TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Religious debate on Jews/Passion of the Christ
Pages (24): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 »

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY ...please?

wow dude..why so mean? isnt he entitled to ur opinion too..he can believe whatever he wants..u shouldnt force him to believe in anything or even judge..just cause u dont agree with him doesnt men u have to dismiss him like that.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 No, that certainly wasn't my suggestion, but it is important to understand that Heinz or anyone else for that matter shouldn't be surprised when they profess their controversial beliefs and receive numerous responses from a good number of folks here. So let me state my point clearly: it's quite evident that his thread and beliefs are controversial. Agreed? It's also quite evident that he expressed his opinion and beliefs in a Debate Forum, yes? Since it was a controversial topic, and since he expressed his beliefs (that in my opinion have little supported historical evidence) in a Debate Forum, it therefore follows that he is subject to opposing views. Furthermore, since it is a debate forum, it is also good form for him or anyone else to attempt to defend those views (with supported evidence is best). This is what was expected of him, or anyone else for that matter who decides to post opinions here. Oops, that's pretty much what I mentioned above. You stated this well. I believe the problem here is not what you stated, but what followed: Heinz did not support his assertions very well with sound evidence. And that's what I and a few others have been "busting his chops" over. Oh, just a little history behind it. Most here know what I'm referring to, but I try to keep the past behind me... Excellent! And thank you for this response. This is actually a great response in a debate forum. When you actually don't know something, or have felt that you cannot respond, this is a perfect answer. I'm not being sarcastic here. It is truly good form to say, "I don't know" when you actually do not know something. Another alternative is not responding at all to rebuttals, and the silence is equivalent to an "I don't know" response. That is also good too. Believe me, I've had my butt handed to me on a number of issues in the past, and I've been cornered to doing both when I know my case is weak. Absolutely nothing wrong in being humbled by knowledge and good arguments. I would never hold your age against you. I only examine the quality of your arguments, as I would for anyone else I may disagree with. Believe me, there's plenty of bullcrap here to reach the roof, but there's also a wealth of information here too from a wide range of viewpoints. I will also never hold your mistakes against you either, provided that you recognize those mistakes when they are pointed out to you. Like I said, people point out mistakes in my arguments all the time, and I quite enjoy opposing views. It's why I'm here (plus I just love to argue like the rest of the motley bunch here), and I share your feelings of having fun as well. Just understand that it's best to be prepared to support your opinions with sound evidence; it is the underlying principle of a good debate. With that said, I certainly hope you and Heinz stick around and continue to have fun here. Regards, Opus1

** Thanks Opus. Actually I totally agree with you and I know (atleast I believe) you were not sarcastic one bit. I will take your advice and follow it. Also, it's nice that you can keep your cool, debate, and be humorous at the same time.
take care
*****lyss

Its the chosen one syndrome, the three major religions suffer from it. They are told that they are the favoured children of God, making them more loved, and the unbeliever's less human, less worthy. Fuelled with this it makes killing others in the name of religion a more comfortable affair.

quote:

Originally posted by tranceaholic wow dude..why so mean? isnt he entitled to ur opinion too..he can believe whatever he wants..u shouldnt force him to believe in anything or even judge..just cause u dont agree with him doesnt men u have to dismiss him like that.

*She* contributes absolutely nothing to the debate, that's the problem. She's a little nagging insect that keeps on screaming "No you're wrong I'm right no I can't explain it but I know I am!! Everybody listen to ME!!!"

Yeah she's entitled to believe whatever the hell she wants, but I think there's not a soul left on this forum who doesn't find her religion posts irritating as shit.

if u dont like nellies posts, dont read them. simple as that...

Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.

solomons words, old testament. Fear in the lord is not, being afraid of him. its realizing his power, strength, and know that HE created you. and by this "fear", you are blessed.

Revelation 21:6
He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life.

Revelation 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Jesus is the beginning and he is the end. God HAS no beginning and he has no end. for if god had a beginning, then there must have been a higher power to create god. and that would mean god isnt the almighty, but the power that created him would be the almighty. therefore, when Jesus says in Revelation 21:6 I am the Alpha and the Omega (Greek Alphabet. Amega=A, Omega=Z-------BEGINING AND END), he really means i began this earth, and i will end it, which revelation is the description of the end of the earth. god created this earth, and he will end it, therefore he IS the beginning and end.

quote:

Originally posted by Heinz Revelation 21:6 He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. Jesus is the beginning and he is the end. God HAS no beginning and he has no end. for if god had a beginning, then there must have been a higher power to create god. and that would mean god isnt the almighty, but the power that created him would be the almighty. therefore, when Jesus says in Revelation 21:6 I am the Alpha and the Omega (Greek Alphabet. Amega=A, Omega=Z-------BEGINING AND END), he really means i began this earth, and i will end it, which revelation is the description of the end of the earth. god created this earth, and he will end it, therefore he IS the beginning and end.

all that would matter if you could use the bible as a credible, scientific source. Just because the book makes reference to gods infinite existance doesn't necessarily make it so.

quote:

Originally posted by Heinz if u dont like nellies posts, dont read them. simple as that... Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline. solomons words, old testament. Fear in the lord is not, being afraid of him. its realizing his power, strength, and know that HE created you. and by this "fear", you are blessed. Revelation 21:6 He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. Jesus is the beginning and he is the end. God HAS no beginning and he has no end. for if god had a beginning, then there must have been a higher power to create god. and that would mean god isnt the almighty, but the power that created him would be the almighty. therefore, when Jesus says in Revelation 21:6 I am the Alpha and the Omega (Greek Alphabet. Amega=A, Omega=Z-------BEGINING AND END), he really means i began this earth, and i will end it, which revelation is the description of the end of the earth. god created this earth, and he will end it, therefore he IS the beginning and end.

That really is quite a silly proof for an argument. Here, I'll do the same thing with my claim that God does not exist:


The Babel fish is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy not from its carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,'says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic

- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Chapter 6, p. 42

So you see God may have been the beginning but he's no longer around for the end (in the english language "vanished" means NO LONGER THERE). So you see while he was once there, logic did him away and now he is gone. Therefore he doesn't exist. And you know what, I'm right because it says so above and therefore a FACT!

Look ma! I can argue like a creationist too!

loved thos books
gogo Ford Perfect

quote:

Trancaholic most people here dont believe in his existance..and believe that the bible is full of mistakes..all people here pretty much have thier mind set..i would like to ask though..do u guys believe in miracles and if so have any explainaition for it..or are miracles only conincedance? or there isnt such things.. ==== well..so what if u saw a miracle..like someone who couldnt walk again was able to or couldnt give birth and was able to..and what if someone u know got really sick? dont u wish upon a miracle or something..what do u atheists do? give em a high five or something and wish em luck? just wondering what u do when u know that science cant help u..

1. I'd attribute this partly to confirmation bias, for example, you believe that some lady can't give birth and by praying to god she became fertile, yet you would completely ignore the hundreds of other woman who would also pray for the same miracle and receive nothing

2. Research has shown that people who pray to "god" or to "allah" or to "zeus" or "santa claus" (or all four) are more likely to recover from cancer and heart disease. It dosn't matter who you pray to, it could be that gay Oiliphilant, the giant cookie monster or shambola the unholy octopus, as long you have the conviction that this deity is watching over you and helping you, it will. That is how powerful the spiritual mind / body connection is, and there will be alot of research in this area in the future.

As for Atheists they can receive the same benefits through some forms of meditation. This prayer / meditation creates a placebo effect, it helps strengthen your immune system, by helping you overcome a feeling of overwhelming helplessness.

3. You may have seen evangalists on TV who are able to heal people through Gods divine power, after intense mental conditioning the people in the audience usually reach the Alpha state of mind and have impaired judgement and are around 25 times more suggestable. The preacher will then carefully select a person in the audience who is afflicted , and command the person to heal. With the increased suggestibility, this purges emotional tensions (catharsis) which relieves the patient of pain for the time being. The patient then cries out how God has healed him, which in turn further hoodwinks the audiences suggestability, increasing the catharsis of the next dupe to be healed. There you have it an audience in Pavlov's ultra-paradoxical phase of brainwashing for perhaps the rest of their lives

there is no such thing as a miracle just probability

The Brainwashing Manual by L. Ron Hubbard is a book i suggest John Travolta read

i just got the ebook today

Atheists, Fundies, Christians, Deists, Pantheists take this test!

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

quote:

Originally posted by tathi The Brainwashing Manual by L. Ron Hubbard is a book i suggest John Travolta read i just got the ebook today

ahh good ol L,Ron.... it takes a special man to be sued by the followers of the religion he founded

quote:

Originally posted by tathi Atheists, Fundies, Christians, Deists, Pantheists take this test! http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

damn. one direct hit, but i blame that on me not being able to concentrate on the confusing wording of the question and my mom staring at the fucking screen.

quote:

Originally posted by tathi Atheists, Fundies, Christians, Deists, Pantheists take this test! http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

I'm not sure if those irrational in their beliefs have the proper vocabulary skills

quote:

Originally posted by tathi Atheists, Fundies, Christians, Deists, Pantheists take this test! http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

Yay, flawless victory, I rule!

quote:

Originally posted by tathi Atheists, Fundies, Christians, Deists, Pantheists take this test! http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

Flawless!

quote:

Originally posted by tathi Atheists, Fundies, Christians, Deists, Pantheists take this test! http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

No hits.

I would like to point out, that this is a debate forum, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, and has the right to post, unless blatantly retarded/offensive as in the case of LouiseLaBelle. Considering the topic is highly controversial, it being about religion and all, everyone is going to have a different opinion, and many people may not adhere to your particular beliefs. If this is the case, simply disregard the post. IMO, it clearly shows the intolerance level of the person to step outside the box per se and understand that others will have different belief systems than your own.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Look ma! I can argue like a creationist too!

........

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Heheh I just read the toad thread. No retraction needed and imo it was perfectly in line. In all honesty the probablility of even one of them working up the individuality to come in here is likely 0. They sound like candy ravers.

You know... I haven't even been tempted to glance into that thread. The title itself throws an individual off from reading it.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut *She* contributes absolutely nothing to the debate, that's the problem. She's a little nagging insect that keeps on screaming "No you're wrong I'm right no I can't explain it but I know I am!! Everybody listen to ME!!!" Yeah she's entitled to believe whatever the hell she wants, but I think there's not a soul left on this forum who doesn't find her religion posts irritating as shit.

Agreed. Something tells me it's time to employ the ignore list again...

quote:

Originally posted by anuneventrade No hits. I would like to point out, that this is a debate forum, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, and has the right to post, unless blatantly retarded/offensive as in the case of LouiseLaBelle. Considering the topic is highly controversial, it being about religion and all, everyone is going to have a different opinion, and many people may not adhere to your particular beliefs. If this is the case, simply disregard the post. IMO, it clearly shows the intolerance level of the person to step outside the box per se and understand that others will have different belief systems than your own.

See, I would disagree somewhat . Given the nature of the forum, I think less emphasis is placed upon the respect of beliefs so much as it's placed upon rational judgements derived from a series of facts or argumentative stipulations.

Therefore, one could argue that the "entitlement" of opinion can ONLY be excercised once all rational discussion and debate have been exhausted. So in conclusion, it is our duty to be a pain in the ass?

quote:

You know... I haven't even been tempted to glance into that thread. The title itself throws an individual off from reading it.

The title makes me want to kill someone. It's so irritating how stupid they are

quote:

Originally posted by occrider See, I would disagree somewhat . Given the nature of the forum, I think less emphasis is placed upon the respect of beliefs so much as it's placed upon rational judgements derived from a series of facts or argumentative stipulations. Therefore, one could argue that the "entitlement" of opinion can ONLY be excercised once all rational discussion and debate have been exhausted. So in conclusion, it is our duty to be a pain in the ass?

Yes, but there's a difference between shutting someone up using evidence to support your claim and making them look like a fool for placing themselves in a situation where they can only be proved wrong, and telling someone repeatedly to "go away". To each his own though I suppose.

quote:

The title makes me want to kill someone. It's so irritating how stupid they are

And since I usually agree with you, I'm just not going to step a click into that thread! Better off simply avoiding things that are without a doubt going to irritate me, correct?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut We can invoke semantics to dance around the truth of any issue, but in the end, all that really matters is the evidence which you use to back up your claim. Phrases like "superior to time" or "transcending time and space" have no physical or logical meaning. They simply constitute the use of incomprehensible language in the blind hope that nonbelievers will go "duh? Well, I don't understand it but I'll take your word for it."

It's the semantics of the bible. You have to understand them in order to understand the meaning of the bible. Modern semantics confuse the meaning.

In modern physics, there are theories that try to explain certain phenomena (or is it phenomenons?) and those theories are accepted until they are either proven or disproven. Same with religion. Nobody tries to explain lightning with religion anymore, don't even start with that, but it tries to explain what might happen when you're dead, for example. It's philosophical.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut But why you use the inconceivable to explain things when the conceivable and known work perfectly fine? We know what time and space are, and we know what happens when people die. So why invoke the supernatural? There's no reason to assume that anything happens when we die other than the inevitable environmental decay and recycling of the matter and energy in our bodies. It's true that animals have an instinct for self-preservation, but I think the emotional "fear" of death is something which is created by, not consoled by, most major religions. The problem is that we don't "imagine" things in categories of space and time, we know that they exist and understand most of their properties. What rational person would willingly accept that there is any plane of existence where all known laws can suddenly be broken? If you can't give scientific evidence or at least logical rationale, then your argument has no relevance to this debate.

Doesn't create this uncertainty about what happens when you die the actual fear of death? Heinz said he knows that he'll go to heaven when he dies, and he is not afraid.

There is a scientific theory that describes the universe as a soccer ball. It is a sphere with polygons. If you try to "leave" the universe on one side of the sphere, through a polygon, you reappear on the opposite side of the sphere, through a polygon. This theory cannot be explained in dimensions of space and time. You can compare it to my 2-d example, when you put a 2-d inhabitant on a sphere. It's a similar thing.

Different example:
Please explain the two-slit experiment with electrons (quantum mechanics). Why do electrons act like waves when we don't know which slit they passed (interference pattern), but act like particles if we do know their path? As far as I know it is impossible to explain with rational thinking, yet it happens. We can calculate the probability where the electron will hit, but we can't explain why.
Does the conceivable and known work perfectly fine? It works perfectly fine, but it is not conceivable.

My point is, that even in modern science, there are things that cannot be understood with logic and rational thinking but they still happen and people create theories to explain them.

These examples (just like the 2-d example) are not supposed to show that impossible things happen because of god or something supernatural. What I'm trying to say is that rational thinking cannot always explain the world.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut This is true, the lack of proof of a positive does not constitute proof of the negative. I never said it did (which is more than the average Creationist can say in his or her defense). However - and keeping in mind that this was originally intended to be about the after-life and not God - the fact that the very notion of God is a logical paradox and that no theory or hypothesis exists which can account for it, generally WOULD mean that there is no God, at least in the scientific world.

That is true, since god does not consist of matter. He does not exist in the material world. This is the materialistic undestanding of the world (see Feuerbach: "If reality is material reality, and if god is spiritual, there is no god because there is no spiritual world." ; Marx based his religious criticism on Feuerbach - just for your information). Christians accept the supernatural, you don't.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I do not believe that there are any reputable scientists who have postulated that there are "dimensions which we can't access" - if you are referring to things like hypercubes and supercubes, they are merely mathematical constructs and are not meant to reflect anything in the physical world.

See example above, although I don't know if it is legit.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut There is no such thing as a world in 2D. I've heard religious people use this argument all the time but it falls flat on its face in the first sentence! Physical dimensions are merely a mathematical model for a well-understood physical reality.

Hence I introduced my example with the word "imagine".
See above.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Mathematically speaking, it is flagrantly fallacious to truncate an existing set into a smaller subset and attempt to use that truncation as proof that the original universal set was truncated off of a larger set. This is precisely what you've attempted to do. Of COURSE 3D objects appear flattened when projected onto a 2D surface - but that's not evidence for claiming that the 3D objects we see are "flattened" from a 4D universe. It's merely a fantasy, a philosophical masturbation. A 2D universe cannot physically exist any more than a 4D universe can - even the ink that comes out of your pen when you draw on a piece of paper has some thickness.

Yes. Philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut To the contrary of your argument though, we have already seen that it is possible to create in 2 dimensions depictions of objects which simply cannot exist in 3. It therefore makes sense that we are capable of creating constructs in 3 dimensions that can't exist in higher dimensions, and in fact, when you consider time to be the 4th dimension, that is exactly what you are doing with the afterlife - using the flattened 4th dimension to imply a physical reality which is impossible when we attempt to re-add that 4th dimension and extrapolate the construct into real space and time.

No! Afterlife is no physical reality! It has nothing to do with space and time. It means completion of the human personality or not.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Claiming that time ceases to exist in a spiritual plane requires the reduction of a real dimension to a singularity, and no cosmologist, physicist, or mathematician will tell you that such a thing would actually be possible. I cannot imagine living in a 4-dimensional plane any more than I can imagine living in a 2-dimensional plane (is there anyone here who can actually imagine being a cartoon character on a TV screen or a piece of paper?) No evidence = no argument. To summarize, you're trying to expound on a theory for which we haven't accepted the initial postulates. People grow so accustomed to such fallacious theories that they start to treat those postulates as axiomatic and assume that other people must therefore also accept them. But no matter how much you explain and embellish your theory, it still rests squarely on the shoulders of a belief in God and the existence of the supernatural, and it's not going to make any sense to people who don't believe in it to begin with. The postulates are paradoxical and untestable, and thus are not going to be accepted by anyone with a rational mind.

I agree. If you don't believe in god or the supernatural, it doesn't work.
Again about the rational mind: it can't conceive quantum mechanics either.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider That really is quite a silly proof for an argument. Here, I'll do the same thing with my claim that God does not exist: The Babel fish is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy not from its carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish. Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,'says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.' `But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' `Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Chapter 6, p. 42

***writes down book on list of books to read in future***

quote:

Look ma! I can argue like a creationist too!

How proud you must be!

Allow me to at least try to throw this topic in another direction.

(Note the emphasis on the word "try")

Something kinda bothers me about Gibson's motives here. I understand his desire and faith, which obviously is likely the primary reason for him creating the movie. However, I tend to wonder if Gibson is really doing this for God's glory.

Because if it is truly for His glory (and not Gibson's), wouldn't it be more appropriate to take the $ from ticket sales and give it to a charitable cause? Wouldn't that be more appropriate in celebration of God's Glory?

Just a thought I've been mulling over.

quote:

Originally posted by Frode Different example: Please explain the two-slit experiment with electrons (quantum mechanics). Why do electrons act like waves when we don't know which slit they passed (interference pattern), but act like particles if we do know their path? As far as I know it is impossible to explain with rational thinking, yet it happens. We can calculate the probability where the electron will hit, but we can't explain why. Does the conceivable and known work perfectly fine? It works perfectly fine, but it is not conceivable. ... I agree. If you don't believe in god or the supernatural, it doesn't work. Again about the rational mind: it can't conceive quantum mechanics either.

There's not much you've said that I can disagree with, since it seems like you're conceding that things like God and an Afterlife are merely matters of imagination and have no rational basis. It's a matter of belief. Thus, by those principles, I could choose to believe that hell is in fact a midget headbutting you in the groin for all eternity, and it would be just as valid using your stated principles.

I'm not saying you're wrong, and as long as you are rationally consistent in your beliefs (i.e. you admit that everyone can believe anything and that there does not have to be a rational or logical basis for beliefs), then that's fine.

However, I AM violently opposed to your attempted use of well-known quantum mechanical principles as examples of the existence of the supernatural. Allow me to take apart this "argument from ignorance":

First of all, you've left out two very important characteristics that differentiate a scientific theory from a religious belief, which are:
1. Scientific theories model real behaviour in a repeatable or predictable fashion.
2. Scientific theories are testable and falsifiable, that is they are able to be proven wrong given the results of certain experiments.

God has neither predictable behaviour nor falsifiability, thus it fails instantly as a scientific theory. It's what we call a catchall argument, which means it can be used to prove one thing and at the same time be used to prove its negative. The Afterlife as you are attempting to describe it is also a mystical, untestable hypothesis, thus it cannot be accepted on any rational grounds.

I am not familiar with the "soccer ball universe" you speak of and I don't think it's an established scientific theory. What you're talking about sounds vaguely like wormholes and black holes/white holes, but if that's what you're talking about, then it's been grossly misstated.

As for your dual-slit experiment, what you are referring to is wave-particle duality and this is a WELL UNDERSTOOD scientific phenomenon. EVERY particle acts like a wave - even, for example, a tennis ball - the difference is that the tennis ball is so massive compared to an electron that its wavelength is far too long to exhibit any visible behaviour. But the duality principle HAS been demonstrated for particles other than electrons - scientists have used larger molecules to model the exact same behaviour.

The principle is surprisingly simple when you understand a bit of statistics. If we take a completely free electron, i.e. we have no idea where it is in space, we see that it can be assigned any energy or velocity. However, when its energy is constrained to a potential well - the most common textbook example being the ideal 1-D "bounded box" - we see that its position takes on a perfect probability wave function. That is, it will exhibit a sine wave function between the potential "walls" that represents the probability of it being in that particular position (actually, the position probability is the square of the wave function). Various mathematical manipulations can also be used to obtain the momentum, energy, etc. from this wave function.

This isn't a demonstration of a lack of knowledge. It is the fundamental basis for random processes which we see every day. What most people are taught in high school about wave-particle duality is not the whole story; those particles aren't literally waves in the sense that they don't exist as particles - they are particles that actually travel in wave form. They are regular particles whose properties are predictable by a probability distribution function (wave function).

This is why you see a dispersion pattern in the dual-slit experiment; it is a direct application of this wave function. By constraining the position of particles to a very small range, the wave nature of their position and momentum becomes obvious as they are projected onto a dispersion screen - the dispersion pattern matches exactly that of a sine wave. Why? Because probability functions "fill out" as the number of sample points approaches infinity. This is perfectly logical, modellable, testable, and repeatable behaviour.

But just to add further insult to injury, this theory actually has practical applications! Maybe you haven't realized this, but quantum mechanics is not just a theoretical field anymore, it has been the basis for the application of many phenomenon such as quantum tunneling and avalanche photodiodes (i.e. the backlight you see on many LCDs!). These are direct applications of quantum mechanics and make no sense according to the principles of classical mechanics. Why? Because classical mechanics is two hundred years old! Matter on a quantum level does not follow its laws, which only work on a macro scale. But taking this to mean that quantum mechanics is somehow "supernatural" or "beyond our grasp" is utterly ridiculous! This entire example is simply a very well-worded form of the classic argument from ignorance (I don't understand it, therefore there must be a supernatural element to it).

Hope that clears things up! Sorry for the boring science lecture everyone, but that one really got me worked up!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Allow me to at least try to throw this topic in another direction. (Note the emphasis on the word "try") Something kinda bothers me about Gibson's motives here. I understand his desire and faith, which obviously is likely the primary reason for him creating the movie. However, I tend to wonder if Gibson is really doing this for God's glory. Because if it is truly for His glory (and not Gibson's), wouldn't it be more appropriate to take the $ from ticket sales and give it to a charitable cause? Wouldn't that be more appropriate in celebration of God's Glory? Just a thought I've been mulling over.

well..it says somewhere in the bible that u should give 10% of ur income for those less fortunate and since this movie is his job then he should give 10% of his income to charity..if not then he is a hypocrate..though i am sure he will

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.