GOD: How much do you believe in him?

[DerbyGull]

Valid points? Hovagirl said that examples of things not being able to be proved by science were we can read our partner's minds, or that some people believe in palm reading, tarot cards or astrology. How on earth does people believing in these things indicate that science can't explain things? Does it occur to you that these people may be wrong?

If you want to say 'well they may be right' I agree, which is why I didn't vote that I know god doesn't exist for a fact, but just because it's not a fact that god doesn't exists (or that astrology etc is bullshit) is not itself proof that science can't explain everything. Hovagirl says that 'identical twins are known to have uncanny bouts of psychic occurrences' - that's just a story, and there's no evidence that it's real (and having had identical twins I've checked). These are not valid points that science can't explain things.
You are confusing science and our knowledge of science. Like you say, there is a much beyond our knowledge and imagination. The fact that there was no scientific explanation why we didn't float off into space just a few hundred years ago didn't mean that the answers were beyond science, they were just beyond our understanding at that time.

No there isn't. Dogs, cats, you name it, do not have psychic ability. They have instincts, like the instinct to eat, but that is not psychic. If you think you have proof they do, let's see it, it's a breakthrough.

From wiki (must be true): 'The most likely explanation of déjà vu isn't that it is an act of "precognition" or "prophecy", but rather that it is an anomaly of memory, giving the false impression that an experience is "being recalled"
I've not looked up how much research there has been done on deja vu, my point is simply that where we don't have the scientific explanation for something doesn't mean there isn't one.

No you don't. I'm sorry, I don't know how else to put it, their experiences may be described as uncanny, but they are not psychic.
That is not scientific proof of psychic behaviour. What it is a good indication of is that our genes play a part in the person we turn out to be. You will find there are also twins that have gone on to lead vry different lives too.
Do you mean to tell me that you and your husband know each other very well? That isn't psychic.

These things are more similar to sod's law. We remember certain things and assume significants when something unusual happens. If I'm watching sky sports, day dreaming about Debbie Harry, then the adverts come on and Debbie Harry is on, I could pretend that was psychic, but it's not. We are always day dreaming about something random, and at some point that random thing is going to come up in conversation or on tv, and it will seem remarkable, but it is just a statistical certainty that sometimes these things happen.

Just because you've surprised people does not make it real. And if it was real, then there would be an explanation for it (eg, hyperthetically, if our life-line was accurate, scientists may find that the gene that gives us long life also gives us a big crease on our hand). That would not mean that science can't explain everything.
Well I agree with you that it is just fun, but you used it as an example that science can't explain everything.
That's incorrect. I know what tarot card reading, palm reading, astrology is, and just because I disagree with you about their accuracy does not mean I don't understand what you are saying. You are a spiritual person, and I have no problem with that. It probably gives you a good feeling and sense of peace, and that's (without sarcasm) lucky for you. My mum believes in god, as did her mum, and my wife believes in spirits (not alcoholic) of some sorts. But you are saying that you know of proof that science doesn't have the answers, which is not true. Scientists don't have all the answers, but that's not the same.
I do question these things, that is the main trait of someone who is scientifically minded, to question. And sense anything outside of my existence? Don't be silly. The universe is bigger than any human could have imagined, and there is almost certainly life on other plantes, and we are an insignicant spec in the scheme of things. I didn't pretend that the creator made us in his image and create the universe around us (how arrogant).
I'm aware you are not of school age, I am saying that if you are seriously suggesting your examples are proof that science doesn't know everything, then you ought to study some science.

You are 100% dismissive of it. Claiming science has an answer for pretty much everything. Everything else, according to you, MUST be cods wallop.

 

[Triggaaar]

You are 100% dismissive of it.

As things stand, yes, I am.

Claiming science has an answer for pretty much everything.

Arguements of what the word 'science' means aside, yes, I believe there is an explanation for everything, even though we don't have those explanations.

Everything else, according to you, MUST be cods wallop.

It's not that it 'MUST' be, it just appears that it is. If tarot cards worked, or crystal balls, then leading businesses would use them, and those skilled in the art wouln't be in some dodgy tent at a fair. People pay these fortune tellers to make shit up. Why that's in a real debate I don't know.

 

[HovaGirl]

Ok, believing in psyhic occurrences and reading minds comes across as a bit spiritual, but if you're not, ok.
I realise this is a story, but that makes you sound as if you're easily lead. To be convinced of both free will and pre-detemined fate in one day is impressive. So are you telling that story just for fun, or were you really convinced of two opposing ideas. Were the others in that group also convinced by both arguements?
This story belongs in the pub. In a more serious discussion, I would suggest that the 'bright spark' was a bit slow, and that those calling him a bright spark are in need of care. I don't believe you are in need of care, my point is that your story is just that.

The session was part of a university degree course where the students were having a debate chaired by the philosophy tutor. The Humanities do not approach reasoned debate from the same discipline as the sciences, so if you are a scientist, you may not appreciate the philosophical approach in a debate. The closing comment was made as we were all walking out the door, and she was probably the more able students.

 

[HovaGirl]

Originally Posted by HovaGirl View Post
...there may well come a time when science can explain the more mystical things which people have claimed have happened....

Somehow I doubt that will ever happen.

We will never know because we will be long dead if it does.

 

[HovaGirl]

As things stand, yes, I am.
Arguements of what the word 'science' means aside, yes, I believe there is an explanation for everything, even though we don't have those explanations.
It's not that it 'MUST' be, it just appears that it is. If tarot cards worked, or crystal balls, then leading businesses would use them, and those skilled in the art wouln't be in some dodgy tent at a fair. People pay these fortune tellers to make shit up. Why that's in a real debate I don't know.

They're in a real debate because there are those who believe in mystic happenings. I'm not necessarily one of them but I use some of them to illustrate the idea of a world beyond the purely physical.

 

[HovaGirl]

Greyfriars Bobby, and numberless other stories of dogs "knowing" when exactly their masterrs have passed away, often hundreds or thousands of miles distant. THAT is eerie.

The Greyfriar's Bobby story was a myth, a marketing ploy, indeed!

 

[DerbyGull]

 

[Triggaaar]

The session was part of a university degree course where the students were having a debate chaired by the philosophy tutor. The Humanities do not approach reasoned debate from the same discipline as the sciences, so if you are a scientist, you may not appreciate the philosophical approach in a debate.

Regardless of the approach of the debate, if you are one minute convinced of free will, and the next convinced of a pre determined fate, then you are easily led. It may be that the students weren't all convinced by both arguements.

 

[perseus]

Exist Does God

For me this is the best post on the thread. No matter how much either side would like to paint it as such, this isn't about being right or wrong. It's about belief. I don't have a belief in God, or religion, and need some kind of evidence to support such a theory, but that doesn't mean that I need to harangue people that have different beliefs.

Absolutely disagree. The post asks whether God exists. You can believe what you want, God still exists.

 

[sten_super]

Absolutely disagree. The post asks whether God exists. You can believe what you want, God still exists.

Is this a pisstake, or are you actually mental?

 

[Triggaaar]

God exists. You can believe what you want, God still exists.

or
God doesn't exist. You can believe what you want, God still doesn't exist.

One of those statements is correct. Unless you went to school with Hovagirl, in which case both statements are true and false depending whether you've had lunch or not.

Not being serious there HG

 

[HovaGirl]

Regardless of the approach of the debate, if you are one minute convinced of free will, and the next convinced of a pre determined fate, then you are easily led. It may be that the students weren't all convinced by both arguements.

Not at all. It was 6 hours of reasoned debate and it just went to prove, philosophically, that you can reason yourself into and out of any argument. And that was the point of the debate, though we didn't know it at the time.

 

[HovaGirl]

Absolutely disagree. The post asks whether God exists. You can believe what you want, God still exists.

No, it doesn't. The thread asks how much we believe in God, presupposing there is one. The post to which you replied, said: "It's about belief. I don't have a belief in God,"

 

[HovaGirl]

Originally Posted by perseus View Post
God exists. You can believe what you want, God still exists.

or
God doesn't exist. You can believe what you want, God still doesn't exist.

One of those statements is correct. Unless you went to school with Hovagirl, in which case both statements are true and false depending whether you've had lunch or not.

Not being serious there HG

No, neither statement is correct. Except to those who believe absolutely that God exists, or that God does not exist.

 

[DerbyGull]

“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many...For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." (Matthew 7:13-14).

Jesus said that 2000 years ago and it is still entirely relevant (for those who think it is some out of date book only relevant for people of a bygone era). The majority on this board reject God, so it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. In this day and age anyone can pick up a bible, or add the bible as an app to their iphone or download an audiobible to their laptop. Read it (and choose to become less ignorant in the process) and then read Dawkins and come to some sort of conclusion. But the majority just want to be spoon fed and NOT think for themselves, they'd rather Stephen Fry do THEIR thinking for them. Just as the anti catholic debate between Fry and Widdecombe proves, people were won over by Fry's elloquent and confident delivery, outdoing the other speakers in the process. Proving that the people are sheep.

 

[Triggaaar]

Jesus said that 2000 years ago and it is still entirely relevant (for those who think it is some out of date book only relevant for people of a bygone era).

So there is at least one line in the bible that is as relavent today (could be relavent or totally irrelevant) as it was when it was written. So what?

The majority on this board reject God, so it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy...
But the majority just want to be spoon fed and NOT think for themselves...
Proving that the people are sheep.

Which side of the arguement are you again? People do not believe in god when they are born, they are preached to and told to believe. You could argue that those people who believe are therefore sheep. And in the past, most people believed in god (matching your point about this forum), so were they sheep?

Just because people chose to believe what Stephen Fry argued, which was against the church, then they must be the sheep who can't think for themselves? Do you not see how twisted your arguement is? Preachers try to do people's thinking for them, but someone stands against it, people listen, and suddenly they're the sheep. While I respect your right to your opinion, I find your arguements to be totally without logic or fact.

 

[HovaGirl]

“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many...For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." (Matthew 7:13-14).

Jesus said that 2000 years ago and it is still entirely relevant (for those who think it is some out of date book only relevant for people of a bygone era). The majority on this board reject God, so it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. In this day and age anyone can pick up a bible, or add the bible as an app to their iphone or download an audiobible to their laptop. Read it (and choose to become less ignorant in the process) and then read Dawkins and come to some sort of conclusion. But the majority just want to be spoon fed and NOT think for themselves, they'd rather Stephen Fry do THEIR thinking for them. Just as the anti catholic debate between Fry and Widdecombe proves, people were won over by Fry's elloquent and confident delivery, outdoing the other speakers in the process. Proving that the people are sheep.

People are sheep. They often do or believe what is fashionable or what simply keeps them alive. The pompous Fry is so full of the self-importance of his own intellect, that he has become unbearable to listen to these days. But he has charisma, and charisma is in the nature of the leaders and preachers who have the gift of persuading the sheep what to think.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Presumably the poll refers to 'our' God. And presumably votes for all other Gods from the Sun God to the Ice God to the God in the form of, say, a funny-looking elephant are therefore invalidated.

 

[Mr Burns]

“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many...For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." (Matthew 7:13-14).

Jesus said that 2000 years ago and it is still entirely relevant (for those who think it is some out of date book only relevant for people of a bygone era). The majority on this board reject God, so it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. In this day and age anyone can pick up a bible, or add the bible as an app to their iphone or download an audiobible to their laptop. Read it (and choose to become less ignorant in the process) and then read Dawkins and come to some sort of conclusion. But the majority just want to be spoon fed and NOT think for themselves, they'd rather Stephen Fry do THEIR thinking for them. Just as the anti catholic debate between Fry and Widdecombe proves, people were won over by Fry's elloquent and confident delivery, outdoing the other speakers in the process. Proving that the people are sheep.

i WOULD LOVE TO DEBATE THAT LAST PARAGRAPH WITH YOU BUT UNFORTUNATELY AM STILL WAITING FOR YOUR VIEW ON THE FOLLOWING.


Funny thing about these regilous freaks.

The spu their vile, but when someone asks something they don't like, they tend to ignore it. The disappear for a while, then came back, still ignoring something they dont like.

I'm sure he'll give an answer soon though. Probably couldn't find an answer by googleing it, so Derbygulls probably waiting for some other freak to give him the answer.

Sad, very sad.

May as well ask again as its funny being ignored

Originally Posted by DerbyGull After both of us getting banned you still want to keep bringing this up?

Do you know when to let something drop?

Obviously not.

I'm no playing your games Burns.


Originally Posted by DerbyGull
And he did create man so great that they could learn skills that would FIX that baby's problem.


EARLIER IN THE THREAD around page 30

Originally Posted by Mr Burns
So what about the millions of babies that die each year? How does that work with them getting into heaven..... let me guess, they are taken by default. So what about a child that dies before reaching double figures? Default again.... where does it stop? Or do you have to have lived on the earth for X amount of years to quailify for a place in heaven?
[missing a couple of 'filler posts'] Then...,.


Originally Posted by DerbyGull
You could say they are the lucky ones, though that sounds cruel as they never had a chance at some of the joys of life, they also never had a chance to do good or bad. When some one dies we're (christians) supposed to believe it's because god 'took them'. And because they never had a chance to commit sin (the thing that keeps us from being in gods presence (being in heaven) when we die) then they will go strainght to heaven possibly to be 'sent back' by god to have another chance.

Mr Burns

So any doctor that FIXES a baby is surely doing the devils work, as God has called the baby, the "lucky baby" into his kingdom, so anyone preventing that from happening is working against god, which you have said numerous times, anyone working against god is doing the devils work.

So by that logic, all doctors must be evil?

Derbygull

Trying to google an answer, or waiting for another freak to help him out

 

[Mr Burns]

You are 100% dismissive of it. Claiming science has an answer for pretty much everything. Everything else, according to you, MUST be cods wallop.

STILL LOOKING FOR AN ANSWER TO BACK UP YOUR SICK CLAIMS



Funny thing about these regilous freaks.

The spu their vile, but when someone asks something they don't like, they tend to ignore it. The disappear for a while, then came back, still ignoring something they dont like.

I'm sure he'll give an answer soon though. Probably couldn't find an answer by googleing it, so Derbygulls probably waiting for some other freak to give him the answer.

Sad, very sad.

May as well ask again as its funny being ignored

Originally Posted by DerbyGull After both of us getting banned you still want to keep bringing this up?

Do you know when to let something drop?

Obviously not.

I'm no playing your games Burns.


Originally Posted by DerbyGull
And he did create man so great that they could learn skills that would FIX that baby's problem.


EARLIER IN THE THREAD around page 30

Originally Posted by Mr Burns
So what about the millions of babies that die each year? How does that work with them getting into heaven..... let me guess, they are taken by default. So what about a child that dies before reaching double figures? Default again.... where does it stop? Or do you have to have lived on the earth for X amount of years to quailify for a place in heaven?
[missing a couple of 'filler posts'] Then...,.


Originally Posted by DerbyGull
You could say they are the lucky ones, though that sounds cruel as they never had a chance at some of the joys of life, they also never had a chance to do good or bad. When some one dies we're (christians) supposed to believe it's because god 'took them'. And because they never had a chance to commit sin (the thing that keeps us from being in gods presence (being in heaven) when we die) then they will go strainght to heaven possibly to be 'sent back' by god to have another chance.

Mr Burns

So any doctor that FIXES a baby is surely doing the devils work, as God has called the baby, the "lucky baby" into his kingdom, so anyone preventing that from happening is working against god, which you have said numerous times, anyone working against god is doing the devils work.

So by that logic, all doctors must be evil?

Derbygull

Trying to google an answer, or waiting for another freak to help him out