So when does the theocracy begin?

• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;1222799 wrote:We are certain that virgin births do not occur. That one does not simply multiply fish and bread, that water does not in fact get turned into wine as a party trick, and despite popular culture the last forty years or so people do not rise from the dead.

  How? Again, by science? Such a birth is supernatural by definition, so how does science verify or invalidate it?
  

  I Wear Pants;1222799 wrote:Who has not investigated it? Seriously, and how are we to investigate it if scientific means are thrown out the door? If we can't use logic and reason to determine if fantastic claims are likely to have happened what are we to use?

  
  I said before.
  
  Scientific means are perfect ... even the epitome of what we should use ... to determine how our natural world works. However, those are the inherent limitations of a study of only that which can be observed through our natural senses via a testable or repeatable study.
  

  BoatShoes;1222813 wrote:Even if it sounds absurd that a person would die for a lie or a hoax or that they insane and yet somehow able to make rational arguments and evangelize coherently; both of those explanations are much more reasonable to believe than that an infinitely powerful God came to Earth through a virgin birth while simultaneously existing as the Father of that child and a separate and distinct Holy Spirit only to have that Child grow up to be crucified so as to absolve all human kind from their deserved punishment in Hell if they happen to believe those events actually happened.

  Why?
  

  BoatShoes;1222813 wrote: It's always more reasonable to believe implausible natural explanations than even more implausible supernatural ones.

  Again, why? Because they play to our current disposition to want to be able to explain things using science or empirical observation? By what authority do we assert that as the more likely suggestion?
  
  If a man gets sick, and there are a few possible causes, one being heart-related, and we take his body to a cardiologist, is it justified for the cardiologist to say it was the heart-related possibility simply because that's the one he can explain?
  

  BoatShoes;1222813 wrote:I mean, if the Christian story is true, sincere Muslims die for a hoax and a lie all of the time and many, many people did who actually saw Muhammad actually conquer cities, etc.

  What of Muhammad did they see? Conquering a city can be done naturally. And I said they would have died for something THEY KNEW to be a hoax. If Islam is a hoax and a lie, those who die for it don't appear to know that.
• BoatShoes

  O-Trap;1222839 wrote:How? Again, by science? Such a birth is supernatural by definition, so how does science verify or invalidate it?
  
  
  
  I said before.
  
  Scientific means are perfect ... even the epitome of what we should use ... to determine how our natural world works. However, those are the inherent limitations of a study of only that which can be observed through our natural senses via a testable or repeatable study.
  
  
  
  Why?
  
  
  
  Again, why? Because they play to our current disposition to want to be able to explain things using science or empirical observation? By what authority do we assert that as the more likely suggestion?
  
  If a man gets sick, and there are a few possible causes, one being heart-related, and we take his body to a cardiologist, is it justified for the cardiologist to say it was the heart-related possibility simply because that's the one he can explain?
  
  
  
  What of Muhammad did they see? Conquering a city can be done naturally. And I said they would have died for something THEY KNEW to be a hoax. If Islam is a hoax and a lie, those who die for it don't appear to know that.

  Because even if it were a natural experience that I had never experienced before I may be reasonable in believing I have been deceived at first. For instance, I can remember from Social Studies that Magellan encountered native South Americans on his journey around the world and that couldn't comprehend his ships. If they'd only seen one ship and it was the last one they'd seen and lots of them had seen it...they'd be justified in believing they were deceived in some way.
  
  They could go on and believe they've seen a ship; but it's probably not that justifiable for them to believe in it.
  
  However, as more and more ships come on shore and they realize that this is a new type of experience that is possible it becomes more justified for them to believe in the existence of ships.
  
  Exactly because they play to our current disposition we're not really justified in believing in a miraculous occurrence. The Doctor can say "I'm not sure if it's heart related"; but he's certainly not justified in saying "this is something beyond natural explanation."
  
  Muslim Warriors dying probably wasn't an example. Point is, it is more reasonable based on experience with the world that a person would die for a lie or a hoax than to believe that a one time supernatural event that meshes with our experience in no way whatsoever. If it is the case that the Disciples were likewise deceived, they didn't know they were dying for a hoax or a lie either.
• I Wear Pants

  So what you're saying seems to be that there are supernatural things/beings/events and no matter if there is ever any evidence for them or if the results of them can be explained just as easily by other things that we can't find it ridiculous to think supernatural things exist?
  
  If we can't see or study them how did you become convinced they exist? Surely you didn't just take it for granted or just read the accounts in whatever holy book you believe (I know this last one isn't the case since you've said about reading many different dissenting accounts in other threads before). But still, I'm having trouble understanding your point because it sounds like you're saying that supernatural things exist and we're just going to have to accept that because we can't study them or use logic and reasoning to understand them (convenient to avoid having to explain things methinks). You're probably not saying that because that usually doesn't seem to be your style. So if I've confused myself again could you please try rewording so my dumb head might get it?
• sleeper

  

  After reading jhay's post, I decided to back away from this thread.
  
  I mean, WHAT THE FUCK.
• I Wear Pants

  
  
  From the 2012 REPUBLICAN PARTY OF TEXAS Report of Platform Committee
  
  Shit is insane.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;1223139 wrote:
  
  From the 2012 REPUBLICAN PARTY OF TEXAS Report of Platform Committee
  
  Shit is insane.

  Certainly something on which we agree.
• FatHobbit

  

  I Wear Pants;1223139 wrote:
  
  From the 2012 REPUBLICAN PARTY OF TEXAS Report of Platform Committee
  
  Shit is insane.

  What is wrong with people?
• O-Trap

  

  FatHobbit;1223283 wrote:What is wrong with people?

  They need to Go Find Themselves.
• jhay78

  

  I Wear Pants;1222703 wrote:Bull****.
  
  Your George Washington can't be proven to have lived example is absolutely insane. You can't seriously see them as the same thing and be a functioning adult.

  My point was that historical investigation is not the same as scientifically proving something. We rely on written documents, eyewitness testimony, etc. (Ironically scientists rely on other scientists' research and regard such info as reliable historical information, but that's beside the point). George Washington was not the best example but I was trying to show that, while we absolutely use logic and reason to investigate history, it's not the same as coming to scientific conclusions.
  

  sleeper;1222906 wrote:After reading jhay's post, I decided to back away from this thread.
  
  I mean, WHAT THE ****.

  I tried to give some reasons why I believe God exists, and why I believe Christianity is more true than other religions, and why, if God does in fact exist, events outside the realm of observable scientific law (miracles) are possible. And I tried to do it without mocking or belittling those who disagree. Thanks to Otrap and others for explaining some of those things better than I did.
• I Wear Pants

  jhay78;1223656 wrote:My point was that historical investigation is not the same as scientifically proving something. We rely on written documents, eyewitness testimony, etc. (Ironically scientists rely on other scientists' research and regard such info as reliable historical information, but that's beside the point). George Washington was not the best example but I was trying to show that, while we absolutely use logic and reason to investigate history, it's not the same as coming to scientific conclusions.
  
  
  
  I tried to give some reasons why I believe God exists, and why I believe Christianity is more true than other religions, and why, if God does in fact exist, events outside the realm of observable scientific law (miracles) are possible. And I tried to do it without mocking or belittling those who disagree. Thanks to Otrap and others for explaining some of those things better than I did.

  That's absolute horseshit and you fucking know it. Scientists don't just rely on other peoples research and regard it as reliable. They read it and study it and repeat experiments and shit all the time.
  
  I've been running into more and more people who either don't grasp or don't believe in the scientific process lately and it makes me very fearful for our future.
• I Wear Pants

  O-Trap: I found evidence of supernatural stuff...
  
  
  
  :laugh:
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;1223946 wrote:That's absolute horse**** and you ****ing know it. Scientists don't just rely on other peoples research and regard it as reliable. They read it and study it and repeat experiments and **** all the time.
  
  I've been running into more and more people who either don't grasp or don't believe in the scientific process lately and it makes me very fearful for our future.

  I believe in the scientific method, but unfortunately, what some people outside of the industry don't realize, is that an alarmingly high (not a majority, just higher than it should be) percentage of scientific publications nowadays are biased or politically motivated and not purely from the "scientific method".
  
  And yes, I know that was a run on sentence but I'm on my iPhone and don't want to go back.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;1223955 wrote:O-Trap: I found evidence of supernatural stuff...
  
  
  
  :laugh:

  
  Large picture is large.
  
  In all seriousness, it is a fact claim. The beauty of something like this is that it claims repeatable, predictable results.
  
  Anyone who appeals to such a scientific method ... can be judged by such a method.
  
  I contend that, by and large, supernatural events are the minute exception to the rule, and they do NOT invalidate the rule at all. As I believe in a creative orchestrator of the universe's beginnings, I believe he set stuff up to run a certain way, so he obviously deemed it to be how things should run. Since it's how he thinks it should run, I seriously doubt he's going to take frequent exception to it.
  

  I Wear Pants;1223946 wrote:Scientists don't just rely on other peoples research and regard it as reliable. They read it and study it and repeat experiments and shit all the time.

  
  But every scientist cannot do every experiment whose results he trusts. At some point, a scientist will trust numerous witnesses to such an experiment. It would be ludicrous not to. But he, himself, is not believing something based on science. He's believing in something based on eye-witness accounts from people who believe based on science ... or at least what they claim is science ... since technically, he wasn't there to verify.
• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;1223946 wrote:That's absolute horseshit and you fucking know it. Scientists don't just rely on other peoples research and regard it as reliable. They read it and study it and repeat experiments and shit all the time.
  
  I've been running into more and more people who either don't grasp or don't believe in the scientific process lately and it makes me very fearful for our future.

  As someone who believes in a Creator, I have no issues supporting scientific methods to study the world and universe in which we live.
  
  In my Fairy Tale Man in the Sky world (that's for Sleeper's amusement), God created the universe and set in motion the incredible intricacies of interaction that make-up the universe as we know and currently understand it. In fact, he created us with enough brain power to be aware of the universe and allows us to use cause and effect reasoning to attempt to explain the real purpose of our existence.
  
  Be fearful for our future all you want. That's nothing new. There were scientists (and - yes - theologians) in our past who thought and taught that the Earth was the center of the universe. Those who challenged those beliefs were seen as radicals and made the believers of conventional and contemporary reasoning equally fearful of their future.
  
  What makes me fearful is the secular "religion of science" that arrogantly sees only a human-centered view of the universe ignoring the real possibility that a Creator exists.
• O-Trap

  

  believer;1224076 wrote:In my Fairy Tale Man in the Sky world (that's for Sleeper's amusement)

  He won't see this for about a month unless his alter ego shows up here.
• Footwedge

  believer;1224076 wrote:As someone who believes in a Creator, I have no issues supporting scientific methods to study the world and universe in which we live.
  
  In my Fairy Tale Man in the Sky world (that's for Sleeper's amusement), God created the universe and set in motion the incredible intricacies of interaction that make-up the universe as we know and currently understand it. In fact, he created us with enough brain power to be aware of the universe and allows us to use cause and effect reasoning to attempt to explain the real purpose of our existence.
  
  Be fearful for our future all you want. That's nothing new. There were scientists (and - yes - theologians) in our past who thought and taught that the Earth was the center of the universe. Those who challenged those beliefs were seen as radicals and made the believers of conventional and contemporary reasoning equally fearful of their future.
  
  What makes me fearful is the secular "religion of science" that arrogantly sees only a human-centered view of the universe ignoring the real possibility that a Creator exists.

  Supreme Being exists. No scientist ever can explain the happenstance that we have today. My favorite is "well, it's just biology". LMAO. Where did biology come from?
• Footwedge

  O-Trap;1224089 wrote:He won't see this for about a month unless his alter ego shows up here.

  Bring back Sleeper. You cannot exclude the personalities on here. What are we, British Parliament with crow bars crammed up our collective asses?
• I Wear Pants

  believer;1224076 wrote:As someone who believes in a Creator, I have no issues supporting scientific methods to study the world and universe in which we live.
  
  In my Fairy Tale Man in the Sky world (that's for Sleeper's amusement), God created the universe and set in motion the incredible intricacies of interaction that make-up the universe as we know and currently understand it. In fact, he created us with enough brain power to be aware of the universe and allows us to use cause and effect reasoning to attempt to explain the real purpose of our existence.
  
  Be fearful for our future all you want. That's nothing new. There were scientists (and - yes - theologians) in our past who thought and taught that the Earth was the center of the universe. Those who challenged those beliefs were seen as radicals and made the believers of conventional and contemporary reasoning equally fearful of their future.
  
  What makes me fearful is the secular "religion of science" that arrogantly sees only a human-centered view of the universe ignoring the real possibility that a Creator exists.

  That's hilarious. The arrogant and human-centered view is that there is a god that gives one flying fuck about you. How arrogant to think that if there's a being as powerful as a god that it would give a shit if you had sex with a man, or had sex before you were married, or any of the other things that apparently god hates according to followers of the Abrahamic religions.
  

  Footwedge;1224165 wrote:Supreme Being exists. No scientist ever can explain the happenstance that we have today. My favorite is "well, it's just biology". LMAO. Where did biology come from?

  My favorite is "you can't explain something, therefore God". Which is why you just did.
  
  That we cannot currently explain everything about the universe in no way makes a deity any more likely.
• FatHobbit

  

  I Wear Pants;1224192 wrote: My favorite is "you can't explain something, therefore God". Which is why you just did.
  
  That we cannot currently explain everything about the universe in no way makes a deity any more likely.

  I am in no way defending any religion. I think science and only science should be taught in a science classroom. But I do think some people think that just because we haven't observed/tested something means that it can't be true. It's idiotic IMHO to fight wars over which religion is correct but I am open the possibility that one of them might be.
• jhay78

  

  I Wear Pants;1224192 wrote:That's hilarious. The arrogant and human-centered view is that there is a god that gives one flying **** about you. How arrogant to think that if there's a being as powerful as a god that it would give a **** if you had sex with a man, or had sex before you were married, or any of the other things that apparently god hates according to followers of the Abrahamic religions.
  
  My favorite is "you can't explain something, therefore God". Which is why you just did.
  
  That we cannot currently explain everything about the universe in no way makes a deity any more likely.

  I stated this before in an earlier post, but it's worth repeating here. Either:
  
  1) The universe appeared ex nihilo on its own. If that's true, then one would have to admit that any object at any time or place could appear out of nowhere on its own. Since that has never been observed by any scientist anywhere, I wouldn't think too many atheists would be lining up behind this one (although some have tried).
  
  2) There was no beginning for the universe, and past time is infinite. The absurdity of this should be evident, given that a series of events in time cannot be infinite.
  
  3) God created the universe. The "who created God" argument is irrelevant, given the absurdity of 2). Something, or some being, started the ball rolling.
• FatHobbit

  

  jhay78;1224246 wrote:2) There was no beginning for the universe, and past time is infinite. The absurdity of this should be evident, given that a series of events in time cannot be infinite.

  Why can a series of events in time not be infinite? It seems odd to me that people think there was a time when there was nothing and now there is something.
  

  jhay78;1224246 wrote:3) God created the universe. The "who created God" argument is irrelevant, given the absurdity of 2). Something, or some being, started the ball rolling.

  I find it no less absurd that the universe has been here forever than that god has been here forever.
• queencitybuckeye

  FatHobbit;1224241 wrote:But I do think some people think that just because we haven't observed/tested something means that it can't be true.

  One can even take it a step beyond that. There are things that current science has "proven" to be true that people 100 years from now will laugh at.
• gut

  FatHobbit;1224251 wrote:Why can a series of events in time not be infinite? It seems odd to me that people think there was a time when there was nothing and now there is something.

  Isn't that essentially what BOTH scientists and creationists believe? One in the big bang the other in God? There was nothing and then there was something, one way or another.
  
  For me it's hard to comprehend that something just existed - even more so when you take into account the complex interactions and laws following fairly precise and common mathematical models dictating evolution and all these events. Maybe matter did just exist, but it seems a pretty big leap that such orderly laws/forces of nature and the universe would RANDOMLY exist as well... but taken to the extreme how did God and his world come into existence?
• FatHobbit

  

  gut;1224279 wrote:Isn't that essentially what BOTH scientists and creationists believe? One in the big bang the other in God? There was nothing and then there was something, one way or another.

  I think that is safe to say, although I think one theory states that the universe expands and contracts and then expands and contracts again repeatedly. But it seems just as odd to me to say that infinitely back in time there was nothing, and then there was something and someday there will be nothing again on to infinity.
  

  gut;1224279 wrote:For me it's hard to comprehend that something just existed - even more so when you take into account the complex interactions and laws following fairly precise and common mathematical models dictating evolution and all these events. Maybe matter did just exist, but it seems a pretty big leap that such orderly laws/forces of nature and the universe would RANDOMLY exist as well... but taken to the extreme how did God and his world come into existence?

  IMHO those are the same questions. It's a little laughable to me that people think they have it figured out.
• gut

  FatHobbit;1224281 wrote: IMHO those are the same questions. It's a little laughable to me that people think they have it figured out.

  Honestly, I don't find belief in God and evolution as conflicting, not if you don't take the Bible literally.
  
  I kind of lean toward the Lisa Simpson as creator perspective, in the sense that the universe is/was some supreme being's science experiment. How and where that supreme being came from is another question all together.
  
  Hell, is there any room for some sort of circular continuum theory where very advanced humans/aliens millions of years from now travel back in time to create the universe?
  
  Anyway, my guess is that as science continues to evolve, our understanding and definition of God will continue to evolve. And if God were nothing more than a very advanced & enlightened human/alien millions of years ahead of our evolutionary scale, I tend to think for all intents and purposes such person WOULD be God as we think we know him. Yuuch....sounds like something a Scientologist might believe.