K, so we can argue till the cows come home, about this but there is a lot of good feed back from the last one I had, I like to hear others ideas. I"m going to simplify this one though, to avoid loosing the topic.

Lets go with the idea that some scientific professionals believe that "the human race" was a product of evolution from monkeys. Awww so cute and cudly, ok, get off me. Haha, just kidding guys and gals. ;) Then there is the people who believe that there is not enough evidence for that theory to be FACT. So it is a possiblity but not fact.

Then there are those who believe in the "WORD of GOD", the teachings of the bible. The good book, or the book you find a hotel drawer?? Rather odd considering some of the things people do in those rooms eh?? haha, again kidding. ;) In this book, people are said to have been created in GODs own image; if you have a direct quote I'd very much apprecitate it if you'd post it; thus people assume that GOD created us to look like GOD. (reason i don't say him while reffering to GOD is because i don't believe God is any specified gender, and very well may be both or none.) So some of these people agree that GOD created us by means of Adam and Eve in a matter of days, where as some believe that GOD created us by means of evolution. There is more but we'll find that later.

So my original question is kind of deul in purpose. 1ST, What does the bible mean by "created in his own image"??

2ND, Is the bible more of a book of Myths, fables and stories that are ment to inspire the "word of GOD"?? NOt a book of fact.

3RD, I would aregue that our race has bin evolving since it was upone the earth, however, it seems that our physique is perfected, while our mentality is changing. Yes, I believe that the people that lived in the days of Jessus, were less intelegant, not because they couldn't be more so, but because there wasn't as many resources to use to gain knowledge as fast and largly as we do today.

Ok, I want a clean fight! No kicking bighting or boggie wiping, it's just unpleasant. HAHA, OK, easy goes it and try to have some fun. Lets hear what you all got for me. ;)

Created in his image actually means attributes.

God Created Man in His Image, and the Fall (http://www.bibleviews.com/Creation-man.html)

God "The Creator", Man "The Artist" Created in His Image. (http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v08n3p13.htm)

So the human race is supposed to look like it's creator, and it's not even slightly plossible that it's referring to the idea that GOD had an image in his mind of what we should look like, then presto we are there as GOD so saw us in his imagination. I mean really he'd have to have one or nothing would be right?

The Bible is not talking about physical attributes when it says we are created in God's image. Our Spirit is created in God's image. God is a spiritual being, man is a being that consists of Spirit, Soul, and Body. So man's spirit being is what has been created in God's image.

Exactly -spirit and soul.

I doubt if according to the Jewish myth, that GodAlmighty created humans in the image and likeness of himself... human beings suffer much from diseases such as autism, schizophrenia, cancer, mental illness, on and on and in addition, from famine, tsuname, poverty, on and on... I don't think that GodAlmighty spends any time suffering, and in fact, won't do anything to alleviate suffering not the fault of the individual... therefore, GodAlmighty is not loving or all powerful. We see that in the story of Job... GodAlmighty sent extreme suffering into his life to *test him*.

GodAlmighty is a Sadist, in fact... there is no love there based on the facts, and he enjoys innocent people's suffering.

Created in his image was before the fall... before the suffering.

3RD, I would aregue that our race has bin evolving since it was upone the earth, however, it seems that our physique is perfected, while our mentality is changing. Yes, i believe that the people that lived in the days of Jessus, were less intelegant, not because they couldn't be more so, but because there wasn't as many resources to use to gain knowlege as fast and largly as we do today.




Mentality may have changed but I do not believe that we are more intelligent or less intelligent than previous generations.

Can you actually imagine the architectural designs of the historical buildings of the past and to think they did not have AutoCad to aid them?Imagine the brain must have had been used far better than we are now,for the mere fact that,Now a lot of work is being done by programs/programmed machines, where we make less use of our brain,hence possibly our brains are developing less than ancient generations.

Their physical strength may have been even greater as they did manual labor more than some of us ever would.
And another thing is that our younger generations are so dependent on machines to do their mental work, I rather think that parts of the brain do not develop as much as it should.

Guess I am going far far away from the topic,but I do think if we were to compare the tools we have at hand and what they had at hand, and then compare the work they did, they maybe more intelligent and capable of greater things than we are.

We in fact with all the knowledge we have are destroying ourselves with use/abuse of all things that harm us.

:)

Mentality may have changed but I do not believe that we are more intelligent or less intelligent than previous generations.

Can you actually imagine the architectural designs of the historical buildings of the past and to think they did not have AutoCad to aid them?Imagine the brain must have had been used far better than we are now,for the mere fact that,Now a lot of work is being done by programs/programmed machines, where we make less use of our brain,hence quite possibly our brains are developing less than ancient generations.

Their physical strength may have been even greater as they did manual labor more than some of us ever would.
And another thing is that our younger generations are so dependent on machines to do their mental work, I rather think that parts of the brain do not develop as much as it should.

Guess I am going far far away from the topic,but I do think if we were to compare the tools we have at hand and what they had at hand, and then compare the work they did, they maybe more intelligent and capable of greater things than we are.

We in fact with all the knowledge we have are destroying ourselves with use/abuse of all things that harm us.

:)


Ah, you my friend, speak true and wise.

And I agree, our race is being rather unwise with the way it is taking care of the power it has. I suppose the only thing we can do to change that is, do what we ourselves can to help the environment. Because with out it being just as it is, then chances are we won't be at all.

Peace be with you.

Gen 1:26
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
(KJV)

Both likeness AND image.

This is what I found

Image - the powers with which each one of us is endowed by God from the first moment of our existence (free will, reason, sense of moral responsibility, etc.)

Likeness - making proper use of being in His image will allow us to acquire God's likeness, to be deified (assimilated to God through virtue).

I doubt if according to the Jewish myth, that GodAlmighty created humans in the image and likeness of himself.....human beings suffer much from diseases such as autism, schizophrenia, cancer, mental illness, on and on and in addition, from famine, tsuname, poverty, on and on.....I don't think that GodAlmighty spends any time suffering, and in fact, won't do anything to alleviate suffering not the fault of the individual...therefore, GodAlmighty is not loving or all powerful. We see that in the story of Job....GodAlmighty sent extreme suffering into his life to *test him*.

GodAlmighty is a Sadist, in fact....there is no love there based on the facts, and he enjoys innocent people's suffering.

You have zero understanding of the book of Job.

Satan basically issued a challenge to God: "You have no one on Earth who serves you because of integrity or love. You have bought Job's friendship by what you have given him. If you let me take that away, Job will curse you to your face."

Do you think God could ignore that challenge? After all, if no one serves Him because they really want to, then God has no right to rule, which is of course, Satan's position from the beginning of his rebellion.

After Job proved Satan wrong, God restored more to Job than he had to begin with. As far as Job's children were concerned, if they were following in their father's steps, then they have been in Heaven ever since.

You shouldn't make accusations based on a false understanding.

You shouldn't make accusations based on a false understanding.

One's understanding is all one knows; is it not? So how would one see that their understanding is wrong? Even if you prove them wrong, that may not change their understanding if they so choose to understand your "proof" as faulse. And you may want to realise that you are being a bit Hypocritical in stating the above. Because your perception is different from others, thus you will understand things differently. Some may agree with you, but in the end. There will probably be others who do not agree.
You may want to reconsider your statement. ;)

His statement is accurate. Job means exactly as he said and yes Choux walked away with a different interpretation but as galveston said it is inaccurate.

Lets go with the idea that some scientific professionals believe that "the human race" was a product of evolution from monkeys.
No scientific professional believes that "the human race" was a product of evolution from monkeys. The human race and monkeys share common ancestors. Just a couple more than we do with other animals. We even share ancestors with bananas and all other lifeforms.


Science Vs. Religion (GOD)
Science is not versus religion.
Science is about explanation and objective supporting evidence (OSE).
Religion is about belief without any OSE.
And therefore never the two will meet.


GOD created man in his own image.
"God" created man in his own image??
The important question here is more : who "created" "God"??

:)

.

.

You have zero understanding of the book of Job.

Satan basically issued a challenge to God: "You have no one on Earth who serves you because of integrity or love. You have bought Job's friendship by what you have given him. If you let me take that away, Job will curse you to your face."

Do you think God could ignore that challenge? After all, if no one serves Him because they really want to, then God has no right to rule, which is of course, Satan's position from the beginning of his rebellion.

After Job proved Satan wrong, God restored more to Job than he had to begin with. As far as Job's children were concerned, if they were following in their father's steps, then they have been in Heaven ever since.

You shouldn't make accusations based on a false understanding.

When I was in high school I drove a old beat up firebird, it was a red light monster faster than almost everyone else on the road but since I knew I wasn't the fastest I had something to prove because it wasn't all powerful. I would answer every challenge. Later I bought a nice corvette and I found I no longer needed to prove myself I had everything and nothing to gain by winning a drag race with some cheaper car I could only loose something. Same would go for god making a bet with the devil. Why when you have all the power would you not dismiss the challenge as being below you as all challenges to a all powerful being would be. If I could figure out that there are some challenges that are not worth answering right out of high school am I smarter than your god? I think so...

I do believe that since God was spirit only until the Birth of Jesus we were made in the likeness image of that spirit.
We have a spirit like God and a soul like His.
Before Jesus was born as a man he was The Word.
Now He is both Man and The Word.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I do believe that since God was spirit only until the Birth of Jesus we were made in the likeness image of that spirit.
You may believe that, Fred. No problem.

Nothing personal, but from my point of view that view shows haughtiness and arrogance... a "perfect omniscient supra-natural omni-potent" spirit who needed a human body to push it acclaimed message to humanity...

If such an omni-potent entity would exist, it would not need a human format.
If such a supra-natural entity would exist, is humanity perhaps no more than an experiment ?
If such an omni-scient and omni-benevolent entity would exist, belief in such a deity would be irrelevant.
All that would count is how one lives his/her life.

:)

.

.

[QUOTE=Credendovidis;1462788]No scientific professional believes that "the human race" was a product of evolution from monkeys. The human race and monkeys share common ancestors. Just a couple more than we do with other animals. We even share ancestors with bananas and all other lifeforms.


Science is not versus religion.
Science is about explanation and objective supporting evidence (OSE).
Religion is about belief without any OSE.
And therefore never the two will meet.


"God" created man in his own image??
The important question here is more : who "created" "God"??

:)

.

Ah, yes I've bin waiting for that respons. I call that all other life form bit, "All are one, and one is all."

You sure like your OSE don't you?;) Fair enough.

Haha, good question, one I didn't ever expect. Here is another one, does it really even matter? Questions without answers... I suppose I'll be content on simply enjoying the world as it enjoys me. Peace be with you. And good question.

Nestorian,
I believe that no one or thing created God.
God is eternal.
Nothing but Him would exist except for His creation, therefore God is existence itself.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

... I believe that no one or thing created God. God is eternal ...
Yes Fred : you BELIEVE that. And so you may from me.

But there is no scientific - nor logical - support for anything to be eternal.
The reverse is true : it is highly unlikely and illogical for anything to be eternal.
Science shows us that there is NOTHING that is eternal : everything had a start and has an end.

For some "stuff" that period is in pico seconds. For other "stuff" it is in giga years.
But so far nothing has shown to be eternal.

So your statement is incorrect : You stated that "God" is eternal.
I say that you BELIEVE that "God" is eternal...

:)

.

.

Cred,
That IS what I said.
Why did you find a need to repeat it?
Fred

Yes Fred : you BELIEVE that. And so you may from me.

But there is no scientific - nor logical - support for anything to be eternal.
The reverse is true : it is highly unlikely and illogical for anything to be eternal.
Science shows us that there is NOTHING that is eternal : everything had a start and has an end.

For some "stuff" that period is in pico seconds. For other "stuff" it is in giga years.
But so far nothing has shown to be eternal.

So your statement is incorrect : You stated that "God" is eternal.
I say that you BELIEVE that "God" is eternal ....

:)

.


Credendovidis, question?

What about the theory in thermodynamics, that energy is neither created nor destroyed? Energy seems pretty eternal, and yes I do realise that it is constantly "shifting" or changing from one form to another. Nonetheless, a valid idea of eturnal. However rather unfair since there really is not enough evidence of the theory to be 100% sure, but it could be a possibility. So your statement inturen could be just as "wrong".

Personally, I'd say we don't know enough and have enough evidence to prve anything, so how can we ever be right or wrong?? There is no right or wrong only possibilities. In the end, the one that turnes out to be correct, is the most plossible. But then people will probably interpret the evidence differently any way. So how could we find any suitable agreeable conclution?? No?

Let me know. :)

Nestorian,
Very good post indeed!!
Peace and kindness,
Fred

What about the theory in thermodynamics, that energy is neither created nor destroyed?? Energy seems pretty eternal, and yes i do realise that it is constantly "shifting" or changing from one form to another. Nontheless, a valid idea of eturnal. However rather unfair since there really is not enough evidence of the theory to be 100% sure, but it could be a possibility. So your statement inturen could be just as "wrong". No : my statement was not "wrong"!!
The question is here more : what is energy? Actually humanity has no idea what energy exactly is ! What most of us call energy is a format that actually is based on the difference between two energy levels.
We also know that the end of the universe will be in the far future, when all matter will have returned into it's energy state, and when all energy will be evenly distributed, leaving nothing to do with the 'real' energy.
A situation that - for easier understanding - can be seen as similar to temperature being evenly distributed, leaving nothing to do with that temperature. Energy evenly distributed is nothing and means nothing, and can not be used for anything. So energy is irrelevant as argument in a discussion on eternal.


Personally, i'd say we don't know enough and have enough evidence to prve anything, so how can we ever be right or wrong??? There is no right or wrong only possibilities. In the end, the one that turnes out to be correct, is the most plossible. But then people will probably interpret the evidence differently any way. So how could we find any suitable agreeable conclution??? no?? Let me know.

Read what I stated :

Yes Fred : you BELIEVE that. And so you may from me.

But there is no scientific - nor logical - support for anything to be eternal.
The reverse is true : it is highly unlikely and illogical for anything to be eternal.
Science shows us that there is NOTHING that is eternal : everything had a start and has an end.

For some "stuff" that period is in pico seconds. For other "stuff" it is in giga years.
But so far nothing has shown to be eternal.

So your statement is incorrect : You stated that "God" is eternal.
I say that you BELIEVE that "God" is eternal ....
The difference is the CLAIM that involves the existence of a deity called "God", and another CLAIM that this "God" is eternal.

A : first of all there is no OSE that "God" exists.
B : nor is there any OSE that this acclaimed "God" is eternal!!

As I stated already - and repeat again here - and please Fred (Arcura) : read this carefully !

Fred may BELIEVE that "God" exists and even that this "God" is eternal.
But BELIEF it has to be, as there is no OSE for either claim.

:)

.

.

Cred,
I do "believe" that there is at the least ONE thing that is eternal and that is a being we call God who made all that is seen and unseen.
Do you believe that I believe that?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

No : my statement was not "wrong" !!!

The question is here more : what is energy? Actually humanity has no idea what energy exactly is ! What most of us call energy is a format that actually is based on the difference between two energy levels.

We also know that the end of the universe will be in the far future, when all matter will have returned into it's energy state, and when all energy will be evenly distributed, leaving nothing to do with the 'real' energy.

Energy evenly distributed is nothing and means nothing, and can not be used for anything.


Read what I stated :

The difference is the CLAIM that involves the existence of a deity called "God", and another CLAIM that this "God" is eternal.

A : first of all there is no OSE that "God" exists.
B : nor is there any OSE that this acclaimed "God" is eternal !!!

Fred may BELIEVE that "God" exists and even that this "God" is eternal.
But BELIEF it has to be, as there is no OSE for either claim.

:)

.

.

:) Credendovidis, Funny you should say that you are not wrong, for right and wrong are simply put, differences in opinion. Therefor, you are wrong, even if only in the mind of one person. Same as you can be right in the mind of another. The reality is, right and wrong are just lables, to try and help us express ourselves and experiences.

Further more, since you yourself can not produce the evidence "OSE" with out the aid of quotes from scientists who wrote their findings in books, or internet sites; you yourself only have a bible in your hand to prove your point. No? It is possible, and weather you deny it, or accept it, I can always "choose" to "believe" it as such. Personal interpretation my friend is not as easy to understand as it might seem.

So I guess, nothing is eturnal? Therefor, NOTHING is eturnal, get it? It's a paradox or contradiction, because one can not be with out the other. Though they are considered opposites. So neither can be if the other is. (rather harry potterish here but: One can not live while the other survives.) Eh, how about that. Never thought I'd get to use that like that. (Depending on how you define eturnal.)

So, even though you say there is not "OSE" that GOD exists, I'd like to bring up the ideas you are bringing to us, about energy and such, Where is your "OSE". In other words, prove to us your "claims" to science, with out pictures (like the many paintings of Jessus, and other religious events.), with out coppying someone else's words, or paraphrasing, or with out anything but "OSE", right here, right now. I want to see it, touch it, sense it. Can you do that? You, with what you have? No new age tech involved, build everything from scratch and figure it out yourself. Can you, would you? Since I can, but simple have my mind on other tings, I can't say you have any "OSE".

So does that mean that nothing is, ever was, or ever will be? Because "OSE" is not eturnal either, it wouldn't matter if you had, have, or will have it. It's plossible based upon whay you've given me, which is in deed "nothing", as you would have me believe, no?

There is no spoon brother, only possibilities. (did you get why I put possibilities there? What I really mean? I think you'd see that is quit to your delight, and also not.)

As always Cred, you are very interesting to talk to.
Peace be with you brother.

Actually Cred never said nothing is eternal. I almost certain he will say he doesn't know what is beyond or if anything is beyond our universe. I don't know yet, is an acceptable answer to a non-believer. We don't have to fill in the gaps of our knowledge by saying god did it.

michealb
Right, we don't have to fill in the gaps by saying God did it.
But I hope you don't mind if I say God created the universe.
I say so because I believe he did.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Actually Cred never said nothing is eternal. I almost certain he will say he doesn't know what is beyond or if anything is beyond our universe. I don't know yet, is an acceptable answer to a non-believer. We don't have to fill in the gaps of our knowledge by saying god did it.

No I suppose he did not. But it makes for interesting throies. What way is better than to just tosse them out there, even if you just make them up on the spot. ;) We may want to simply consider just living rather than answering such things. And every one has their own answers any way. We can't save any one but ourselves.

Peace be with you brother.

Yes Fred : you BELIEVE that. And so you may from me.

But there is no scientific - nor logical - support for anything to be eternal.
The reverse is true : it is highly unlikely and illogical for anything to be eternal.
Science shows us that there is NOTHING that is eternal : everything had a start and has an end.

For some "stuff" that period is in pico seconds. For other "stuff" it is in giga years.
But so far nothing has shown to be eternal.

So your statement is incorrect : You stated that "God" is eternal.
I say that you BELIEVE that "God" is eternal ....

:)

.

.


I don't see how your claim that nothing is eternal has any greater epistemic standing than Fred's claim. Fred says that he believes that God is eternal; you believe that nothing is eternal. Fred lacks OSE for his claim and you lack OSE for your claim. (Since you are working with a universal quantifier, you would have to have ascertained that for every single thing that exists, that thing is not eternal. This cannot be done in a finite time, and so you lack OSE for the claim.)

In order for your claim to be justified scientifically, it would have to have been experimentally confirmed that for any x, x is not eternal. But, of course, there are a lot of x's out there in the universe. The most you are entitled to, then, is the claim that you believe that nothing is eternal. Moreover, the claims of science are probabilistic, not apodicitic, and so the most you could say regarding Fred's claim is that we should assign it a low probability of being true (say .1). The most you can say for your claim is that it has a high probability of being true (say asymptotically approaching 1). But, of course, you'd have to argue a compelling case for these probability assignments (which are highly favorable to your view). Absent that, both your claim and Fred's have equal epistemic standing. There is certainly nothing "illogical" about the claim that there exists at least one x such that x is eternal. This violates no rule of logic whatsoever.

There's more than a little hyperbole swirling around on this thread.

cred,
I do "believe" that there is at the least ONE thing that is eternal and that is a being we call God who made all that is seen and unseen.
Do you believe that I believe that?
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Fred : I do not have a problem with what you BELIEVE.

I reacted to that small add-on in your post that suggested that you do not only BELIEVE your "God" is eternal, but that your acclaimed "God" IS eternal.

Both your "God's existence and his/her/it's being eternal" are entirely within the limits of your BELIEF !
At least I never saw any OSE for either claim.

:)

.

.

Actually Cred never said nothing is eternal. I almost certain he will say he doesn't know what is beyond or if anything is beyond our universe. I don't know yet, is an acceptable answer to a non-believer. We don't have to fill in the gaps of our knowledge by saying god did it.
Indeed it is almost sure that it is impossible to know if there is anything but our universe. We live in our universe and can not know IF there is anything more than that universe.
Our universe is not "filled" with space and time, but with spacetime, and that limits our field of reference.
Even in the hypothetical case that there is anything "outside" our universe, we can not be aware of that, as we can only know of what happens within our own spacetime.

:)

.

.

I don't see how your claim that nothing is eternal has any greater epistemic standing than Fred's claim.
Science tells us that even protons and neutrons have a half-life-time, measured in giga years. So in time all matter will disappear back into energy.
Energy is just like a disturbance of a "field". Once it equals out in time, it is completely useless, and can be assumed as non-existing.
Therefore nothing can be eternal.

May be you should see the universe as a single firework analogy : first you have the explosion with bang and lights - quickly expanding and soon extinguishing, till you have only remaining materials and gasses left - still spreading and getting colder and colder.

In that same analogy our current universe is still just "seconds" after the explosion with the lights of the explosion still visible.
My "no eternal" refers to the situation several hours (if not years) AFTER the explosion (giga years).

:)

.

.

1. Science tells us that even protons and neutrons have a half-life-time, measured in giga years. So in time all matter will disappear back into energy.

2. Energy is just like a disturbance of a "field". Once it equals out in time, it is completely useless, and can be assumed as non-existing.

3. Therefore nothing can be eternal.


3 doesn't follow from 1 & 2. Is there a suppressed premise here?

3 doesn't follow from 1 & 2. Is there a suppressed premise here?
1 : all matter will change back into energy in time
2 : what we call energy is actually a difference in energy levels within an energy "field". Once energy levels equal out, you can regard energy as non-existing.
3 : without matter and energy what is there to be eternal?

:)

.

.

1 : all matter will change back into energy in time
2 : what we call energy is actually a difference in energy levels within an energy "field". Once energy levels equal out, you can regard energy as non-existing.
3 : without matter and energy what is there to be eternal?

:)

.

.


Okay, this still isn't a valid argument, but we'll let that go for now. I suppose the obvious answer one might propose to your concluding question is: God. I mean, if we're trading in a kind of rhetorical jousting, then there is no good reason for one not to say that God is what's left to be eternal. After all, there is no OSE to prove that for every x that exists, that x is or is composed of matter and energy (this can't be empirically verified since there are too many x's). And besides, there are existents that we know a lot about that are neither matter nor energy, abstract entities like numbers, sets of numbers, propositions, etc. These exist, they have properties, and we can make truth-evaluable claims about them. And I know a lot of mathematicians who would argue that they are eternal.

.... I suppose the obvious answer one might propose to your concluding question is: God.
The usual "christian" answer...
If you don't have an answer, if you simply don't know : just call it "God"...

:rolleyes:

.

.

The usual "christian" answer ...
If you don't have an answer, if you simply don't know : just call it "God" ...

:rolleyes:

.

.

Did you read the rest of the post? If you don't like God, then let's try this:

Your question: What's left to be eternal?

Answer: Numbers, sets of numbers, propositions.

Does this work better for you? Not too "Christian", I hope.

Akoue.
LOL
Fred

Did you read the rest of the post?
Yes I did. Nothing important there.


Your question: What's left to be eternal? Answer: Numbers, sets of numbers, propositions
Numbers, sets of numbers, propositions, etc.? These are concepts and thoughts. Nothing real there.
No, there is logically NOTHING that is eternal. Why do you seem to have such a problem with that ?

:)

.

.

These are concepts and thoughts. Nothing real there.


Really? Abstract entities aren't real? That's going even farther than the positivists did. (Of course, concepts and thoughts are real too: I'm having thoughts right now, and using concepts to do so. They sure seem pretty real.)

Let's take a simple proposition. "2+2=4". This is true. It is an a priori truth, so it isn't only contingently true--it is necessarily true. Is it not eternally true?


No, there is logically NOTHING that is eternal. Why do you seem to have such a problem with that ?

Mostly because it's false.

When you say "logically" I took you to be using it to refer to logic. But since no laws of logic militate against eternal existents, I guess you're using it the way Mr. Spock does on Star Trek, to mean something like "plausible". Am I mistaken?

Akoue,
Good question.
Live long and prosper,
Fred

"These are concepts and thoughts." Nothing real there.
Really? Abstract entities aren't real?
I obviously referred to your previous statement, in which you posted

What's left to be eternal? Answer: Numbers, sets of numbers, propositions
Numbers, sets of numbers, propositions, etc. ???
Numbers, sets of numbers, and propositions are concepts and thoughts. Nothing real there, as far as "eternal" is concerned. Unless of course you can provide any OSE for your suggestion that numbers, sets of numbers, and propositions are eternal.


Let's take a simple proposition. "2+2=4".
It is our way to calculate. Why the sequence 1,2,3,4,5 ? Why not the sequence 1,3,2,5,4 ? Because we humans decide to use the first sequence. It is not a universal truth. And certainly not eternal - the (intermediate) subject here.


When you say "logically" I took you to be using it to refer to logic. But since no laws of logic militate against eternal existents, I guess you're using it the way Mr. Spock does on Star Trek, to mean something like "plausible". Am I mistaken?
Yes you are. You are now desperately pointing at words. But the subject here is the concept of eternal.
Where is YOUR OSE that anything is or can be eternal? I provided the scientific reasons both matter and energy are NOT eternal.
From there it is logical to reject the concept "eternal" as meaningful.

:)

.

.

Cred,
I'll do as I please and Akoue is right and far more logical than you have been on this.
You are desperately resisting the fact that there are things eternal.
Sorry for you about that.
But believe as you wish as always.
Fred

The numbers 1 2 3 4 5 are just labels for the concept of 1 2 3 4 5. It doesn't matter if we labeled them "a s d f g or "! " £ $ %" they are still the numbers 1 2 3 4 5 (using our conventional labels for the sake of clarity). Daniel Dennett has a very interesting discussion about this in his book Dawin's Dangerous Idea.

He also mentions what Akoue mentions about 2+2=4 being a true.


On a side note if you haven't read that book already you should because I think you would really enjoy it based on your discussions on these boards.

templelane
Yes numbers can be written differently but the math remains true and the same.
2+2=4 has and will always be the same eternally even if it is written t + t = f.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Why the sequence 1,2,3,4,5 ? Why not the sequence 1,3,2,5,4 ? Because we humans decide to use the first sequence. It is not a universal truth. And certainly not eternal - the (intermediate) subject here.

So mathematics is subjective, then? Why use it in doing physics? If it were purely a matter of convention, as you seem here to suggest, we couldn't rely upon it to deliver OSE. The mathematization of the sciences came about in the first place as a way to make them more rigorous. But no one thinks empirical science--which is *empirical*-- can ever be as rigorous as math and logic.

I'll also second templelane's seconding of Dan Dennett (who is no lover of platonism, by the way--he's a sententialist). You don't want to confuse the sign ("1", "2", "+") with the thing it signifies (the number one, the number two, the addition function).


Yes you are. You are now desperately pointing at words. But the subject here is the concept of eternal.

Well, you're the one who keeps saying that it is "illogical" that anything be eternal. I've just pointed out that the claim violates no rule of logic. Whether it's true or false is another matter (which I've also addressed).



Where is YOUR OSE that anything is or can be eternal? I provided the scientific reasons both matter and energy are NOT eternal.
From there it is logical to reject the concept "eternal" as meaningful.

I agree with you that neither matter nor energy is eternal. It doesn't follow from that that *nothing* is eternal. You see the difference, right?

Mathematics doesn't give us OSE; it gives us something even better, more rigorous. This is why I don't accept your assumption that OSE is the measure of all things epistemic. There is knowledge outside of science. We have access to mathematical knowledge, moral knowledge, aesthetic knowledge, perhaps (gasp!) even religious knowledge. If you want to be a skeptic about all of these, then you'd better have arguments to show that all knowledge is confined to science. And it won't do to beg the question of any or all of them by dogmatically asserting that they lack OSE since that's the standard for *scientific* knowledge, not for all knowledge. Many mathematicians find the sorts of things that count as evidence in science to be paltry compared with the rigor we find in logic and mathematics. The claims of science are only probabilistic, not apodictically certain.

So you aren't justified in your assertion that nothing is eternal. You can't even justify that claim by your own standard (OSE) because you cannot survey an infinite number of existents in a finite time. The most you are entitled to is the claim that you *believe* that nothing is eternal. Which, as I said in my first post, is on an epistemic par with Fred's claim that he *believes* that God is eternal.

Fred : please stop licking Akoue's shoes at every opportunity like a puppy trying to be friendly to his master. I remember your own arguments, and though we sometimes agreed to differ of opinion, I respected these posts. But this .....

:)

.

.


Why all the bile? (Is it because you know you're on the losing end of the argument?)

Akoue.
He isn't losing the argument.
He lost it.
OSE is one thing but math and logic is another,
One is temporal the other is eternal.
If that is wrong then prove that math and logical are not eternal.
It can't be done with math or logic or OSE so some other way must be used or invented.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wow, I never expected this! Great stuff guys, try to keep it civil.

At any rate, you all seem to be saying that numbers can be expressed in different ways, what about equations?

Forexample: 2+4+8=14 or 2+4+8= 10+4
or 5*4+3-9= 100,014-100,000

So there for the logical and provable OSE here is? (I may mis some so please do fill in the blanks.)

1) the equation is equal on both sides.

2)there are different ways to EXPRESS the same answers/meanings.

3)Also, there is more than one way to get the answers.

4)The possibilities "maybe" infinate, since we could, "if we so choose" to, imagine and define the numbers forever. And even if we died, and could not finnish. That doesn't mean we still couldn't have kept going with it.

So, maybe we are all wrong, all right, and neither, and both. All and nothing. Feel free to tell me why that is not logical.

;):)

P.S. In this kind of discution, there are no winners or lossers. There can be, but I prefer to think that there are only possibilities. ;)

Kindof covers my don't you thing. ;)

All right, well I won't go so far as to say nothing is eternal. For the simple reason is we have no idea what started the fabric of our universe. For all I know our universe could have formed in a universe or multi-verse where the rules of that universe don't cause entropy. There really isn't any reason why the physical laws that are in our universe have to be in all universes. I only reject that god did only because god is a concept of faith not one of evidence. If there was evidence for it, I'd consider it but right now there is no more proof that god did than there is to say I did it.

Alright, well I won't go so far as to say nothing is eternal. For the simple reason is we have no idea what started the fabric of our universe.
That we do not know what started the universe is actually irrelevant towards eternity.
This universe has certain "rules" that show that "eternal" is an empty and invalid proposition.
If there are other universes or multiverses is also irrelevant, as for all in this universe the rule is : this universe is it. Even if (repeat : IF) there would be an "outside" of our universe, we will never know, as we are bound to our space-time.

:)

.

.

michealb and Nestorian ,
There is plenty of logical evidence that God exists,
BUT... one can or will not accept it.
Many people have and many people have not.
AND in math there is an great indication of infinity.
There is a symbol for it and other indications such as pi what goes on infinitely. Even super computers have not been able to produce a repeat.
It is what caused Sagan to change his atheist attitude and he wrote a book about it.
The number of scientists who believe in God continues to grow according to a study made a few years ago.
I tied to goggle it but could not find the one I was looking for but came up with this to consider...
Sciencedude survey: Do O.C. scientists believe in God? - Sciencedude - OCRegister.com (http://sciencedude.freedomblogging.com/2008/03/20/sciencedude-survey-do-oc-scientists-believe-in-god/)
By the way, Cred,eternal is not irrelevant to those who think and believe it is.
I may be so to those who BELIEVE it is.
Example: It is not to me.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Akoue. He isn't losing the argument. He lost it.
OSE is one thing but math and logic is another, One is temporal the other is eternal. If that is wrong then prove that math and logical are not eternal. It can't be done with math or logic or OSE so some other way must be used or invented. Peace and kindness, Fred
Dear Fred
With that statement you just proved that it is you who lost whatever you call "the argument".

1 - OSE is one - important - thing. It means Objective Supporting Evidence. Proof in simple English. Without OSE you have to base everything on BELIEF. For instance religion is based on BELIEF, because it lacks any format of OSE.

2 - Logic (the other "thing") is clear about proof : you can prove a positive suggestion , but proving a negative suggestion is impossible. So your "... prove that math and logical are not eternal ..." is a nonsensical demand (and you know that very well, as I have explained that to you umpteen times by now).
It is people like you who have to show that ''eternal'' is a valid concept. I do not have to show that what you CLAIM (but can't prove) to be valid is in fact invalid. I gave you the reasons nothing is eternal. You refuse to accept that , so it is up to you to prove your point.

3 - Eternal suggests an unlimited time. Both science and logic are clear : nothing is in reality eternal.
Eternal is a concept required within religion to explain that the deity was always there, and will always be there. Mainly because theists need - but can't - explain the origins of their deity.

:)

.

.

Alright, well I won't go so far as to say nothing is eternal. For the simple reason is we have no idea what started the fabric of our universe. For all I know our universe could have formed in a universe or multi-verse where the rules of that universe don't cause entropy. There really isn't any reason why the physical laws that are in our universe have to be in all universes. I only reject that god did only because god is a concept of faith not one of evidence. If there was evidence for it, I'd consider it but right now there is no more proof that god did than there is to say I did it.

Fair enough. That seems perfectly reasonable.

Cred even within our universe I don't think the big crunch theory has been ruled out yet as far as I know. If that proves to be correct our universe may have been in a state of expantion and contraction eternally. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't rule it out just yet I think there are more information.


There is plenty of logical evidence that God exists
I haven't seen anything that uses standard logic. All I have seen is people finding things they don't know the answer to saying god did it then say that is evidence. If you have something different I'd like to hear it.

There is plenty of logical evidence that God exists,
BUT...... one can or will not accept it.
How strange than that I NEVER have seen any OSE for "God's" existence...

:)

.

.

Cred even within our universe I don't think the big crunch theory has been ruled out yet as far as I know. If that proves to be correct our universe may have been in a state of expantion and contraction eternally. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't rule it out just yet I think there are more information.
We were discussing eternal / eternity , not Big Crunch or any other expansion suggestion.
A Big Crunch was one of the possibilities, but since 1999 we know that the "expansion" of the universe seems to increase. But even with a Big Crunch there is no reason to assume a repeating process.

:)

.

.

There are some are some crazy ideas about logic being bandied about here.

The concept of eternity is a perfectly fine concept. We know what its satisfaction conditions are, we can give it a definition. The question is whether any object falls under it. Mathematical objects do, so we know it has some application. We can also use the concept in a perfectly meaningful way in false assertions (e.g. "I waited at the bank for an eternity").

Standard logic doesn't deal with temporal indices--the languages of first order logic aren't tensed--so the truths of logic are timelessly, i.e. eternally true if they are true at all. So there is no rule of logic that entails the impossibility of eternity.

If one chooses to be an atheist on the grounds that there is no OSE for God's existence, that seems perfectly rational to me. Personally, I have never found arguments for God's existence terribly compelling, even the really smart ones like Anselm's ontological argument. But since the concept of God is the concept of something that isn't part of the physical make-up of the universe, it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that there is no OSE for his existence or non-existence. Science doesn't address the question of God's existence. (This is one of the reasons including intelligent design in science curricula is an appallingly bad idea, not to mention intellectually dishonest.)

I'm not saying to assume it I'm saying not to discount it.
If our universe does go back and forth from a big bang to big crunch it could in theory be eternal. Without more information I'm just not willing to discount it.

Science doesn't address the question of God's existence.
Indeed : of course not. Science is about explanation, and what is there to explain about religion, about belief? Science can explain mental illnesses and why people believe. Not belief itself.

Only pseudo-science will make claims towards religious belief.

:)

.

.

Indeed : of course not. Science is about explanation, and what is there to explain about religion, about belief? Science can explain mental illnesses and why people believe. Not belief itself.

Only pseudo-science will make claims towards religious belief.

:)

.

.


So you agree that the absence of OSE for God's existence doesn't settle things either way? It doesn't prove theism or atheism to be correct.

If our universe does go back and forth from a big bang to big crunch it could in theory be eternal.
No, that would be something different than eternal.
The Big Cruch means the collapse of the entire universe into one "singularity".
So that confirms that nothing is "eternal".
If the process would be repeating, it would each time be an entire new universe, possibly even with new "rules".
Like I stated already : nothing is eternal !

:)

.

.

So you agree that the absence of OSE for God's existence doesn't settle things either way? It doesn't prove theism or atheism to be correct.
The default of any "set up" is as simple as possible. Anything more than the default has to be proven to be assumed valid.
Atheism is in line with the default. Theism is not. So for theism to be valid, you have to prove it's basis. With OSE.

I do not demand that any theist proves me the validity of his/her religion. But till they do, all they can do is CLAIM that their view is valid and/or "true". And till they do that, the default - i.e. Atheism - is a valid proposition.

:)

.

.

The default of any "set up" is as simple as possible. Anything more than the default has to be proven to be assumed valid.
Atheism is in line with the default. Theism is not. So for theism to be valid, you have to prove it's basis. With OSE.

Just remember that truth and validity are two different things. But I'm curious: Why OSE? If the claim isn't being made within the physical sciences, why is the standard of the physical sciences determinative? There is knowledge that isn't scientific knowledge, after all.


I do not demand that any theist proves me the validity of his/her religion. But till they do, all they can do is CLAIM that their view is valid and/or "true". And till they do that, the default - i.e. Atheism - is a valid proposition.

I'm not sure what you mean by "default". Do you mean something like "premise" or "assumption". It's not obvious to me that the default view should ever get special treatment. But you may have something particular in mind that I'm not seeing. Could you say a little more about that?

Question?

If OSE is subject to this idea that nothing is eturnal, wouldn't that mean that it too may not be the same for all time. There for making what ever we think about based upon OSE irrelevant? Because it's just as likely to be fauls.

Cred, Science explaining Mental illness or the processes of matter is one thing, but that doesn't mean it's right, solid or even helpful.

People who have Bipolar get "help" from science, but only if they are willing to play the game of touch and go, as well as trial and error. There are few, if any, Certainties. And even as I say that I can't be sure. Nothing is absolute. -- Notice that statement is acctaully a contradiction, that's because that's just how it seems, undecided.

You keep talking about OSE like it's your bible. To me it's all subjective, in the sense that in one instance things can be like they have bin for how ever long, but the next instant every thing could change. We may never know, or maybe we will. There are too many variables.

If we knew all the variables, which is possible, but it seems very unprobable since there are so many things we can't explain. OSE maybe subjet to change.

But at any rate I find this very enlightening.

Question??

If OSE is subject to this idea that nothing is eturnal, wouldn't that mean that it too may not be the same for all time. There for making what ever we think about based upon OSE irrelevent?? Becuase it's just as likely to be fauls.

It's not that it would become irrelevant, but rather that we would come to understand it differently. Ptolemaic astronomy had lots of OSE to support the geocentric model of the solar system. That OSE came to be reinterpreted with the advent of the heliocentric model of the solar system.

This is a crucial component in the advance of science: Our best scientific theories are defeasible--they may turn our to be wrong. It is the supplanting of one theory by a newer, better theory, that marks the progress of science.

A lot turns on how one understands evidence. A fact is only evidence when viewed from within a theory. And this can be dangerous, since the theory shapes the way the facts are taken into view. This doesn't mean that it's all subjective, to be sure, but it does mean that observational facts are theory-laden. But it would be a mistake, a gross oversimplification, to infer from this that there are no facts, that there can be no objectivity. It's just that objectivity doesn't involve having a "God's Eye" view of the universe.

I hope this helps a bit. If not, say so and I'll be happy to try again.

OSE maybe subjet to change.
How do you "see" Objective Supporting Evidence (OSE) as subject to change??

:)

.

.

Michaelb,
As said there are several logical proof of God or a supreme itelligence.
As I mentioned earlier that the chance of the universe starting by accident or on it's own is virtually impossible, about 1 in 10 quadrillion.
Then there are several more logical proofs.
Here is Thomas Aquias's for you to consider.
The 4 Philosophically Logical proofs of God by Saint Aquinas
In the thirteenth century A.D. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), one of the greatest Christian theologians to ever live, built upon the work of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine and many others to prove that God exists. In his famous Summa Theologica (Pt. 1, Q. 2, Art. 3) Aquinas declares, "The existence of God can be proved in five ways:" If St. Thomas Aquinas' proofs at first seem difficult to understand, don't give up.. . Read them over and over. Think of all the time you spend studying superfluous things; you can fully understand these proofs by diverting just some of that time to studying something really important-God!

1. Aquinas' Argument of motion:

"The first and most manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.. . Therefore whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another [this coincides with Newton's law that 'a body at rest tends to stay at rest, a body in motion tends to stay in motion!']. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also needs to be put in motion by another, and that by another again [e.g. you were put into motion by your parents, and they by their parents, and so on]. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."

2. Aquinas' Argument of efficient causation:

"The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself [e.g. you did not create yourself, nothing in the
Universe created itself]; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first cause is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate cause is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false.

Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."

3. Aquinas' Argument of possibility and necessity:

"The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some point is not.

Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, at some time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist.; and thus even now nothing would be in existence-which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every
Necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."

4. Aquinas' Argument of gradation:
"The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble, and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest, and, consequently, something which is uttermost being.. .
Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum of heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness and every other perfection; and this we call God.

5. Aquinas' Argument of directedness:

"The fifth way is from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer.
Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."
If you want more I can dig them up for you.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Here's one way: Put a stick in the ground and watch the shadow. This is what the Pythagoreans did. One can infer from the movement of the shadow that the earth tracing a curvilinear path around the sun or, as pre-modern astronomers did, that the sun is tracing a curvilinear path around the earth. The OSE, the nature of the evidence, changed with Copernicus. It came to be reinterpreted.

Akoue,
That's a good one.
When I went to school it was taught that matter could neither be created or destroyed.
Later that changed to matter could not be created or destroyed by any natural means.
Later still that change again to matter is always changing in the universe by natural means.
Now it is taught that matter and energy are different states of the same thing.
I wonder what the next change in that science teaching will be.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

It's not that it would become irrelevant, but rather that we would come to understand it differently. Ptolemaic astronomy had lots of OSE to support the geocentric model of the solar system. That OSE came to be reinterpreted with the advent of the heliocentric model of the solar system.
The OSE for the Ptolemaic model was valid based on the available information at that time. It was upgraded with new available data into the Copernican model.

However with increasing knowledge the possible upgrades become smaller and smaller.
A wellknown effect of this is the Newtonian model of gravity : it is still valid, with the new Einstein model including the portion in which very high speed are involved.
Whatever we will find in the future on gravity, it will not replace what we know of gravity today to be correct, other than for special situations.

We know when the universe started. We also know when and how it will fizz out. Some changes to that may be possible, but not the entire concept.

:)

.

.

The OSE for the Ptolemaic model was valid based on the available information at that time. It was upgraded with new available data into the Copernican model.

It was more than an upgrade: To use the now ubiquitous Kuhnian expression, it was a "paradigm shift". Actually, Kuhn's book on this is very good. One of the things he has shown us is that we can never predict the next paradigm shift, the next revolution in science. And, at the time of the shift, the preponderence of the evidence favors the supplanted paradigm.


However with increasing knowledge the possible upgrades become smaller and smaller.

See above: We can't ever be in a position to know that. It may be true; I'm even inclined to believe it is true. But that's not something we can ever say--it's pure speculation.


A wellknown effect of this is the Newtonian model of gravity : it is still valid, with the new Einstein model including the portion in which very high speed are involved.
Whatever we will find in the future on gravity, it will not replace what we know of gravity today to be correct, other than for special situations.

Right, Newtonian mechanics was not falsified by relativity--well, not all of it anyway. Instead, Newtonian mechanics has been positioned within a theoretical framework which is alien to Newton (and which Newton would have found irremediably bizarre). Similarly, Galilean or classical relativity did not exactly falsify Ptolemaic astronomy. The scientific revolution of the 17th century went further: It provided a new paradigm. This is what non-Euclidean geometry and Einstein did in the late-19th and early-20th centuries.


We know when the universe started. We also know when and how it will fizz out. Some changes to that may be possible, but not the entire concept.

I would put it a little differently: We have beliefs which we are prepared on the strength of our current understanding of the OSE to assign a high degree of probability. (A purely anecdotal aside: The people I know who work in theoretical physics and cosmology are very sheepish about saying anything more than what I just did. They are particularly mindful of the possibility of, among other things, another paradigm shift. Some of them are even working to bring it about.)

Cred,
The point is that the OSE often changes over time.
I expect it to continue to do so.
I also expect to see that more and more scientists change to the belief in a supreme intelligence as has been happening in the last century.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

The point is that the OSE often changes over time. I expect it to continue to do so.
And I don't expect that Fred. The overwhelming part of support for our knowledge will remain as it is, just because it is based on Objective Supported Evidence, instead of on BELIEF.
Of course changes will in some cases be necessary. But they will be minor.
Science has now reached a level where - by means of strongly improved equipment, computers, and techniques - it is testing and retesting it's findings and conclusions in an automatic fashion, whereby the slightest developing doubt on any OSE sets the wheels of review and change into overdrive.

It is like voyages of discovery on earth. Of course it will happen that we find a new species somewhere in the Amazone region, or as recently on the Galapagos Islands.
We may discover new undersea vulcano's. We even may discover new tribes somewehere in Papua New Guinea.
But in major lines - and helped by the improved observations from satellites and the processing of the results - we are finished discovering the surface features of planet earth.

I strongly suggest that something similar is happening in the scientific field.
There will still be many new discoveries, new findings that will produce new views, and require review of our present "facts and figures". But I doubt that they will result in an entire rejection of present OSE in any major scientific field, in a change that will totally throw our present day scientific views upside down.
There is no reason to expect that new findings will be more than upgrades of the type of Einsteins relativity theory upon Newtonian gravity.


I also expect to see that more and more scientists change to the belief in a supreme intelligence as has been happening in the last century.
What makes you think that, Fred ?
Atheism has been growing worldwide, and most of it's followers can be found in the group of highly intelligent and better educated people. There are many times more Atheist scientists than there are theist scientists, and the ratio is still widening.
Never has the percentage of Atheism been as high since religion developed into a monotheistic direction. And that process will continue, with religion decaying further and further into total collapse.

The only thing that can prevent that is a sudden disaster, by war or natural disaster.
Not so strange than that the fundamental religious extremists are increasing their activities. From 9-11 to suicide bombers to "end-of-times" proponents.
May be also the reason why hardly anyone seems to care about the future we are preparing for our children and their children, with raw materials, oil, and gas reserves running low, and pollution running high, while we are hardly doing anything effective to keep the effects of global warming at bay.

THAT dear Fred is the reality !

:)

.

.

And I don't expect that Fred. The overwhelming part of support for our knowledge will remain as it is, just because it is based on Objective Supported Evidence, instead of on BELIEF.
Of course changes will in some cases be necessary. But they will be minor.
Science has now reached a level where - by means of strongly improved equipment, computers, and techniques - it is testing and retesting it's findings and conclusions in an automatic fashion, whereby the slightest developing doubt on any OSE sets the wheels of review and change into overdrive.

It is like voyages of discovery on earth. Of course it will happen that we find a new species somewhere in the Amazone region, or as recently on the Galapagos Islands.
We may discover new undersea vulcano's. We even may discover new tribes somewehere in Papua New Guinea.
But in major lines - and helped by the improved observations from satellites and the processing of the results - we are finished discovering the surface features of planet earth.

I strongly suggest that something similar is happening in the scientific field.
There will still be many new discoveries, new findings that will produce new views, and require review of our present "facts and figures". But I doubt that they will result in an entire rejection of present OSE in any major scientific field, in a change that will totally throw our present day scientific views upside down.
There is no reason to expect that new findings will be more than upgrades of the type of Einsteins relativity theory upon Newtonian gravity.

Interesting. This sounds a lot like faith. (That isn't a criticism.)

How do you "see" Objective Supporting Evidence (OSE) as subject to change ???

:)

.

.


Actually Cred, you explained that yourself.



"Science tells us that even protons and neutrons have a half-life-time, measured in giga years. So in time all matter will disappear back into energy.
Energy is just like a disturbance of a "field". Once it equals out in time, it is completely useless, and can be assumed as non-existing.
Therefore nothing can be eternal."

So, really all the OSE in the univers changes into nothing. Therefor we can not accept it as absolute, nor consistent. So really we can't possibly know what those changes will be. We can not watch the changes of these things, on account that we are not eturnal, nor can anything else. Therefor, OSE does not mean that things will keep going as they have for millions of years. For all we know the sun could end, then what, maybe a blck hole? Our planet being blasted from our galaxy to another, could we survive? Again, you said things will change to nothing sooner or later, so how can you tell us you know exactly how they will change to nothing?

Really, your contradiction is no more/less valid than the bible. Because there are so many things in this world we don't understand, the variables are too many to assume anything is evidence enough to discredit the existence, or non-existance of GOD, or any other supernatural being. 1+1 may =2, but so do 1/1 +1/1=1 and so on.

Does that not make sense too. OSE maybe subject to change. ;)

ARCURA,

""The first and most manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.. . Therefore whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another [this coincides with Newton's law that 'a body at rest tends to stay at rest, a body in motion tends to stay in motion!']. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also needs to be put in motion by another, and that by another again [e.g. you were put into motion by your parents, and they by their parents, and so on]. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."

This jsut tells me that something started it all, that something may not have had any awarness, nor consiousness. And, it also contradicts it's self. "Therefore whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another... " Therefor even "GOD" would have to be put in motion by something.

If you go wit the later statment "But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover... " These two statements are oppositions. Quite the conundrum, really because the first means things were either always inmotion, or still are not. The second implies that GOD put us inmotion, but it is also posible for any number of things to have set motion into our univers. That includes ideas such as big bang.

Anything maybe possible. ;)

"Science tells us that even protons and neutrons have a half-life-time, measured in giga years. So in time all matter will disappear back into energy. Energy is just like a disturbance of a "field". Once it equals out in time, it is completely useless, and can be assumed as non-existing. Therefore nothing can be eternal."... So, really all the OSE in the univers changes into nothing.
Strange conclusion! OSE does not change because of it's consequences, but with new understanding of the facts. On very long term all matter will change into energy. And all that energy will distribute evenly, making it as if non-existing.
Note : humanity has actually no idea what energy is. At best we understand or apply differences in energy levels.


.... Because there are so many things in this world we don't understand, the variables are too many to assume anything is evidence enough to discredit the existance, or non-existance of GOD, or any other supernatural being.
It is not just a case of understanding. It is a case of support, of evidence.
There is good and valid OSE for many natural processes : nuclear, chemical, electromagnetic, evolution, gravity, astronomy, etc.

Than there are philosophical subjects, of which religion is just one section.
These subjects are not based on OSE, but on assumptions and subjective conclusions.
There is no evidence for the existence of any deity. You may BELIEVE that there are deities, but that is not a valid OSE. It is a claim, an unsupported claim.

I never claimed the non-existance of 'God', or any other supernatural being.
I note that theists never have been able to provide OSE for the existence of their deity 'God', or any other supernatural being.
The ball is in the court of the theists to support their claim. Not on Atheists to support the negative of the theist's claim.

:)

.

.

Credendovidis,

Would you please explain what you mean by "objective"?

If one wants a thread closed it is very easy, just do as you do on most, attack each other ( both sides) name call, and of course keep complaining about moderation of the site. Which has been deleted.

This thread has been going OK, but I doubt it will much further, this thread has lasted longer than most without the normal group running it down hill

OSE versus SSE

OSE = Objective Supported Evidence
SSE = Subjective Supported Evidence

Objective

Existing independently of perception, undistorted by emotion or personal bias, related to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc. an actual phenomenon, reality.

:)

.

.

OSE versus SSE

OSE = Objective Supported Evidence
SSE = Subjective Supported Evidence

Objective

Existing independently of perception, undistorted by emotion or personal bias, related to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc. , an actual phenomenon, reality.

:)

.

.

I thought you might be thinking it of it like this. How can something be evidence if it is independent of perception or thought? In other words, I'm not sure that anything that is objective in the way you describe it here is something to which we could ever have access. And it isn't clear to me in what sense of "evidence" SSE could count as evidence for anything. I mentioned in an earlier post that a lot turns on what one takes "evidence" to mean. Remember: All facts are theory-laden.

Reality isn't something over against the subjective. The subjective is part of reality.

This thread has been going ok, but I doubt it will much further, this thread has lasted longer than most without the normal group running it down hill
If that is correct, than why this warning? Why don't you warn those who "run it down" ?

And what is what you describe as "the normal group"?
Lately the main person to "run down" topics on this board is a fundamental Christian with a number 3 in his handle.
Why don't you address and correct the person or persons who "run down" topics, instead of closing these topics down, and thereby punish all other posters?

Just asking - not standing on your toes !

:)

.

.

Reality isn't something over against the subjective. The subjective is part of reality.
Not so. We can see atoms with the latest rontgen technology. Objective.
With linear accelerators and cyclotrons we can hit atomic nuclei and from the remnants we can see how that nucleus was constructed. Objective.
With equipment, computers and technology we can measure processes and construct the supporting structure from that. Objective.

Philosophy and religion do not carry any format of support to provide validity on it's claims.
Therefore they are just thoughts and/or possible concepts - without any OSE. All subjective.
You may BELIEVE such thoughts and concepts. But you can never claim that they are facts or "true".

I never claimed that 'the subjective' and reality are opponents. Objective and subjective are opponents.

:)

.

.

You used reality as part of the definition of objective:


an actual phenomenon, reality


But you can never claim that they are facts or "true".

Do you hold the view that there is no truth outside of science? If not, where apart from science do you think it can be found?

Not so. We can see atoms with the latest rontgen technology. Objective.
With linear accelerators and cyclotrons we can hit atomic nuclei and from the remnants we can see how that nucleus was constructed. Objective.
With equipment, computers and technology we can measure processes and construct the supporting structure from that. Objective.

And this technology is a way of extending our observational abilities. But surely you don't hold the outlandish view that perception and thought are not involved in the collection and interpretation of data. Surely you don't think that science has stopped being empirical. The collection and interpretation of data are cognitive activities undertaken by thinking, concept-using agents. There is no pure objectivity there. Even strict scientific realists acknowledge that.

Do you hold the view that there is no truth outside of science? If not, where apart from science do you think it can be found?
No I don't.

I never stated that "God" does not exist. But my request to theists to provide evidence for the existence of their deity has never been honored other than with subjective claims.

This in strict contrast to scientific objective support for the subjects I mentioned in my previous post.

PS : I hope you don't mind I relocate now into horizontal mode - it's almost 2 am here.

:)

.

.

No I don't.

I never stated that "God" does not exist. But my request to theists to provide evidence for the existence of their deity has never been honored other than with subjective claims.

This in strict contrast to scientific objective support for the subjects I mentioned in my previous post.

PS : I hope you don't mind I relocate now into horizontal mode - it's almost 2 am here.

:)

.

.


Do by all means get some shut-eye. Sleep well.

I thought science was a branch of Philosophy? I mean really, "Philosopy is the study of truth or priciples underlying all knowlege."--by deffinition of Gage Canadian Dictionary.

Any who, essentially Cred, you are saying that: There is not enough OSE to sustain logical belief (for yourself), that there is a GOD. That's not to say you have completely discredit the idea that it is possible that there is a GOD, on account that there is not enough OSE for that either?

Any way, This has bing a great discussion guys, and with out the name calling or anger of those other ones. Impressive. Best part, I'm learning.

... Any how, essentialy Cred, you are saying that: There is not enough OSE to sustain logical belief (for yourself), that there is a GOD. That's not to say you have completely discredit the idea that it is possible that there is a GOD, on account that there is not enough OSE for that either??
No, Nestorian. I am not saying that there is a "God", or that "God" exists.
I say that there is no Objective Supporting Evidence - nor is there any logical reasoning - for the existence of "God".
At least I have never seen any OSE for the existence of "God", and the faillure to produce that OSE indicates that the probability of the non-existence of "God" is rather high.
All reasoning for the existence of "God" is non-logical. It is subjective reasoning, something like "we see no other reason for "... whatever.. " to exist, so it must be due to " to exist, so it must be due to " therefore". That is no logic. That is mindless belief.

I also say that from me everyone may believe in the existence of " therefore".
But if anyone starts claiming that the existence of "God" is a fact, it is he/she who has to prove that. I do not have to prove that "God" does not exist.

:)

.

.

No I don't.

So where, apart from science, do you think there is truth?

No, Nestorian. I am not saying that there is a "God", or that "God" exists.
I say that there is no Objective Supporting Evidence - nor is there any logical reasoning - for the existence of "God".
At least I have never seen any OSE for the existence of "God", and the faillure to produce that OSE indicates that the probability of the non-existence of "God" is rather high.
All reasoning for the existence of "God" is non-logical. It is subjective reasoning, something like "we see no other reason for "...whatever.." to exist, so it must be due to "God" therefore". That is no logic. That is mindless belief.

I also say that from me everyone may believe in the existence of "God".
But if anyone starts claiming that the existence of "God" is a fact, it is he/she who has to prove that. I do not have to prove that "God" does not exist.

:)

.
.


I think you may have missed what I meant. I meant that you don't beieve there is a GOD, baused on OSE and logical reasoning. But you do not completely discredit the idea that there MAY be a GOD. I never said you did. Read slower, haha, just messin with you dawg. ;)

"Logic is the science of getting new and valid information by reasoning, from facts one already knows." -- Gage Canadian Dictionary.

The only problem with that is, we are assuming that the first ones are correct. Fact or fiction, or opinion. There are debates about theories and their consistancy all the time.

Can you give me one thing we know is a 100% fact, and will never ever change?? I have considred your OSE, and I keep coming to the same "logical" conclution. In order for any OSE to be 100% true, it must all be stable for ever. Other wise, noting can be Fact, save for only the moment when all others are the same.

If we recall you said that all things will turn to energy, then prety much non-exsistance. Are you saying it's not remotely possible that one of your facts, what ever it's role, can be altered by this change in propperties, matter, energy?? If it is so, then logically your OSE, only applies to right here, right now. And we can not be sure what is in store for later, only possibilites. Much the same as the seasons change, so must your OSE, unless it does not hold true to your thoery of everything being subverted to energy and in turn to non-existance.


Give me one Fact, since I know not which you refer to, and I'll try to show you how it is not with standing, in terms of solid proof of anything but the here and now.

Interesting ideas though.

So where, apart from science, do you think there is truth?

Is science truth?? Is science not a branch of Philosophy?

Nestorian,
I'll be watching for an answer to your request of Cred, one solid everlasting OSE fact.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Nestorian,
I'll be watching for an answer to your request of Cred, one solid everlasting OSE fact.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

It will be interesting. But no matter what he says, there are no right or wrong answers, only possibilities.

Now the fact that I said that in that context, I'm contradicting myself; because right and wrong answers are possibilities. Go figure eh. ;)

Peace be with you.

there are no right or wrong answers, only possibilities.


Sure there are right and wrong answers. 2+2=5 is a wrong answer. Genocide is a good thing is a wrong answer. There are more than possibilities; there are actualities. There is truth and there is falsehood. It's really important to acknowledge that.

Sure there are right and wrong answers. 2+2=5 is a wrong answer. Genocide is a good thing is a wrong answer. There are more than possibilities; there are actualities. There is truth and there is falsehood. It's really important to acknowledge that.

I don't think you read the last bit right, I also said the "fact" that I stated; "There are no right or wrong only posibilities.", is a contradition in it's self, because right and wrong are indeed both plossible, therefor possibilities. I think it's called a "profound truth". Very complicated and yet not eh? What do you think?

Also, 2+2 can = 1/1 + 1/1 + 1/1 + 1/1 there are more ways than one to express things.;)

Also, 2+2 can = 1/1 + 1/1 + 1/1 + 1/1 there are more ways than one to express things.;)

This is sophistry: Differences of expression don't change the truths expressed. Do you really mean to take the view that there is no truth and no falsehood? Do you realize what that commits you to?

This is sophistry: Differences of expression don't change the truths expressed. Do you really mean to take the view that there is no truth and no falsehood? Do you realize what that commits you to?

Interesting, see you said it doesn't cahnge the truth expressed, but do you understand how very true that is?

Are you familure with Applied behaviour analysis? It's a means to changing a subjects behaviour with a gentle prompt, or reward.

What about Neuroplasticity? The brain changes it's self to adapt to infection, damage, or abnormalities. "Nuerons that fire together wire together."

What about Psychological cognitive therapy? Becoming aware of your "triggers" and finding a way to over come the response you usually apply to it.

How about Buddhism? Christianity? Even Teakwondo.

All of these things can help in any one situation, giving us tools to work out situations, and yet some may say another is "wrong" while the other says it's "right" When both are just possibilites.

So tell me, what am I open to??

Interesting, see you said it doesn't cahnge the truth expressed, but do you understand how very true that is?

Are you familure with Applied behaviour analysis? It's a means to changing a subjects behaviour with a gentle prompt, or reward.

What about Neuroplasticity? The brain changes it's self to adapt to infection, damage, or abnormalities. "Nuerons that fire together wire together."

What about Psychological cognitive therapy? Becoming aware of your "triggers" and finding a way to over come the response you usually apply to it.


And this is true? If not, then when did you write it?


So tell me, what am I open to??

True or False. Genocide is morally wrong.
True or False. It is wrong to kill babies for entertainment.
True or False. Rape is morally wrong.

Do you believe that any of these statements are true? Or can I hide behind vague talk of "possibilities" in order to perform any reprehensible act that tickles my fancy with a clear conscience?

Akoue,
I for one do believe that the answer to all three of your questions is "TRUE".
No other hedging possibilities.
Fred

Is science truth??? Is science not a branch of Philosophy??

I believe that science is a means by which truth as attained, yes. This isn't, of course, to say that every claim asserted by science (or scientists) is true. See my earlier remarks about Ptolemaic astronomy.

The relation of the special sciences to philosophy is historically complex. Each of the sciences can be seen to have originated in philosophy and to have broken off once it became fully conscious of itself as a sub-discipline. At the time of the Scientific Revolution, most people still thought of the sciences as "natural philosophy" (one find this expression in the titles of several important works of the period, including Newton's Principia). The kind of compartmentalization of the sciences that we see today is, probably more than anything, a product of the structure of the university system. We can expect to see the emergence of new special sciences, and so new science departments, as the sciences become ever more specialized. Cognitive science departments are a recent phenomenon, as are computer science departments. My point here is that the fragmentation of these disciplines (including philosophy) is not necessarily reflective of deeper divergences. Until relatively recently, physics and biology were pursued as a part of natural philosophy, which was itself just one sub-region of philosophy. The same is true of mathematics. And anthropology and psychology and so on. There are philosophers today who work in each of these areas. Some of them are engaged in empirical investigation not much different from what you'd find in science departments. Others are doing work that is complementary to empirical investigation, addressing foundational issues in the sciences.

So, in answer to your question, the sciences both are and aren't part of philosophy. It's a bit of a messy set-up, I'll grant you, but that's more-or-less where things stand today.

Akoue
Agreed!
Fred

I think you may have missed what i ment. I ment that you don't beieve there is a GOD, baused on OSE and logical reasoning. But you do not completly discredit the idea that there MAY be a GOD.
Anything may be. If deities indeed exist, than the Pink Unicorn may just as well be the top deity and Great Creator, with as second deity in charge the Flying Spaghetti Monster, with two of the many junior deities the Christian "God" and the Islamic "Allah".
Anything may be. But I seriously doubt the validity of existence of any of these deities.


Can you give me one thing we know is a 100% fact, and will never ever change???
.
Are you saying it's not remotely possible that one of your facts, what ever it's role, can be altered by this change in propperties, matter, energy?
There are facts and there are things or concepts that never will change (at least in OUR universe).
Facts : the universe exists. We exist as living creatures in the only universe we know to exist.
Atoms, molecules, the 4 natural forces in this universe : there is no reason to consider these will ever change.


Interesting ideas tho.
Than what about the following : (return to the topic here : Science vs. Religion).

There is a basic and extremely important difference between what we know from science and the scientific approach, and what we know from philosophical, religious, and subjective thinking.

Although science - based on explanation and objective supporting evidence - may at times be wrong, it is always open to correction.
Religion however - based on dogma and subjective supporting evidence - is claimed to be always correct and blocked of any correction.

It is the real difference between science and religion. One is open for scruteny, the other is not.

Show me any basic scientific theory or thesis that is NOT open to correction : none exist.
Show me any basic religious claim that is open to correction : none exist.

THAT is why the two are not comparable!

:)

.

.

the Flying Spaghetti Monster,

Hey, he's answered all my prayers. And if you're especially devout, he'll let you nibble on him. Don't talk trash about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

So, Credendovidis, I've asked you a couple of times (they may have been missed in the shuffle): Where apart from science do you take there to be truth?

Akoue

Thank you ! Your post shows perfectly how blinded you are by your religious bias.

Note that I also stated : "I seriously doubt the validity of existence of any of these deities."

.

:)

.


Yes, but that's just because you've never tasted him.

Akoue

You seem to think that your dogma carries more validity than any other dogma.
You are wrong on that. Every dogma has the same validity : it is an unsupported claim and nothing else!

:rolleyes:

.

.

Are you now purposefully dodging my question? This has begun to look suspiciously like evasion.

Where, apart from science, do you take there to be truth?

It's all fun and games until somebody gets sent to bed without his supper.

Rude, huh? "Hi, Pot, this is Kettle. You're black." It's okay. I know why you don't want to answer. We'll let it go for now.

I see no reason to react to your posts #109, #110, #112, #114, and now #116.

And yet you keep posting responses, with lots of little faces and everything. Cute schtick. Have fun. You haven't posted a substantive reply to ##89, 94. I'm guessing that if you could, you would have done so by now. That's fine. This is your sandbox. I'm going to go play someplace else for a while.

I believe that science is a means by which truth as attained, yes. This isn't, of course, to say that every claim asserted by science (or scientists) is true. See my earlier remarks about Ptolemaic astronomy.

The relation of the special sciences to philosophy is historically complex. Each of the sciences can be seen to have originated in philosophy and to have broken off once it became fully conscious of itself as a sub-discipline. At the time of the Scientific Revolution, most people still thought of the sciences as "natural philosophy" (one find this expression in the titles of several important works of the period, including Newton's Principia). The kind of compartmentalization of the sciences that we see today is, probably more than anything, a product of the structure of the university system. We can expect to see the emergence of new special sciences, and so new science departments, as the sciences become ever more specialized. Cognitive science departments are a recent phenomenon, as are computer science departments. My point here is that the fragmentation of these disciplines (including philosophy) is not necessarily reflective of deeper divergences. Until relatively recently, physics and biology were pursued as a part of natural philosophy, which was itself just one sub-region of philosophy. The same is true of mathematics. And anthropology and psychology and so on. There are philosophers today who work in each of these areas. Some of them are engaged in empirical investigation not much different from what you'd find in science departments. Others are doing work that is complementary to empirical investigation, addressing foundational issues in the sciences.

So, in answer to your question, the sciences both are and aren't part of philosophy. It's a bit of a messy set-up, I'll grant you, but that's more-or-less where things stand today.


"True or False. Genocide is morally wrong.
True or False. It is wrong to kill babies for entertainment.
True or False. Rape is morally wrong.

Do you believe that any of these statements are true? Or can I hide behind vague talk of "possibilities" in order to perform any reprehensible act that tickles my fancy with a clear conscience?"

Hum, indeed. I can not say, they are far too vauge. In different situations I'd say one, and in others, the other. I can not say that these questions are truths. They are subject to ones opinion, and that is bias. Truth is undeniable, facts. No?

For example, you say it's wrong to kill babies for entertainment, so why are we cutting forests down, and the animals with it. That includes "baby animals", and for what? Our over sized homes, Kleenex (tissue papper), Fancy Furniture, and billions of carboard boxes, christmass cards, wrapping papper, and so much more. But aren't those just in a round about way, entertainment?
Not to mention the pollution, and oil drilling, how much plastic ends up in a land fill? No my friends I say that it is morally against our reasoning to live with more than we so need. Well in accordance with Choice thoery, Glassier's 5 needs. So we do need fun, but what is fun? I read a book that was written by a psychologist, and he believed that our brains need fun too, however, that fun is in the way of knowledge, new expeirences, and learning new things. We need new things to make us happy, but we don't need all those things at once. Selfish acts will get you nothing. As yoda wold say it:
“... Attachment leads to jealously. The shadow of greed, that is.”

By selfish acts I mean you acts with out regard for those around you.

So, now tell me where do your morals stand? Since morals can be interpreted differntly by other people; I can't say it is absolute truth. As Obi-wan "Ben" Kanobi says to Anikan, "Only a sith deals in absolute." This is also a moral. These are far to vauge, as I have shown you that you and I and most evrey one else is responsible for the deaths of many "BABIES". You may have meant directly or people only, however, even then I question, is the baby sick and in horendous pain? No, there are far too many "Possibilites" to decide what is best until you are in that situation, and faced with that dilema. Since we are in it, with the environment, it is clear to me that those who would answer those questions true, are not being entirely honest. Unless we assume what you meant, and unfortuantly I try not to look at one possibility.

I agree, we shouldn't do any of those things, but we are. Weather directly, or indirectly; we are all equally responsible. Do you understand now?

We have the ability to make the "right" choice but few will. Then I ponder further, does our race deserve to live? I don't have the answers, and I know nothing, but I do learn.

As for genocide, what do you consider to be genocide, are you talking about, the crusades, WWI, WWII, Nam, COLD WAR, "the WAR on Terror", what about the irradication of entire religons? Christianity, is just one idea, and what did they do in the name of the "LORD"? Yes, those people in the old days killed black people, women (whitches) did they not? So what is moral about any of that?
So what about, people who do drugs? They are a cultural group, and yet we persecute them. Or are they not "free" to destroy themselves selves? Smokers too, they are being singled out? Mind you I'm not a smoker, but it still could be argued as Genocide. Systematice measures taken for the extermination of a national, cultural, religious, or radical group.

Now, fro the third one. Hum, difficult. Rape is rather plain and simple, or is it? Rape of the eco system? Rape of a women, child or even a man. Once again one situation yes, others not. Any "forcible or outragous interference or violation" environmental, and personal. Some times it is needed to kill trees in a forest to make a home. I'd say that counts as forcible manipulation of the environment no? We tend to abuse this ability, or more accuratly responsibility.

So, you think I'm irresponsible, foolish, and any thing else? Brother I care for and respect the life that I am. Which includes, the environment around me, which gives me food, nurousment, energy, shelter, and more. I do not only believe every one is responsible for their actions, but also for the ideas they impose upon and teach others.

Tell me, am I bad? Good? Neither? There is no good or bad, only possibilities.
It's a contradiction in it's self, because once a moment is here, you can only be doing one thing. That is what you choose to be doing. When I say, "the only truth is that there is no truth." it too is a contradiction, for I call it a truth, but sate there is no truth. That is because it has a deeper meaning then what it states. You said it yourself actually, "...in answer to your question, the sciences both are and aren't part of philosophy."

And just so you do know, In the sense that you intended your three questions, I would not do any of those things. But some have, do, and will. So we can't assume because we believe it, so must every body else. I love all, no matter what. I may still fear them, hate them, dislike, or simply not know them. I still can love them, because I've learned what "Humans were all created equally." means to me. Though, it's like the sciences and philosophy, yes and no. I hope you understand now, if not, please keep asking. But what ever I say, "Do not believe in anything simply because you heard it, do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many, do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books, do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders, do not believe in traditions because they have bin handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." - A Buddhist Girl.

Sorry it was so long, peace be with you.

Wow guys, you crack me up. Here is my reply to the dinner god dude, Mmmmm. As for pink unicorns, don't kill them because I saw this movie once where this dude totally got it on with one, and he got A.I.D.S.! His name was I am lord Voldimort. LOL Funny.

Ok, let me think?

I have no proof persay, but I still wonder, you believe in science but like Akoue said before," the sciences both are and aren't part of philosophy." Is this what you think, can you disprove it Cred? I stated that if philosophy is the study of all knowledge, as stated in the Gage Canadian Dictionary, then wouldn't all disaplines be in actual fact, branches of Philosophy. Considering, that it's all knowledge? Personally I'm saticfied with Akoue's but, I do not see you being saticfied with that. You don't think that... do you Cred?

I'll have more later. Keep it civil guys;)
Maybe go watch this:

YouTube - Flight Of The Conchords - Frodo, Don't Wear The Ring (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=SWf3iJjqYCM&feature=PlayList&p=C8F8FFFBD57AD16E&index=0&playnext=1)
YouTube - Flight of the Conchords Ep 7 'Albi the Racist Dragon' (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=g9Qu3iP3RYA&feature=PlayList&p=C8F8FFFBD57AD16E&index=1) <-- speeking of unicorns, what about a racist dragon??
Haha.

Nestorian
Good questions.
I wonder if the answers will be good.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Nestorian
Good questions.
I wonder if the answers will be good.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Thanks brother, but which questions? The ones about morals, or the ones about science being Philosophy. If science is apart of philosophy, then what?
I also ponder the idea of weather such knowledge should be handed out freely. Knowledge is power. With great power comes great responsibility.


So can we deny the irresponsibility our so called intelegent race has displayed? Environment, killing our brothers/sisters. And so much more. Is it a matter of science or GOD, or is it all a matter of Logic.

Peace be with you, thanks by the way. I try to make my questions interesting.

"True or False. Genocide is morally wrong.
True or False. It is wrong to kill babies for entertainment.
True or False. Rape is morally wrong.

Do you believe that any of these statements are true? Or can I hide behind vague talk of "possibilities" in order to perform any reprehensible act that tickles my fancy with a clear conscience?"

Hum, indeed. I can not say, they are far too vauge. In different situations I'd say one, and in others, the other. I can not say that these questions are truths. They are subject to ones opinion, and that is bias. Truth is undeniable, facts. No?


Yes, I believe each of them is true. I don't see any reason to suppose we should favor a relativist or situational view regarding, say, genocide. It's true, as you say, that people have opinions about these things. But from the fact that people have (different) opinions it doesn't follow that there is no truth of the matter. Hitler was of the opinion that the extermination of Jews was okay. He was wrong. Genocide is wrong; it's always wrong, and anyone who believes otherwise is mistaken. Just as someone who holds the belief that 2+2=5 is simply mistaken.



For example, you say it's wrong to kill babies for entertainment, so why are we cutting forests down, and the animals with it. That includes "baby animals", and for what? Our over sized homes, Kleenex (tissue papper), Fancy Furniture, and billions of carboard boxes, christmass cards, wrapping papper, and so much more. But aren't those just in a round about way, entertainment?


Well, of course, my question concerned human babies. I'm willing to bet you'd agree that killing human babies for enterntainment is wrong, that the statement with which I presented you is true. Here you're changing the subject to something different, to our treatment of animals and the environment. This is also an important subject, one on which I suspect you and I would find ourselves in agreement. Like you, I think our treatment of animals and the environment is morally reprehensible.


“... Attachment leads to jealously. The shadow of greed, that is.”


I make it a point never to disagree with Yoda.



So, now tell me where do your morals stand? Since morals can be interpreted differntly by other people; I can't say it is absolute truth.

Again, from the fact that people can and do hold different opinions it doesn't follow that all of those opinions are right. Some are wrong. It's our job to figure out which ones are true and which are false and to jettison our false beliefs in favor of true beliefs. This is what education is all about.


is the baby sick and in horendous pain? No, there are far too many "Possibilites" to decide what is best until you are in that situation, and faced with that dilema.

My question concerned killing babies for *entertainment*. Would you agree that it is wrong to go around killing small children just for kicks? Would you agree that it is never okay to kill small children just for the fun of it?


Since we are in it, with the environment, it is clear to me that those who would answer those questions true, are not being entirely honest. Unless we assume what you meant, and unfortuantly i try not to look at one possibility.

Then how will you ever commit to anything? To truth, to a partner, anything. Do you intend to float free your whole life, never believing anything, never caring about anything? Because believing and caring are commitments, and this requires closing off certain possibilities. To believe that it is wrong to kill children for the fun of it is to reject the possibility that it is a good thing to kill children for the fun of it. Isn't this a part of maturity?



we are all equally responsible.


You may be right about that, but that's a different topic. We're talking about truth; the very important question about responsibility is distinct from that. Although you do appear to take it to be *true* that we are "all equally responsible". It seems to me that when it gets right down to it, you know that there is a difference between truth and falsity. You give evidence of that here.



I know nothing, but i do learn.


Learning is good. It bares fruit in knowledge. You know lots of things, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to log on and post a question, navigate your environment, etc.



As for genocide, what do you consider to be genocide, are you talking about, the crusades, WWI, WWII, Nam, COLD WAR, "the WAR on Terror", what about the irradication of entire religons?


By genocide I was thinking about things like the Holocaust. (War, as awful as it is, is another topic. I asked specifically about genocide.) I'm willing to bet you'd agree that the Holocaust was bad, and that things like the Holocaust are *always* bad.


Now, fro the third one. Hum, difficult. Rape is rather plain and simple, or is it? Rape of the eco system? Rape of a women, child or even a man. Once again one situation yes, others not. Any "forcible or outragous interference or violation" environmental, and personal. Some times it is needed to kill trees in a forest to make a home. I'd say that counts as forcible manipulation of the environment no? We tend to abuse this ability, or more accuratly responsibility.


Now you're playing with language. I think it's pretty clear that I meant rape as sexual assault.

And, yes, we do shirk our responsibilities. And responsibility requires commitment.



So, you think I'm irresponsible, foolish, and any thing else?

Never said anything close to that. I do think that some of your views are confused, though. That's what we're talking about here.


Brother i care for and respect the life that i am. Which includes, the environment around me, which gives me food, nurousment, energy, shelter, and more. I do not only believe every one is responsible for their actions, but also for the ideas they impose upon and teach others.

Good. You are right to.


tell me, am i bad? Good? Neither? There is no good or bad, only possibilities.


How on earth would I know whether you are good or bad? I've had a couple of brief exchanges with you on an internet forum.

Really, no good or bad? I think this talk about possibilities is talk. I bet you think that the Holocaust, the systematic extermination of men, women, and children on account of their religion or ethnicity, is wrong. I bet you think that our reckless and reprehensible degradation of the environment is wrong--otherwise I doubt you'd mention it as often as you have.


And just so you do know, In the sense that you intended your three questions, I would not do any of those things. But some have, do, and will. So we can't assume because we believe it, so must every body else.


No we can't assume that. Different people have different opinions. But as I've said, from that mere fact alone it doesn't follow that all those opinions are true. And I certainly hope that you don't intend to engage in the three actions I mentioned in my questions to you. If so, then we have nothing further to discuss and I can only hope for your speedy apprehension by the authorities. But my guess is that you haven't, and don't, engage in them because you see that they are wrong.


peace be with you.

And with you.

... I'll have more later ....
I hope you have lot's of time and stamina. "They" have more for you too !

:)

.

.

I hope you have lot's of time and stamina. "They" have more for you too !

:)

.

.



Yes, time and stamina do help, but I try to practice patience with an open mind. We all have our ways, eh. :)

Any one watch those YouTube vids? Haha, they can be rather funny.

Nestorian
Nope, me and YouTube do not get along well because I do not hear well at all.
I can not understand much of what is said.
Think that maybe I'm missing something important for so many seem to enjoy the YouTube.
Is there such a thing as yourtube, histube, hertube. Mytube, theirtube, credstube. Etc>
Or are those still coming in the future?
Maybe it id a blessing I can not hear them
Peace and kindness,
Fred

You are aware that that criminals are a cultural group? We try to get rid of them, force them to reform, or be imprisoned. I'd argue this is genocide. So is imprisoning criminals wrong? Do they not deserve to be considered as people? So am I mistaken in believing that genocide of the criminal ,suffering, people should be handled carefully? But still, if they resist, or are about to harm another we may need to harm them? See, how there is conflict and “possible” Contradictions?

Yes, Hitler was rather cruel wasn't he. In our eyes he may have done wrong, but in his own, maybe not. And our opinions are not truth, at least not for all. See what I mean? As for your math question, hum, yes it is “true”, relatively speaking, that 4 does not =5. But one truth does not hold true for all, does it?

Yes, harming any being for entertainment is “wrong”, animals, insects, and even plants. I did agree with you and say it was true, but that's not to say every one else believes us. Our beliefs may or may not be truth, we don't know, yet. It is horrible to most, but who's to say that any of us are any better then a girl who get pregnant from her boyfriend at the age of 14, hides it and tosses it into a dumpster. I agree we should try to stop it, and make her understand what she has done, but who are we to say she should or shouldn't be anything, but taught about what she did. We are the older ones and I have never really met any one that I believe to be overly wise with there so called superior intelligence.

In my eyes we are all guilty, and we are all innocent. For I appreciate the ignorance of all. People are no more than scared animals trying to survive, only in a much larger scale of selfishness. We tend to see what situation is in front of us and call it truth because it's all we know for sure, when really just outside our mental cage is the power to ride ourselves of oppression, aggression and so on. That power is freedom. Problem is we seem to think we need things we don't, and so we buy and consume the freedom in our cages, allowing the bigger wolves on the top of the food chain in our pack to take what they want with out concern for the consequences. We are becoming aware more, but we are still nothing more than intellectual animals trying to fulfill our needs. Buy trying to fulfill our immediate “needs”, we risk any hope for future needs. Thus, we are all killers, baby killers for entertainment. So yes, killing babies for entertainment is “wrong” again we still continue to do it. Believe what you wish, but that is the truth I have come to understand, as my own. Yet, I know it's not for all. Most can't stand to think about it in fact, they are so ashamed and angered, but blame others. I blame myself, as well as others.

So, true or false that by changing the planet as we are; will likely result in the killing of many babies, just so we can have our luxuries/ entertainments?

True or false that by riding our society of criminals, a cultural group, makes genocide OK, but for this situation? (of course I would intend that they be given care of, while they learn to be “better” citizens, and only to be killed if absolutely necessary.)

True or false that the rape of trees is no less vulgar than the rape of a women, children, yes even a man? (I realize we focus on our own kind because we can't police the whole world, but that's not to say it isn't still “wrong”.)

For me, true to all. Still I know, there are always going to be those who will disagree. So truth to me, not to others.

“Here you're changing the subject to something different, to our treatment of animals and the environment.” --you Am I? Or are they one and the same?? In my eyes yes, yours maybe not. “we are what we eat.” “everything is connected to everything else.” -- Thomas Maslow I think?
YODA, ““Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship.”

Yes yes, I know the force is not real, but in this case I'm talking about the connection from us to all the world. Like cells and elements/chemicals are apart of us, so are we, trees, rivers, animals, insects, dirt, soil, lava, and so on apart of “Our Mother Earth.” One affects the other, no?

Yes we do agree the environment is being misunderstood/used. Yoda is quite hard to disagree with. J

“Again, from the fact that people can and do hold different opinions it doesn't follow that all of those opinions are right. Some are wrong. It's our job to figure out which ones are true and which are false and to jettison our false beliefs in favor of true beliefs. This is what education is all about.” -- you

Is it now? I was always under the impression that education was about getting a job to pay for your life. Or to simply learn, weather you decide to used what you've learned for good or ill purposes. Well that is up to each individual, I wish it wasn't. I do agree it would be great if people would use knowledge to do good with, not bad.
I know this may sound bad, but I often ponder weather the medical advances in our world are healthy for the balance of our “ecosystem”? In one way its great for us, keeps us alive, on the other; then we are able to do more damage, unless in the rare case we choose to let go of our illusions.
I have learned that “knowledge is power, because through knowledge we can achieve freedom. But with freedom comes great responsibility.” I took a few sayings and mied them together, I think it makes a huge impact on the ideals of our societies, and how foolish we are to think that we can do as we please, with in the bounds of LAW, and think we are “free.”
Have you heard of the “Iron Cage”? Max Weber I think wrote on it. The idea that we are major consumers and thus become caged in our own ideals. I would go as far as to say we become mindless slaves to the false ideals of consumerism.

“My question concerned killing babies for *entertainment*. Would you agree that it is wrong to go around killing small children just for kicks? Would you agree that it is never okay to kill small children just for the fun of it?” - You

Ok I'll come clean, yes I do agree with you. That still don't make it right for us to say that our opinions are fact, and truth. Again, I go back to the animals, we treat them like wretched creatures from some nether world. How is that any different? Killing any baby is horrible. Yet, we allow it by “consuming/ buying” the things we “thing” we need. And many say there is nothing we can do, or who cares? Is any of it true?? Only relatively.

“Then how will you ever commit to anything? …caring about anything?”
J In the department of commitment, I'm committed to everything, nothing, and anything, as I see is necessary. See, like you may have noticed I've tied things together, that most would not. I understand that there is a balance, and if one thing is removed or altered, then everything else must learn to adapt. Problem is, a lot of things can't just adapt. So they die, and that alters the balance more, and again things must learn to adapt, but once again some things can not, until… We all know the rest.

“Because believing and caring are commitments, and this requires closing off certain possibilities. To believe that it is wrong to kill children for the fun of it is to reject the possibility that it is a good thing to kill children for the fun of it. Isn't this a part of maturity?”--You

Are they? Once again that is a matter of opinion, or you wouldn't ask. Let me try to explain this,

You have your solid “undeniable truth”, another person has that same “undeniable truth”; however, you differ on some matters. Like is genocide wrong, or is rape wrong, or is killing babies for entertainment wrong. The topics are far too broad and are open to subjective interpretation, and there for one's truth is not the same as another's. Like the song goes, I believe it's buffalo Springfield's - For what it's worth, “… No bodies right if every bodies wrong.” Every one argues they are right, but do they really know? I could be just telling you a bunch of nonsense, but at the same time it could be the most important thing you ever here, or it could be any number of personalities. What ever works for you. For me, I've found that I've a strange understanding of not just my own way, but also others. I can see why Cred believes what he believes, though, I'd still say it's still all subject to change, as well as differences in interpretation, and explanation. Does it matter if there is evidence of something? Sure, it allows us to understand how things work, we area curious breed, but animals don't care about that, only that things work. That's not to say they are any less important to our world. I can also see why you believe in GOD, it may not be your specific reason, but it allows me to understand you nonetheless.
I don't need to say that my beliefs are right, wrong, or truth. The truth will find us in the end, no? Question is, when is the end? :)

“You may be right about that, but that's a different topic. We're talking about truth; the very important question about responsibility is distinct from that. Although you do appear to take it to be *true* that we are "all equally responsible". It seems to me that when it gets right down to it, you know that there is a difference between truth and falsity. You give evidence of that here.”--you

Do I? Do you remember when I said, “…there is no truth”? Then I started talking about profound truths? “…the opposite of a profound truth may very well be another profound truth.”? “…there is no truth.”, implies that it is a false statement, because why would you believe that there is no truth, if it is stating it as a truth. Messed up, I know. That means the only logical answer is, “There is only truth.” Again, it is not true, nor false, it simply is what it is, A statement. It can be considered true, false, or any number of possibilities. There are truths, but its up to us to determine weather or not to believe it. Thus making it true if we believe, and false if we don't, and if your like me true when applicable, false when not.
Are you getting the idea?

“Learning is good. It bares fruit in knowledge.” --You

Is it? What about the atom bomb, hydrogen bomb, guns, drugs??

“You know lots of things, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to log on and post a question, navigate your environment, etc.” --you

:) We may know things, but do we understand them?

“By genocide I was thinking about things like the Holocaust. (War, as awful as it is, is another topic. I asked specifically about genocide.) I'm willing to bet you'd agree that the Holocaust was bad, and that things like the Holocaust are *always* bad.” --you

Hum, I may agree that I think It's “bad”, but I don't know that it was good or bad. If you believe in GOD, and that he is the only judge of us, then that is only for him to know, and all for me to question. I'd do what I can to stop it from ever happening, but who's to say that if Hitler didn't do what he did, that we wouldn't be worse off today, with some other war. Like I said, “there is no good or bad, only possibilities.” -- ME I hope we don't, but still who knows what should or shouldn't happen. We are programmed to survive, at all costs. I do however have faith that People, will find their way, and learn to accept what will happen. We are quite surprising at times.


“Now you're playing with language. I think it's pretty clear that I meant rape as sexual assault.

“And, yes, we do shirk our responsibilities. And responsibility requires commitment.”--you

Hum, yeah you could see it that I'm playing with language. I'm trying to open your mind, to the possibilities. Am I really that “bad” or are you afraid of what I've come to realize as truth? I am the most compassionate, caring, understanding, loving, honorable, respecting, and honest person I know. But does that make me those things? Maybe, maybe not.

“Never said anything close to that. I do think that some of your views are confused, though. That's what we're talking about here.” --You

Confused am I?
If you find that I'm confused, don't worry, you may be right! I know I'm confused But why do you think I'm confused?

“How on earth would I know whether you are good or bad? I've had a couple of brief exchanges with you on an internet forum.” -- You

Very logical, and fair enough.

“Really, no good or bad? I think this talk about possibilities is talk. I bet you think that the Holocaust, the systematic extermination of men, women, and children on account of their religion or ethnicity, is wrong. I bet you think that our reckless and reprehensible degradation of the environment is wrong--otherwise I doubt you'd mention it as often as you have.”

I think I need to explain the idea of good or bad only possibilities. The reason that there would be no good or bad is you would have to drop the labels of what something is, and see it for what it is. Just one of many different possibilities. See, if there is no good or bad, there are just possibilities; and we have the power to over come and change a possibility, weather it's a good or bad one. See behind the idea I stated is, a deeper more complex idea. Read if for what it states and you loose yourself, read it for what it implies and gain new possibilities. No?

I mention the environment because with out it, we wouldn't be. One cannot survive with out the other.

Weather I think something is right or wrong doesn't mean others do. Events are events until we decide to take them and label them. It is not truth, nor something we can say as absolute. Ben Kanobi, “Only a Sith deals in absolute.” Others will argue against our ideas, logic, and beliefs. Just like people argue about OSE, and what It really means. Or the interpretation of the bible, or the words of Jesses. It is all subject to one's interpretation, there for change, and maybe unstable. I could say, “Life is Good.” People would take it, and argue what it meant, what I meant, what it matters, and so on.

“But as I've said, from that mere fact alone it doesn't follow that all those opinions are true.”-you

Humm, indeed. Theirs are no more true than ours. Remember what Buffalo Springfield said?

No I won't. Fair enough, I was thinking about becoming an R.C.M.P. and going to china before hand for 3 years and train with the Shaolin Monks the ancient art of KUNG FU. Very hard program, but once you've gone in it, you are like the most disciplined and focused solider, Police man/women, or guard. Here are some words from Buddha

Believe nothing no matter where you read it, no matter who said it, no matter if I said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sense.

First rely on the spirit and meaning of the teachings not on the words.

Second rely on the teachings not on the personality of the teacher.

Third rely on real wisdom not superficial interpretation.

Fourth rely on the essence of your pure wisdom mind not on judgmental perceptions.

Peace be with you.

Nestorian,
Thanks much for your thot on that <Yoda.
LOL.
Fred

So you "Stumbled Upon" that . But without reference this is called plagiarism .....

An "Amazing Post" : The Four Reliances : Famous Buddhist Quotes & Sayings (http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/www.amazingposts.com/2007/08/famous-buddhist-quotes-sayings.html)

Bravo ???

;)

.

.

I tried to figure it out, but didn't. Thanks Cred, for correcting me and giving reffrence. I do not wish to claim ones work for my own, just to speread what they teach.

Though, I did not find it there, where you did, I got it from a YouTube vid, just didn't recall which one. I'll find it hold a tick...

Here it is!

YouTube - Wisdom of the Buddha (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=LTsb-woP3jI&feature=PlayList&p=A2E11A0B213208AA&playnext=1&index=8)

Sorry guys. Didn't intend for the plagiarism.

Peace be with you.

Sorry guys. Didn't intend for the plagiarism.
No problem . Everyone of us can forget to mention that. You corrected yourself properly with this !

Here is another source of this Buddhist basic (LINK). (http://www.buddhisttoursindia.com/buddhist-beliefs/famous-buddha-quotes.html)

See the bottom block of links to various information on Buddhist Beliefs.

:)

.

.

No problem . Everyone of us can forget to mention that. You corrected yourself properly with this !

Here is another source of this Buddhist basic (LINK). (http://www.buddhisttoursindia.com/buddhist-beliefs/famous-buddha-quotes.html)

See the bottom block of links to various information on Buddhist Beliefs.

:)

.

.
Hello John, hope all is well with you. I saw where the windmills were all frozen in holland. Hope you are keeping warm in them pointy shoes :)

BTW, is aton still dead?)

Hi Jjdupree, and bye, sad banned users trying to come back under new user names.

The Bible is not talking about physical atributes when it says we are created in God's image. Our Spirit is created in God's image. God is a spiritual being, man is a being that consists of Spirit, Soul, and Body. So man's spirit being is what has been created in God's image.

THIS is my idea of "created in his image". Physical characteristics mean nothing.

THIS is my idea of "created in his image". Physical characteristics mean nothing.

So does that mean our beaings are created in GOD's image, so our spirt is created as GODs is. Or is it in his idea of what we should look like. And does that conflict with our understanding that we are able to make our own choices? If GOD knows everything, then GOD would know how we will react in any given situation, thus, we are given situations that GOD persents us, and we react how he intended us to react. How can we have free will if we were created to do as GOD intended us to?? Are we all just random parts of a mechine, Planet earth? Intersting.

I like your idea, very interesting.

peasce and kindness.

If physical characteristics do not mean anything, a gnostic error, then why did Jesus Christ, for those who believe, present to us as a human?

If physical characteristics did not matter, why [ did Jesus Christ ] heal lepers and the physically ill?

Matthew 9: 1-8






G&P

If physical characteristics did not matter, why [ did Jesus Christ ] heal lepers and the physically ill?








G&P
Apparently he can't heal amputees.


















NK.

[QUOTE=inthebox;1495930]If physical characteristics do not mean anything, a gnostic error, then why did Jesus Christ, for those who believe, present to us as a human?

If physical characteristics did not matter, why [ did Jesus Christ ] heal lepers and the physically ill?

Matthew 9: 1-8



Human Form is merely a vehicle that we use to roam THIS planet. Jesus was God in "human form". He came to show us what living a Godly life was supposed to look like. Our true essence is not our bodies.

This vehicle known as our body breaks down, sometimes prematurely.
It's only common sense to keep it going as best as we can. This does not conflict with our essence being in the image of God's essence. Do you see God as a body> Is it a "he or she". Does he look white black, Asian or whatever? This is the 2nd time that I have confronted a poster that believes God's physical image is the same as ours and have yet to get an answer. Which one of us does God look like?

Apparently he can't heal amputees.















NK.

I love the way an atheist sees things. So clear, profound, obvious, and funny.:D:D:D

>Thread Closed<
Degeneration .