ADN

http://www.gazette.com/articles/police_ ... html?rt^tr

Christians;2
Athiests;-1

raum wrote: The truth of general statements is directly proportional to the number of subjects they describe, support, or attempt to establish the non-existence of.

That statement is not correct.

No animal (excluding humans) has ever written a work of fiction. That is a "general claim" by your definition -- including as it does gerbils, monkeys, lemurs, giraffes, and so on . . . the large number of animals included does not make it any less likely to be true

Also: The observation that no supernatural claims have ever been reliably substantiated is not a general claim. Its specific.

raum wrote: What do you think the phenomenon of unanswered requests for healing *really* indicates?

The fact that no one's listening.

deepsepia wrote: No animal (excluding humans) has ever written a work of fiction. That is a "general claim" by your definition -- including as it does gerbils, monkeys, lemurs, giraffes, and so on . . . the large number of animals included does not make it any less likely to be true

1: you excluded an animal you know to be responsible for most writing.
2. you specified the category of writing.
3. you establish the time window of the past.

You even know that the statement before you excluded the one animal you know that has written fiction. So, in effect that is a negative or "nonmaterial" statement with an exclusionary clause. That is not general at all.

Also: The observation that no supernatural claims have ever been reliably substantiated is not a general claim. Its specific.

Except you keep using this word "supernatural." What is the qualifier for this term, I wonder. Who is to say that God is supernatural? I hate words like supernatural, paranormal, etc. Can you give me an example of some "reliably substantiated" evidence that might actually, in your opinion, render a 'supernatural' claim valid? Is there some evidence you might actually consider?

See this is my problem with "athiests". Most of you think because you don't have evidence, no one does; or that there is no evidence to be have. The other amusing thing is then you think for some reason that if someone had evidence they'd be eager to show you. What would be their incentive? "Hooray, one athiests' world was rocked! woo-hoo?" It always seems to amaze skeptics that there might be some people out there who regularly experience things that don't fit in the general consensus of reality, which can be experienced by others present,.. and yet we still have no concern if the whole world knows it. But I have seen at least one skeptic write down a journaled account of something he simply believed could never occur; something premedititated, documented, witnessed and repeated. He omitted it from his final records to maintain his credibility.

Honestly, I don't care what people say they do or don't believe. If your life has never been on the line.... If you have never been mission critical, you don't know shit about what you believe in.

raum wrote: What do you think the phenomenon of unanswered requests for healing *really* indicates?

The fact that no one's listening.

...sometimes.

raum wrote:Except you keep using this word "supernatural." What is the qualifier for this term, I wonder. Who is to say that God is supernatural? I hate words like supernatural, paranormal, etc. Can you give me an example of some "reliably substantiated" evidence that might actually, in your opinion, render a 'supernatural' claim valid? Is there some evidence you might actually consider?

I want to know the answer to that myself...I've asked that question to our friend deep, and he rolls right through it, lol...If I could get that answered, I'm sure we could save a few MB in the old forum DB...That post, raum, was spot on...

deep, this whole thing, and I mean no offense, seems to require you take your thinking to a place you're determined not to go...If someone were to ask you if you believe in extraterrestrial life, you would probably say that there is a possibility, I mean, any reasonable person would have to, as the universe is infinite...But in the same breath, someone mentions the idea of a higher power, and we now need evidence..? I just don't get it...

Well, when I hear people say supernatural, they can never quantify it.

By the greatest known celebrated minds of our species in the East and West; The Supreme being is seen as the author of Nature. It is simply his new "fans" that see the need to attribute Omnipotence to that being or essence. Furthermore, when something occurs that is Scientifically discredited that religion or folklore or ancient thought held true; Science cautiously absorbs it, and then says "this works, and thus can not be evidence of anything other the superiority of secular science."

Even more difficult is the fact of which planes of existence we must limit their observations to.

If God doesn't exist, how can Morgan Freeman portray God so eloquently?

The very nature of existence is something Science can not yet quantify, or there would be no cause for Philosophy to endure as a discipline, and quantum sciences would simply never need to explain themselves through physical anology - which is the same way mystics interpret god. Psychology would be moot.

The fact is that matter, which seems to a fundamental part of the criteria for existence for the athiest... is still up for debate. There are no two atoms in the universe that touch, and we know electrons don't exist, but the atomic valences can be percieved as electrons if one looks for them.

The truth is we still know so little about the world, the universe, or even ourselves... and yet some people are so quick to say what there is or what there isn't. Such rash children!

Einstein wrote:"I am not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they were written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, seems to me is the altitude of even the most intelligent human towards God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand those laws."

Kumicho wrote:deep, this whole thing, and I mean no offense, seems to require you take your thinking to a place you're determined not to go...If someone were to ask you if you believe in extraterrestrial life, you would probably say that there is a possibility, I mean, any reasonable person would have to, as the universe is infinite...But in the same breath, someone mentions the idea of a higher power, and we now need evidence..? I just don't get it...

raum wrote:Well, when I hear people say supernatural, they can never quantify it.]

That's funny. By definition, the supernatural cannot be quantified.

What is natural can be measured. If I say "I am alive" -- well, I've got a heartbeat, metabolic function, core temperature, enzyme activity. These things all can be measured. That makes me part of the natural world.

If you say "God exists, he has power over life and death, created the universe, can cure cancer-- but you can't measure any of this with any instrument" -- then you're talking about the supernatural. The assertion that you're making is not consistent with natural science.

Same with ghosts, ESP, vampires, werewolves, zombies, -- these are all things which people claim, which are not consistent with natural science, and for which their is no measurable data. These are all "supernatural".

deepsepia wrote:If you say "God exists, he has power over life and death, created the universe, can cure cancer-- but you can't measure any of this with any instrument" -- then you're talking about the supernatural. The assertion that you're making is not consistent with natural science.

Bro, for the 2,375,389 time, WHO SAID THAT..??!?!? Where O' where are you getting these ideas from..? Are you talking in general, or are you talking to someone in this forum..?

deepsepia wrote:

raum wrote:Well, when I hear people say supernatural, they can never quantify it.]

That's funny. By definition, the supernatural cannot be quantified.

Says you.

What is natural can be measured. If I say "I am alive" -- well, I've got a heartbeat, metabolic function, core temperature, enzyme activity. These things all can be measured. That makes me part of the natural world.

The very fact that you say "I am alive" is 'supernatural'. Who is it you are declaring that to? Those who already have specific evidence of the very criteria that you demonstrate? You can say you are declaring it to "yourself", but then what would be the purpose? Is it just a demonstration of your flawed construction that you would state the obvious to yourself? Or is it in appreciation of your "life". If so, what is it that you are grateful for; a random event that happen to result in a material animation you happen to enjoy? And to what are your grateful, the undirected forces of which you are the current excrement?

If you say "God exists, he has power over life and death, created the universe, can cure cancer-- but you can't measure any of this with any instrument" -- then you're talking about the supernatural. The assertion that you're making is not consistent with natural science.

What the hell is with you and cancer? Cancer is not that big a deal, it is just bad programming. You have no guarantee that you can debug a subroutine that is popping out bad data in a program. You have some people who just seem to have a better grasp on computers... others show talent in other things. I have reason to believe that some people understand this premise enough to have certain effects on the human body.

Also keep in mind, there are those who believe that the forces of creation are thing you have to work to unlock and gain any control over. There are also those who believe the earth is overpopulated, and the forces of a Supersentient balance of universal forces have no vested interest in the personal health of every single person, due to the instablity of overpopulation.

MY 'GOD' USES DEATH AS A TOOL OF HIS WILL. And he is not a DJ you can tip to play the same songs over and over.

In Taoism, the entire world is reduced to binary code. The Yuan Qi allows for the transition of "0" to "1". That transitive property is something that can be tapped into, but not just by asking.

Same with ghosts, ESP, vampires, werewolves, zombies, -- these are all things which people claim, which are not consistent with natural science, and for which their is no measurable data. These are all "supernatural".

So basically, what you say is since no one has proven these, you can establish there can be no proof? IF I knew anything of those subjects, I'd not bother to share my relations with scientists who would wrestle with my own rights to try and create their own body of research.

But here is my questions; how can you claim these are so or no? The verdict is still out on absolutely everything for me. Sure, my own observations are something I am vested in, but as a set of working assumptions that can easily be adjusted.

The person who says that God does not exist believes in absolutes. He shares the same belief in absolutes as the person who says there is a God. The person who says "Sometimes I feel like there might be some truth to feelings people have that inspire them to pray. And sometimes I stand in such awe of the world, and the factors that somehow led to my life, despite their improbability, that I feel the need to give thanks for it... but to whom should I give thanks?" That, to me, is the real seeker... the person who *gets* it.

Cause you keep arguing the Biblically Christian God, Buddha, and the Boogie Man don't exist.
You have yet to even approach something close to a sophisticated model of the forces I acknowledge. You argue against mythologies, but don't seem to demonstrate much knowledge of them.

I am still waiting for evidence people made offerings to Leprechauns.

Your haste to disbelieve is also a querious thing to me. Why you feel the need to believe or disbelieve so vehemently at this point? I can't imagine you have given 20 years of research to reach a conclusion. Can't imagine you have done much experimentation of your own. Therefore, you just echo the conclusions of others?

What have you experienced in this life that leads you to believe no one has experienced or could experience the supernatural?

It seems that we are all speaking in language that is not accepted by all...

I propose we analyze some of the supposed evidence of God out there.

This God = leprechauns talk is intellectually barbaric; so 1990's

Google up evidence for God and then google up evidence for leprechauns...I guarantee you the first will provide much more respectable information than the latter...

Perhaps we could start with the Resurrection..? Evidence for? Evidence against?

Aemeth wrote:Perhaps we could start with the Resurrection..? Evidence for? Evidence against?

I am personally uninterested in debating a specific mythology or theological religion.

But I was enjoying this thread.