Originally posted by sonhouseI do not know your grandmother cannot speak to what she went
Some people, you probably not included, are afraid of their own shadow, so uncertain they are that they have to have the talisman of the invisible god to talk to to worship every time they eat, pray to ten times a day, in short obsessing about god. This cannot be healthy. My grandmother was one of those, afraid to live, afraid to die, convinced she is livin ...[text shortened]... ive her insane like that, not a god I would want as a friend. I get along just fine without one.
through or why, I can only tell you that God has turned my life around,
and saved me from a life that was running down a path that could have
ended my life at any time and ruined mine or others lives as well. I
not suggesting I'm prefect now, but indeed I have lost interest in
so many things that ruin the lives of some many of us now. I'd also
tell you that God has shown me joy and hope in the midst of some
of my greatest pain and suffering too. So yes, I too have seem some
people who talk about God all the time yet whose lives are competely
destructive as well. That does not mean that the truth about God
is like that, only that not everyone claims a walk with God is actually
walking with him in my opinion. There is peace that passes all
understanding in Christ, that is something Jesus does give to us that
come to Him in truth, perfect love casts out fear.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIt's too bad you can't see all that came from inside your own self. You denigrate your own mind when all you can think of is god did it for me. It's your own mind did it for you not some god. It's called self motivation. If we were really ruled by a god, then everything that happens would have to be laid out to said god but people deny the evil things come from a god and tout the good things this god is supposed to have done. If we are supposed to believe in a god then you have to go all the way and think EVERYTHING is the result of god. That doesn't suit you so well does it? Katrina was caused by god, the Indonesian Tsunami and that richter scale 9 earthquake came from god. 9-11 was from the direct order of god. You already believe the flood came from god, so why not Hitler? Because you don't believe in god deeply enough to escribe all the evil going on to a god but you believe god made the world, guides evolution but had nothing to do with Hitler or Pol Pot or Idi Amin or Saddam? You can't have it both ways. Either you only half believe in god or you have to believe this god is responsible for all the evil as well as the good.
I do not know your grandmother cannot speak to what she went
through or why, I can only tell you that God has turned my life around,
and saved me from a life that was running down a path that could have
ended my life at any time and ruined mine or others lives as well. I
not suggesting I'm prefect now, but indeed I have lost interest in
so many things ...[text shortened]... omething Jesus does give to us that
come to Him in truth, perfect love casts out fear.
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseI take it was have left the subject of man and science you want to
It's too bad you can't see all that came from inside your own self. You denigrate your own mind when all you can think of is god did it for me. It's your own mind did it for you not some god. It's called self motivation. If we were really ruled by a god, then everything that happens would have to be laid out to said god but people deny the evil things come ...[text shortened]... god or you have to believe this god is responsible for all the evil as well as the good.
go into this stuff instead? You want to take this to the Spiritual board
instead of here?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYep, going a bit offtrack here. So back to the age of the Earth, how old do you take it to be? Are you a young earther?
I take it was have left the subject of man and science you want to
go into this stuff instead? You want to take this to the Spiritual board
instead of here?
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseThat question is still off track of science's facts and man being
Yep, going a bit offtrack here. So back to the age of the Earth, how old do you take it to be? Are you a young earther?
independent of one another, I have been asked that question before
and answered in on page 9 of this thread.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIt's true! He said he believes the Earth to be about 10,000 years old. That puts a damper on the idea behind "One Million Years B.C.", which is a shame because Raquel Welch looked *HOT* in a fur bikini back then.
That question is still off track of science's facts and man being
independent of one another, I have been asked that question before
and answered in on page 9 of this thread.
Kelly
But I think the point you're trying to make, that science is dependent on people at every step of the process and is therefore no more "scientific" than a religious belief also dependent on people for creation, is a little incomplete. Consider the following:
The maximum efficiency of a combustion engine depends on only two things: (1) the absolute temperature of the heat source (the combusted fuel); and (2) the absolute temperature of the heat sink (the temperature at the end of the tailpipe). The actual efficiency of the combustion engine depends on all the inner workings of the engine (compression ratios, metal fatigue, lubrication, fouling, flow path, etc...).
In science, people try to develop better models of the universe. As our knowledge increases, our models become more refined and describe the universe more and more accurately. This is analogous to refining the combustion engine by developing better compression ratios, decreasing metal fatigue, developing better lubrication, reducing fouling, designing a better flow path for combustion gases, etc... These engines can take multiple forms depending on the design, however the efficiency of the design will always be bound by the maximum efficiency dictated by the laws of thermodynamics. In the same way, our models may take different forms over the years as they become more refined, but they always get closer to the verifiable state of the universe dictated by the laws of nature.
So although progress in science is the product of human ingenuity, progress in science is really just the gradual discovery of the facts dictated to us by the laws of nature, which are independent of human ingenuity. If science is akin to the engineering department at BMW, religion is akin to the marketing department. 😀
Originally posted by PBE6I question complexity, the inner workings of belief systems, I do
It's true! He said he believes the Earth to be about 10,000 years old. That puts a damper on the idea behind "One Million Years B.C.", which is a shame because Raquel Welch looked *HOT* in a fur bikini back then.
But I think the point you're trying to make, that science is dependent on people at every step of the process and is therefore no more "scientifi ...[text shortened]... kin to the engineering department at BMW, religion is akin to the marketing department. 😀
believe the closer to the here and now the better we are at grasping
all the complexity before us. That said we lose our ability to know
what has really occurred due to the passage of time and having an
non-controlled environment, the greater amount of time where we
didn’t have everything under control the greater the possibility we
may mistakenly think one thing is true while another is. R&D leave
very little to chance, your CPU has teams worried about ever
micro amp, voltage leakage, the passage of charged partials floating
around the CPU and so on, if science treated the past like the R&D
of a CPU there would be a lot less confidence about what people
assume they know about the processes of life, because there is so
little control or knowledge over what they assume really happened.
People of science it seems do not market its product, they force it up
on everyone as 'this is the only way you can look at things' it isn't
a marketed product, it a required one to them to see truth.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy do you say science facts and humans are somehow not connected?
With respect to science's facts and humans are some how not
connected, I'd say yes I have gone around the block enough times to
see that nothing new has been added, and both sides still hold to the
points they had at the beginning. You have something new to add or
not to that discussion? I'm content to say we disagree and leave it at
that.
Kelly
We are communicating on a media that is 100% science based, how is that disconnected from humans?
When you get sick and go to the doctor and he says you need an antibiotic, that is 100% science based both in the discovery of the exact bacteria killing you to the antibacterial used to keep you alive. Where is the disconnection? It seems pretty clear a lot of people are alive today who would have been dead (for better or worse) because of a human connection to science. Seeing the inner workings of a bacterium through the use of Xray spectroscopy and other forms of technology is 100% science based and there is no mistake about the ability to visualize what the molecular arrangement of bacteria, that is not somehow refuted because humans came up with the technology. That is real, it is here and it is now, there is no disconnect there. If there was a disconnect between humans and science, your cell phone would be just a pile of non-functional plastic and silicon.
Make no mistake about it, all these modern day wonders are the result of science and no disconnect to humans. When a scientist says he can put a molecule of X mixed with a molecule of Y at some exact temperature for such and such a time and BOING, it becomes teflon, it is because that scientist understands the substance on a molecular and even sub-molecular level. If we can do what I just said 50 billion times in a row, it seems pretty clear there is no disconnect between the science of chemistry and the humans discovering it.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayCan you try that again, in English this time? 😕
I question complexity, the inner workings of belief systems, I do
believe the closer to the here and now the better we are at grasping
all the complexity before us. That said we lose our ability to know
what has really occurred due to the passage of time and having an
non-controlled environment, the greater amount of time where we
didn’t have everythin look at things' it isn't
a marketed product, it a required one to them to see truth.
Kelly
The point I was trying to make was that no matter what path scientists take to reach the facts, the facts are independently verifiable. If they're on the wrong path, it's easy to demonstrate such with an experiment. Religion, on the other hand, is unverifiable. It proposes answers, but admits no experiment. How are you supposed to keep track of your progress with no feedback? And my flippant closer was meant to point out how for most products on the market these days, the engineering department tells you what kind of world we live in while the marketing department tells you what kind of world we'd like to live in.
It's also interesting to note that the many cultures of the world have developed at least 19 distinct religions still practiced today, with wildly divergent god(s), tenants, rules and dogma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Classification). On the other hand, no less than 94 formal attempts have been made to refine the definition and calculation of pi from ancient Egypt, Babylon, China, India, and Greece, medieval Europe, Victorian England, and modern Russia, Japan and North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_computation_of_%CF%80). You know what? Although the cultures generating these solutions were wildly divergent, the results were startlingly similar! In fact, the most recent refinement listed only increased the accuracy past the 200 billionth decimal place.
Which of the above examples seems more independent of human interaction?
Originally posted by PBE6silence.
Can you try that again, in English this time? 😕
The point I was trying to make was that no matter what path scientists take to reach the facts, the facts are independently verifiable. If they're on the wrong path, it's easy to demonstrate such with an experiment. Religion, on the other hand, is unverifiable. It proposes answers, but admits no experiment. ...[text shortened]... h decimal place.
Which of the above examples seems more independent of human interaction?
i by no means read this whole thing, (id rather learn every line of the caro in that time or something) but the first post made me think of something. a little joke here...
why is it that the least evolved looking people dont believe in evolution?
i believe god made me in 1 day ... umm.. well, he shouldve taken longer 😛
Originally posted by KellyJayI took my points to spirituality but of course landing on deaf ears, nobody wants to hear anything negative about their religion, Jaywill even says christianity is not a religion but the living Jesus Christ.
Look for pages I was debating a point with several people who now
seem to have gone away. I may have kept that subject as my theme
and you all were bringing something new to the discussion. I'll go back
and try to address the points that are current when I have time.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI agree with Jayhill on that point, religion can be the worship a piece of
I took my points to spirituality but of course landing on deaf ears, nobody wants to hear anything negative about their religion, Jaywill even says christianity is not a religion but the living Jesus Christ.
wood carved to look like a bird, Christianity if true is God, becoming
a man so we can have a relationship with God in reality.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayReligion can be the worship of a piece of wood. It also IS the worship of jesus christ.
I agree with Jayhill on that point, religion can be the worship a piece of
wood carved to look like a bird, Christianity if true is God, becoming
a man so we can have a relationship with God in reality.
Kelly
The piece of wood god, if true, is god, becoming a man so we can have a relationship with god in reality. 🙂