When do you get a soul??

[mindphuk]

Hmm.. the one major thing for me is the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. Thats fingerprints and DNA at the scene of the crime. It cant get more black and white. The bible predicted that they will rebuild the temple again and guess whats happening..

Links?
The Temple Mount is and has been occupied by a Mosque for quite some time. They don't even allow archaeological excavations there let alone rebuild the Temple.

And I dont think you are fully understanding what I mean when I say religion and science support eachother. Im not saying they are similar in process, im saying they answer eachothers questions. Science proves what is often thrown away as crazy testimony. Miracles.. tumors disappearing and the paralyzed walking.. before science proved it possible, you could really only say it happened or its a lie. Now we have proof that its possible.

Links again.
Some tumors can spontaneously regress. How do you determine if that was god or a tumor that regressed naturally?
I have seen zero evidence that anyone that has been paralyzed getting up and walking without medical devices. It sounds like you have been taken in by faith healers and revivals where the placebo effect and outright fraud is used. Look up Peter Popoff. Every time people have investigated miraculous healing, the evidence has come up short. I have citations and literature to support this, do you have anything to support your claims?

 

[cannabineer]

I know cn, I wasnt talking about you. Your really respectful. What do you make of the thousands of widely available videos of supernatural occurrences? Surely that good enough and obviously recorded evidence? Some good video made by people with degrees in investigating that sort of thing.. scientists.

I have not yet seen a video that withstands challenge. Video and digital photos are not reliable imo.
Actual scientists would use equipment that would meet the authenticity challenge. I don't mean "only official, accredited get to play" when I say scientists, but rather people who understand systematic error and how to contain it. That's one of my markers for science vs. parlor games. cn

 

[Moebius]

I have not yet seen a video that withstands challenge. Video and digital photos are not reliable imo.
Actual scientists would use equipment that would meet the authenticity challenge. I don't mean "only official, accredited get to play" when I say scientists, but rather people who understand systematic error and how to contain it. That's one of my markers for science vs. parlor games. cn

You forget the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal which states that on a quantum level particles and waves seem to break the laws of 'causality'.

Once the principal of cause and effect breaks down it calls into question everything we know about matter, reality and science.

The hubris of many of these so-called 'rationalists' or 'atheists' is quite humorous. They are as zealous as the some of the religious ideas they despise. Both have cornered themselves into an intellectual cull-de-sac because they label themselves then construct their argument to fit the established idea.

 

[Moebius]

[video=youtube;KT7xJ0tjB4A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT7xJ0tjB4A[/video]

 

[cannabineer]

You forget the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal which states that on a quantum level particles and waves seem to break the laws of 'causality'.

Once the principal of cause and effect breaks down it calls into question everything we know about matter, reality and science.

The hubris of many of these so-called 'rationalists' or 'atheists' is quite humorous. They are as zealous as the some of the religious ideas they despise. Both have cornered themselves into an intellectual cull-de-sac because they label themselves then construct their argument to fit the established idea.

The thing about Heisenberg's Principle is that it sets a maximum dimension for the uncertainty that is approx. atomic in scale. The quantity h is tiny. Imo extending the Uncertainty Principle into the macroscopic does not work. There are too many metaphysicians out there today (imo) who hide behind an incomplete comprehension of uncertainty and quantum mechanics. cn

 

[Moebius]

The thing about Heisenberg's Principle is that it sets a maximum dimension for the uncertainty that is approx. atomic in scale. The quantity h is tiny. Imo extending the Uncertainty Principle into the macroscopic does not work. There are too many metaphysicians out there today (imo) who hide behind an incomplete comprehension of uncertainty and quantum mechanics. cn

In the universe there is no such thing as 'tiny'. Its just a human concept. The concept of Infinity states that something can be infinitely large and infinitely small at the same time, there is no distinction.

Im liking the (imo). ... its you excepting that science doesn't 'know' or cannot explain everything.

 

[mindphuk]

You forget the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal which states that on a quantum level particles and waves seem to break the laws of 'causality'.

Once the principal of cause and effect breaks down it calls into question everything we know about matter, reality and science.

The hubris of many of these so-called 'rationalists' or 'atheists' is quite humorous. They are as zealous as the some of the religious ideas they despise. Both have cornered themselves into an intellectual cull-de-sac because they label themselves then construct their argument to fit the established idea.

Why is it when people attempt to take only the knowledge that we humans have acquired and generally agree is mostly true and apply that knowledge to claims about reality, it is considered hubris, but when people make shit up out of whole cloth and claim that their completely fabricated ideas is some sort of truth, people like you give them a pass?

 

[mindphuk]

Im liking the (imo). ... its you excepting that science doesn't 'know' or cannot explain everything.

Funny thing is, I never see the rationalists on this board ever claim that science knows or can even explain everything. BTW except !=accept.

 

[Moebius]

Why is it when people attempt to take only the knowledge that we humans have acquired and generally agree is mostly true and apply that knowledge to claims about reality, it is considered hubris, but when people make shit up out of whole cloth and claim that their completely fabricated ideas is some sort of truth, people like you give them a pass?

I say that anyone who states 'there is no GOD' and attempts to explain it with scientific principals that themselves break down on the quantum scale is hubristic.

hubris being 'arrogant'.

 

[Moebius]

Funny thing is, I never see the rationalists on this board ever claim that science knows or can even explain everything. BTW except !=accept.

My bad ..I was actually devoting the part of my brain that deals with semantics to constructing a credible argument. Bravo for being such a pedant.

 

[cannabineer]

I say that anyone who states 'there is no GOD' and attempts to explain it with scientific principals that themselves break down on the quantum scale is hubristic.

hubris being 'arrogant'.

Hubris is more than mere arrogance. Iirc it was arrogance before the gods, essentially being "uppity" in terms of man's rightful place in creation. The problem is that for very many who believe/submit to religious doctrine, what many unbelievers view as simple self-empowerment becomes seen as hubris.

I view an attempt to leverage science into a rational basis for antitheism to be more of a statement about the claimant's carelessness than an indictment of either science or theism. cn

 

[mindphuk]

I say that anyone who states 'there is no GOD' and attempts to explain it with scientific principals that themselves break down on the quantum scale is hubristic.

hubris being 'arrogant'.

I would probably agree. It is a good thing most rationalists do not make such claims. However, saying it is likely there is no god because there is no evidence for such a being in spite of thousands of years of people attempting to prove otherwise, AND finding natural explanations for the phenomena that people have attributed to a god, is good inductive reasoning. It is the same as the 'no white crows' argument.

OTOH, you have some descriptions of a god that are logically impossible, and those deities I certainly can state unequivocally they don't exist. It is possible to define a god in a way that is impossible to disprove, Russel's teapot and the FSM are supposed to help demonstrate this idea. It does not however, make them likely to exist.

 

[mindphuk]

My bad ..I was actually devoting the part of my brain that deals with semantics to constructing a credible argument. Bravo for being such a pedant.

Your bad all around considering your argument was a strawman.

 

[Moebius]

When we 'ACCEPT' that science doesnt have all the answers we are left with existential philosophies and religions to attempt to answer the ponderables.

For instance, Science can explain the biological mechanisms of DNA or the evolutionary process. Science just hasn't been able to explain the imperative behind this process. It doesn't even begin to try.

 

[cannabineer]

When we 'ACCEPT' that science doesnt have all the answers we are left with existential philosophies and religions to attempt to answer the ponderables.

For instance, Science can explain the biological mechanisms of DNA or the evolutionary process. Science just hasn't been able to explain the imperative behind this process. It doesn't even begin to try.

It begins to try but isn't there yet (my hope/expectation). We are a very young species.

A book I recommend is "Life Ascending" by Nick Lane. It showed me an eye-opening amount about the steadily advancing state of the investigation into earliest life. cn

 

[Moebius]

Funny thing is, I never see the rationalists on this board ever claim that science knows or can even explain everything. BTW except !=accept.

I would probably agree. It is a good thing most rationalists do not make such claims. However, saying it is likely there is no god because there is no evidence for such a being in spite of thousands of years of people attempting to prove otherwise, AND finding natural explanations for the phenomena that people have attributed to a god, is good inductive reasoning. It is the same as the 'no white crows' argument.

OTOH, you have some descriptions of a god that are logically impossible, and those deities I certainly can state unequivocally they don't exist. It is possible to define a god in a way that is impossible to disprove, Russel's teapot and the FSM are supposed to help demonstrate this idea. It does not however, make them likely to exist.

You keep, focusing on the part where I stated the 'rationalists' when I said 'Rationalist' and 'athiests'

You forget the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal which states that on a quantum level particles and waves seem to break the laws of 'causality'.

Once the principal of cause and effect breaks down it calls into question everything we know about matter, reality and science.

The hubris of many of these so-called 'rationalists' or 'atheists' is quite humorous. They are as zealous as the some of the religious ideas they despise. Both have cornered themselves into an intellectual cull-de-sac because they label themselves then construct their argument to fit the established idea.

Atheist contend there is no God.

 

[Moebius]

I also qualified the statement by not saying ALL atheists and rationalist, I didnt even say MOST, I said MANY

 

[eye exaggerate]

...maybe a bit off topic, but how does 'science' sit with the idea that observation changes the outcome of experiments (given quantum research)? Was that a bit of a step back? As in..."now what?"

*just an honest question.

 

[Moebius]

RIU wont allow me to visit the 'last' page.

 

[cannabineer]

...maybe a bit off topic, but how does 'science' sit with the idea that observation changes the outcome of experiments (given quantum research)? Was that a bit of a step back? As in..."now what?"

*just an honest question.

Afaik the observation/outcome thing is also restricted to the very small and fast, like wave/particle diffraction. It's worth remembering that Schrödinger's Cat was a Gedankenexperiment and so far not realized on a bench. cn