientific peer review.

But this does not mean that theories cannot be questioned in the future when new data comes out that does not conform to the rigidity of the theory. An example being Newtonian Gravity and Einstein's General Relativity. What is written in a textbook becomes outdated sometimes, and that is due to the continuous understanding of our natural world by observation and logic.

It also does not mean that there cannot be mistakes in textbooks or conclusions drawn from faulty data. That is WHY there is scientific peer review and why texts get republished over time, under the same title called revised editions.


"Why turn to the supernatural when our understanding of the natural is still in its incipient stages? We would be wise to heed this skeptical principle: before you say something is out of this world, first make sure that it is not in this world."
- Michael Shermer. (2012). Much Ado about Nothing. Scientific American Vol. 306, No. 5, p.72.

[jayt]

Humes wrote:

Or maybe the infinite nature of the Universe (cause) is what is responsible for its own existence (effect).

Or maybe the universe has always existed (cause) and therefore doesn't need a creator (effect).

See how easy it is to apply ridiculously simplistic "reasoning" to any and everything?



Humes, What I was implying was that the Creator "Caused" and the "Effect" was Creation.

Saying, "The universe has always existed" is not a Cause because it is simply a statement. It does not identify an action or Cause. Creation is the Effect of the actions taken to create it.


Humes wrote:
If something has to be created...who or what created the Creator?

If you say the Creator is infinite and uncreated...then why can't all of reality, the universe as we know it, be infinite and uncreated as well?

Not suggesting that it is, but don't be selective about the logic you're trying to apply.


It is reasonable to believe that the universe was created, as well as, believe that the universe as we know it, be infinite and uncreated as well, but to a degree where there must have been one element that caused things to "Evolve." That is where the Evolution theory has failed to support it's very meaning and there is no evidence to prove otherwise. I should not have to say it but, all scholastic Scientists are still wrestling to answer that fact.

Now... just because something is spoken or printed by someone does not make it a fact or true. The facts and truths exist because they can be observed and realised. Only until something can be observed and realised, it can only then be proclaimed as a fact or truth, save Creation itself and the Creator. Those two are the only elements that must be held as constant for any reasonable argument to follow from. There must be a start from where everything tangible "Evolved."

[Humes]

But jayt, you're putting forward arbitrary rules in your argument.

Why is it reasonable to believe that the universe was created, and at the same time believe that the creator wasn't? Why accept that the creator is infinite but refuse to accept that the universe might be? What exactly is your reasoning for applying infinite existence to one, and not the other?

And what excludes the Creator from the need to be observed?

Saying, "The universe has always existed" is not a Cause because it is simply a statement. It does not identify an action or Cause. Creation is the Effect of the actions taken to create it.

But you're defying your own logic here. A cause can be either an action or an attribute. Because of his height (attribute, and cause) he ducked under the short doorway (effect). Because she loved music (attribute, and cause) she often sang and bought records (effect). Because of our mortality (cause, and attribute) we all eventually die (effect).

So the infinite nature of the universe can be the cause of its existence, which is the effect.


By the way, evolution has never been about explaining how life itself began. Please get that clear. Evolution explains the diversity of species, and it does so quite comprehensively. So it doesn't "fail" according to that irrelevant criteria you bring up there. Evolution is about one simple concept. It's not about disproving the existence of God, or about invalidating religion, or about supporting same-sex marriage or whatever else believers see as a threat.

Understand it for what it is.

[jayt]

Humes, I am not defying my own logic. The law of Cause and effect can be sub divided into four other categories which hold truth. Have a read here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

Humes wrote:
So the infinite nature of the universe can be the cause of its existence, which is the effect.

So show me the Cause of the Infinite nature of the universe? Show me the evidence. You can't. Hence you have to accept that there must be be one element, or group of elements that caused Creation. That is the Creator (who or what it is ) is not in question.

So the Universe could have always existed, but in regard to the discussion here, Religion, Evolution does not hold. If it does, as you are probably suggesting, where is the evidence of the beginning evolving? That is simply impossible because nothing beginning could have ever evolved. Something must have already existed to evolve. However, there was a cause which began the evolution process. In relation to the discussion, Religion, evolution began after Creation. So evolution cannot be used to explain existence, in reference to the Religious discussion.

[sMASH]

science is like wasa, and scientist are like the work crew. they do what they have to do, when the have to do it. is not like the say, 'ey, u see blue, today we goin and fleck up the road he does drive. we goin an mess him up today'. then they come and start a project and leave a gaping chasm on his road.
they have their work, and if the work they do puts holes in the road u travel then so be it. u can't say that they are out to get u cause they are not, they just doin what they have to do as it pops up. if u want to get chess bun feeling like they targeting u or a specific community, then that is u. but the world does not revolve around you.

[Humes]

So show me the Cause of the Infinite nature of the universe?

Show me the cause of the infinite nature of the Creator.

You're the one who is asserting that something can be infinite. But you're not explaining why reality can't be infinite. And you're not demanding a cause for the infinite nature of the Creator. So your reasoning is very selective.

It's a moot point, really. Infinite (eternal?) or having no beginning and no end, defies the need for a beginning by its very definition.

[Humes]

So evolution cannot be used to explain existence, in reference to the Religious discussion.

Who said it could? You're building strawmen at this point.

[Humes]

science is like wasa, and scientist are like the work crew. they do what they have to do, when the have to do it. is not like the say, 'ey, u see blue, today we goin and fleck up the road he does drive. we goin an mess him up today'. then they come and start a project and leave a gaping chasm on his road.
they have their work, and if the work they do puts holes in the road u travel then so be it. u can't say that they are out to get u cause they are not, they just doin what they have to do as it pops up. if u want to get chess bun feeling like they targeting u or a specific community, then that is u. but the world does not revolve around you.

Agreed, and well put.

And I will add that, like WASA, science even makes life difficult for itself sometimes.

[megadoc1]

both scientists and religious folks agree that the universe had a beginning.
the "scientists" believes that the universe had a cause but that cause was caused by it self..

the religious folks believe that the universe had a cause but that cause was caused by an uncaused cause..... here where it gets funny, both sides provides arguments regarding their respective positions
but both are faith based as non can be proven!!!!.. yet ,you got the folks in academia frowning upon the religious folks? even though "scientist" believe the universe started from nothing??


lol...but then we have folk on here parroting on what they never personally researched
that's the worst part.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ that is incorrect

faith is not applicable in science

Science only operates on proven facts.
If anything Scientists would is have hope. Hope that the truth will be discovered, but they do not form an idea based on faith in something they feel comfortable believing - that is the realm of religion, not science.

[megadoc1]

^true: but now we have bandwagonists holding unto unproven scientific arguments as fact!
that's not to far from the religious folks...so I think we can call it faith

for example:

Scientific Peer Review.

How Scientific Peer Review Works

Then the authors write the textbook based on all these references. Each topic of each subject can be experimentally proven by anyone who wants to perform the experiments and gather results will arrive at the same conclusions. But we don't have to because we trust scientific peer review.

WHAT! ......I dont't have to research the bible because I trust what my pastor says
and better yet once the pope say so it good!!!!!
whats the difference here?

I spent alot of time looking into what the atheist scientists are saying and its very different to what is being said on here by the bandwagonists, these guys needs to do some home work or at least look at some debates between the scholars on both sides before they open their mouth and call ideas and philosophical reasoning facts! If we claim reason,at least lets use our brain that's all!

[Humes]

megadoc, you're referring to my posts, and you're wrong.

All I'm asking jayt is why, according to his reasoning, the situations I'm describing can't be true.

I'm not saying that science asserts that the universe is eternal or infinite, or that I believe that. And I made that clear.

So this:

the "scientists" believes that the universe had a cause but that cause was caused by it self..

...is your assertion. Not scientists or anyone else.

You really aren't in any position to suggest that anyone brush up on their information, because time and time and time and time again, you've proven that you have a very poor grasp of even the most basic scientific concepts.

[Humes]

WHAT! ......I dont't have to research the bible because I trust what my pastor says
and better yet once the pope say so it good!!!!!
whats the difference here?

The difference is that peer-reviewed research is based on verifiable evidence, not subjective personal experience. The difference is that the scientific method and the peer review process, while imperfect, have a much stronger track record of accuracy than religious claims, most of which can't even be proven.

There's nothing unreasonable about trusting a craftsman based on his qualifications, experience and examples of his work. Same goes for the peer review process, which asks people to trust the reviews of scientists with very strong track records. How does one judge someone's spiritual track record?

Science employs a level of trust based on solid evidence. Religion employs faith based, by definition, on a lack of evidence.

[jayt]

Humes wrote:

Show me the cause of the infinite nature of the Creator.

You're the one who is asserting that something can be infinite. But you're not explaining why reality can't be infinite. And you're not demanding a cause for the infinite nature of the Creator. So your reasoning is very selective.

It's a moot point, really. Infinite (eternal?) or having no beginning and no end, defies the need for a beginning by its very definition.



You forgot that I said, "Only until something can be observed and realised, it can only then be proclaimed as a fact or truth, save Creation itself and the Creator. Those two are the only elements that must be held as constant for any reasonable argument to follow from. There must be a start from where everything tangible "Evolved.""

[Humes]

And I asked earlier what excludes the Creator from the need to be observed. And for that matter, why doesn't Creation need to be observed? Those seem to be made-up rules to support your argument.

[jayt]

Humes. Simple. If evidence is revealed to suggest otherwise, it's the only thing that makes sense. That's why all Scientists accept it and they are still trying to negate it. No one can prove or disprove it to date. It's the great debate.

[Humes]

Humes. Simple. If evidence is revealed to suggest otherwise, it's the only thing that makes sense. That's why all Scientists accept it and they are still trying to negate it. No one can prove or disprove it to date. It's the great debate.

No, partner.

It isn't the only thing that makes sense. It's a version of the events that you're comfortable with, that adheres to your beliefs, that you've been socialised into. It doesn't just "make sense".

Why does an eternal Creator make sense to you, someone uncreated...but an eternal reality doesn't make sense? If one can be eternal, why can't the other be? Religious teachings, not logic or cause & effect, are guiding your conclusion.

Also, and even more importantly, it's up to you to prove what you assert. Just saying something and then saying it must be true because I can't disprove it is neither reasonable nor valid.

There's a spotted purple rabbit on my shoulder now. It's invisible, intangible and otherwise imperceptible to everyone except me. It talks to me all the time. Can you prove it's not there? No? Then according to your logic, it must be true!

[jayt]

Not at all. You have to prove it to me to accept it to be true. I never said that you have to accept what I say as fact. It is what I shared as makes sense. In the realm of religion, Evolution makes no sense at all and I believe it to be true. As I said, all Scientists accept it (allbeit reluctantly) until they can prove otherwise.

You have yet to prove how Evolution ( in terms of Religion) is true.

[chasemeifyoucan]

Not at all. You have to prove it to me to accept it to be true. I never said that you have to accept what I say as fact. It is what I shared as makes sense is that a sentence?. In the realm of religion, Evolution makes no sense at all and I believe it to be true. As I said, all Scientists accept it (allbeit reluctantly) until they can prove otherwise.

You have yet to prove how Evolution ( in terms of Religion) is true.

We have now reached a phenomenal level of nonsensical statements in this thread surpassing all before.

It is really annoying when people who have no idea what science is and don't understand what the burden of proof is speak as if they do. Especially when they think those who understand science don't understand religion.

Many religious scholars have stated that they do not believe in religion.

[Humes]

You have yet to prove how Evolution ( in terms of Religion) is true.

wtf...

Bro, I'm not in the least bit interested in proving how evolution is true in terms of religion.

Evolution is a scientific concept. Science is about explaining the natural world.

Religion is involved in the supernatural and the imperceptible.

If evolution is incompatible with religion, so be it. That doesn't invalidate it in the least.

[Humes]

We have now reached a phenomenal level of nonsensical statements in this thread surpassing all before.

I was genuinely dumbfounded for a while. I just...wow.

[mamoo_pagal]

http://smotri.com/video/view/?id=v14995917496

http://www.tubeplus.me/movie/1627486/Fu ... Origin/%22

just had too

[jayt]

That's cool. The Thread is a Religious discussion and that where it was mentioned. Wow. I really mesed up in my last comment there. Thinking too fast and typing too slow. My humble apologies.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Jayt, why do you keep saying "in terms of religion"?

A fact is a fact, under any and all terms.

[sweetiepaper]

I doh doubt for a second that people who are clinically dead experience or perceive something extraordinary.

Since a clinically dead person should not able to have any experience at all, nor be able to have any memory of such while being clinically dead, do you view the physical body separate and apart from the conscious entity/ self/ soul? Do you see it as something leaving the body and then returning to it?

I just think it's important to realise that the way they (and others) interpret whatever that interpretation is what's up for debate. When someone is socialised to expect a light at the end of the tunnel, an ascent to heaven, a chorus of angels, trumpets etc...it's easy for them to apply those things to what, in reality, might simply be a purely physical experience.

If by physical experience you mean that the experiences are solely an effect of the brain activity, the research done by Van Lommel does not agree with this. He specifically states that some of these experiences are witnessed when the body is no longer conscious, no brain activity is detected.

You have to remember, not all persons having a NDE would have heard such stories before their 'first death'.
Take for instance the 4 year old boy who died and met his grandfather and miscarried sister. He met his sister that died in a miscarriage before he was born, his parents say they never mentioned it to him. If his parents really did tell him, at 4years, do you really understand the meaning of death? If they explained you go through a tunnel and see a bright light etc. you think a 4yr old kid would be able to understand and remember all those details?
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42191453/ ... 9z2U9mvNcI

What do you make of those cases where people see their deceased loved-ones?
Some people meet those who they did not know or did not know were dead at the time of their experience.
A man had an encounter with an older guy he did not recognize, a few years after his experience his mother showed him a a picture of his biological father which he recalled as the man in his NDE. If he is speaking the truth, how do you explain that as an effect of the brain when he never had never seen his biological father? The guy states
"During my cardiac arrest I had a extensive experience (…) and later I saw, apart from my deceased grandmother, a man who had looked at me lovingly, but whom I did not know. More than 10 years later, at my mother’s deathbed, she confessed to me that I had been born out of an extramarital relationship, my father being a Jewish man who had been deported and killed during the second World War, and my mother showed me his picture. The unknown man that I had seen more than 10 years before during my NDE turned out to be my biological father."

In another case, a lady died and met her sister (who she thought was alive at the time of the experience) standing by a gate waiting for her when she died. When she came back to life, she was told that her sister had actually died on the day of her experience.

A woman, blind from birth, was able to see her clinical death which lasted for 4 minutes. Her consciousness was able to have a visual experience although her physical eyes were unable to.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994599/b ... ommel_nde/

There are numerous cases like these. You think a brain chemical allows them to do this as well?

That doesn't provide any sort of evidence of the afterlife to me, really. Not saying I'm dismissing the possibility of an afterlife, but these testimonies are about as dependable as the people who claim they've been abducted by aliens.

I cannot see why you would equate it to alien abduction. For one thing, a person claiming they were abducted by aliens is alive and has full brain activity whereas, in a NDE, the person is clinically dead.
I think it's more dependable than alien abduction because we have proof that one's consciousness can exist outside the body. The content of these experiences seem substantial since the patients accurately describe events, tools, conversations, placement of operating staff etc while they are dead.
While we cannot know for sure , i think this gives weight to the afterlife experiences. The fact that your consciousness does not die with your body, 'you' live on and will be existing somewhere, this mean there is an afterlife.
It's a bit more difficult to prove aliens abducted someone because we have no way of verifying their claims.

[chasemeifyoucan]

sweetiepaper,

that evidence is subjective at best (a lot of IF's in those stories, and yes brain chemistry and neurological impulses can explain a lot), and even if they were verified, it just proves that there is a possible afterlife, the extent of which is unknown.

And even IF afterlife is ever verified, it still does not prove that ANY religion is a true one nor that there is a sentient, omnipotent entity responsible for life on earth.

Religion is just faith in something and the belief that certain customs, behaviour and rituals will guarantee you a comfortable afterlife. Faith based on words that men wrote in books then said a higher being told them to write it.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

We have no way of verifying the claims of NDEs either, other than their own account.

What about someone from a religion such as Buddhism, which believes in reincarnation, having a NDE reporting that they were reborn as something else?

Obviously your NDE will be based on your mental conditioning.

Does it mean then that we all go following Buddhism?

[sweetiepaper]

is there a University text book for biology that teaches about Adam and Eve?

They definitely should include Adam and Eve in the textbook if they are going to preach their macro-evolution religion that we evolved from primordial soup. At least students would not be misled into thinking that macroevolution is fact because it is in a textbook and be able to decide for themselves whether God made them or they came from a puddle of mud.

Also read my post here
viewtopic.php?p=6289919#p6289919

"That all forms of life on Earth are related by common descent with modification is one of the most reliable and empirically tested theories in science that continues to explain vast numbers of facts in biology."

Where is the evidence for this Duane?
Have you ever heard of the Cambrian Explosion?

btw, I'm still waiting on the evidence for the whales legs.

[chasemeifyoucan]

They definitely should include Adam and Eve in the textbook if they are going to preach their macro-evolution religion that we evolved from primordial soup.

They should include it as a religious story.

And when you you start using terms like "their macro-evolution religion", you need to take little woosa and chill. It affects your ability to discuss with a level head.

Evolution is not a religion as yourself and other ignorant (of what science is) posters believe. I implore you to read about what a scientific process is before you continue to make yourself look not so intelligent.