kallend 2,146 #126 January 13, 2012 Quote Quote I'm just all verklempt that my excuse to say that my drink of wine with dinner is health food is all gone Wendy P. Were all the studies disproved, or just the one? Just the work of one "researcher". Nothing disproved.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #127 January 13, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI think it's pretty reasonable to say that he believed they existed before they could be proven to exist. So why is HE right for believing and Christians wrong? There is no evidence to support Christians claim of their god existing. Their argument is weak and of poor logic. There was no evidence to support Pauli's belief in the neutrino existing at that point, either. WRONG. After you've taken the statistics class you so badly need, perhaps you should take some physics. After you've taken the reading comprehension class you so badly need, perhaps you can read the entire thread, then you would have know that the timeframe being discussed was BEFORE the beta decay theory.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #128 January 13, 2012 Quote>Uhm, I see that experiment as silly If it worked (i.e. if people prayed for the Earth to stop rotating, and it did) wouldn't that help prove to you that their prayers were answered by a deity, or a deity-like construct? I mean, it's not conclusive proof of course, but it would be strongly suggestive. But if it didnt "work" 't couldn't at the same time mean that a divine creator doesn't want to be reduced to a genie to prove his existence?? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #129 January 13, 2012 >But if it didnt "work" 't couldn't at the same time mean that a divine >creator doesn't want to be reduced to a genie to prove his existence? No. All you could prove is that prayer does not cause the earth to stop spinning as described in Joshua 10:13. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #130 January 13, 2012 I disagree. I don't take the bible literally as most non fundamental scholars don't. So I would say the story in Joshua is simply man's interpretation of events they cannot explain. I still believe if is preposterous to manipulate a supreme being. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #131 January 13, 2012 >So I would say the story in Joshua is simply man's interpretation of events >they cannot explain. That is likely the case; such an experiment would demonstrate that praying for such a thing doesn't work (which would lend support to the idea that it's not literally true.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #132 January 13, 2012 QuoteWhat's your definition? This is alot easier than anyone makes it out to be.. First Cause. The problem starts the minute you try to tie it to any religious belief.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #133 January 13, 2012 QuoteQuote For me, subjective, emotional evidence that leads me to believe in the existence of a god of some sort. Again, evidence that doesn't meet a level of scientific "proof". But it is enough to convince me (mostly anyway, I'm not completely sure). Exactly, the personal experiences are the observations. For some, those observations lead to the conclusion of ultimate responsibility - you are responsible for what happens to you in life. Period. The problem with "personal experiences" as "observations" is the complete lack of objectivity or external repetition. It doesn't meet the broadest definition of an experiment as an individual can claim any "observation" (and therefore build any conclusion at all) at any time without fear of refutation or cross examination.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #134 January 13, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI think it's pretty reasonable to say that he believed they existed before they could be proven to exist. So why is HE right for believing and Christians wrong? There is no evidence to support Christians claim of their god existing. Their argument is weak and of poor logic. There was no evidence to support Pauli's belief in the neutrino existing at that point, either. WRONG. After you've taken the statistics class you so badly need, perhaps you should take some physics. After you've taken the reading comprehension class you so badly need, perhaps you can read the entire thread, then you would have know that the timeframe being discussed was BEFORE the beta decay theory. No it isn't. That's just stupid. Pauli didn't believe in neutrino's until he calculated that they should exist as a result of beta decay observations. And that's why scientific predictions of things that should exist but haven't yet been directly observed are so much better than religious stories about gods - the maths add up. If Pauli or anyone else had hypothesised the existence of neutrinos before the existence of any related observations showing 'missing' energy or mass there would have been no reason to believe them. But then, if they had managed to pluck accurate properties and behaviour of neutrinos out of thin air with no supporting science, it would have been a fucking miracle.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #135 January 13, 2012 QuoteCan you think of an experiment that would prove the existence of God? The Christian God is extremely easy to disprove. If that God existed millions of Christians would be doing spectacular magic tricks like moving mountains, raising the dead and healing the amputated. This simply doesn't happen so that God doesn't exist. But since religion does in fact correct its mistakes, God evolves into something that's less easy to disprove. And if you disprove that, God becomes even vaguer. And in the end people just say that they believe in "something". And you, not even if you invoke Satan himself, can't possibly disprove the existence of "something". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #136 January 13, 2012 QuoteWith out evidence of any diety the only reasonable conclustion is that there are none. *sigh* Another that believes that BS. *sigh*My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #137 January 13, 2012 Quote The problem with "personal experiences" as "observations" is the complete lack of objectivity or external repetition. I can see where this is a problem for some. For others, who have been trained and practice a discipline, they have a framework with a common vocabulary that allows them to describe their observations in meaningful terms. Can you stick a gauge on it? No. Doesn't mean those observations aren't valid, and significant. Quote It doesn't meet the broadest definition of an experiment as an individual can claim any "observation" (and therefore build any conclusion at all) at any time without fear of refutation or cross examination. Science's strict requirement of reproducibility, independent of the observer, has proven enormously beneficial to mankind. For some phenomenon, such as observing yourself, that definition is limiting (by definition ). Thus, do I call the practice of observing yourself Science? Only loosely, and with said caveats.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #138 January 13, 2012 Quote If Pauli or anyone else had hypothesised the existence of neutrinos... I think that was used here as an illustration. I don't see a need to beat that use of an illustration to death here...We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #139 January 13, 2012 Quote>What would constitute evidence in your argument? An easy one would be: An experiment where a group of worthy worshipers prayed for a specific demonstrable miracle (say, the conversion of a corpse into a pillar of salt, or giving a snake/donkey the power of speech, or the halting of the rotation of the earth for a hour) and had it occur. Have control groups where non-religious, differently-religious or non-worthy worshipers prayed for the same thing to demonstrate that it is prayers of the worthy to the correct God that caused it. What's easy about that is that it's a false assumption. You appear to assume that a suddenly-speaking donkey would prove the existence of God. I think a much more likely assumption would be: The donkey is just being a smart ass. Quote>I see where you're going, but it's a silly argument, IMO. QuoteCan you think of an experiment that would prove the existence of God? Nope. Nor can you. Your point is, I assume and correct me if I am wrong, that if one cannot think of and execute a viable experiment, then God doesn't exist. Do you see a problem with that? QuoteNo. All you could prove is that prayer does not cause the earth to stop spinning as described in Joshua 10:13. Would prove no such thing and you know it....are your trolling here?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #140 January 13, 2012 Quote What's easy about that is that it's a false assumption. There are those here who will choose to flog to death the concept of a Christian God as expressed in the Bible. It's pointless. Consider the audience for the Bible... Basically, it was aimed at goat herders, etc. That audience is no longer applicable. But, the core concepts expressed by Christ, as described in the Bible, as very relevant. They're universal in that the same core concepts are expressed in different ways across many cultures and other disciplines. Living a life as described by Christ in the Bible can be enormously beneficial to people, and those around them.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #141 January 13, 2012 Quote Any kind of evidence that could be tested that remotely suggests that a deity exists would be very significant! Right now the evidence amounts to zero. Maybe you're just smarter than the rest of the world and could come up with a viable physical test? No, I didn't think so....just like the rest of us.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #142 January 13, 2012 Quote There are those here who will choose to flog to death the concept of a Christian God as expressed in the Bible. It's pointless. And that's what makes these types of threads so much fun! They don't realize it and refuse to realize it and just keep plowing on with the idiocy. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #143 January 13, 2012 Quote come up with a viable physical test The only test one can do here is to individually pursue these observations, and see what happens. No one else can do it for you. Hopefully, in pursuing these observations you've encountered a framework that facilitates the process for you personally.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #144 January 13, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhile Neutrinos always existed we were not able to detect them this of course doesn't mean they didn't exist till we were able to detect them. And yet, you claim that lack of evidence of the existence of a Deity is perfect evidence that said Deity doesn't exist....sorry, can't have it both ways. Your logic is totally screwed up. That wasn't what I said or what I meant. Really? "It's not reasonable to conclude that some thing exists if there is no evidence." - beowulf, post 26 "While Neutrinos always existed we were not able to detect them this of course doesn't mean they didn't exist till we were able to detect them." - beowulf, post 37 Not sure why that confuses you. I don't see the conflict that you seem to see. So, you have identified the real problem. Good stuff.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #145 January 13, 2012 Quote Ok smarty pants, please develop a quantifiable system of tests and measures where by one can quantify the existence of god or unicorns. Please have your results published for peer review. *sigh* And here's another one that has no clue as to what the problem with his question is. *sigh* Shah...you'd be better off not responding to anything in this thread.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #146 January 13, 2012 Quote The Christian God is extremely easy to disprove. As long as you realize that disproving the concept of a Christian God as described by the Bible does not disprove the beneficial power of the discipline espoused by Christ. That's where faithful Christians, those truly living that discipline, take offense, and rightfully so.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #147 January 13, 2012 QuoteQuote The Christian God is extremely easy to disprove. As long as you realize that disproving the concept of a Christian God as described by the Bible does not disprove the beneficial power of the discipline espoused by Christ. That's where faithful Christians, those truly living that discipline, take offense, and rightfully so. Ahhhh...maybe Marinus is the smartest in the world and has an idea that will disprove "the Christian God".My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #148 January 13, 2012 Quote No it isn't. That's just stupid. Pauli didn't believe in neutrino's until he calculated that they should exist as a result of beta decay observations. Maybe you and Beowolf can get together and come to some agreement on Pauli's beliefs. Beowolf says, "I think it's pretty reasonable to say that he believed they existed before they could be proven to exist. " Ok...let's assume that you are clairvoyant and really do know what Pauli believed... You, like others, are making that invalid assumption that proof of the existence of any non-physical deity is based on physical evidence. Indeed you require it. You will never get it and you will never "get it". Have fun wasting air and bandwidth. Once again... *WHOOSH*My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #149 January 13, 2012 Let's quote Jesus, shall we? Quote He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." So start having faith that Mount S. Helens will move towards the Dutch Town of Nijmegen. When a whole volcano shows up at my front door, I'll convert on the spot and accept Jesus Christ as-my-lord-and-saviour-amen. Not that I don't have faith that you'll talk your way out of this one within 30 seconds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #150 January 13, 2012 Quote I'll convert on the spot and accept Jesus Christ as-my-lord-and-saviour-amen. I'm not a Christian, and am most certainly NOT trying to convert you to such. My point on this thread has consistently been - just because one chooses not to follow a self-observation discipline in their life doesn't negate the observations and experiences provided by such a discipline for other people.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
