Why Only Christianity?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-08-2011, 12:51 AM
RE: Why Only Christianity?
I found a source that refutes it -
http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/a.../part-one/

"The bible has been shown to be logically, historically, philosophically, sociologically, scientifically and even morally dead wrong about´╗┐ everything back to front" - Aron Ra
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2011, 01:53 AM
RE: Why Only Christianity?
(03-08-2011 09:11 AM)An_Actual_Theist Wrote:  Why is it that every post I see is about disproving Christianity? Nobbodyon here has ever discussed other valid forms of Theism. For example, what I believe in, an omnipotent being that controls the outcome of quantum events to work his/her/its will on the Universe.

Seems quite a bit more likley than a new Universe forming every time a quantum event orccurs with multiple possibiliteis. (which it always is)

Thoughts?

I really don't see much point in being a Deist. At best all you are saying is that a vivifying force must have existed pre big/bang, in order to provide some obscure form of causality.
At worst a deity that creates misery, as an experiment involving sentient creatures, is not a"god" but an evil entity, omnipotence in no way being synonymous with omniscient kindness.
I think it is preferable to take the best option which simply relates to an unknowable vivifying force and even causality (in some cosmic domains) may not be required.Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2011, 09:01 AM
 
RE: Why Only Christianity?
(06-08-2011 02:13 PM)An_Actual_Theist Wrote:  The basic consensus among the scientific community is either it is a metaphysical issue or their is a multiverse.

Do you have a source for this?

Quote:The problem with both is that it is impossible to test either and it comes down to speculation. But the way I see it, the fact that we can observe something to change its behavior implies directly that conscience has an effect on a sub-atomic scale, because observing an object does nothing else to an object except make the photons it reflects hit our eyes or the "eye" of a recording device. So it is either a God or subatomic particles can think.

Still the god of the gaps argument, and it's absolutely useless. Is this really what convinces you a god or gods exist?
Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2011, 09:08 AM
RE: Why Only Christianity?
The argument for a god is horrendous and always un-does itself.
There must be a god because there had to be someone who created everything.
So who created god?
God always has been.
So if god is somehow outside of the one rule you use to prove there is a god then.... Why can't the universe or multiverse have created itself?
Nothing could do that, how would it do that?
Suddenly you want proof that the universe could spontaneously become, but you never ask that of god? Seems pretty silly as far as logic is concerned. Shouldn't one thing fall under the same scrutiny as another? What makes god exempt? Because your parents told you so? Grow up time then.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2011, 01:10 PM
 
RE: Why Only Christianity?
(07-08-2011 12:00 PM)Peterkin Wrote:  
Quote: .... No animal other then us displays signs of being conscience, which is defined as self awareness and the ability to self improve based on awareness.
Is that the definition? My dictionary says, knowledge of one's actions as right or wrong.
If you meant consciousness, that doesn't include self-improvement; only mental activity: sensation, awareness of environment, emotion and thought.
In both cases, my statement about other species stands.

Quote: And based on you assumption that electrons can make choices,

I make no such assumption. I merely say it's a more likely hypothesis, from the observed phenomena, than an omnipotent external intelligence of unknown location, aetiology or properties. Certainly don't rule out an entirely different explanation.

Quote: that would imply that they are conscience, meaning that conscience exists outside of living vessels.
Before, you said human vessels. Yes, consciousness and conscience, do certainly exist in other than human.... bodies. 'Vessel' sounds to me as if it were purpose-built to contain consciousness, which i don't believe to be the case.
If electrons have some kind of awareness, which isn't necessarily consciousness and doesn't even begin to imply a morality, then, yes, awareness could exist outside living vessels. Like chrystals, computers, or internet-works. That doesn't automatically lead to a next step or implication, though you may infer, project and speculate at will.

Quote: And I'm relativity sure that changing a photons properties such that they are able to change the behavior of a particle without any actual transfer of energy beyond normal is just a little at odds with the laws of physics.

Quite so. Something in that process, as you describe it, is unexplained.
Therefore, magic.

To your statement about species and computers, self-awareness is the first step to consciousnesses. No animal (except maybe dolphins) and no computers have ever been self aware. They act based on a set of instructions, whether it be a set of commands or instinct, which is basically chemical instructions. Electrons and other sub-atomic particles, on the other hand, do not possess this. They need some mechanism to control themselves, which is conscience. How they make the choice and whether they are moral is a philosophical, not scientific, debate. How the particles interpret data and act on it is a force that can not be observed directly, manipulated at will, or measured, which is why it has to be conscience decision of some sort. And if you want to call this force magic, fine. It might as well be for our ability to understand it.

And regarding you comment on my usage of "vessel" and "assumption", that was just poor word choice on my part, what I was trying to say you said for me.

Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2011, 01:18 PM
RE: Why Only Christianity?
We are no different, our own morality comes from chemical reactions and currents in our brain. A consciousness or soul has yet to be found in anyone, all that we ever are is in our brain.

Personally I think all animals are self aware to a degree. As for computers, give it time.

[Image: 1471821-futurama_bender_s_big_score_imag...er-1-1.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2011, 02:24 PM
RE: Why Only Christianity?
Chimps are self-aware. Put a mirror in front of one and soon it will use it to groom itself like humans do. Studies have been done where chimps were asleep and researchers painted a mark on their forehead. Once the chimps woke up and went to the mirror, they would touch the mark in curiosity. This demonstrates that they are at least aware of their own appearance (and changes to that appearance), which is a kind of self-awareness.
So, the assertion that "no animal" has self-awareness is simply incorrect - even if you are excluding humans from the animal kingdom (which, again, would be incorrect).

I am not quite aware where you got your definition of consciousness. Could you elaborate?
Consciousness, as I understand it, is demonstrable in many animals, though it is difficult to determine this in many others. Mammals and birds, for instance, are definitely conscious. My dog definitely has an awareness of her surroundings: she knows when my partner is at work, or when I leave the room, for example.

*And just a side note: mechanisms that seem to be driven by choice are often very simple. Machines can be built to move towards or away from light with very few connections, demonstrating that the same mechanisms are potentially present in organisms without complex neuronal structures. Because I do not know much about physics, I am not sure if this applies to your notions regarding electrons, but the notion of simplicity over complexity surely applies. And an omniscient being is definitely making things more complex than they need to be.

"Remember, my friend, that knowledge is stronger than memory, and we should not trust the weaker." - Dr. Van Helsing, Dracula
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2011, 12:00 AM
 
RE: Why Only Christianity?
(09-08-2011 01:18 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  We are no different, our own morality comes from chemical reactions and currents in our brain. A consciousness or soul has yet to be found in anyone, all that we ever are is in our brain.

Personally I think all animals are self aware to a degree. As for computers, give it time.

If you want to start another thread debating the existence of human consciousness, make a new thread, here is not the place to debate that.

And anyway, self-awareness and conscience are different. Until animals demonstrate the ability to self improve and to have abstract thought, they do not posses conscience
(09-08-2011 02:24 PM)SecularStudent Wrote:  Chimps are self-aware. Put a mirror in front of one and soon it will use it to groom itself like humans do. Studies have been done where chimps were asleep and researchers painted a mark on their forehead. Once the chimps woke up and went to the mirror, they would touch the mark in curiosity. This demonstrates that they are at least aware of their own appearance (and changes to that appearance), which is a kind of self-awareness.
So, the assertion that "no animal" has self-awareness is simply incorrect - even if you are excluding humans from the animal kingdom (which, again, would be incorrect).

I am not quite aware where you got your definition of consciousness. Could you elaborate?
Consciousness, as I understand it, is demonstrable in many animals, though it is difficult to determine this in many others. Mammals and birds, for instance, are definitely conscious. My dog definitely has an awareness of her surroundings: she knows when my partner is at work, or when I leave the room, for example.

*And just a side note: mechanisms that seem to be driven by choice are often very simple. Machines can be built to move towards or away from light with very few connections, demonstrating that the same mechanisms are potentially present in organisms without complex neuronal structures. Because I do not know much about physics, I am not sure if this applies to your notions regarding electrons, but the notion of simplicity over complexity surely applies. And an omniscient being is definitely making things more complex than they need to be.

My definition of conscience also includes abstract thought and self improvement. And self awareness is a little more then recognizing oneself in the mirror, which many mammals fail to do. (Ever seen a cat scared by its own reflection?) Self awareness is really, the ability to recognize that one is alive and have a sense of self, I guess the right word is sentience.

As to you second point. Machines can only act based on commands, while electrons react based on nothing and make decisions based on nothing, so its not really related. And if you want to argue simplicity over complexity, an Omniscient being which is immeasurable and un-see-able is more likely than a potentially infinite amount of immeasurable un-see-able things, which are new universes. The two schools of thought is that there are an infinite number of universes which exist to represent an alternate path subatomic particles could take.

This vid will explain things to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Irrefutable Proof God exists

http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2010-04-05/...749401.jpg

Serious proof later today, though.
Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2011, 12:37 AM
RE: Why Only Christianity?
Animals have have demonstrated the ability to self improve and have abstract thought, you are your own evidence. Unless you think humans are outside the natural order of things, which is absolutely incorrect.

Also, funny you chide me for going 'off topic' considering you continue to take this thread further and further off your original topic.

And... let's see that 'proof'.

[Image: 1471821-futurama_bender_s_big_score_imag...er-1-1.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes monkeyshine89's post
15-08-2011, 09:36 AM
 
RE: Why Only Christianity?
(08-08-2011 09:08 AM)lucradis Wrote:  The argument for a god is horrendous and always un-does itself.
There must be a god because there had to be someone who created everything.
So who created god?
God always has been.
So if god is somehow outside of the one rule you use to prove there is a god then.... Why can't the universe or multiverse have created itself?
Nothing could do that, how would it do that?
Suddenly you want proof that the universe could spontaneously become, but you never ask that of god? Seems pretty silly as far as logic is concerned. Shouldn't one thing fall under the same scrutiny as another? What makes god exempt? Because your parents told you so? Grow up time then.
God isn't exempt. The proof you are stating is not the proof I am using, mostly because, as you say, it is ridiculously flawed. I am not making an argument for deism, it is impossible. I NEVER said God created everything, I simply am saying there is a God capable of manipulating everything. I doubt we will ever figure out how God was created or the Universe created itself. i made this thread to prove a God, not that God created everything.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: