The second God becomes falsifiable I'm kicking his ass with my chainsaw. Give me something to aim at.

I was thinking while I was out, a question people could ask themselves:

Would I notice if my belief X wasn't true? How would things be different? Is there a way I can ever know if it is wrong?

If things would be exactly the same even if your belief is wrong, then you can be pretty sure it's an unecessary assumption. Simply the belief in something can produce lots of effects that work just the same whether the thing is real or not.

(October 26, 2015 at 11:08 am)robvalue Wrote: Would I notice if my belief X wasn't true? How would things be different? Is there a way I can ever know if it is wrong?

Just anticipating an answer here: "Yes, I would notice, but only after I die."

Holy shit, dude. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many problems.

The first and most egregious one being where you conflate psychosomatic healing (the Placebo Effect) with actual magic and faith-efficacy. As you noted, faith in the efficacy of the doctors' magical medicine (which was neighter magical nor effective, in reality) was enough for this guy's brain to fool his body. There may be some amazing natural shit going on there, but it is neither magical nor proof of the "power of faith". Unless, of course, you think that Krebiozen is a god who grants magical powers. And the notion of "a strong man" casting out disease is beyond ridiculous... I knew you fundy-types had issues with scientific theories in general, but I didn't know you'd have such a weak grasp on Germ Theory!

Only slightly less weird is your sudden launch into the Alla-style "more on that later" type of discussion, like you can't let all the Deep Insights™ out at once. We know that you guys think "the serpent" was animated by the spirit of Satan the Accuser, rather than a normal, physical snake-with-legs-that-could-just-talk, even though that ignores the serpent-imagery/mythologies that were rampant in the Fertile Crescent at that point in history, and that likewise the Donkey was acting under the possession of an angelic spirit that animated it to talk. It's just... you guys just can't seem to tell the obvious (to us) difference between an allegory and a transcript!

The reason Sarai/Sarah was still lovely is because they were only middle-aged. She might've been past likely childbearing age, but certainly not "old" except by modern standards. You should know that. According to your mythology, Abram/Abraham lived to be 175, so being 90 would be roughly 52% of his total lifespan, or roughly equivalent to my age, now (I am 39, with an average life-expectancy of 76 years, putting me at 52% of my total lifespan). My Beloved is still pretty attractive, as am I, no?

I can and do deny that the Bible made any claims about Relativity. Stating that God is outside of causal time is not exactly a surprise; I'd be surprised, rather, if they did not attach such a superlative to their descriptions of their tribe's Ultimate Alpha Male! (What you prefer to call God.) You are indeed reading into things that do not demonstrate a causal link at all, let alone proof of causation... in a fairly amazing amount, I'd say.

(October 25, 2015 at 6:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(October 25, 2015 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Do you agree that for a conclusion to be scientifically viable, it first has to be possible?

Yes, I think I would agree with that.  However I think it begs the question of how you are defining what is possible.

If a thing can happen, or has happened, then it is possible. If it cannot be demonstrated to potentially happen, then I have no reason to think that it's possible.

It's a pretty simple definition, but it's where christian science uniformly falls down; what happens when christians attempt to use science to confirm the bible is very different from actual science in a lot of ways, but the big one is that they're using a totally different, inappropriate set of terms. All we get is the conclusion that a given phenomena is consistent with the bible's teachings, but consistency is not the issue. Any number of things are consistent with everything, especially if we, as we must when talking about the bible, open ourselves up to magic and supernatural things; consistency does not privilege a given idea over any other. It's essentially fantasizing about all the things that could have caused a thing, rather than trying to hone in on what did cause the thing, which is what science strives to do.

You'll never see any experiments done to prove the christian hypothesis in christian science, by which I mean, experiments in which the accuracy of a given biblical claim is the variable being tested. What you get is christians who take other, unrelated data that was being used for some other conclusion and go "see? That totally meshes with the biblical account! Science!" They want to pretend science is about consistency, whether their story can be slotted into the data without any glaring flaws, but that's not what you see when you look at the experiments they piggyback on themselves. There what you'll get is a tireless adjusting of variables in order to make the cause of the data as pure as possible. You get control groups and multiple different experimental groups specifically to monitor what variables are influencing what changes, because it's not enough to just have a conclusion that is consistent with the result, we want a conclusion that actually reflects the result.

For that to happen, the variables need to all be possible, but that's something that isn't factored into consistency because there's not really any need; lots of impossible things are consistent with real things. The idea that demons cause disease is consistent with our observations of disease, just as much as germ theory is; the difference is that germ theory is both possible and demonstrable, making it scientific, whereas the demon stuff has none of that. But consistency offers a positive sounding conclusion to laymen, it's a "yes," where real science would give a "no," and that's what christian scientists want. But it's an attempt to short circuit the scientific method to get to a preferred conclusion that sounds sciency, and that's why christian science is not real science until it switches tacks and first demonstrates that its ideas are possible.

And believe me, we'd already know if they demonstrated that magic and miracles were possible.

(October 25, 2015 at 2:37 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Understanding what one is saying has nothing to do with "talking"

You are certainly a fine demonstration of this.

(October 26, 2015 at 12:01 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Holy shit, dude. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many problems.

The first and most egregious one being where you conflate psychosomatic healing (the Placebo Effect) with actual magic and faith-efficacy. As you noted, faith in the efficacy of the doctors' magical medicine (which was neighter magical nor effective, in reality) was enough for this guy's brain to fool his body. There may be some amazing natural shit going on there, but it is neither magical nor proof of the "power of faith". Unless, of course, you think that Krebiozen is a god who grants magical powers. And the notion of "a strong man" casting out disease is beyond ridiculous... I knew you fundy-types had issues with scientific theories in general, but I didn't know you'd have such a weak grasp on Germ Theory!

Only slightly less weird is your sudden launch into the Alla-style "more on that later" type of discussion, like you can't let all the Deep Insights™ out at once. We know that you guys think "the serpent" was animated by the spirit of Satan the Accuser, rather than a normal, physical snake-with-legs-that-could-just-talk, even though that ignores the serpent-imagery/mythologies that were rampant in the Fertile Crescent at that point in history, and that likewise the Donkey was acting under the possession of an angelic spirit that animated it to talk. It's just... you guys just can't seem to tell the obvious (to us) difference between an allegory and a transcript!

The reason Sarai/Sarah was still lovely is because they were only middle-aged. She might've been past likely childbearing age, but certainly not "old" except by modern standards. You should know that. According to your mythology, Abram/Abraham lived to be 175, so being 90 would be roughly 52% of his total lifespan, or roughly equivalent to my age, now (I am 39, with an average life-expectancy of 76 years, putting me at 52% of my total lifespan). My Beloved is still pretty attractive, as am I, no?

I can and do deny that the Bible made any claims about Relativity. Stating that God is outside of causal time is not exactly a surprise; I'd be surprised, rather, if they did not attach such a superlative to their descriptions of their tribe's Ultimate Alpha Male! (What you prefer to call God.) You are indeed reading into things that do not demonstrate a causal link at all, let alone proof of causation... in a fairly amazing amount, I'd say.

There is a reason why I've never started a thread, on this forum. I know that no matter how much evidence is presented, people can't/refuse to see it.

This is proven where in a particular thread, where a prominent member of this forum claimed Denmark had a secular government (which it does not), and plenty of members here agreed with that position. Upon being present proof that Denmark in fact had a state sponsored religion, to this day they refuse to acknowledge that evidence and continue to insist that Denmark has a secular government.

If people here can't accept that which is easily proven (secularism is pretty much black and white, either you have a state sponsored religion or you don't), how are people going to accept an explanation of spiritual matters?

I will address this though.

Quote:The reason Sarai/Sarah was still lovely is because they were only middle-aged. She might've been past likely childbearing age, but certainly not "old" except by modern standards. You should know that. According to your mythology, Abram/Abraham lived to be 175, so being 90 would be roughly 52% of his total lifespan, or roughly equivalent to my age, now (I am 39, with an average life-expectancy of 76 years, putting me at 52% of my total lifespan).

90 years old is 90 years old, there is no relativity involved here a year is a year. Abraham lived as long as he did for the reason I explained.

The bible states that they were old and "well stricken in age" so much so that Sarah thought that her having a child was a joke and she laughed.

Quote:Genesis 18
10 And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.
11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.
12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?

A middle-aged man is not well-stricken with age. You used yourself as an example making a comparison with Abraham. Do you consider yourself to be well stricken with age?

I should also add that I am not a "fundie". I also do not belong to any organization.

hence "I belive in God, not religion"

(October 26, 2015 at 12:57 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: There is a reason why I've never started a thread, on this forum. I know that no matter how much evidence is presented, people can't/refuse to see it.

This is proven where in a particular thread, where a prominent member of this forum claimed Denmark had a secular government (which it does not), and plenty of members here agreed with that position. Upon being present proof that Denmark in fact had a state sponsored religion, to this day they refuse to acknowledge that evidence and continue to insist that Denmark has a secular government.

If people here can't accept that which is easily proven (secularism is pretty much black and white, either you have a state sponsored religion or you don't), how are people going to accept an explanation of spiritual matters?

We're all aware of the size of your ego, inability to admit wrongdoing, and obsessive tendency to hoard trivialities you think you've won on to score petty rhetorical points often months or years later, Huggy. The fact that you think you're not embarrassing yourself by reminding us is just the saddest thing of all.

Wait, is someone arguing as though the things in genesis actually happened! Little bless.

Huggy if you were an A.I you would be very buggy.

Ha! It's funny 'cause it rhymes.

Actually it just rhymes.

(October 26, 2015 at 12:57 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: 90 years old is 90 years old, there is no relativity involved here a year is a year. Abraham lived as long as he did for the reason I explained.

The bible states that they were old and "well stricken in age" so much so that Sarah thought that her having a child was a joke and she laughed.
<snip>
A middle-aged man is not well-stricken with age. You used yourself as an example making a comparison with Abraham. Do you consider yourself to be well stricken with age?

I should also add that I am not a "fundie". I also do not belong to any organization.

hence "I belive in God, not religion"

[/quote]

I'm curious, religions, though wedged firmly in dogma, are required to update their truths as reality overtakes them.

From what I've read, you're pretty stuck with 90 as a miraculous age for childbearing in a woman.
What are you going to do when reproductive technology and lifespan extension makes that a trivial event?
They're in the mid to upper 60s now.

Will you quietly ignore that number in the story and hope nobody remembers the original?
Will the text be re-interpreted to give a greater age to keep it miraculous?
Will you revert to a vague value like 'no man shall know the hour' to avoid end-of-the-world prediction type failures?