Official Religious Debate Thread

[Smegma]

God is just a spectator. However, if people were to be exterminated, with all the massive weaponry around, it would have happened by now. That's not the way it should be.

We must realize that nothing great was ever achieved by man all by himself. We are here to continue our ancestors' paths. All thoughts, ideas, enlightments that we have, are not ours, but sent from a supreme power.

All great inventions are fruits of a well established connection between human and that supreme power of unlimited information. We are controlled from a level far above from our own. Humans are nothing but a lever.

I'd have to disagree.

[N. Escalona]

Sorry I was an ass earlier, it's the weekend now and some of the pressure is off.

This is such a tired point. Explain your assertion that science and religion conflict.

Obviously they don't for you, as you only follow the parts of your religion that you like.

Not really. I'm Catholic; if the Church says something, then I accept it. I don't pick and choose. That would be missing the point.

You clearly didn't finish reading my post (#24) because if you had, you'd know that I posted that exact same verse, in support of my argument.

Kinda hard to see how you interpreted the verse in that way, I don't see how blasphemy against the holy spirit equals final obstinacy.

It's probably the most common explanation. But the Bible is quite clear elsewhere that all sins may be forgiven if the sinner repents. So the correct interpretation could not contradict that point.

It is very possible and we are quite capable of destroying ourselves and rendering the planet inhospitable, but does any of you actually think god would directly intervene if there was to be a nuclear holocaust?

God is just a spectator. However, if people were to be exterminated, with all the massive weaponry around, it would have happened by now. That's not the way it should be.

God is just a spectator? Why do miracles happen, then?

[Mitak]

Do you call it a miracle when you don't die in circumstances, that would result in a 100% death? You weren't supposed to die, you happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. We can change our future in numerous ways. If we head for a dangerous path that's not for us, we get in a sticky situation, and if we're worth it (as having a decent mission to fulfill) we survive.

Miracles are Fate's way of preserving lives that have taken the wrong path, miracles are also gifts for us - like a blind boy recovering his vision (he'll need it). It's simply stuff that happens in order to continue life in the right path.

God is a spectator because he won't pop out of the blue, exterminating people or shouting from the clouds that we're heading to self destruction. His well constructed systems (like fate, karma and others) work on their own now. He created them and now He probably does nothing more but observing our evolution/degradation, and of course, is involved in complicated processes that we can't understand.

Until he really does pop up or show primitive humans a physical form of His existence (come down here in a body and prove He is God)... The Lord will be passive.

[excruciator]

All great inventions are fruits of a well established connection between human and that supreme power of unlimited information.

Since when God is everything?
And since when all information we learned is given by God?

[Lord Frunkamunch]

Because everything that happens is allowed to do so by god. In effect, no information would ever be learned if it weren't for god orchestrating it from the beginning.

[excruciator]

Because everything that happens is allowed to do so by god. In effect, no information would ever be learned if it weren't for god orchestrating it from the beginning.

I thought it was more like God created it and then left it running.

[GSx_Major]

Do you call it a miracle when you don't die in circumstances, that would result in a 100% death?

Obviously wasn't quite 100%, then...

(And what exactly is anything other than 0 and 100% death? )

I thought it was more like God created it and then left it running.

It's both, depending on which fits the situation better.

But the Bible is quite clear elsewhere that all sins may be forgiven if the sinner repents. So the correct interpretation could not contradict that point.

Well, since the verse is so clear, it's not a case of interpretation. You're saying it's wrong (or maybe the proper, sense-making context got cut for length).

[N. Escalona]

I thought it was more like God created it and then left it running.

But God creates time - so it's misleading to say that he created the world, because that would mean he did create the world in the past but isn't creating it anymore. That doesn't make sense, if God creates time as well.

God created the whole universe, at every moment in time, not just at its beginning.

But the Bible is quite clear elsewhere that all sins may be forgiven if the sinner repents. So the correct interpretation could not contradict that point.

Well, since the verse is so clear, it's not a case of interpretation. You're saying it's wrong (or maybe the proper, sense-making context got cut for length).

No, the verses are not clear-cut because "blasphemy against the Spirit" is not explicitly defined in the verses. That's what we were discussing. If it were clear, there wouldn't be much to discuss would there? :O

[jettlarue]

I thought it was more like God created it and then left it running.

But God creates time - so it's misleading to say that he created the world, because that would mean he did create the world in the past but isn't creating it anymore. That doesn't make sense, if God creates time as well.

God created the whole universe, at every moment in time, not just at its beginning.

There is no evident proof that "time" exists. Using a theory as basis for your argument as we have observed provides no backbone to the idea you attempt to portray, so again your point is invalid.
To clarify my statement, there is a chance that our perception of time is simply conceptualised in our brain. There is no universal "time" equivalent, and nothing to compare it too. Being inebriated is one example of how perception of "time" can be altered. Therefore, if the perceived time for me to take a 5 minute shower, and the percieved time for another to take a 5 minute shower is different, this would rule out that time is a universal constant. The only way either of the two people are thinking they are experiencing time is because of mental functioning. And varying mental functions have no application to the rest of us who are not conscience of others mental functioning. This would in fact not disprove that time exists, but draws question whether is does or not.

And on that note, the "free will" explanation for the things we do can be disproved with this scientific explanation,

SARAH-JAYNE BLACKMORE
Cognitive neuroscientist
I believe that I have free will over the decisions I make, but I can’t prove it because all the scientific evidence is to the contrary. Like everyone else, I deceive myself that I have it. This is because human beings are designed to think that they have freedom over their actions. In fact, our brain makes decisions before making us conscious we have made them. For instance, the part of the brain that controls movement is active up to one second before we are aware of deciding to move. Afterwards, another part of the brain provides an explanation of why the movement was made. So, although I am able to rationalise why I did something after the event, my brain is always one step ahead.

As you probably noticed this  also made a reference of time, but it is referred to as her own mental equivalent of time, not a universal timeset. (she percieved it as an amount of time close to the time she percieved a clock to tick one second).

Saying that the universe is created at all points in time is impossible to prove, because the only existance of time we have is perceived lengths of time. Since I cannot rationalize time out of my present condition, your statement is unfounded, unless you have proof for universal time. For all I know time might not exist and My brain is just processing information as fast as it can, which seems like a much more reasonable explanation for why being drunk would make time seem slower. Or I could go out on a limb and say I only think because I think I'm thinking about something where really I'm not thinking and its just a process of evolution keeping my mass of atoms moving in the right order; so be it, life is the only false hallucination. Although I'm not too sure about the last one it has just as much credibility.

By the way, satire.

[GSx_Major]

No, the verses are not clear-cut because "blasphemy against the Spirit" is not explicitly defined in the verses. That's what we were discussing. If it were clear, there wouldn't be much to discuss would there?

And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.

But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin.

And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but to him that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven.

Umm.... What?

[N. Escalona]

@GSx: Yes, I'm aware of the verses, I was the one who posted them originally. That only supports my claim that the verses do not actually define blasphemy against the Spirit, and therefore that their meaning is not immediately obvious. Where have I gone wrong.

@jettlarue: AAAAAARGHGHGTYPTP!!
Stop talking about proof, it's impossible for me to prove time exists. Virtually everything is impossible to prove.
Nevertheless, time exists. I'm not really sure how to justify this because I thought it was obvious. The existence of events necessarily implies time (absolute time).
No! Your "scientific explanation" proves nothing, and it doesn't have a thing to do with time either. And it's just ignorant for that scientist to say that all the scientific evidence is against free will, an absurd assertion.
Also, the simple fact that our perceptions of time are different implies nothing about absolute time.

And when you say satire do you mean your post was joking?

[excruciator]

Stop talking about proof, it's impossible for me to prove time exists. Virtually everything is impossible to prove.
Nevertheless, time exists.

Ehm..What?
First of all, bad logic.

If you are gonna say, "we are still leaving an imprint of the past, therefore time exists"
Well no, It doesn't exist.

Second,
Why are you still arguing anyway? Obviously you are not going to accept any points/ideas other than you already know.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Stop talking about proof, it's impossible for me to prove time exists. Virtually everything is impossible to prove.
Nevertheless, time exists.

Ehm..What?
First of all, bad logic.

But it's consistently used nonetheless.  We accept things as fact even if they can't be completely proven.  However, as people have said before, it's possible to have sufficient evidence to say "this is true beyond any reasonable doubt."

There is no evident proof that "time" exists. Using a theory as basis for your argument as we have observed provides no backbone to the idea you attempt to portray, so again your point is invalid.
To clarify my statement, there is a chance that our perception of time is simply conceptualised in our brain. There is no universal "time" equivalent, and nothing to compare it too. Being inebriated is one example of how perception of "time" can be altered. Therefore, if the perceived time for me to take a 5 minute shower, and the percieved time for another to take a 5 minute shower is different, this would rule out that time is a universal constant. The only way either of the two people are thinking they are experiencing time is because of mental functioning. And varying mental functions have no application to the rest of us who are not conscience of others mental functioning. This would in fact not disprove that time exists, but draws question whether is does or not.

But we must accept that time exists in order to understand concepts such as cause and effect.  And guess what? The world revolves around the belief that one event can cause another, meaning that that event must occur before its successor.  That's what time is.  Sure, not everyone perceives it equally (times goes faster for me when I'm sleeping), but that doesn't change the fact that it's there.  If it's dark out, you might not perceive a car that's about to hit you, but that car is still very much real.

[GSx_Major]

@GSx: Yes, I'm aware of the verses, I was the one who posted them originally. That only supports my claim that the verses do not actually define blasphemy against the Spirit, and therefore that their meaning is not immediately obvious. Where have I gone wrong.

[...] he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.

Right about there?

[N. Escalona]

Stop talking about proof, it's impossible for me to prove time exists. Virtually everything is impossible to prove.
Nevertheless, time exists.

Ehm..What?
First of all, bad logic.

If you are gonna say, "we are still leaving an imprint of the past, therefore time exists"
Well no, It doesn't exist.

1. I don't need proof to assert that something exists.
2. I just don't have any idea how to do this because the fact that time exists is incredibly fundamental. It's just inherently obvious: you can't deny it.
I guess that means I should stop discussing it since there must be a way to remove any reasonable doubt that time exists, I just can't see it.

Second,
Why are you still arguing anyway? Obviously you are not going to accept any points/ideas other than you already know.

This is old news. I don't argue with people so as to change my own mind. Do you?

[jettlarue]

Stop talking about proof, it's impossible for me to prove time exists. Virtually everything is impossible to prove.
Nevertheless, time exists.

Ehm..What?
First of all, bad logic.

If you are gonna say, "we are still leaving an imprint of the past, therefore time exists"
Well no, It doesn't exist.

1. I don't need proof to assert that something exists.
2. I just don't have any idea how to do this because the fact that time exists is incredibly fundamental. It's just inherently obvious: you can't deny it.
I guess that means I should stop discussing it since there must be a way to remove any reasonable doubt that time exists, I just can't see it.

Second,
Why are you still arguing anyway? Obviously you are not going to accept any points/ideas other than you already know.

This is old news. I don't argue with people so as to change my own mind. Do you?

1. I need some type of proof to consider it plausible, if not it is not regarded as having a chance of being true.
2. The fact that we used to be the center of the universe used to be fundamental. It's by far not obvious and I cannot deny it although I cannot accept it. (EDIT: although for many scenarios it is essential to use because it is hard to imagine something we don't know/can't experience) To say because of that it is truth is merely ignorance of what could be greater, although by positively identifying it at the least it is a limitation of imagination of what could be. Sacrifice.

Second Quote reply: I debate to gain knowledge from others insights. And yes depending on their responses I change my mind. The point of debating is not to prove you are right, the point of debating is to increase knowledge.


2ND EDIT:definition of debate:
    * argue with one another; "We debated the question of abortion"; "John debated Mary"
    * consider: think about carefully; weigh; "They considered the possibility of a strike"; "Turn the proposal over in your mind"
    * discuss the pros and cons of an issue
    * argument: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal; "the argument over foreign aid goes on and on"
    * argue: have an argument about something
    * the formal presentation of a stated proposition and the opposition to it (usually followed by a vote)

[The Geologist]

2. I just don't have any idea how to do this because the fact that time exists is incredibly fundamental. It's just inherently obvious: you can't deny it.
I guess that means I should stop discussing it since there must be a way to remove any reasonable doubt that time exists, I just can't see it.

Hmmmmmm........

[N. Escalona]

1. I need some type of proof to consider it plausible, if not it is not regarded as having a chance of being true.

That's evidence. If there was proof of something, it would be known to be true, no probability involved. I agree that it's generally pretty dumb to believe in something without any evidence at all.

2. The fact that we used to be the center of the universe used to be fundamental. It's by far not obvious and I cannot deny it although I cannot accept it. (EDIT: although for many scenarios it is essential to use because it is hard to imagine something we don't know/can't experience) To say because of that it is truth is merely ignorance of what could be greater, although by positively identifying it at the least it is a limitation of imagination of what could be. Sacrifice.

Perhaps you're right. Either way I will continue to think of this and when I have a better reply I will (probably) return.

Second Quote reply: I debate to gain knowledge from others insights. And yes depending on their responses I change my mind. The point of debating is not to prove you are right, the point of debating is to increase knowledge.


2ND EDIT:definition of debate:
    * argue with one another; "We debated the question of abortion"; "John debated Mary"
    * consider: think about carefully; weigh; "They considered the possibility of a strike"; "Turn the proposal over in your mind"
    * discuss the pros and cons of an issue
    * argument: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal; "the argument over foreign aid goes on and on"
    * argue: have an argument about something
    * the formal presentation of a stated proposition and the opposition to it (usually followed by a vote)

The way I usually think about it is discussion in when I want to add to my own knowledge, and argument is when I want to convince others. Debate is somewhere in the middle. I hate to throw away the traditional meanings of these words but since no one today recognizes them (e.g. "rhetoric" is a bad thing now) I don't feel like I have much of a choice. I guess I should fight it and use the real definitions.

[Demonic]

Not to slide tackle into your discussion of what is and what isn't considered a valid form of argument, but since it's kind of de-railing the purpouse of this thread (and you did that all without letting Smeg's semantical bear traps chewing you to bits, awesome), but there's been a question under my nose, bugging me.

So, ultimately, all-in-all, summed up, preferably in short... what's the point of religious debates? Especially if you have fundies on one side and pretentious nutknots on the other?

[N. Escalona]

Not to slide tackle into your discussion of what is and what isn't considered a valid form of argument, but since it's kind of de-railing the purpouse of this thread (and you did that all without letting Smeg's semantical bear traps chewing you to bits, awesome), but there's been a question under my nose, bugging me.

So, ultimately, all-in-all, summed up, preferably in short... what's the point of religious debates? Especially if you have fundies on one side and pretentious nutknots on the other?

For us, the existence and nature of God, and all the rest of theology, is every bit as interesting as the investigation of stellar evolution or Shakespearean literature. A physical scientist may as well ask, what's the point of literary discussion? In our minds, it occupies a position at least that of any other kind of knowledge.