[quote]mbm693 wrote:
Religion assumes that the things written in a 2000 year old book that contradicts itself (there are 2 creations stories that directly contradict each other in Genesis) are the key to higher knowledge, instead of the just strange things written in a very old book. [/quote]
Is that a straw man you’re setting up there? Or a nuanced understanding of religion?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Time is a unit that man created.
And what does that “unit” measure?
[/quote]
It measure any and everything that has occurred within the specified unit of time indicated. i.e a piece of aluminum oxidizing from the chemical reaction that is taking place on its surface.
A bird flying for a distance of X meters.
Sperm fertilizing an egg.
The portion of a Spongebob Squarepants program the kids are watching.
How much of it happens depends on the unit you apply to it.
[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
Religion doesn’t go around trying to “Better” itself, it stays a constant throughout and therefore unfortunately it becomes dated.
It is something that is being taken as “Gospel” so to speak, even though it has never been, for lack of a better word, proven.
[/quote]
You still haven’t answered my question yet: do you believe in things that cannot be, “for lack of a better word, proven?”
You don’t want to answer this - and it’s pretty obvious why.
Yes, I absolutely see the pointlessness of this attitude.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
B) But that was not his argument, wasn`t it?
Well, okay, maybe not. But it is mine. 
Probably Pat would agree with it so stated.
Then you are claiming that your God is supernatural, or to put it in other words, he exists in categories we cannot think of…
Yes…but…
and are therefore not to be experienced by us.
…this does not follow at all.
Actually, exactly that follows.
Not at all. Just because God is “other” does not mean that he cannot also be with us in the here and now. What makes you think otherwise?
I think you’re missing orion’s point. If god is outside our experience, then how would anyone ever know about him?
I understand Orion’s point exactly. His notion is simply incorrect. God can be “other” and yet among us at the same time.
[/quote]
And you know this how???
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Religion assumes that the things written in a 2000 year old book that contradicts itself (there are 2 creations stories that directly contradict each other in Genesis) are the key to higher knowledge, instead of the just strange things written in a very old book.
Is that a straw man you’re setting up there? Or a nuanced understanding of religion?
[/quote]
The strawman statement could just as easy be turn on yourself.
It depends on your views.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Religion assumes that the things written in a 2000 year old book that contradicts itself (there are 2 creations stories that directly contradict each other in Genesis) are the key to higher knowledge, instead of the just strange things written in a very old book.
Is that a straw man you’re setting up there? Or a nuanced understanding of religion?
[/quote]
The point I’m making is that if the inspired word of god is wrong on any count, it can (and should) be called into question on every count. I’d say that’s a nuanced understanding of common sense.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Religion doesn’t go around trying to “Better” itself, it stays a constant throughout and therefore unfortunately it becomes dated.
It is something that is being taken as “Gospel” so to speak, even though it has never been, for lack of a better word, proven.
You still haven’t answered my question yet: do you believe in things that cannot be, “for lack of a better word, proven?”
You don’t want to answer this - and it’s pretty obvious why.
Can you see the pointlessness of this sort of attitude?
Yes, I absolutely see the pointlessness of this attitude.[/quote]
that is a question that has no answer that will ever be acceptable to people with beliefs like yourself.
If i say yes, then it will be thrown at me as to “why can you not then believe there is a god”
If i say no, i am a hypocrite, because i have said that i believe we will always have an ever changing view of how and why the world we live in is what it is.
people with beliefs as strong as i feel yours are, will always find it hard to understand how or why others cannot see what to you is so obvious…but to me it is obvious only in a different way…
So my answer to your question is…I have no answer. I dont need one.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
Not at all. Just because God is “other” does not mean that he cannot also be with us in the here and now. What makes you think otherwise?
I think you’re missing orion’s point. If god is outside our experience, then how would anyone ever know about him?
I understand Orion’s point exactly. His notion is simply incorrect. God can be “other” and yet among us at the same time.
[/quote]
Fine. It is possible, though extraordinarily unlikely, that god could be “other” and still among us. I can’t prove the negative. What is important here, in this life, is that you can’t prove that god does exist. And, even if you could prove that god exists, you’ve got a long way to go before you can prove he’s the god of your particular religion. To quote Stephen Roberts: “I contend that we’re both atheists. I just believe in one fewer God than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible Gods, you’ll understand why I dismiss yours.”
-minor edits-
[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Religion doesn’t go around trying to “Better” itself, it stays a constant throughout and therefore unfortunately it becomes dated.
It is something that is being taken as “Gospel” so to speak, even though it has never been, for lack of a better word, proven.
You still haven’t answered my question yet: do you believe in things that cannot be, “for lack of a better word, proven?”
You don’t want to answer this - and it’s pretty obvious why.
Can you see the pointlessness of this sort of attitude?
Yes, I absolutely see the pointlessness of this attitude.
that is a question that has no answer that will ever be acceptable to people with beliefs like yourself.
If i say yes, then it will be thrown at me as to “why can you not then believe there is a god”
If i say no, i am a hypocrite, because i have said that i believe we will always have an ever changing view of how and why the world we live in is what it is.
people with beliefs as strong as i feel yours are, will always find it hard to understand how or why others cannot see what to you is so obvious…but to me it is obvious only in a different way…
So my answer to your question is…I have no answer. I dont need one.[/quote]
I’m going to take the bait. I don’t believe in anything that can’t be proven in the conventional sense. I take it on a leap of faith that the objects around me and the people I interact with are real. I also accept that there are rules to govern the world I inhabit and that they will not change (although our awareness of them might).
As far as I can tell, I have to do this to survive. There are also perks to this, like not being considered insane… and cell phones. For the purposes of any conversation, it is not practical to push the burden of proof back any further than this normal scientific threshold.
What religion does is 3 more leaps. Religion assumes, that the stories primitive people wrote down thousands of years ago were real happenings that just don’t happen anymore for no good reason. That’s 2. The third leap that each and every religion makes is that their book, is the one that contains the truth. All of the others are wrong, or at least secondary.
That’s 3 leaps too many, and there is no good reason to take any of them.
Food for thought, is it possible to believe in a convential god and not (a) be religious and/or (b) believe in religion. Remeber the convential god comes from religion.
Just to clarify some terms: Atheist - denies the existence of god. Agnostic - thinks god is unknowable. Theist - believes in god. Faith - belief without proof. There are six meaningful combinations.
So, you can think god is not knowable, and believe in god without having proof. You can think god is not knowable, and not believe in god without having proof. You can think god is knowable, and believe in god without having proof. You can think god is knowable, and believe in god based on direct knowledge or experience of god. You can think god is knowable, and not believe in god without proof.
You can think god is knowable, and not believe in god based on direct knowledge or experience of his absence. I assume there are some of all of these types of people. I happen to think god is unknowable, and do not believe in god, without any proof of his absence, which means I am atheist, agnostic, and have faith.
For some reason, there seems to be a reluctance of people to be any two, much less all three of these categories at the same time, but they are in fact completely complimentary. This says nothing about being right or wrong, only about the rationale of the individual. And of course, you might not be sure, which contrary to popular opinion, does not mean you are agnostic, it just means you can not be defined by one of these six descriptions.
As a clarification, having faith doesn’t mean you can’t think it highly, highly probable or improbable based on proof, just that it’s not 100%, whether by ignorance or agnostic consequence.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
B) But that was not his argument, wasn`t it?
Well, okay, maybe not. But it is mine.
Probably Pat would agree with it so stated.
Then you are claiming that your God is supernatural, or to put it in other words, he exists in categories we cannot think of…
Yes…but…
and are therefore not to be experienced by us.
…this does not follow at all.
Actually, exactly that follows.
Not at all. Just because God is “other” does not mean that he cannot also be with us in the here and now. What makes you think otherwise?[/quote]
You are twisting my words.
I claimed that if God exists in categories we cannot think in or of we cannot experience God.
That ties in nicely with the causality problem. Maybe there is no cause and effect and yet we perceive it the only way we can, as causality.
What I am really saying in so many words is that we cannot experience what we cannot experience. Since you placed God outside the realm of our experience there is nothing we can say about such an entity.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
B) But that was not his argument, wasn`t it?
Well, okay, maybe not. But it is mine.
Probably Pat would agree with it so stated.
Then you are claiming that your God is supernatural, or to put it in other words, he exists in categories we cannot think of…
Yes…but…
and are therefore not to be experienced by us.
…this does not follow at all.
Actually, exactly that follows.
Not at all. Just because God is “other” does not mean that he cannot also be with us in the here and now. What makes you think otherwise?
I think you’re missing orion’s point. If god is outside our experience, then how would anyone ever know about him?
I understand Orion’s point exactly. His notion is simply incorrect. God can be “other” and yet among us at the same time.
[/quote]
But you´d have no way of knowing.
All the ways you can think of God are not applicable and the ways that are you are not able to use.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
I would like to get involved with this debate, but I do not see how we could productively discuss the possibility of inferring the existence of a deity if we deny causality. I do not see how we can productively discuss much at all, in fact.
We are compelled by our constitution to speak in terms of likely stories.[/quote]
Questioning causality as we know it is not a bad thing. The denial of causality was an argument brought forth, ironically, by determinists. Where the logic failed is they did not see their theories of determinism as being a cause as well. The attempt compartmentalize causes and effects and isolate each so one cannot lead to another. Other attempts to discount causality wasn’t to say it doesn’t exist, but that there is more to it than simple cause and effect. Our friends in the world of quantum mechanics really caused a lot of problems for this view, however. It breaks down like this:
“The result of a measurement performed on one part A of a quantum system has a non-local effect on the physical reality of another distant part B, in the sense that quantum mechanics can predict outcomes of some measurements carried out at B.”
What this proved is that not only can a cause necessitate an effect, but that it can do so independent of time and space. They were also able to carry out the experiment, I believe, in 1982. That it not only exists in theory, but in reality as well.
Prior to this, what got determinists really horny was the fact that you could not seem to take time and/or space out of cause and effect relationships. This in hind sight seems to have been more a limitation of language instead of a lack of reality.
In the end, I really don’t know what Orion is looking for to for a proof that causality exists. It has been proven empirically. A more reasonable question is do we really understand causation, is there more to it than a cause and it’s resultant effect.
Really, I can break it down further and say, “nothing exists” and you’d be hard pressed to prove anything actually does. And if you can then you really cannot define what it is.
Hume was a “nothing exists” kind of guy. Kant was a “Reality exists, what we are incapable of knowing it” kind of guy.
[quote]orion wrote:
Time is nothing but a million different clock faces all over the world. A collection of cogs and springs or electronic parts.Time helps us get to work on time or watch our favorite TV program.
Time has never been claimed as an entity. It is a tool.
I have never called it “hooey”, I have merely questioned its necessity…I want to understand why it has such a hold over people. How people can so deeply believe in something so transparent…That is my view only, I speak for no one else.
People were able to measure time before clocks existed. As far as I know clocks don’t make the sun come up or go down, cause babies to age into adults, or cause rust to grow on iron. Time is not an illusion as you suggest. The question is, is a clock measures time, what is it measuring.
What is transparent about “it”?
I did not say time was an illusion- I kind of said time is a category we think in.
That is not the same.
[/quote]
Hell, that makes even less sense, please explain…
[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Give me an example of what i may believe in that i can’t prove.
Good grief, where to start? Try this one: do you believe that time exists?
If so, try proving it.
Much of the “realities” we take for granted to be true (that, say, time not only exists, but moves in a “forward” direction) are, it turns out, far more mysterious than they appear.
Indeed, the “certainties” that we cling to in our own lives, not to mention many aspects of the universe itself, are majestically opaque, intrinsically unprovable, and (perhaps) ultimately unknowable.
The point is this: to say that religion is a bunch of “hooey” because it depends upon unprovable conjectures is a fallacious argument.
Time is nothing but a million different clock faces all over the world. A collection of cogs and springs or electronic parts.Time helps us get to work on time or watch our favorite TV program.
Time has never been claimed as an entity. It is a tool.
I have never called it “hooey”, I have merely questioned its necessity…I want to understand why it has such a hold over people. How people can so deeply believe in something so transparent…That is my view only, I speak for no one else.
Fair enough, but methinks you’re avoiding the question: “Dost thou believe that time exists?”
A simple “yes” or “no” will do 
It cant be answered with a yes or no and it would be wrong to say that it could be in the sense that you are referring to which i assume is in terms of it “being” a non physical entity.
Time is a unit that man created. The fact that people see time as anything other than the tool it was created for is reading to much into it.
To be able to “turn back time” is merely use of a tool to calculate exactly how far back the person wants to go back in their constant flow of actions to be able to repeat or change one of those actions.
Time can be broken down into milli-seconds or bundled up into centuries…it is a mathematical calculation…that time i believe in as a tool…it is something that i can manipulate to suit me where possible.[/quote]
Oh brother…Man did not make time. All things things you mentioned are means by which to measure, what are they measuring?
[quote]pat wrote:
nephorm wrote:
I would like to get involved with this debate, but I do not see how we could productively discuss the possibility of inferring the existence of a deity if we deny causality. I do not see how we can productively discuss much at all, in fact.
We are compelled by our constitution to speak in terms of likely stories.
Questioning causality as we know it is not a bad thing. The denial of causality was an argument brought forth, ironically, by determinists. Where the logic failed is they did not see their theories of determinism as being a cause as well. The attempt compartmentalize causes and effects and isolate each so one cannot lead to another. Other attempts to discount causality wasn’t to say it doesn’t exist, but that there is more to it than simple cause and effect. Our friends in the world of quantum mechanics really caused a lot of problems for this view, however. It breaks down like this:
“The result of a measurement performed on one part A of a quantum system has a non-local effect on the physical reality of another distant part B, in the sense that quantum mechanics can predict outcomes of some measurements carried out at B.”
What this proved is that not only can a cause necessitate an effect, but that it can do so independent of time and space. They were also able to carry out the experiment, I believe, in 1982. That it not only exists in theory, but in reality as well.
Prior to this, what got determinists really horny was the fact that you could not seem to take time and/or space out of cause and effect relationships. This in hind sight seems to have been more a limitation of language instead of a lack of reality.
In the end, I really don’t know what Orion is looking for to for a proof that causality exists. It has been proven empirically. A more reasonable question is do we really understand causation, is there more to it than a cause and it’s resultant effect.
Really, I can break it down further and say, “nothing exists” and you’d be hard pressed to prove anything actually does. And if you can then you really cannot define what it is.
Hume was a “nothing exists” kind of guy. Kant was a “Reality exists, what we are incapable of knowing it” kind of guy.
[/quote]
nothing can be proven empirically.
Plus to attempt to prove causality means assuming that causality exists.
[quote]mbm693 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Nothing has ever been proven!
So are you basing this statement for or against religious belief of a “God”?
Neither. What is being said here is this: religion is not unique in proceeding upon unprovable axioms. You do so as a person. Science does so on a daily basis. And yet, for some reason it seems to drive you nuts that “RELIGION” does as well. Why?
I think you’re really reaching comparing the things science takes for granted and the things religion takes for granted. Science is based on empirical observation and repeatability. While it’s true no scientist can guarantee the laws of physics will still be true tomorrow, I don’t know of anyone that will step in front of a bus just in case they changed. Religion assumes that the things written in a 2000 year old book that contradicts itself (there are 2 creations stories that directly contradict each other in Genesis) are the key to higher knowledge, instead of the just strange things written in a very old book. [/quote]
Religion is a means by which to communicate with God, not an “Old Book”. Science, as empirical as it is, is still fallible. Just see this sight. Read scientific articles from 1999 and now and see how much has changed, all of which was based empirically. So in science, you still end up taking things on faith. Like the experiment was conducted correctly with the proper controls, the experimenter knew what he was doing, etc. If you weren’t there and know it was conducted correctly you are acting on faith that it was.
[quote]pat wrote:
orion wrote:
Time is nothing but a million different clock faces all over the world. A collection of cogs and springs or electronic parts.Time helps us get to work on time or watch our favorite TV program.
Time has never been claimed as an entity. It is a tool.
I have never called it “hooey”, I have merely questioned its necessity…I want to understand why it has such a hold over people. How people can so deeply believe in something so transparent…That is my view only, I speak for no one else.
People were able to measure time before clocks existed. As far as I know clocks don’t make the sun come up or go down, cause babies to age into adults, or cause rust to grow on iron. Time is not an illusion as you suggest. The question is, is a clock measures time, what is it measuring.
What is transparent about “it”?
I did not say time was an illusion- I kind of said time is a category we think in.
That is not the same.
Hell, that makes even less sense, please explain…[/quote]
It goes back to Kant.
Obviously we experience things. In order to experience thing we must have categories to experience things.
Those categories must have been in you before you could experience anything, because you could not possibly learn them from experience.
That also means though that you cannot experience anything if your categories of experience do not allow for it.
An analogy would be:
You can see the color red because you have eyes that can.
You cannot learn to see the color red from experience , your red perception mechanism must have been there all along.
A priori, if you will.
That means in turn that you never see colors as the “really” are, but only in the way your eyes lets you see them.
Now imagine an animal that sees in a different spectrum, or sees with its ears, like bats.
Their experience of reality must necessarily differ from yours.
It is the same way with the Kantian categories, you have a concept of causality and time and space built in. This enables you to experience reality in these categories, but only in these categories.
The reason why you experience causality or time is because you must, just like you cannot see not red when something is red. But, just like the color red is really just an interpretation of your brain of what is happening, so are causality and time.
The only difference is that you cannot not think in terms of these categories.
So, in conclusion, those things are not so much an illusion but pre-wired concepts that at least work good enough for us go survive. But while these concepts make experience possible, they also limit it your potential experiences.
[quote]pat wrote:
Questioning causality as we know it is not a bad thing. [/quote]
I have no problem with questioning causality, but it is, as Aristotle might say, “at home in a different type of philosophical inquiry.”
If we deny causality, then we deny any underlying reality to experience. As such, philosophical inquiry would have to end. I see it as intellectually cheap, the same as solipsism. The position cannot be refuted, but it avoids dealing with the world as it presents itself to us.