- This topic has 282 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Do you still believe the Earth is only 10,000 years old?
Is that a yes or a no Grimes?
I suppose you believe in Noah’s ark too?
Value Is EverythingGinge, is English your first language? I thought I mentioned to you that the putative age of the earth is a matter of the most sovereign irrelevance to me, citing one of the most primordial axioms of quantum mechanics as my reason. Mind precedes matter, so that there is no objective reality as such; just inter-subjective.
As Planck pointed out:‘Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.’
Niels Bohr laid it on the line, though:
‘There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature…’
‘We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections.’
‘Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question.’
‘The first thing Bohr said to me was that it would only then be profitable to work with him if I understood that he was a dilettante. The only way I knew to react to this unexpected statement was with a polite smile of disbelief. But evidently Bohr was serious. He explained how he had to approach every new question from a starting point of total ignorance.’
–Abraham Pais
And there you going saying what’s what about the age of the earth! Scientists have just found out they were about a billion and a half light years or so out, in their calculation of the age of the universe!
Listen, Ginge, to what G K Chesterton had to say about atheist scientist ‘dummies’:
‘It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.’
Did you watch any William Lane Craig videos, Ginge?
This a good one about a proposed debate with him:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41hwIG5J78U
On a serious note, Ginge, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_voTiCTqv4Q
Here’s something that might interest you, too:
http://www.classicalconversations.com/e … amp;team=1
As regards Noah’s ark, read this:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo … ces10.html
It is one of those areas of the faith I suspend my judgement on, though I have invariably found that I eventually do become convinced, after accepting them ‘on faith’, in the meantime.
Why do you answer simple questions with mumbo-jumbo Grimes?
Is it because you are hiding something?Here is a better debate, not a one-sided venture to expose the other – but a proper Oxford University, polite debate invoving "almost" athiest Richard Dawkins, philosopher and agnostic Anthony Kenny and Archbishop Of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams. Rowan Williams does not even believe in Adam and Eve or Noah’s arc as it’s written in the Bible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac
Value Is Everything
- Total Posts 764
I have a huge interest in anything paranormal.
I’ve had a couple of OOBEs. The most vivid when I awoke one morning and instantly found myself floating towards the ceiling in such a way that my body felt like air. I was able to see the finest cracks in the ceiling above my bed. I then became aware that I was ‘out of my body’ and just the thought of ‘being dead’ was enough to send me back into my mundane form in a nasty jolt. It really was a strange experience.
I believe what you experienced to be called ‘Sleep Paralysis’ which is closely related to Lucid Dreaming.
I have a huge interest in anything paranormal.
I’ve had a couple of OOBEs. The most vivid when I awoke one morning and instantly found myself floating towards the ceiling in such a way that my body felt like air. I was able to see the finest cracks in the ceiling above my bed. I then became aware that I was ‘out of my body’ and just the thought of ‘being dead’ was enough to send me back into my mundane form in a nasty jolt. It really was a strange experience.
I believe what you experienced to be called ‘Sleep Paralysis’ which is closely related to Lucid Dreaming.
I doesn’t sound like that to me, BHison2. Nowhere does Ghost of Rob V mention any feeling of paralysis. Rather, I suspect that, until overcome with fear at being able to examine from close up a crack in the ceiling, he would have been feeling very relaxed, i.e. the normal condition of sleep. No mention of a nightmare. It seems to be a phenomenon about as familiar as ghosts and their sightings by people.
- Total Posts 764
I have a huge interest in anything paranormal.
I’ve had a couple of OOBEs. The most vivid when I awoke one morning and instantly found myself floating towards the ceiling in such a way that my body felt like air. I was able to see the finest cracks in the ceiling above my bed. I then became aware that I was ‘out of my body’ and just the thought of ‘being dead’ was enough to send me back into my mundane form in a nasty jolt. It really was a strange experience.
I believe what you experienced to be called ‘Sleep Paralysis’ which is closely related to Lucid Dreaming.
I doesn’t sound like that to me, BHison2. Nowhere does Ghost of Rob V mention any feeling of paralysis. Rather, I suspect that, until overcome with fear at being able to examine from close up a crack in the ceiling, he would have been feeling very relaxed, i.e. the normal condition of sleep. No mention of a nightmare. It seems to be a phenomenon about as familiar as ghosts and their sightings by people.
In my eyes Ghost of Rob’s story sounds exactly like the two phenomenoms I mentioned. You don’t ‘feel’ paralysed during Sleep Paralaysis moreso you just are, like in a dream you don’t think "I’m in a dream right now", rather; you just accept it without forming an opinion. You are just as likely to feel ‘relaxed’ as you are ‘overcome with fear’ during these experiences too.
It is something that modern science is only just beginning to understand.
Why do you answer simple questions with mumbo-jumbo Grimes?
Is it because you are hiding something?Here is a better debate, not a one-sided venture to expose the other – but a proper Oxford University, polite debate invoving "almost" athiest Richard Dawkins, philosopher and agnostic Anthony Kenny and Archbishop Of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams. Rowan Williams does not even believe in Adam and Eve or Noah’s arc as it’s written in the Bible.
Have you watched any of those clips of William Lane Craig or John Lennox, yet, Ginge? Nooo…. Did you watch the video on the Shroud…? Noooo….. You’ve got Noah’s Ark! That’s all you need, isn’t it, Ginge?
Trying to disprove Christianity on the grounds of the historicity of the Old Testament is foolish in the extreme. It reminds me of the fraudulent, putative carbon-dating of the Shroud of Turin. It turns out that, instead of using at least 8 small pieces of the cloth, they used just the one – and that from a piece sewn on in the Middle Ages, showing a different herringbone weave!
And yet they have clung to that in the teeth of the most extraordinary array of evidence of its genuineness, one of the most remarkable being the Sudarium of Oviedo, the cloth wrapped round Christ’s face. It’s blood stains match perfectly with the Shroud… and custody of that has been recorded from the first century.
Now… or rather when you have watched those video clips – of the debates with Craig and Lennox, at least one or two – watch this brief clip, seemingly made by a computer maven, about the origin of life absolutely necessarily arising from an intelligence. Some intelligence, too, evidently!
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10335610/ … rston_phd/
Also, the Cambrian Explosion:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4284466/t … zale_rana/
… and the laughable improbability of life originating from some kind of primordial soup of amino acids:
- Total Posts 764
Would just like to add, regardless of opinions, good thread Grimes, a good ol’ debate is always welcome!
Evolution is a factual theory, in other words a theory validated by evidence. Religion is supported by no evidence, in fact it’s contradicted by scientific evidence. Rational and logical thinkers (atheists/agnostics ) can change their mind depending on the evidence while religious followers are always biased towards their religion, in the 21st century most Christians wouldn’t believe all the stories in the bible, they cherry-pick parts to what best suits their beliefs. Your only a Christian because of your western upbringing, if you was born in Saudi Arabia you and I would almost certainly have believed in Mohammed flying to heaven on a winged horse and Adam and Eve!
William Lane Craig, he’s a very good persuasive speaker doesn’t mean he’s right, I could sum him up as an educated idiot. The late Christopher Hitchens was a far better debater, he’s more interesting and comical, Craig is like an automatic robot, objective this and subjective that.
To clear a few things up,
"And there you going saying what’s what about the age of the earth! Scientists have just found out they were about a billion and a half light years or so out, in their calculation of the age of the universe!"
A Light year is a measurement of distance and not a measurement of time!
"It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for anadmittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything"
Creationists believe something came from nothing, what created God and what created the creator of God, what came before the creator of the creator of god? Non-believers mostly believe there was something before the universe to give potential to the universe, like your parents had the potential to create your life, You are the one who is believing nothing turned itself into a God who created everything from nothing. Do you believe you exist because of God or because of your parents?
irreducible complexity – I’m surprised you failed to mention the eye as an example, creationists always use the argument the eye is too complicated… It must have been created. If you actually done any research you would soon realise the evolution of the eye debunks this theory as we know the stages of non-random natural selection but random mutations over generations to gradually improve the eye, the best or ‘strongest’ species survived the ‘weakest’ died out. That is exactly Darwin’s theory, again being proved by yet more evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwew5gHoh3E easily explained video by Dawkins, on the stages of the evolution of the eye.
"The evidence for evolution (or rather the absence of it) is a longstanding joke. Just to cite one thing that absolutely destroys it is what they call, ‘irreducible complexity’; notably evidenced in the flagellum of a bacterium"
Did you know that bacterium can become drug resistant because of evolution? again non-random natural selection (pressure of an antibiotic on previous generations ) but random mutation (for future generations to survive the pressures of an antibiotic).
Do you believe the Homo Erectus’s got into heaven or do only think us modern day humans get in?
- Total Posts 764
Let’s all just smoke a J and enjoy the unfathomable spectacle that is our Universe
Would this be a J?
‘A Light year is a measurement of distance and not a measurement of time!’
Of course, it is, but it gives you a glimpse of the order of magnitude of the errors they are capable of.
Hitchens had a ‘butterfly’ mind. I couldn’t listen to him waffling for long. He really
is
an educated idiot. Craig made mince-meat of him. He also made mince-meat of other professors, such as Sam Harris, who to his credit, said of Craig that if there was any Christian debater who put the fear of God up atheist debaters it was Craig. Dawkins energetically avoided him for a long time. I must look for a video of the recent encounter/debate I read was in the pipeline.
‘Non-believers mostly believe there was something before the universe to give potential to the universe,’
… and what was before that!!!! My, you’re even arguing against your own argument, and don’t realise it.
They believe in ‘
something
‘! Wow! That’ll advance human knowledge no end. That’s because atheism is a religion to its adherents. Science has always needed Christianity, since Christians have always expected to find the world to have been intelligibly designed. (No reason for atheists to, nor do they.)
It’s why there have been no great paradigm shifts since Einstein, Planck, Bohr and Godel – the giants of the last century, who all believed in Intelligent Design, because they were theists; Einstein was actually a panentheist. ‘My religion consists of a humble admiration,’ he once stated, ‘of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.’
… and:‘The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.’
Listen to Craig and he’ll explain to you the error of so-called, ‘infinite regress’ you refer to – ‘turtles all the way down’. It was recently proved, not just by metaphysicians, but by scientists, that the universe
had
to have a beginning (the Big Bang, first postulated by a Belgian priest, called Lemaitre).
‘If you actually done any research you would soon realise the evolution of the eye debunks this theory as we know the stages of non-random natural selection but random mutations over generations to gradually improve the eye, the best or ‘strongest’ species survived the ‘weakest’ died out. That is exactly Darwin’s theory, again being proved by yet more evidence.’
Sheer fantasy. I dare you post that to uncommondescent.com…. They’ll swallow you whole. Don’t forget to bring up ‘the eye’ will you?
Darwinism is a dead duck. Comprehensively disproved. Well, it was never science. Speculating on a few old bones, not even knowing if they belonged to the same skeleton.
No empirical substance, whatsoever. Nothing reproducible in the laboratory. All they have is a few finches whose beaks grew to meet the demands of changes in their habitat, but no new body forms, limbs, etc, no new species. And when the habitat changed back, so did their beaks!
Bacteria? As I recall, they didn’t grow any new limbs or change to a different species. Developing resistance to drugs is very minor piffling change. ‘Evolution’ really just means development’, so the word is used by atheists to cover everything from bacterial resistance to such changes as prawns turning into elephants, or ants into whales!
Homo Erectus is bull-****. All that stuff is fantasizing on the basis of a few ill-matched bone fragments. The Piltdown Man fraud puts it in its true perspective. Nobody more gullible than people who want to believe their fantasies. As Chesterton put it:
‘When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.’
Why the origin of life requires intelligence:
Don’t be so gullible Grimes.
The woman in the You Tube clip has written a book. She’s promoting it.http://iands.org/research/important-res … ality.html
When did you complete your studies in advanced neuropsychiatry, Ginge? (I’m one to talk…!)
Yeah if you actually think Eintsein was religious your way off the mark,
Einstein was an agnostic, you can’t say a man who said this was religious;"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it"
He actually described believing in a god as "childlike" and the bible as "primitive" and "the product of human weakness".
Max Planck was agnostic to and this is said about his beliefs "he did not believe in a personal God, let alone a Christian God."
Kurt Godel was certainly a theist.
Niels Bohr was defiantly an atheist who didn’t believe in any gods or any religions or any after life!"Listen to Craig"
If I listened to Craig I would believe something mysterious that cannot be seen, heard or touched and something I will never see, hear or feel and could never possibly be explained had a larger role in my creation then my parents.
"… and what was before that!!!! My, you’re even arguing against your own argument, and don’t realise it."
"They believe in ‘something’! Wow! That’ll advance human knowledge no end. That’s because atheism is a religion to its adherents. Science has always needed Christianity, since Christians have always expected to find the world to have been intelligibly designed. (No reason for atheists to, nor do they.)"
I’m not contradicting myself, You are complex, I am complex and everything in and including the universe is complex. 100 years ago I didn’t exist, but still I had the slightest potential to exist. So my point is if something as complex as me didn’t exist then but had the slightest potential then the same could apply to something as complex as the universe.
Atheism isn’t a religion, the definition of religion is;
A Noun
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
Details of belief as taught or discussed.I don’t have ‘belief’ or ‘worship’ in any superhuman controlling power.
“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”
- Total Posts 764
Would this be a J?
Haha they really should bring experiments like this back, we’re never going to advance our understanding of their positive/negative effects if we keep brushing them under the carpet and pretending they aren’t there.
I have a huge interest in anything paranormal.
I’ve had a couple of OOBEs. The most vivid when I awoke one morning and instantly found myself floating towards the ceiling in such a way that my body felt like air. I was able to see the finest cracks in the ceiling above my bed. I then became aware that I was ‘out of my body’ and just the thought of ‘being dead’ was enough to send me back into my mundane form in a nasty jolt. It really was a strange experience.
I believe what you experienced to be called ‘Sleep Paralysis’ which is closely related to Lucid Dreaming.
I’ve experienced sleep paralysis in the past but it felt more like a claustrophobic sensation and my heartbeat was fast on awakening … and it was a dream.
I’ve also had lucid dreams too (one involving a very nice woman … but I won’t go into that LOL). Yes, the experience appeared quite real but I knew it was a dream on awakening. Still, the effect of that lucid dream seemed to charge me with a great sense of wellbeing that stayed with me for the rest of that day.
The OOBE was different because my consciousness didn’t allow me to feel that it was a dream. My sense of awareness was acute and it appeared as real as anything I’ve felt in the mundane world … if not sharper. The difference being that my body had lost its density and the thought of being ‘dead’ was enough to send me back to where I lay. I’m convinced that what I experienced was my soul released for a very brief period.
Yeah if you actually think Eintsein was religious your way off the mark,
Einstein was an agnostic, you can’t say a man who said this was religious;"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it"
He actually described believing in a god as "childlike" and the bible as "primitive" and "the product of human weakness".
Max Planck was agnostic to and this is said about his beliefs "he did not believe in a personal God, let alone a Christian God."
Kurt Godel was certainly a theist.
Niels Bohr was defiantly an atheist who didn’t believe in any gods or any religions or any after life!"Listen to Craig"
If I listened to Craig I would believe something mysterious that cannot be seen, heard or touched and something I will never see, hear or feel and could never possibly be explained had a larger role in my creation then my parents.
"… and what was before that!!!! My, you’re even arguing against your own argument, and don’t realise it."
"They believe in ‘something’! Wow! That’ll advance human knowledge no end. That’s because atheism is a religion to its adherents. Science has always needed Christianity, since Christians have always expected to find the world to have been intelligibly designed. (No reason for atheists to, nor do they.)"
I’m not contradicting myself, You are complex, I am complex and everything in and including the universe is complex. 100 years ago I didn’t exist, but still I had the slightest potential to exist. So my point is if something as complex as me didn’t exist then but had the slightest potential then the same could apply to something as complex as the universe.
Atheism isn’t a religion, the definition of religion is;
A Noun
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
Details of belief as taught or discussed.I don’t have ‘belief’ or ‘worship’ in any superhuman controlling power.
“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”
Is English your first language JBale? I just quoted to you Einstein’s own words:
‘My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.’
So, like most human beings he sometimes contradicted himself. But look up ‘panentheist in the dictionary.’ I didn’t say he believed in a personal God did I? Unsurprisingly, WWII didn’t foster a lot of religious trust in Jewish people who lived through it. Wolfgang Pauli had been, I believe, a Catholic convert, but seemed to have lost his faith. I’ll check that anyway. It’s to late at night now.
Einstein also remarked that people were always trying to cast him as an atheist, and that he was definitely not.
And don’t be coy about Godel. He was a Christian; a Lutheran to be precise.
As for your laughable dismissal of Planck as a Christian, you’ve taken one half-*rsed quote from Wiki, as against the main body of the quotes:
Read this, and particularly note the first and last paragraphs:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig … day-at-ud/
Your correct about Bohr to the extent that, while at least one author states he was an agnostic, the burden of evidence states he was an atheist. One claims that neither of his parents were religious, which is roundly contradicted by an online potted biography which states that his father was a particularly devout Lutheran.
But in any case, the thing to bear in mind is that all of those great had been educated in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and, with the exception of Godel, who remained a Lutheran (though a very timid witness), were at least part Jewish (bearing in mind my comment about the effect of WWII on the faith of Jewish believers.
Even Einstein became a Lutheran for brief time, although it is said to have been for professional reasons. However, in later life, he stated that there was no greater standard of morality than the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Wisdom comes with age – ideally, anyway. It’s no coincidence that the religious schools in this country tend to have a vastly superior educational record.
And you didn’t come form nowhere, J, not from nothing. You came from your mother and father. The universe came from its father, the Creator. Nothing cannot be a potential creator of anything. It’s nil, zilch, bupkis, nada, zero, etc.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.