Speaking in 'toungues'
-
You are still trying to argue that God can not be explained so any scientific argument about him must be invalid by default.
I would actually agree with this. The way God is defined goes so far out from where we can scientifically observe that it is invalid to try. God is a matter of philosophy and faith, not science and reason. Faith is present in everyone. Some people attach it to the authorities that tell us "oxygen is an atom, we can observe it through experiments. We know it exists, we just can't see it because it is too small for light to shine behind so there is no way to 'see' it." and others go with "god says don't be an a-hole. That means stop trying to screw yer buddies' wife, take his stuff, or kill him and be nice to your parents, jerk." I'm not saying we have to give them the same weight if we personally think it is drivel, but whichever side of the fence we sit on should be willing to accept the other side as having their own thoughts and as long as they don't try and shove stuff down our throats we should respect them, and vice versa.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
A lot of the time. For example, Jesus gives the answer to your question, as I've already said. You will say that makes it self defeating. I say it makes it self defining. The end result is the same. I approach the Bible with faith based on my experience. You approach it with a lack of respect borne from a desire to disprove it, so there's no wonder you don't want to spend the time to really understand it. That's cool, I understand it. It just won't change the answers I'll give, from the Bible.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
You approach it with a lack of respect borne from a desire to disprove it
I have no desire to disprove it - I desire to have others prove it, which is where the burden of proof lies.
Christian Graus wrote:
It just won't change the answers I'll give, from the Bible.
I can only describe my position with this quote: "Trying to prove the existence of god with the bible is like trying to prove the existence of Superman with a comic book."
-
I would actually agree with this. The way God is defined goes so far out from where we can scientifically observe that it is invalid to try. God is a matter of philosophy and faith, not science and reason. Faith is present in everyone. Some people attach it to the authorities that tell us "oxygen is an atom, we can observe it through experiments. We know it exists, we just can't see it because it is too small for light to shine behind so there is no way to 'see' it." and others go with "god says don't be an a-hole. That means stop trying to screw yer buddies' wife, take his stuff, or kill him and be nice to your parents, jerk." I'm not saying we have to give them the same weight if we personally think it is drivel, but whichever side of the fence we sit on should be willing to accept the other side as having their own thoughts and as long as they don't try and shove stuff down our throats we should respect them, and vice versa.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You approach it with a lack of respect borne from a desire to disprove it
I have no desire to disprove it - I desire to have others prove it, which is where the burden of proof lies.
Christian Graus wrote:
It just won't change the answers I'll give, from the Bible.
I can only describe my position with this quote: "Trying to prove the existence of god with the bible is like trying to prove the existence of Superman with a comic book."
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I can only describe my position with this quote: "Trying to prove the existence of god with the bible is like trying to prove the existence of Superman with a comic book."
Wow, beautiful quote... Gotta remember that one.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
You're saying that omniscience is not knowing what the outcome is but knowing what every possible outcome could be. Essentially everything is possible, even if only remotely so, so your definition pretty much boils down to knowing that at every moment anything is possible, which isn't really knowledge at all.
no I am saying omniscience IS knowing what every outcome WILL be. "If I do X, Y happens. If I do X, Y happens, A does B and C happens along with Y. I can change A to do E instead of B and F happens instead. D is right out." It isn't knowing anything is possible, it is knowing what will happen in every chain of events with every variable. You see ALL of it, and you can travel down each path and see the outcomes. If you have seen "Chuck" you get the intersect with all that info in your head and you can make all the connections and figure it all out. My problem with omniscience is that by the very nature of it, it is almost worthless. I may know everything, but sorting it all out and picking the best solutions would take time and a lot of power. You'd almost need to be omnipresent and omnipotent just to get it to work.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You approach it with a lack of respect borne from a desire to disprove it
I have no desire to disprove it - I desire to have others prove it, which is where the burden of proof lies.
Christian Graus wrote:
It just won't change the answers I'll give, from the Bible.
I can only describe my position with this quote: "Trying to prove the existence of god with the bible is like trying to prove the existence of Superman with a comic book."
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I have no desire to disprove it - I desire to have others prove it, which is where the burden of proof lies.
Well, you are wrong. You are wrong, because I've met my burden of proof by telling you how you can have the same experience. That it's a personal experience and only proof to the individual does not prove there is no God, only that He does not work as you'd like.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I can only describe my position with this quote: "Trying to prove the existence of god with the bible is like trying to prove the existence of Superman with a comic book."
In a situation where the Bible did not offer tangible, physical proof to the individual, you may have some sort of point. However, if the Bible says God will do things in the real world, and He does, then what BUT the Bible would be the place to look ? The truth is, the Bible defines God, as comic books define Superman. It's if these books offer to prove something exists, and if this proof is found to work in the real world, that cause me to believe in God, and not Superman. If you want to understand quantum physics, why would it be wrong to look in a book about quantum physics to understand the theory, then test it in real life to see if it is true ? That is all I am advocating.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I believe God can protect me
and
Christian Graus wrote:
I don't believe I should seek danger to prove it
But if gods protecting you there isnt any danger so go ahead and handle the snake and drink the poison since you have stated that you need to do these things if you are a true christian.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
since you have stated that you need to do these things if you are a true christian.
I said no such thing. You are being deliberately obtuse, and, in this case, a liar. I'll follow Jesus' example and not yours. You are saying exactly what Satan said to Jesus, and my response will not be any different. I'm not sure why I'm even playing this game with you, you're plainly not listening to me, or considering anything I say, beyond looking for ways to twist it to suit your views.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Sure, normally it isn't a problem, but when religion is trying to explain something real and physical, I'm not just going to watch that happen without doing something about it.
Religion tries to explain anything. It doesn't mean their explanations are grounded in science or make sense there. Trying to explain that to them doesn't work though. "God makes em talk funny." "We have no proof about it and it looks like they are being weird." "God made em weird." "... Your god sucks?" Perhaps we should just let them have their speaking in tongues and let em know that as long as they keep it in their practices, don't try and make us do it, and don't decide that someone saying "SNARFBLAT!" means "Kill all atheists!" which is a greenlight to start a crusade/jyhad/purge/insertreligiouswartermhere. I am more than fine with them being religious as long as they aren't forcing their beliefs down my throat. Christian is a good example of how they should behave. Personally religious, but not telling me I am burning in hell for not giving a flying eff about his religion.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
no I am saying omniscience IS knowing what every outcome WILL be. "If I do X, Y happens. If I do X, Y happens, A does B and C happens along with Y. I can change A to do E instead of B and F happens instead. D is right out." It isn't knowing anything is possible, it is knowing what will happen in every chain of events with every variable. You see ALL of it, and you can travel down each path and see the outcomes. If you have seen "Chuck" you get the intersect with all that info in your head and you can make all the connections and figure it all out. My problem with omniscience is that by the very nature of it, it is almost worthless. I may know everything, but sorting it all out and picking the best solutions would take time and a lot of power. You'd almost need to be omnipresent and omnipotent just to get it to work.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
no I am saying omniscience IS knowing what every outcome WILL be. "If I do X, Y happens. If I do X, Y happens, A does B and C happens along with Y. I can change A to do E instead of B and F happens instead. D is right out."
That's a pretty far-out definition. How come you can't foresee your own actions?
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
no I am saying omniscience IS knowing what every outcome WILL be. "If I do X, Y happens. If I do X, Y happens, A does B and C happens along with Y. I can change A to do E instead of B and F happens instead. D is right out."
That's a pretty far-out definition. How come you can't foresee your own actions?
You can, you can see EVERY possible action you do and what they would cause. And you can choose which one to take.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I have no desire to disprove it - I desire to have others prove it, which is where the burden of proof lies.
Well, you are wrong. You are wrong, because I've met my burden of proof by telling you how you can have the same experience. That it's a personal experience and only proof to the individual does not prove there is no God, only that He does not work as you'd like.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I can only describe my position with this quote: "Trying to prove the existence of god with the bible is like trying to prove the existence of Superman with a comic book."
In a situation where the Bible did not offer tangible, physical proof to the individual, you may have some sort of point. However, if the Bible says God will do things in the real world, and He does, then what BUT the Bible would be the place to look ? The truth is, the Bible defines God, as comic books define Superman. It's if these books offer to prove something exists, and if this proof is found to work in the real world, that cause me to believe in God, and not Superman. If you want to understand quantum physics, why would it be wrong to look in a book about quantum physics to understand the theory, then test it in real life to see if it is true ? That is all I am advocating.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I was going to stay out of this thread, aside from my usual inane jokes, but I just have to step in... Sorry if this sounds offensive, but I'm just trying to be logical... That's how my mind works :)
Christian Graus wrote:
In a situation where the Bible did not offer tangible, physical proof to the individual, you may have some sort of point. However, if the Bible says God will do things in the real world, and He does, then what BUT the Bible would be the place to look ? The truth is, the Bible defines God, as comic books define Superman. It's if these books offer to prove something exists, and if this proof is found to work in the real world, that cause me to believe in God, and not Superman.
If Superman was found to be real, then there would be plenty of other proof besides a comic book. Photographs and video, to start. The comic book itself would not be proof of his existence, any more than my novels are proof of the existence of the Xen Guardians.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, you are wrong. You are wrong, because I've met my burden of proof by telling you how you can have the same experience. That it's a personal experience and only proof to the individual does not prove there is no God, only that He does not work as you'd like.
Except, as you've described (And correct me if I'm wrong), you can only receive this "proof" if you already believe in "god". So its presence can affirm your belief, and its absence can affirm your disbelief. Basically, either way it just confirms what you already think to be true. If someone actually tries to test it and fails, then the standard answer from the religious side is always something along the lines of "You weren't REALLY trying because you didn't believe" Or are you saying that I, as an atheist, would be able to accurately test this proof? Real proof would be something that would bring you from a state of doubt to a state of belief, not something that requires belief in the first place.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
You can, you can see EVERY possible action you do and what they would cause. And you can choose which one to take.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
Then that goes back to what I said before - everything else may be deterministic, but anything is possible with regards to yourself which again means that at every instant you know that anything could happen but not what will happen.
-
I was going to stay out of this thread, aside from my usual inane jokes, but I just have to step in... Sorry if this sounds offensive, but I'm just trying to be logical... That's how my mind works :)
Christian Graus wrote:
In a situation where the Bible did not offer tangible, physical proof to the individual, you may have some sort of point. However, if the Bible says God will do things in the real world, and He does, then what BUT the Bible would be the place to look ? The truth is, the Bible defines God, as comic books define Superman. It's if these books offer to prove something exists, and if this proof is found to work in the real world, that cause me to believe in God, and not Superman.
If Superman was found to be real, then there would be plenty of other proof besides a comic book. Photographs and video, to start. The comic book itself would not be proof of his existence, any more than my novels are proof of the existence of the Xen Guardians.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, you are wrong. You are wrong, because I've met my burden of proof by telling you how you can have the same experience. That it's a personal experience and only proof to the individual does not prove there is no God, only that He does not work as you'd like.
Except, as you've described (And correct me if I'm wrong), you can only receive this "proof" if you already believe in "god". So its presence can affirm your belief, and its absence can affirm your disbelief. Basically, either way it just confirms what you already think to be true. If someone actually tries to test it and fails, then the standard answer from the religious side is always something along the lines of "You weren't REALLY trying because you didn't believe" Or are you saying that I, as an atheist, would be able to accurately test this proof? Real proof would be something that would bring you from a state of doubt to a state of belief, not something that requires belief in the first place.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Except, as you've described (And correct me if I'm wrong), you can only receive this "proof" if you already believe in "god".
What he actually said was a little more obtuse than that. It wasn't so much already believing as being 'willing enough' to accept it as true. It's something akin to somebody telling you that human flight is possible, but to prove it you have to be willing enough to accept it as true that you'll fling yourself off a tall building.
-
Well, this is the age old story of deciding there can't be a God b/c He doesn't do things the way we would like. The Bible says that God gives us the worlds to speak because we don't know what we should pray for. If being given the words to pray benefits God, or us, the Bible is not clear. Why we should need to pray the things we don't know for, instead of just saying 'and don't forget the stuff I don't know', is also not clear except that by the very act, we're reminded that we don't know enough to know all the things we should be asking for or seeking, all the time. Speaking in tongues, according to the Bible, builds up our faith and keeps us in God's love.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
we don't know enough to know all the things we should be asking for or seeking
Hang on, what happend to the ten commandments? Praying for no murder, no stealing, no envy, no adultery, etc etc etc is not enough? I would like to know just what god IS telling you to pray for, it must be some pretty far out stuff!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Religion tries to explain anything. It doesn't mean their explanations are grounded in science or make sense there. Trying to explain that to them doesn't work though. "God makes em talk funny." "We have no proof about it and it looks like they are being weird." "God made em weird." "... Your god sucks?" Perhaps we should just let them have their speaking in tongues and let em know that as long as they keep it in their practices, don't try and make us do it, and don't decide that someone saying "SNARFBLAT!" means "Kill all atheists!" which is a greenlight to start a crusade/jyhad/purge/insertreligiouswartermhere. I am more than fine with them being religious as long as they aren't forcing their beliefs down my throat. Christian is a good example of how they should behave. Personally religious, but not telling me I am burning in hell for not giving a flying eff about his religion.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Then that goes back to what I said before - everything else may be deterministic, but anything is possible with regards to yourself which again means that at every instant you know that anything could happen but not what will happen.
"Darn, by definition I am not omniscient because I only know 99.9999999 (repeating of course) of everything, I never quite know what I am going to do until I do it. I know what I should do and what I want, so I likely do know what I do, but I am never sure." I supposed being truly 100% omniscient and omnipotent would be impossible then. Alright. I retract my previous belief and now agree with you.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
I was going to stay out of this thread, aside from my usual inane jokes, but I just have to step in... Sorry if this sounds offensive, but I'm just trying to be logical... That's how my mind works :)
Christian Graus wrote:
In a situation where the Bible did not offer tangible, physical proof to the individual, you may have some sort of point. However, if the Bible says God will do things in the real world, and He does, then what BUT the Bible would be the place to look ? The truth is, the Bible defines God, as comic books define Superman. It's if these books offer to prove something exists, and if this proof is found to work in the real world, that cause me to believe in God, and not Superman.
If Superman was found to be real, then there would be plenty of other proof besides a comic book. Photographs and video, to start. The comic book itself would not be proof of his existence, any more than my novels are proof of the existence of the Xen Guardians.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, you are wrong. You are wrong, because I've met my burden of proof by telling you how you can have the same experience. That it's a personal experience and only proof to the individual does not prove there is no God, only that He does not work as you'd like.
Except, as you've described (And correct me if I'm wrong), you can only receive this "proof" if you already believe in "god". So its presence can affirm your belief, and its absence can affirm your disbelief. Basically, either way it just confirms what you already think to be true. If someone actually tries to test it and fails, then the standard answer from the religious side is always something along the lines of "You weren't REALLY trying because you didn't believe" Or are you saying that I, as an atheist, would be able to accurately test this proof? Real proof would be something that would bring you from a state of doubt to a state of belief, not something that requires belief in the first place.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
If Superman was found to be real, then there would be plenty of other proof besides a comic book. Photographs and video, to start. The comic book itself would not be proof of his existence, any more than my novels are proof of the existence of the Xen Guardians.
Exactly my point.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Except, as you've described (And correct me if I'm wrong), you can only receive this "proof" if you already believe in "god".
You can only recieve it by asking for it. Yes, the proof is personal, and a degree of willingness to entertain faith is required. Does the fact that you don't like how God does things prove there is no God ?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So its presence can affirm your belief, and its absence can affirm your disbelief. Basically, either way it just confirms what you already think to be true
Not at all. I had blind faith in a non-speaking in tongues experience God, and it was not sustainable, for me. It certainly did not help me overcome the issues in my life, which disappeared when I experienced what I am talking about. That at least shows that any blind faith by which I was able to use an imaginary friend to do what I needed to in my life, didn't work for me when I had just as much faith as I did when I trusted in what the Bible does say. That sort of anecdotal proof is all that's on offer for people not willing to ask God for themselves. That's not something I decided on, it's just the way it is. I can't define God, I can only tell you about Him.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Or are you saying that I, as an atheist, would be able to accurately test this proof?
I can tell you that athiests have done so and become Christians, but I am not suggesting a cynical testing of what I'm saying will turn out the way I describe every time. Sometimes, enough faith seems to creep in for people to be willing to honestly ask God, and not just fold their arms and say 'I know you're not here'. Again, that sounds like weasel words, I know. I didn't define the system, or decide what God should require. I do know that I go to church with former athiests who came along to prove us wrong.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Real proof would be something that would bring you from a state of doubt to a state of belief, not some
-
Well, he didn't put much thought into it. I invented my own (partial) language for my novels, and it's a lot of bloody work :) Ironically, even though I invented the language, I'm not even close to fluent in it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
"Darn, by definition I am not omniscient because I only know 99.9999999 (repeating of course) of everything, I never quite know what I am going to do until I do it. I know what I should do and what I want, so I likely do know what I do, but I am never sure." I supposed being truly 100% omniscient and omnipotent would be impossible then. Alright. I retract my previous belief and now agree with you.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
by definition I am not omniscient because I only know 99.9999999 (repeating of course) of everything
An omniscient being would know that 99.999999.... is precisely equal to 100.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Alright. I retract my previous belief and now agree with you.
:-D :rose:
-
Well, he didn't put much thought into it. I invented my own (partial) language for my novels, and it's a lot of bloody work :) Ironically, even though I invented the language, I'm not even close to fluent in it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)I think someone from Star Trek that developed the Klingon language mentioned that a fan talked to him in it and he couldn't keep up once. Developing a language is hard. Learning a developed one is a lot easier.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.