Chimpy Chompy on 7/12/2007 at 18:55
Quote Posted by Spaztick
but what if likewise there is proof of an omnipotent deity but it can't yet be measured in a test tube or we've yet to invent an instrument that can be calibrated to talk to God without the use of one's self? Suppose that there are people out there who speak or interact with this God on a daily basis. They can offer proof that they are,
What kind of proof? How does it qualify as proof if it can't be verified? Why should I give this way of thinking preference over the "limited western" kind?
paloalto90 on 7/12/2007 at 19:05
Quote Posted by Vivian
OK - do you mean dimensions as in some wooky alternate plane of reality? Because when people talk about extra dimensions they really mean extra dimensions. Like another kind of width. Not a pink place where Goza hangs around spitting fire with her dog. Sorry if you didn't mean that.
Yeah simply another bandwidth.If your tuned to the AM dial you can'y hear the FM but it is still on the air somewhere.Seeing how your physical senses percieve only a narrow band we could be missing a lot of stations out there.
If a primitive civilization sees a gadget of modern technology only to his perception is it magic or seemingly to break laws that he understands.To the inventors it is not magic.God showing up could be like that to us.
Spaztick on 7/12/2007 at 19:07
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
What kind of proof? How does it qualify as proof if it can't be verified? Why should I give this way of thinking preference over the "limited western" kind?
I'm saying that it would be offered as empirical proof if we had equipment to measure it, but there is no equipment to measure it, thus forms an impasse. Most proof comes from a preconceived idea of something gained by observation, followed by examination. Atomic theory was discovered this way, as well as quantum theory. They started out with a series of observations ranging from chemicals mixing in only certain ratios to abstract mathematical formulas and concepts which then formed the idea of atoms existing. Keeping the idea that atoms did in fact exist, equipment was built to measure them in the form of atomic microscopes. Up until the early 1900s atoms were not thought to have existed by most physicists, only the mathematicians and chemists thought of them, but that's another subject.
As for the "limited Western" view I was referring to the need to have laboratory equipment to have a proof of principle.
Chimpy Chompy on 7/12/2007 at 19:34
You're not answering my question.
Suppose that there are people out there who speak or interact with this God on a daily basis. They can offer proof that they are
What kind of proof, and how does it qualify as proof? I don't get what all that stuff about atoms means, if you're taking the "god is beyond physical proof" angle.
Spaztick on 7/12/2007 at 20:17
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
You're not answering my question.
Suppose that there are people out there who speak or interact with this God on a daily basis. They can offer proof that they areWhat kind of proof, and how does it qualify as proof? I don't get what all that stuff about atoms means, if you're taking the "god is beyond physical proof" angle.
The example I gave about atoms was just an example. Saying God is beyond physical proof isn't what I was saying, it's more accurate to say "God isn't beyond physical proof, but is currently immeasurable with equipment." Until someone invents a machine to talk to God the point is null. As of this moment the ability to "measure" God is only available in human beings who actively communicate, and there is where the proof is held. We can't measure it yet with tools even if there is proof there.
Chimpy Chompy on 7/12/2007 at 20:41
Oh ok, currently untestable. Well, fair enough. As long as that's the case I'm not going to worry myself too much about it!
theBlackman on 8/12/2007 at 02:57
Extremely interesting discussion (read it all from post one), and a pleasure to find (somewhat objective), discourse instead of ranting abuse from those of faith.
Supposedly the Bible, was composed by excerpts of fragments of documents written by historians of the era. The Torah, is supposed to be the continued unexpurgated version.
The OT is a history of the Hebrews and Judaism, and is filled with the same Eods, myth and Saga of most races.
The NT is a bastardized, edited account promulgated (also filled with myth and epic saga), by the Roman Catholics in an effort to control the population with fear. The result as you know is the massive fragmentation of the Christian church and the mulitudinous transliterations of the biblical texts. Baptist, Lutheran, Greek Orthodox, Catholic, Roman Catholic, Church of England, Christian Scientists, Russian Othodox, and let's not forget the "Book of Mormons", another missive produced by GOD through "his" prophet.
On the other hand the Koran, was also supposedly "The word of God" (Allah), given to his Prophet Muhammed. Both volumes are subject to suspicion. The fallibility of the authors (Muhammed and the scribes of the OT), in accurately enscribing thier visions or "messages" is, or should be, taken into account. Man is not perfect, regardless of what we would like to think. The only near-perfect specimen (if you are a believer), was nailed to a tree.
As for believing in GOD, to those of faith, I say more power to you but that I find it extremely arrogant to think that the GOD, whatever, whoever it might be, would take the time to listen to and intervene in the, mostly selfish, prayers of the individual "faithful", or even the desperate undecided who as a last recourse, hope it might work.
I'm sure that this Omnipontent being is not going to occupy him/her/itself with each individual microbe, earthworm, human that supposedly sprang from its loins, or efforts.
Spaztick on 8/12/2007 at 03:33
Quote Posted by theBlackman
Extremely interesting discussion (read it all from post one), and a pleasure to find (somewhat objective), discourse instead of ranting abuse from those of faith.
Supposedly the Bible, was composed by excerpts of fragments of documents written by historians of the era. The Torah, is supposed to be the continued unexpurgated version.
The OT is a history of the Hebrews and Judaism, and is filled with the same Eods, myth and Saga of most races.
The NT is a bastardized, edited account promulgated (also filled with myth and epic saga), by the Roman Catholics in an effort to control the population with fear. The result as you know is the massive fragmentation of the Christian church and the mulitudinous transliterations of the biblical texts. Baptist, Lutheran, Greek Orthodox, Catholic, Roman Catholic, Church of England, Christian Scientists, Russian Othodox, and let's not forget the "Book of Mormons", another missive produced by GOD through "his" prophet.
On the other hand the Koran, was also supposedly "The word of God" (Allah), given to his Prophet Muhammed. Both volumes are subject to suspicion. The fallibility of the authors (Muhammed and the scribes of the OT), in accurately enscribing thier visions or "messages" is, or should be, taken into account. Man is not perfect, regardless of what we would like to think. The only near-perfect specimen (if you are a believer), was nailed to a tree.
As for believing in GOD, to those of faith, I say more power to you but that I find it extremely arrogant to think that the GOD, whatever, whoever it might be, would take the time to listen to and intervene in the, mostly selfish, prayers of the individual "faithful", or even the desperate undecided who as a last recourse, hope it might work.
I'm sure that this Omnipontent being is not going to occupy him/her/itself with each individual microbe, earthworm, human that supposedly sprang from its loins, or efforts.
Honestly though, I'm insulted on multiple levels that you would give such a sweeping generalization to multiple sects of Christianity and Islam and try to put them under one umbrella, on top of insulting the God they all supposedly worship. They're called sects for a reason, and you make yourself look very hostile and cold with what you said (maybe you are, maybe not, but that's how you present yourself).
I might take you more seriously if you clarify what you're on about instead of just ranting.
paloalto90 on 8/12/2007 at 04:16
Quote:
I'm sure that this Omnipontent being is not going to occupy him/her/itself with each individual microbe, earthworm, human that supposedly sprang from its loins, or efforts.
Luke 12:7
"Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows.
You don't think that He has staff to take care of these things?
theBlackman on 8/12/2007 at 04:26
To be blunt, I think all the arguement and "My god is the only one" is crap.
If you are a believer, in whatever creed, your way is as good as anyone elses. All are trying to go to the same place and are arguing about the correct road when there are as many as there are "Sects".
If you believe, you believe. So be it, but don't hassle everyone else because they travel a different road. And "Sects" as you use the term are usually fractured off from a known religion, just as Christianity was from Judaism, and in some cases, a "I have a new interpretation of god et-al" and the creation of a new "sect", such as the Jones Guyana mess, the Reverend Moon, and the Krishnas.
Historically, the Koran, and the Bible have gendered the creation of many "sects". All with the attendant sub-sects. On the face of it, the reinterpretation by the descendants of the originators is faulty. "I don't like the way you old farts interpreted THE BOOK. So I'll just start over with MY view".
If GOD is GOD, and if he/she/it started the whole shebang by causing the Bible passages to be written by the Essenes, or the Koran by Mohammed as handed down directly from GOD. Then all the fractured sects using such scriptures are false to the original.
Like it or not. If you read a book, see a movie, or hear a song and don't like it. Remaking it in "your image", is the bastardization of someone elses idea.
SECT:
1 a: a dissenting or schismatic religious body; especially : one regarded as extreme or heretical
b: a religious denomination
So all sects that have an established history are "a denomination" but then each of them was initially the A part of this definition.
And it is all of a lump.
Embrace your faith and practice it with freedom. Faith, cannot be challenged. More power to you, if you remember that if it is a Christian sect, it all sprang from the same seed: Judaism.
