Left Behind
discussion
its funny how they call this christian fiction...
I keep meaning to ask, as I'm not up on some of the stuff that gets used as online language, what does mean, you seem to have it in several of your posts, Mary.I think on some level, we are actually all agreeing on this objective/subjective truth thing, but maybe thats my subjective viewpoint :P
Mary wrote: "True and the search for objective truth will always be subjective as humans are the ones (that we know of ) doing the searching."I'm okay with that as long as we keep in place a method (scientific method) of seeking the truth as objectively as possible.
Mary wrote: "Molly wrote: "I see what you mean about proving and disproving something, and you're right. It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist, you have to prove it exists. "Correct, but that does ..."
Just curious, hypothetically, what kind of enidence do you think would prove god exists?
Oh boy. If I dared to answer
that question
!!
Kendra, the problem we have with how you've answered that question in the past is you haven't used good evidence, and when we've pointed that out and shown precisely why, you either ignore the points, or just don't acknowledged them.I think you should at least be able to admit that you are going on faith, not evidence.
Going on faith is what Christianity is about
- not to mention that any belief - or non-belief - takes faith. Faith that you are right in your belief/non-belief.
yes, but faith is belief without evidence Why would you believe something without being certain that its right? Shouldn't you ensure that you hold as many true and as few false beliefs as possible?The only way to do so is to look for evidence for what you believe.
Hazel wrote: "I keep meaning to ask, as I'm not up on some of the stuff that gets used as online language, what does mean, you seem to have it in several of your posts, Mary.I think on some level, we are actu..."
means grin. It is an online smile .
I usually go with the traditional ":)"
Xdyj wrote: "Mary wrote: "Molly wrote: "I see what you mean about proving and disproving something, and you're right. It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist, you have to prove it exists. "Correct, b..."
Just my very, very humble opinion, but if there is a "god" I do not think he/she is at all like many might imagine. I tend to think it more of a life force type thing or a collective consciousness (kind of like the deists believed - that god was in everything). I think symbiosis is a good starting point were we to go in that direction. That we are all interdependent and somewhere in that interdependence is the spark of our creation. That if there is a god, we are all a part of it. I actually do not really even like the term "god" because the stereotype associated with that word tends to squelch imagination in my opinion and the term has just been used to try and explain away the inexplicable. We know or define humans as sentient beings, but besides synapses and other hardware associated with the brain, why are we sentient? I kind of like an analogy in the Dune series by Frank Herbert. A daughter was "awakened" in the womb knowing the thoughts and mind of all of her ancestors. Using the brain requires the use of energy. Energy does not dissipate. It is neither created or destroyed, but merely converted from one form to another. So once we have thought a thought, does it simply go into the file cabinet of our brain for future retrieval? If so, what happens when our brains die? Where does that stored energy go? Is the atmosphere littered with the remains of that stored energy? Do future humans tap into that energy to form their own ideas? I think that if there is something else, its roots are in our sentience. I do not know the answers to any of these questions, but as you can probably tell I love devising the questions .
Hazel wrote: "yes, but faith is belief without evidence Why would you believe something without being certain that its right? Shouldn't you ensure that you hold as many true and as few false beliefs as possible?..."
I do look for such evidence. I have found such evidence.
I do look for such evidence. I have found such evidence.
You all should know this: I didn't want to come back. I was hoping to leave and never return. SIGH
Kendra wrote: "Going on faith is what Christianity is about - not to mention that any belief - or non-belief - takes faith. Faith that you are right in your belief/non-belief."The problem with faith is that Christianity does not just rely on that alone. They use PROOF of the virgin birth or the resurrection of Christ to have people buy in to the religion. But that proof is nebulous. We cannot prove Mary was a virgin and other than the Bible (which was created to indoctrinate people into this new religion) there is no proof of a resurrection. But they dangle the proof anyway. If it could be PROVED to your satisfaction that Mary slept with Joseph before marriage and the baby was Joseph's, would that affect your belief in Christianity?
Will wrote: "I usually go with the traditional ":)""Sorry. I am old and was probably one of the first emoticons used on the internet. Plus the g and the <> are easier to get to one the keyboard. ;0)
Mary wrote: "Xdyj wrote: "Mary wrote: "Molly wrote: "I see what you mean about proving and disproving something, and you're right. It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist, you have to prove it exists. ..."imho many of the stuff you mentioned are what is happening everyday in some sense: we humans are all interdependent and when we die some of our ideas will be preserved in the memory of our family and friends, on the internet or in libraries, and influence future generations. :)
Xox wrote: "So far, there is no evidence at all that any god existence, so stop wasting time. We will continue to live with the knowledge that no god exists until new evidence comes up to challenge this knowledge. "Nope. That type of attitude cuts off any further inquiry and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy (no pun intended). There would be no further evidence if science does not entertain even the remotest possibility. Since you think it is impossible, then why would you search further? You would not and your claim would continue to be substantiated by mere inaction.
Let us take a little side trip on possibilities. Einstein's theory basically tells us that if we could affect the speed of light, time would stop. Following that logic, if we could exceed the speed of light would time reverse itself? Many scientists say no because of the grandfather paradox. Hawkings believes that the general laws of nature would prevent us from traveling back in time. But they are still entertaining the idea. Why? Carl Sagan believed in the possibility (and possibility does not equal probability). Scientists continue to probe this line of inquiry because it is fascinating.
Whether or not I would search for evidence of a unicorn would be entirely dependent on my interest in unicorns. If I was interested, then the time spent would not be considered wasted. I am personally very interested in word origins and linguistics. I spend a fair amount of time researching them. Could my time be put to more practical use? Probably. Do I consider it wasting my time to pursue something that interests me? No. So whether or not pursuing a scientific inquiry into the existence (or non-existence) of a supreme being is a good use of time is entirely subjective .
Xdyj wrote: "imho many of the stuff you mentioned are what is happening everyday in some sense: we humans are all interdependent and when we die some of our ideas will be preserved in the memory of our family and friends, on the internet or in libraries, and influence future generations. :)."
So what if there is a cosmic library ;0)
Kendra wrote: "You all should know this: I didn't want to come back. I was hoping to leave and never return. SIGH"I know I'm new to this thread but you've made this complaint repeatedly, you do realise that there is no requirement to click on the link, you can just ignore it, delete the email.... Stop being a victim of the link... make a choice, don't come and then complain about coming.
I've never complained about coming... oh, sorry, wrong conversation....
Hazel wrote: "I've never complained about coming... oh, sorry, wrong conversation...."
Roflol
I tend to agree with Xox here. While science never closes the door on anything, it does, however, only investigate and actively pursue that which can be known and tested. The God of the Bible would not be possible to know unless it manifested itself in reality, and then, that would be measurable and observable. Once that happens, and it is explained by natural terms, it would no longer be considered a god, but a natural explanation for something previously not understood.Same goes for your idea of a "god," Mary. If there was discovered to be a "life force" or a "collective consciousness," then it would no longer be outside the realm of understanding, and therefore could no longer be coined a god.
This is why I objected when Michael described nature, and then tagged "God" onto what can be explained. When you said "I actually do not really even like the term 'god'" I thought you would see this point, but you said you just don't like it because it pigeonholes what a god could entail. But it's important to note that your idea of a god is something that would tie all of nature together, and this is something that would, if ever discovered, be considered a natural explanation. String theory and M theory are scientific disciplines dedicated to the "theory of everything" whereby scientists are attempting to completely describe and link together every known physical property and phenomena. Yes, scientists are actually working on finding this "god" you think might exist, but scientists won't be calling it a god.
Will wrote: "This is why I objected when Michael described nature, and then tagged "God" onto what can be explained. When you said "I actually do not really even like the term 'god'" I thought you would see this point, but you said you just don't like it because it pigeonholes what a god could entail. But it's important to note that your idea of a god is something that would tie all of nature together, and this is something that would, if ever discovered, be considered a natural explanation. String theory and M theory are scientific disciplines dedicated to the "theory of everything" whereby scientists are attempting to completely describe and link together every known physical property and phenomena. Yes, scientists are actually working on finding this "god" you think might exist, but scientists won't be calling it a god. "I think that you are interpreting my opinions in the wrong way. I do think there is a natural explanation for what society terms "god." I do not think "god" is a deity to be worshiped. I think there is something "more" but that more is not divine. Does that make more sense. I am familiar with string theory. Is M theory the multiple universe theory?
Okay, so all you are saying is that, what some people might consider to be a "god" is actually something apart of nature which could be understood?I have no idea why it's called "M" theory, but it explains the physical in 11 dimensions (by really complex processes, it's the only exact amount of dimensions that works out perfectly mathematically). It actually entails string theories proposed dimensions.
Will wrote: "Okay, so all you are saying is that, what some people might consider to be a "god" is actually something apart of nature which could be understood?I have no idea why it's called "M" theory, but i..."
Yes. I believe there is a scientific explanation for what society terms "god." That is why I said in an earlier post that I really did not like putting the "god" label on it. OK...so M theory is associated with string theory and multiple dimensions? Wasn't that one of the episodes of "Through the Wormhole" with Morgan Freeman? (I love that show btw). My background is not in science (my undergraduate degree was in History), but I developed a large interest in science once I was out of college.
Yeah! That show is awesome! I don't really remember if they mentioned string or m theory in that show, but you are probably correct.
Will wrote: "Yeah! That show is awesome! I don't really remember if they mentioned string or m theory in that show, but you are probably correct."I know there is an episode on string theory and I am thinking that your M theory was part of that as it talked about "plucking the strings" and the reverberations determine if there is matter or energy. I studied learning styles quite in depth as I used to write educational grants. Autism is a "spectrum disorder." Also on that spectrum are gifted individuals and schizophrenics. The farther one goes on that spectrum, the more pronounced the characteristics and traits. Profound autistic individuals often end up in the savant category. Savants can often see things and connections that others cannot. That had me thinking about paranoid schizophrenics who hear voices. Is it possible that they DO hear voices, but the rest of us just do not have the capacity in our brains to hear what they hear? Just as if there are 11 dimensions, but humans cannot see all of them with a naked eye.
That's interesting about autism, didn't know that.If schizophrenics could hear "real" voices, then there would be a way to measure that and determine it, just as there would be a way to measure other dimensions so long as they act in this universe. It wouldn't really surprise me at all if there have been lots of tests done on schizophrenics to determine if the voices are real (do they tell the person things that would be impossible for them to know otherwise? etc.) and it was determined that they were manifested in the brain.
Will wrote: "That's interesting about autism, didn't know that.If schizophrenics could hear "real" voices, then there would be a way to measure that and determine it, just as there would be a way to measure o..."
How would one go about measuring internal "hearing?" Would you test whether there is a reverberation in the ear during a paranoid episode? If I conjure up a conversation in my head (which I do all of the time while driving in the car ), could we measure that? Would the control be the absence of any auditory activity?
I reckon in the beginning it probably involved being in the same room as them, when they hear voices, and everyone else in the room isn't hearing them.
Honestly, I have no idea haha, but I'm just a nerd who likes beer, not a scientist, unfortunately :PI would start by finding out from the patient what exactly the voices are saying. I think from there, with a large enough sample, you can begin to test whether or not the voices are manifestations in the brain, or from an outside source based on what they're saying. Ya know?
And you could test to see if two schizophrenics in the same room hear the same voices.
There is also a theory that there are unlimited numbers of universes and that we travel fluidly among them with every decision we make (I think that was on Through the Wormhole as well). That we travel among the universes through the reverberations of the strings. In in those universes every possibility exists in unlimited amounts. Kind of like, if we can conceive of a thing, we can think it into existence. If that is true, then in some other universe, unicorns DO exist
I just asked, and it is mostly ask questions that the schizophrenic can't possibly know the answer to. And Mary, now you're sounding like a Terry Pratchett novel :P
Hazel wrote: "I just asked, and it is mostly ask questions that the schizophrenic can't possibly know the answer to. And Mary, now you're sounding like a Terry Pratchett novel :P"
Would those be his Disc World books? I haven't read those but love The Wee Free Men.
Shaun wrote: "And you could test to see if two schizophrenics in the same room hear the same voices."But they might not be hearing the same voices . What if they are hearing voices from another universe, but the other schizophrenic is hearing voices from a different universe? As most of you have probably figured out by now, I love "what if" scenarios.
The discworld novels - once they become novels in their own right rather than a slapdash collection of fantasy parodies - are great.
Mary wrote: "As most of you have probably figured out by now, I love "what if" scenarios.":] A very important thing, if you ask me.
Shaun wrote: "The discworld novels - once they become novels in their own right rather than a slapdash collection of fantasy parodies - are great."My oldest daughter has read them. She is the one who turned me on to The Wee Free Men and Hat Full of Sky. I will probably get around to the discworld books some day.
Mary wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I just asked, and it is mostly ask questions that the schizophrenic can't possibly know the answer to. And Mary, now you're sounding like a Terry Pratchett novel :P"
Would those be..."
yes, the discworld novels, in which gods appear, gain power, wane and dissapear at the whim of peoples belief. Read Small Gods and Hogfather to get this idea that he espouses.
Pratchett, of course, has a very interesting take on gods and other anthropomorphic manifestations.In the books, whilst the gods are real, they are only real because men created them. Men, seeing thunder and lightning, invented a god to explain it and as the idea spread and more people believed in it, the god became real and more powerful.
Those gods who lose followers lose power, until they find themselves as nothing more than a buzzing voice relegated to the desert, hoping that some poor lost wander will come along whom they can influence enough to get a shred of belief back...
Shaun wrote: "Pratchett, of course, has a very interesting take on gods and other anthropomorphic manifestations.In the books, whilst the gods are real, they are only real because men created them. Men, seein..."
On a side note, if you like books like this have you read Frank Herbert's Dune books? There are some books dealing with god made manifest, but what I found most interesting was his depictions of honing the mind to do extraordinary things. After I read them, I decided I wanted to be a mentat.
Hazel wrote: "Mary wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I just asked, and it is mostly ask questions that the schizophrenic can't possibly know the answer to. And Mary, now you're sounding like a Terry Pratchett novel :P"
W..."
Will I lose something if I start the series at book # 20?
I've read the first Dune, and the first 2 Discworld books. Now that I think about it, I've started lots of series that I need to finish.
Will wrote: "I've read the first Dune, and the first 2 Discworld books. Now that I think about it, I've started lots of series that I need to finish."The Dune books get much better as you go along. I have read all of them multiple times.
Mary wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Mary wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I just asked, and it is mostly ask questions that the schizophrenic can't possibly know the answer to. And Mary, now you're sounding like a Terry Pratchet..."
I edited to include small gods as well, and that one does manage to stand alone. For hogfather, try to read all the other books where Death is the main character before you read it.
Will wrote: "Honestly, I have no idea haha, but I'm just a nerd who likes beer, not a scientist, unfortunately :P."Depicting oneself as a nerd always reminds me of my kids. They all went to a high school for gifted students. It was a magnet school, so the kids came from all over the county. We had to drive them to a bus stop every morning. One morning it was pretty cold and the kids were all huddled together to stay warm. My husband turned to me and asked, "what do you call a group of nerds?" Answer: "a nerdle." My youngest daughter actually took the term and her group of friends referred to themselves as the nerdle. So...nerds unite!
Hazel wrote: "Mary wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Mary wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I just asked, and it is mostly ask questions that the schizophrenic can't possibly know the answer to. And Mary, now you're sounding like a T..."
I just added both to my amazon wishlist.
I take pride in my nerd-ness :PI like this new word "nerdle."
Will wrote: "I've read the first Dune, and the first 2 Discworld books. Now that I think about it, I've started lots of series that I need to finish."The 1st two are probably the weakest. At that time, Pratchett was just using the discworld as a medium through which to parody other well known fantasy authors and conventions.
Equal Rites is the 1st one to be more concerned with plot than parody, and from that point on it just gets better and better. IMO, where it really takes off is in Guards Guards, which really marks the beginning of the discworld (and specifically, the city of Ankh-Morpork) as a fully internally consistent setting.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True (other topics)
In His Image (other topics)
Birth of an Age (other topics)
Acts of God (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence, and Power (other topics)The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True (other topics)
In His Image (other topics)
Birth of an Age (other topics)
Acts of God (other topics)
More...
Correct, but that does not mean we make a declarative statement such as "God does not exist." The correct statement would be, "there is no scientific evidence for a supreme being at this time." Once you declare something impossible, then you stop searching. In order for the search for proof to continue, one must remain open to the possibility no matter how miniscule.