They don't want us to know

[stonehart]

Anyway I am throwing my chips in on this thread as the whole religion debate is like a round about with no exit.

Peace all it was good to see a thread like this remain reasonably civil, but religion is not why I am here at the Paracast .

so remember to always .......

Peace all and see you on other topics.

 

[Randall]

lol you are running with this it a totally different direction to what was being conveyed by the post but hey keep running as it is an interesting take.

Change pixie for blue astral monkeys or sentient tea cups if you like the thrust was that of evidence and proof burden. And was meant in a comedic fashion. I have had many door knocking missionary who all you needed to do was change the Word God for Pixie and it is more or less the same story. Hence why I left out the word picture or such like at the start as I do not see many original photos of Jesus or God floating around and it was not needed for the story.

The only real difference I see is that most of those who quote the Bible have never had an experience anything like those portrayed in the Bible. Like you point out, they are blindly believing in the stories as the gospel truth rather than proceeding from rational viewpoint or firsthand experience. What's worse is that they fail to consider the ramifications for what their beliefs imply when it comes to such things as the Bible. The only thing I can give some of them credit for is trying to search out some greater meaning and share it with others. That at least beats sitting around getting high on crack. And when they come searching at my door I usually welcome them in and discuss all this stuff with them. One time they went away and brought back an "elder" who ended up running out of my house proclaiming I was the Devil. That was pretty interesting.

 

[Ancientsaturn]

There is a problem with the "Burden of Proof" video. It implies the idea that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which it's not. Why? Because logically, the claim that a lack of sufficient evidence constitutes proof of non-existence is as flawed as claiming the absence of proof of non-existence proves the existence thereof. So it works both ways. In the absence of sufficient evidence to prove or disprove an extraordinary claim, nobody claims a victory. The best any reasonable skeptic can do is remain unconvinced either way. As the video points out at the beginning, we only need sufficient evidence to believe that it is reasonable to believe one thing or another. Then we need to define "reasonable" and that's where the real debate begins.

.

I agree and thank you as you saved me a lot of time, as this was my next post to answer stonehart. So let me expand on this. First, some terminology: "materialist" is the term I use for those who believe there is nothing more than what modern physics defines as the universe: the study of mechanics to quantum mechanics. "agnostic" is the term I use for those who don't know if there is anything more than the physical universe, or even practice "faith" where they don't have a basis in knowledge for what they believe. "spiritual scientist" is for those who experience phenomena that factually demonstrates to them worlds and forces beyond the physical, including "spirit".

Given that, materialists can only know as much or less than the spiritual scientist. The spiritual scientist can know as much or more than the materialist.

As a physical scientist/engineer in my professional life, I respect all knowledge that is presented to me based on physics. I work with physics and super computers, and more precisely digital signal processing every day. I also review phenomena that goes beyond physics, which I term "spiritual science" (not in my professional work). There are things that materialists presuppose are physical phenomena that are not physical at all, in any shape or form: thinking being a force that is not seen and can't be captured by the greatest super computer.

I digress, but there is no such thing as artificial intelligence. I use the most complex computers and algorithms there are, including genetic algorithms. We all know about deep blue beating the greatest chess champion in the world, but that is not intelligence, it is mechanics. There is no thinking in an algorithm, just number crunching. A super computer will never create an original idea, it is by definition "programmed". It can be programmed with a complex mechanical model, and therefore "find" numerical results to problems that were not known, but the idea comes from the person and the computer... well, it computes.

So when the materialist tries to claim that the spiritual scientist is the one who is experiencing phenomena that others can't, and has the burden of proof, well the materialist has the same burden for their claims. You are self-limiting your knowledge and assert the spiritual scientist is also limited to your belief system.

Materialism is a religion. What we all share is phenomena, and the more we can understand the nature of the phenomena the better our knowledge becomes, no matter where we are in the spectrum of faith and knowledge.

 

[pixelsmith]

starise? hello? why do you not answer me? do you believe everything in the bible? if not, why?

Most religious types will not answer this question for some reason. if they doubt some of it, they really must doubt all of it.

 

[stonehart]

You still do not escape the Burden of proof starise. The skeptic can not argue from the negative as they would have to take a position against that which has no evidence to start with.

The burden of proof is level one Philosophy .. come on guys.

Any way I said I was out so I am... enough is enough I am more interested in the UFO phenomenon than religion even though I majored in it.

 

[Ancientsaturn]

Bollocks what you are talking about is being born again in Faith...

The simple fact is if you are born in a region where the dominant religion is not Christianity then it is far more likely that you will not be a christian.
But I will go further than that, if you are born into a family that is predominantly Hindu then it follows that you will identify with being Hindu.

Changing your religion is not proof that there is a god

so being born again into Christianity is a matter of faith and ....... Faith is not evidence!!!!

You also need to study what the burden of proof really means..

Here is a handy video for you.

And whats more Atheism is not a religion at all.. it is the absence of a religion or faith in any god period.

I do not in fact identify with being an atheist.. I prefer the term human.

Who said changing religion was proof of a god?

Anyway I am throwing my chips in on this thread as the whole religion debate is like a round about with no exit.

Peace all it was good to see a thread like this remain reasonably civil, but religion is not why I am here at the Paracast .

so remember to always .......

Peace all and see you on other topics.

Well it looks like it got too hot in the kitchen. Why is it that those who base their worldview on faith, can't defend their worldview? Because faith-based worldviews are religions. Best of luck to you stonehart on your internet travels.... the crop circle thread is pretty entertaining.

 

[pixelsmith]

Here is a link that might connect UFOs and the Bible. The Bible UFO Connection

 

[stonehart]

Who said changing religion was proof of a god?

Well it looks like it got too hot in the kitchen. Why is it that those who base their worldview on faith, can't defend their worldview? Because faith-based worldviews are religions. Best of luck to you stonehart on your internet travels.... the crop circle thread is pretty entertaining.

No its not to hot in the kitchen.

a little info on me

A Degree in Philosophy and Religion.. I have had far worse heat in a dissertation lecture my friend.

I went on to an Honors Year and area of study at that point was Buddhism (The splitting of the Sangha and how other schools were formed and why)

I prefer to stay away from this sort of debate as it ends up going no place at all.

I am not going to convince you that you have no evidence for the existence of your god, and you are not getting any where near convincing me your god exists.

So what is the point?

None.

Thanks and night night.

You are new here so I am am going to extend my hand of friendship and hope to chat in other threads.

Till then peace and out.

 

[pixelsmith]

are there any other living organisms "created by god" that worship their creator? if not, why?

 

[Randall]

I agree and thank you as you saved me a lot of time, as this was my next post to answer stonehart. So let me expand on this ...

I have respect for anyone who is seeking to understand things that are greater than our mundane experience can account for. Along this line I'd like to pose a slightly different way of looking at the two issues you present ( Material vs Spiritual ). I see the material universe as that which can be objectively measured in some way shape or form. I see the use of the word "spiritual" as synonymous with what we experience on a subjective level, and in particular being synonymous with what we would normally call "personality". For example we would say a deceased person has no spirit and coincidentally we also find a complete absence of subjective awareness and personality. This observation holds true so consistently that I've come to avoid the use of the word "spiritual" because although convenient, it also implies too much new age goobley gook ( if you'll pardon the expression ).

Where you've separated the materialist and spiritual into belief systems is where I've instead divided the issue up into two kinds of evidence. Scientific ( materialist ) evidence falls under the objective heading while firsthand experience falls under the subjective ( spiritual ) heading. The common assumption is that each is mutually exclusive, but as was pointed out in an earlier post, they aren't. What's more, objective measurements can be taken of subjective processes ( note the use of the word processes rather than experiences ). An example I often use is that of vision. Vision is a subjective experience that is dependent on objective processes ( photons, lens, retina, visual cortex ... etc. ) and that is how we know how to make lenses that will correct our vision. Therefore we know that our subjective experiences can and often are a reflection of objective reality. Therefore we also know that our firsthand experiences can and do constitute evidence for the existence of an objective reality based on the stimulus received. This logic is inescapable, but often ignored as valid because as you say, they ( the skeptics ) use a limited belief system ... or more accurately, they rig the game in their favor so that the only the evidence they will accept is that which suits their limited set of rules. I prefer to use a process known as critical thinking. AI is another issue I'd like to engage you on in another post.

​

 

[Ezechiel]

Anyway I am throwing my chips in on this thread as the whole religion debate is like a round about with no exit.

Peace all it was good to see a thread like this remain reasonably civil, but religion is not why I am here at the Paracast .

so remember to always .......

Peace all and see you on other topics.

Ditto ! We've got better things to do than de-convert religious fanatics. And there's no F'ing way I'm going to set my reference point back in the dark ages.

Peace LOL

 

[Randall]

... I digress, but there is no such thing as artificial intelligence. I use the most complex computers and algorithms there are, including genetic algorithms. We all know about deep blue beating the greatest chess champion in the world, but that is not intelligence, it is mechanics. There is no thinking in an algorithm, just number crunching. A super computer will never create an original idea, it is by definition "programmed". It can be programmed with a complex mechanical model, and therefore "find" numerical results to problems that were not known, but the idea comes from the person and the computer... well, it computes.

It seems to me that the only appreciable differences between a non AI and an AI are the what and how of the processing. By this I mean that computers and human brains are both processors. So although they do the job using different mechanics, the purpose is essentially the same in both ( the processing of information ), and therefore on a purely physical level, both should be equally capable of intelligence. So the first difference is the "what" and by that I mean the information. In humans the information is mostly a combination of real time sensory, hardwired and memory input that results in a continuously changing feedback loop. The how is the way our programming analyzes this dynamic data stream and makes adjustments to our systems in order to meet the parameters defined by our programming. These changes result in what we identify as behavior, which in turn can be examined using some IQ model or another. However in computers the data is often ( but not always ) static, a predefined set of information for which there can only be one outcome ( even if it is only a random number ).

The how in computers is even more rigid, designed as you say to "compute" not "think" and by this I mean that although supercomputers are capable of handling complex dynamic data streams, their programming is typically designed to be only as dynamic as is needed to perform a specific type of processing on predetermined information. To make one of these number crunchers into an AI would require reworking the input streams and programming to produce a system that works in real time to constantly balance dynamic input data with the parameters set by the programming. Hypothetically such a system could be as intelligent ( or more so ) as any other system of equal processing power. The real problem lies in what would be the use of a computer that thinks for itself? We don't want that, we want them to enhance our own abilities, to use them as extensions of our own intellect and to do our bidding. A computer that thinks for itself would be a bad idea in a world where corporations find it more desirable to have mindless automatons than people. What boss would want a robot that talks back or tells him he's wrong and isn't afraid to blow the whistle? The real challenge I see with respect to AI isn't whether or not we can do it but whether or not we can avoid it.

 

[mike]

 

[trainedobserver]

The Bible is not to be read any more literally than any other great book or novel.

I do not think that is the attitude of the majority of people steeped in the Protestant tradition, fundamentalists in particular. Self-styled spiritualists and theists along with more liberal Christian churches have a wide variety of beliefs and attitudes of course, but as a general rule, in the circles I traveled in for decades, the Bible was read and interpreted in a pretty strict manner.

Of course the Bible contradicts itself. It is a highly revised collection of works written by multiple authors over a wide span of time about events which many of the authors could not have witnessed.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

The thing about 'intelligent design' is that there never needs to be an active, awake and thinking intelligence doing the designing.

People remark about how perfectly balanced the fundamental constants are etc and how if things were just a little this way or that, nothing would be here. They put this as proof there must have been design.

To me though, that is like a fish saying 'isn't it great that someone put all this water here for us?'

The fish doesnt see that it only exists cos there was water there in the first place. Whatever way our universe emerged, most things could only have gone one way, there being many imperfect things happening whilst pieces of the ultimately complicated things get added bit by bit and not always in a fantastic order etc. I'm not putting down the wonder of life in any way but we are only here cos certain things were a certain way prior. It does not have to be a long-term plan that from the start said 'we will aim to make humans by such and such a date.'

WE are here because things happened that way. You can be thankful or philosophical but if there was design for the sole purpose of the life that exists since the bible was compiled - why wait all this time? What's with the billions of years before life started on earth? Was god under contract stretching the work out a bit?

It's the whole 'who or what started the universe, or the cycle of universes' that makes me scratch my head - all the stuff since is kind of a given.

I think Kim123 must never visit cos I know Kim cannot resist a good religious thread eh Mike?

I banned Kim a long time ago.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Well this thread was entertaining.

 

[trainedobserver]

I personally find that discussing Yahweh, Jehovah, or whatever you want to call the god of the Bible to be a tremendously boring and pointless exercise, particularly with people who believe that character is the one true god out of the thousands (literally something over 3000) deities mankind has worshiped. It is like debating the reality of Odin or Zeus to me. It always gets down to the inability of the apologist to recognize the absurdity of holding one contender for the throne of King of Universe or god with a capital "G" over another. In reality, the Bible functions as an idol and oracle, deified as "The Word of God", the earthly stand-in for invisible god that cannot be seen or heard otherwise. That obvious fact is of course denied by the believer although their language and actions demonstrate the opposite.

 

[pixelsmith]

I do not think that is the attitude of the majority of people steeped in the Protestant tradition, fundamentalists in particular. Self-styled spiritualists and theists along more liberal Christian churches have a wide variety of beliefs and attitudes of course, but as a general rule, in the circles I traveled in for decades, the Bible was read and interpreted in a pretty strict manner.

Of course the Bible contradicts itself. It is a highly revised collection of works written by multiple authors over a wide span of time about events which many of the authors could not have witnessed.

well stated. HOW anyone can take writings from men with agendas and twist them into words of truth from god is beyond explanation. the bible was not written by god. god apparently cannot write more than ten sentences nor can he draw simple pictures... yet he can create the earth in a few days and then he needs to rest up for all the killing and smiting he has to do.
People who take the bible as gods word should get help.

 

[trainedobserver]

For me the question and challenge is, "Can we discuss the possible existence of creator beings and entities from other dimensions without debating the merits of one tradition, religion, or legend over another?" "Can arguments for the existence of such things be made that do not rely on the non-critical acceptance of a tradition, religion, or legend?" Debating the pros and cons of specific religious faiths is something else entirely and not something that this particular forum is geared toward, or something I am personally interested in discussing.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

There's actually more proof for the existence of Santa Claus than any sort of god.
Also, my god got into a pretty awesome fight with the Hulk and he has a snazzy hammer. I win.