The quote about not playing dice is referring to the lowest level of quantum mechanics. Right now physicists cannot understand how electrons can be in more than one state at a time. Einstein and many other physicists have struggled with this.
The quote about not playing dice is referring to the lowest level of quantum mechanics. Right now physicists cannot understand how electrons can be in more than one state at a time. Einstein and many other physicists have struggled with this.
Dr Catchpoole subsequently worked for the Queensland Department of Primary Industries as a plant physiologist. His research focused primarily on plant nutrition of tropical fruit trees (especially mango), and varietal selection. He has also worked as a science educator at James Cook University, which included lecturing in tropical horticulture.
David was once an ardent atheistic evolutionist, before being challenged to look critically at the problems of evolution, and the scientific evidence for creation and the Bible.
https://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
Flew used to be one of most ardent atheist before Dawkins came along.
In 2007, he recounted his conversion in a book titled There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.
Dr Catchpoole subsequently worked for the Queensland Department of Primary Industries as a plant physiologist. His research focused primarily on plant nutrition of tropical fruit trees (especially mango), and varietal selection. He has also worked as a science educator at James Cook University, which included lecturing in tropical horticulture.
David was once an ardent atheistic evolutionist, before being challenged to look critically at the problems of evolution, and the scientific evidence for creation and the Bible.
https://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
Flew used to be one of most ardent atheist before Dawkins came along.
In 2007, he recounted his conversion in a book titled There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.
Atheism is, I suppose, the supreme example of a simple faith. The man says there is no God; if he really says it in his heart, he is a certain sort of man so designated in Scripture [i. e. a fool, Ps 53:2]. But, anyhow, when he has said it, he has said it; and there seems to be no more to be said. The conversation seems likely to languish. The truth is that the atmosphere of excitement, by which the atheist lived, was an atmosphere of thrilled and shuddering theism, and not of atheism at all; it was an atmosphere of defiance and not of denial. Irreverence is a very servile parasite of reverence; and has starved with its starving lord. After this first fuss about the merely aesthetic effect of blasphemy, the whole thing vanishes into its own void. If there were not God, there would be no atheists.
Atheism is, I suppose, the supreme example of a simple faith. The man says there is no God; if he really says it in his heart, he is a certain sort of man so designated in Scripture [i. e. a fool, Ps 53:2]. But, anyhow, when he has said it, he has said it; and there seems to be no more to be said. The conversation seems likely to languish. The truth is that the atmosphere of excitement, by which the atheist lived, was an atmosphere of thrilled and shuddering theism, and not of atheism at all; it was an atmosphere of defiance and not of denial. Irreverence is a very servile parasite of reverence; and has starved with its starving lord. After this first fuss about the merely aesthetic effect of blasphemy, the whole thing vanishes into its own void. If there were not God, there would be no atheists.
Christendom might quite reasonably have been alarmed if it had not been attacked. But as a matter of history it had been attacked. The Crusader would have been quite justified in suspecting the Moslem even if the Moslem had merely been a new stranger; but as a matter of history he was already an old enemy. The critic of the Crusade talks as if it had sought out some inoffensive tribe or temple in the interior of Thibet, which was never discovered until it was invaded. They seem entirely to forget that long before the Crusaders had dreamed of riding to Jerusalem, the Moslems had almost ridden into Paris. They seem to forget that if the Crusaders nearly conquered Palestine, it was but a return upon the Moslems who had nearly conquered Europe.
Christendom might quite reasonably have been alarmed if it had not been attacked. But as a matter of history it had been attacked. The Crusader would have been quite justified in suspecting the Moslem even if the Moslem had merely been a new stranger; but as a matter of history he was already an old enemy. The critic of the Crusade talks as if it had sought out some inoffensive tribe or temple in the interior of Thibet, which was never discovered until it was invaded. They seem entirely to forget that long before the Crusaders had dreamed of riding to Jerusalem, the Moslems had almost ridden into Paris. They seem to forget that if the Crusaders nearly conquered Palestine, it was but a return upon the Moslems who had nearly conquered Europe.
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.
These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own.
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.
These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own.
Couple above are Chesterton. But obviously everyone knows of CS Lewis and his conversion.
So to say that is is not the case is nonsense. You can read many articles and books on the subject. Some are in-depth and some are easy reads. Strobel is a good example to start with if you ever get truly interested.
I think latest numbers are 3/10 or so if these type scientist believe in God or a Creator.
Couple above are Chesterton. But obviously everyone knows of CS Lewis and his conversion.
So to say that is is not the case is nonsense. You can read many articles and books on the subject. Some are in-depth and some are easy reads. Strobel is a good example to start with if you ever get truly interested.
I think latest numbers are 3/10 or so if these type scientist believe in God or a Creator.
I don't agree with your stance but for arguments sake, which religious doctrine/text should we go by if there is only objective morality with a God?
Is the Islamic version of God correct and we should all adhere to the Quran and THAT provides us with objective morality? Or Christianity and the Bible? Buddhism? Mormonism? Sikh? Ancient Greek Gods? Roman Gods?
Now I know from previous conversations that you're a Christian. So I'm sure that you wouldn't want to adhere to a life set forth by the Quran or another religious text that isn't the bible.
This is the classic side step. If you are truly interested, there are many good books to read on this very subject. Good articles and good videos online as well.
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
I don't agree with your stance but for arguments sake, which religious doctrine/text should we go by if there is only objective morality with a God?
Is the Islamic version of God correct and we should all adhere to the Quran and THAT provides us with objective morality? Or Christianity and the Bible? Buddhism? Mormonism? Sikh? Ancient Greek Gods? Roman Gods?
Now I know from previous conversations that you're a Christian. So I'm sure that you wouldn't want to adhere to a life set forth by the Quran or another religious text that isn't the bible.
This is the classic side step. If you are truly interested, there are many good books to read on this very subject. Good articles and good videos online as well.
Christians have slaughtered more humans on earth than anything on the planet. God is murder and mayhem.
This is incorrect and it is not even close. NonChristians have obviously killed more. From Fascists, Communists, Muslims, etc. --- in just the previous century puts that to rest.
Quote Originally Posted by searchwarrant:
Christians have slaughtered more humans on earth than anything on the planet. God is murder and mayhem.
This is incorrect and it is not even close. NonChristians have obviously killed more. From Fascists, Communists, Muslims, etc. --- in just the previous century puts that to rest.
This is the classic side step. If you are truly interested, there are many good books to read on this very subject. Good articles and good videos online as well.
Not intended to be a side step. It's a legit question in my mind. You can't argue for a God and, in turn, guidance from that God and then have multiple religions claim theirs is the true scripture or message. Especially when some of those scriptures contradict each other.
Feel free to list some reading material or link some articles that you mentioned earlier.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
This is the classic side step. If you are truly interested, there are many good books to read on this very subject. Good articles and good videos online as well.
Not intended to be a side step. It's a legit question in my mind. You can't argue for a God and, in turn, guidance from that God and then have multiple religions claim theirs is the true scripture or message. Especially when some of those scriptures contradict each other.
Feel free to list some reading material or link some articles that you mentioned earlier.
“Let's say that the consensus is that our species, being the higher primates, person Sapiens, has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years, maybe more. Francis Collins says maybe 100,000. Richard Dawkins thinks maybe a quarter-of-a-million. I'll take 100,000. In order to be a Christian, you have to believe that for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about 25 years, dying of their teeth. Famine, struggle, bitterness, war, suffering, misery, all of that for 98,000 years.
Heaven watches this with complete indifference. And then 2000 years ago, thinks 'That's enough of that. It's time to intervene,' and the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the Middle East. Don't lets appeal to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization. Let's go to the desert and have another revelation there. This is nonsense. It can't be believed by a thinking person.
Why am I glad this is the case? To get to the point of the wrongness of Christianity, because I think the teachings of Christianity are immoral. The central one is the most immoral of all, and that is the one of vicarious redemption. You can throw your sins onto somebody else, vulgarly known as scapegoating. In fact, originating as scapegoating in the same area, the same desert. I can pay your debt if I love you. I can serve your term in prison if I love you very much. I can volunteer to do that. I can't take your sins away, because I can't abolish your responsibility, and I shouldn't offer to do so. Your responsibility has to stay with you. There's no vicarious redemption. There very probably, in fact, is no redemption at all. It's just a part of wish-thinking, and I don't think wish-thinking is good for people either.
It even manages to pollute the central question, the word I just employed, the most important word of all: the word love, by making love compulsory, by saying you MUST love. You must love your neighbour as yourself, something you can't actually do. You'll always fall short, so you can always be found guilty. By saying you must love someone who you also must fear. That's to say a supreme being, an eternal father, someone of whom you must be afraid, but you must love him, too. If you fail in this duty, you're again a wretched sinner. This is not mentally or morally or intellectually healthy.
And that brings me to the final objection - I'll condense it, Dr. Orlafsky - which is, this is a totalitarian system. If there was a God who could do these things and demand these things of us, and he was eternal and unchanging, we'd be living under a dictatorship from which there is no appeal, and one that can never change and one that knows our thoughts and can convict us of thought crime, and condemn us to eternal punishment for actions that we are condemned in advance to be taking. All this in the round, and I could say more, it's an excellent thing that we have absolutely no reason to believe any of it to be true.” ? Christopher Hitchens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1w-K4DbJMk
“Let's say that the consensus is that our species, being the higher primates, person Sapiens, has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years, maybe more. Francis Collins says maybe 100,000. Richard Dawkins thinks maybe a quarter-of-a-million. I'll take 100,000. In order to be a Christian, you have to believe that for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about 25 years, dying of their teeth. Famine, struggle, bitterness, war, suffering, misery, all of that for 98,000 years.
Heaven watches this with complete indifference. And then 2000 years ago, thinks 'That's enough of that. It's time to intervene,' and the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the Middle East. Don't lets appeal to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization. Let's go to the desert and have another revelation there. This is nonsense. It can't be believed by a thinking person.
Why am I glad this is the case? To get to the point of the wrongness of Christianity, because I think the teachings of Christianity are immoral. The central one is the most immoral of all, and that is the one of vicarious redemption. You can throw your sins onto somebody else, vulgarly known as scapegoating. In fact, originating as scapegoating in the same area, the same desert. I can pay your debt if I love you. I can serve your term in prison if I love you very much. I can volunteer to do that. I can't take your sins away, because I can't abolish your responsibility, and I shouldn't offer to do so. Your responsibility has to stay with you. There's no vicarious redemption. There very probably, in fact, is no redemption at all. It's just a part of wish-thinking, and I don't think wish-thinking is good for people either.
It even manages to pollute the central question, the word I just employed, the most important word of all: the word love, by making love compulsory, by saying you MUST love. You must love your neighbour as yourself, something you can't actually do. You'll always fall short, so you can always be found guilty. By saying you must love someone who you also must fear. That's to say a supreme being, an eternal father, someone of whom you must be afraid, but you must love him, too. If you fail in this duty, you're again a wretched sinner. This is not mentally or morally or intellectually healthy.
And that brings me to the final objection - I'll condense it, Dr. Orlafsky - which is, this is a totalitarian system. If there was a God who could do these things and demand these things of us, and he was eternal and unchanging, we'd be living under a dictatorship from which there is no appeal, and one that can never change and one that knows our thoughts and can convict us of thought crime, and condemn us to eternal punishment for actions that we are condemned in advance to be taking. All this in the round, and I could say more, it's an excellent thing that we have absolutely no reason to believe any of it to be true.” ? Christopher Hitchens
If you need "God" to confirm or deny your good and bad behavior than ya have some problems.
Christians have slaughtered more humans on earth than anything on the planet. God is murder and mayhem.
Yes, I need God, and Jesus to confirm truth. Murder is wrong and that is the truth. How do I know murder is wrong? I know murder is wrong because God created us in his own image, with inate value and worth and a purpose in life. Moses came down with the Law that said, "thou shall not murder". Jesus fulfilled the Law by claiming to be the Truth, living a sinless life, dying on the cross, and then bodily rising from the dead. That is how I know murder is wrong.
You, on the other hand, believe we are all just cosmic dust, here by random chance
Quote Originally Posted by searchwarrant:
If you need "God" to confirm or deny your good and bad behavior than ya have some problems.
Christians have slaughtered more humans on earth than anything on the planet. God is murder and mayhem.
Yes, I need God, and Jesus to confirm truth. Murder is wrong and that is the truth. How do I know murder is wrong? I know murder is wrong because God created us in his own image, with inate value and worth and a purpose in life. Moses came down with the Law that said, "thou shall not murder". Jesus fulfilled the Law by claiming to be the Truth, living a sinless life, dying on the cross, and then bodily rising from the dead. That is how I know murder is wrong.
You, on the other hand, believe we are all just cosmic dust, here by random chance
Yes, I need God, and Jesus to confirm truth. Murder is wrong and that is the truth. How do I know murder is wrong? I know murder is wrong because God created us in his own image, with inate value and worth and a purpose in life. Moses came down with the Law that said, "thou shall not murder". Jesus fulfilled the Law by claiming to be the Truth, living a sinless life, dying on the cross, and then bodily rising from the dead. That is how I know murder is wrong.
You, on the other hand, believe we are all just cosmic dust, here by random chance
So the 5 billion people who don't believe in Jesus are wrong and going to hell, right?
Quote Originally Posted by Balph:
Yes, I need God, and Jesus to confirm truth. Murder is wrong and that is the truth. How do I know murder is wrong? I know murder is wrong because God created us in his own image, with inate value and worth and a purpose in life. Moses came down with the Law that said, "thou shall not murder". Jesus fulfilled the Law by claiming to be the Truth, living a sinless life, dying on the cross, and then bodily rising from the dead. That is how I know murder is wrong.
You, on the other hand, believe we are all just cosmic dust, here by random chance
So the 5 billion people who don't believe in Jesus are wrong and going to hell, right?
You will say murder is wrong because....you say so? If someone disagrees with you, why are you right and they are wrong. It is one opinion verses another.
To continue
You will say murder is wrong because....you say so? If someone disagrees with you, why are you right and they are wrong. It is one opinion verses another.
The argument that religious belief improves people, or that it helps to civilize society, is one that people tend to bring up when they have exhausted the rest of their case.
The argument that religious belief improves people, or that it helps to civilize society, is one that people tend to bring up when they have exhausted the rest of their case.
So the 5 billion people who don't believe in Jesus are wrong and going to hell, right?
Everyone has the opportunity to accept Jesus as the truth. God knows your heart and you will be judged fairly. If you do not wish to be with God then you will not be forced to be with him. You will be separated from him.
Quote Originally Posted by Danelaw:
So the 5 billion people who don't believe in Jesus are wrong and going to hell, right?
Everyone has the opportunity to accept Jesus as the truth. God knows your heart and you will be judged fairly. If you do not wish to be with God then you will not be forced to be with him. You will be separated from him.
So scientists are experts on questions of philosophy?
No, they are experts on facts that support high probability. They do not formulate conclusions without data. Philosophy contains no data, it's based on assumption, therefore it is 99.99999999999% horse chit.
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
So scientists are experts on questions of philosophy?
No, they are experts on facts that support high probability. They do not formulate conclusions without data. Philosophy contains no data, it's based on assumption, therefore it is 99.99999999999% horse chit.
Everyone has the opportunity to accept Jesus as the truth. God knows your heart and you will be judged fairly. If you do not wish to be with God then you will not be forced to be with him. You will be separated from him.
What if you're wrong and hinduism, buddhism, islam, judaism, taoism and the countless other religions are right?
Even the Christians cannot agree among themselves - you got protestants, catholics, evangelicals, baptists, jehovas witness and on and on..
Oh and thank you - I don't want to be with Big Brother. If I wanted that I'd move to North Korea...
Quote Originally Posted by Balph:
Everyone has the opportunity to accept Jesus as the truth. God knows your heart and you will be judged fairly. If you do not wish to be with God then you will not be forced to be with him. You will be separated from him.
What if you're wrong and hinduism, buddhism, islam, judaism, taoism and the countless other religions are right?
Even the Christians cannot agree among themselves - you got protestants, catholics, evangelicals, baptists, jehovas witness and on and on..
Oh and thank you - I don't want to be with Big Brother. If I wanted that I'd move to North Korea...
What if you're wrong and hinduism, buddhism, islam, judaism, taoism and the countless other religions are right?
Even the Christians cannot agree among themselves - you got protestants, catholics, evangelicals, baptists, jehovas witness and on and on..
Oh and thank you - I don't want to be with Big Brother. If I wanted that I'd move to North Korea...
To expand on this: why are people being punished for being born in the wrong parts of the world i.e. non Christian parts of the world?
If someone is born in Bangladesh, for example, they are destined to go to hell because Christianity may have never been introduced to them during their life?
If that's the case, then that's not a God I would want to serve anyways, even if he was proven to exist.
Quote Originally Posted by Danelaw:
What if you're wrong and hinduism, buddhism, islam, judaism, taoism and the countless other religions are right?
Even the Christians cannot agree among themselves - you got protestants, catholics, evangelicals, baptists, jehovas witness and on and on..
Oh and thank you - I don't want to be with Big Brother. If I wanted that I'd move to North Korea...
To expand on this: why are people being punished for being born in the wrong parts of the world i.e. non Christian parts of the world?
If someone is born in Bangladesh, for example, they are destined to go to hell because Christianity may have never been introduced to them during their life?
If that's the case, then that's not a God I would want to serve anyways, even if he was proven to exist.
The argument that religious belief improves people, or that it helps to civilize society, is one that people tend to bring up when they have exhausted the rest of their case.
What?
Quote Originally Posted by Danelaw:
The argument that religious belief improves people, or that it helps to civilize society, is one that people tend to bring up when they have exhausted the rest of their case.
No, they are experts on facts that support high probability. They do not formulate conclusions without data. Philosophy contains no data, it's based on assumption, therefore it is 99.99999999999% horse chit.
Science answers 1 form of enquiry while religion answers another form of enquiry.
To say science can and does answers questions of philosophy is to CONFUSE agency against mechanism.
Quote Originally Posted by searchwarrant:
No, they are experts on facts that support high probability. They do not formulate conclusions without data. Philosophy contains no data, it's based on assumption, therefore it is 99.99999999999% horse chit.
Science answers 1 form of enquiry while religion answers another form of enquiry.
To say science can and does answers questions of philosophy is to CONFUSE agency against mechanism.
There is no hell or heaven. Everything just goes black and we turn into compost. Just like every other living creature on earth.
Do you have an argument for that or is that just another assertion with know argument or evidence to back that up?
The funny thing is, you make moral claims and condemn morally all the time on this site. Why should anyone OUGHT to act a certain way if we will just like every other animal on this earth?
We see rape all the time in the animal kingdom, if we too are just like every other animal, why is it wrong for humans to rape?
When a group of ducks pack rape another duck, have they done anything wrong? If not, why is it wrong for humans to pack rape? Arent we just like every other animal?
When a bear eats its off spring in the wild, have they done anything wrong? if not, why is it wrong if a human eats its off spring?
If we are just like every other animal, then why do you claim humans OUGHT to act a certain way or have moral obligations imposed on them? Who imposes these obligations?
Quote Originally Posted by searchwarrant:
There is no hell or heaven. Everything just goes black and we turn into compost. Just like every other living creature on earth.
Do you have an argument for that or is that just another assertion with know argument or evidence to back that up?
The funny thing is, you make moral claims and condemn morally all the time on this site. Why should anyone OUGHT to act a certain way if we will just like every other animal on this earth?
We see rape all the time in the animal kingdom, if we too are just like every other animal, why is it wrong for humans to rape?
When a group of ducks pack rape another duck, have they done anything wrong? If not, why is it wrong for humans to pack rape? Arent we just like every other animal?
When a bear eats its off spring in the wild, have they done anything wrong? if not, why is it wrong if a human eats its off spring?
If we are just like every other animal, then why do you claim humans OUGHT to act a certain way or have moral obligations imposed on them? Who imposes these obligations?
Not intended to be a side step. It's a legit question in my mind. You can't argue for a God and, in turn, guidance from that God and then have multiple religions claim theirs is the true scripture or message. Especially when some of those scriptures contradict each other.
Feel free to list some reading material or link some articles that you mentioned earlier.
Okay. Cool. It is for sure a legitimate question.
An easy to read one is the following book by
Lee Strobel and his book The Case for Christ. He does this from an investigative journalist viewpoint, which is his background. There are also links on YouTube with videos. I haven't seen them, but I'm sure they give an overview of it.
Ravi Zacharias on the following videos does a good job explaining this as well:
There are many other, even better, ones online. These just off the top of my head. But if you are really interested some of these certainly will give you additional links to research.
C S Lewis writings are also a good addition to look at.
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
Not intended to be a side step. It's a legit question in my mind. You can't argue for a God and, in turn, guidance from that God and then have multiple religions claim theirs is the true scripture or message. Especially when some of those scriptures contradict each other.
Feel free to list some reading material or link some articles that you mentioned earlier.
Okay. Cool. It is for sure a legitimate question.
An easy to read one is the following book by
Lee Strobel and his book The Case for Christ. He does this from an investigative journalist viewpoint, which is his background. There are also links on YouTube with videos. I haven't seen them, but I'm sure they give an overview of it.
Ravi Zacharias on the following videos does a good job explaining this as well:
There are many other, even better, ones online. These just off the top of my head. But if you are really interested some of these certainly will give you additional links to research.
C S Lewis writings are also a good addition to look at.
Hot Forum Topics
