"God Given"

Jakeus314 said:

Assuming that energy is being created here is the big mistake. I see the argument, but this view of biology is far from reality based. The source of the energy for all the bodies processes including the trigger of which you speak can be quickly identified by an average biologist. You talk of the human body as if it doesn't have a food source and that its spirit is a source of energy which simply makes a machine move.

What then makes an ordinary animal able to move? If they do not have souls then their motivation energy must be coming from nowhere. No? Do cows prove that conservation of energy is false then?

Click to expand...

Ooops. You missed something. I said in so many words if a man is a spirit and is controlling the body. I was not saying the fact that he controls the body makes him a spirit. Have another look. This is the reason I'm being careful to lay out the premises, so you can see them and not lose track of them.

Jakeus314 said:

I consider skeptical and neutral to be essentially the same thing. Both situations are concerned with the truth of a claim. If I am skeptical it only means that I doubt the validity of the claim. If I am neutral I am doing the same thing, remaining undecided. Do they really seem that different? Being skeptical sure sounds more controversial, but is it?

Click to expand...

I understand.

It is nonetheless a crucial distinction. A skeptic is approaching something from the idea that the claim or the evidence offered or both have some likelihood of invalidty. This is prejudice.

One need not be skeptical. Whether to accept the evidence as supportive or conclusive for a claim is a free choice. One can reject the evidence or conclusions just as easily without being skeptical.

Active skepticism is a little like saying, "Oh, I'm going to be careful; he might slip something past me if I am not on guard."

Skepticism is an abdication of impartiality.

Citizen said:

Ooops. You missed something. I said in so many words if a man is a spirit and is controlling the body. I was not saying the fact that he controls the body makes him a spirit. Have another look. This is the reason I'm being careful to lay out the premises, so you can see them and not lose track of them.

Click to expand...

So the man is separate from the body... If that's true I can see how I would be hard to believe that energy is conserved if the man controls the body. If that's what you believe then there should be no trying to convince you that energy is conserved. Especially since in this case energy is not well defined.

Citizen said:

I understand.

It is nonetheless a crucial distinction. A skeptic is approaching something from the idea that the claim or the evidence offered or both have some likelihood of invalidty. This is prejudice.

One need not be skeptical. Whether to accept the evidence as supportive or conclusive for a claim is a free choice. One can reject the evidence or conclusions just as easily without being skeptical.

Active skepticism is a little like saying, "Oh, I'm going to be careful; he might slip something past me if I am not on guard."

Skepticism is an abdication of impartiality.

Click to expand...

I'd rather not fuss too much with the definitions of which word to use when my stance is easily described otherwise... I doubt all claims. Always. Call it what you want.

It's related to another issue. Kind of like me saying I'm a libertarian. That brings a crap load of assumptions from all kinds of people. If I skip the step of putting myself in that box and jump right in to answering some real questions, the whole conversation becomes useful rather than two people trying to place a large amount of meaning into one word.

Jakeus314 said:

I'd rather not fuss too much with the definitions of which word to use when my stance is easily described otherwise... I doubt all claims. Always. Call it what you want.

It's related to another issue. Kind of like me saying I'm a libertarian. That brings a crap load of assumptions from all kinds of people. If I skip the step of putting myself in that box and jump right in to answering some real questions, the whole conversation becomes useful rather than two people trying to place a large amount of meaning into one word.

Click to expand...

Well, you've got a point there. Can't argue with that.

Jakeus314 said:

So the man is separate from the body... If that's true I can see how I would be hard to believe that energy is conserved if the man controls the body. If that's what you believe then there should be no trying to convince you that energy is conserved. Especially since in this case energy is not well defined.

Click to expand...

Easy there. Recall that I'm the guy trying to help you a bit with your preference for a supreme being you mentioned a couple pages back. See? Good guy----> Citizen.

In any event, I've passed along all the things I can think of to research and think about.

These types of discussions are always interesting.

I just don't see though how it is relevant with the over abundance of fossil evidence from Pierolapithecus catalaunicus and Sahelanthropus tchadensis all the way to **** floresiensis. Ending finally with us.

The fossil record alone negates the origin stories from every religion. Throw in the Markov models of genetic drift and recombination showing the speciation of the apes and humans (early) 4 million years ago and its a lock.

Since the origin stories and very premise of modern religions are known to be false then it follows that all of the other non historical, verifiable stories in religious texts are likely false as well.

This would include the existence of a soul.

Note this view doesn't directly contradict my view on multiple combinations of realities. In this reality though...

Arguing if a soul does or doesn't violate a law of physics is akin to arguing that warp speed 10 is in violation the law of relativity.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Citizen said:

Easy there. Recall that I'm the guy trying to help you a bit with your preference for a supreme being you mentioned a couple pages back. See? Good guy----> Citizen.

In any event, I've passed along all the things I can think of to research and think about.

Click to expand...

Citizen is definitely a decent fellow.
I'm not convinced that our debate was authentic, but the intentions seem good. My preference for comfortable things will never force me to believe falsehoods, but I do still wish for a god. ;-)

Anonymouse said:

These types of discussions are always interesting.

I just don't see though how it is relevant with the over abundance of fossil evidence from Pierolapithecus catalaunicus and Sahelanthropus tchadensis all the way to **** floresiensis. Ending finally with us.

The fossil record alone negates the origin stories from every religion. Throw in the Markov models of genetic drift and recombination showing the speciation of the apes and humans (early) 4 million years ago and its a lock.

Since the origin stories and very premise of modern religions are known to be false then it follows that all of the other non historical, verifiable stories in religious texts are likely false as well.

This would include the existence of a soul.

Note this view doesn't directly contradict my view on multiple combinations of realities. In this reality though...

Arguing if a soul does or doesn't violate a law of physics is akin to arguing that warp speed 10 is in violation the law of relativity.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

Sorry if I rubbed ya the wrong way.

Take a closer look and you'll see the "arguements" are presented as places to look and things to investigate. And some logics offered for folks to consider. And, I pointedly and expressly acknowledged more than once that nothing I offered was conclusive.

Also, notice that my commentary is irrespective of religious doctrine or dogma. For example, if man is a spirit inhabiting a body it would be something that exists independent of religion. Which is just another way saying, if man exists as a spirit inhabiting a body, it came before religion. If its true, it didn't happen because Catholicism, Judaism, or the Rosecrucians said so; and needs no support from any particular religious philosophy to exist. For example, the sun is going to reach is furtherest southern point on Dec 22 whether the Druids say so or not.

Jakeus314 said:

Citizen is definitely a decent fellow.
I'm not convinced that our debate was authentic, but the intentions seem good. My preference for comfortable things will never force me to believe falsehoods, but I do still wish for a god. ;-)

Click to expand...

Thank you!

A few random thoughts.

Well, I hope you don't accept something just because its comfortable. That would be the lazy-bones approach.

-------------

I do wish I could persuade you give up on the skeptical approach. It really is better to just look and see what is or isn't there. Hey! I know!

Do you suppose Galileo, Copernicus, Keppler, or Einstein were skeptical when investigating their areas? Of course not. And, what is reading the other fellow's report but a part of one's own investigation. To be continued by one's own observations.

-------------

What is science after? There is a clue in the root of the word. The root is scio. Knowing. All the experimentation and scientific method is really aimed at knowing. Certainty.

Just realize that certainty comes in degrees. If one tries to achieve total certainty on something like whether there is a god, well, he's kinda expecting more than can be achieved if direct personal observation is the standard. And, I am in no way saying that standard is inappropriate.

-------------

One of my all time favorite songs is George Harrison's My Sweet Lord. "I really want to see you, Lord....I really want to know you, Lord." In one song George Harrison expressed the yearning to know. How many tens of thousands of years old has that yearning got to be for millions and millions of people? To discover with certainty the existence of a Creator and/or our natures? And, so what if he got it wrong? That maybe there is no God. He is nonetheless poignant about the yearning to know.

I think I'll listen to it again. Why not join me, anybody who cares to. Listen for the sincerety and poignancy in his voice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kNGnIKUdMI

Citizen said:

Snip

Top of the list are ghosts. Lots and lots and lots of reports of ghosts. Now, some reports seem pretty suspicious. Like the innkeeper who derives some advertising benefit from reporting the ghost of the jilted serving girl. But, there are vast numbers of reports of people who have nothing to gain. In fact, in this day and age, since you get so much ridicule and rejection for reporting a ghost, its actually in a person's best interest to keep his mouth shut about it. And, I'm not talking about reports of story book ghosts who rattle chains and wear white sheets. I'm talking about plain old ghosts who don't seem to do much more than walk through a room or manifest their presence in some other way. Sorta like they just want to enjoy the company of people.

I've known or know a number of people who told me they saw or experienced a ghost.

And, what would a ghost be but the intelligent awareness essence of a person who just happens to no longer be using his body? So, a fella who wants to strengthen, confirm, or dispel the ghost angle for man having/being a soul can just talk to people. A really good one is probably funeral home employees. One bit of advice. You want to avoid triggering the person's suspicions that you will ridicule him; you want to make it safe for him to answer. Or, a fella could just go looking for ghosts, although this can be a bit time consuming; my point is that personal direct observation is possible.

Click to expand...

I don't believe in ghosts, ghouls, demons, gods, magic, telekinesis, human time-travel, etc.

At best you may convince me that energy echoes across time but you have a lot of work to do.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=henry+stapp

I believe in the multi-verse (which may as well be a religion for the lack of empirical data). Unlike most religious folks though if you show me evidence against the multi-verse or for something else I'll abandon it.

Regarding all this talk of if the universe was created or not it's pointless because we will never know.

It's circular. Something must have created the universe so there is a God. Something must have created God so there is another God above it. Something must have created that God's God and so on and so one like a mirror reflecting a mirror.

And,,, Well,,, Oh....

The,, Universe,,, is ever expanding,,,, Always has been,,, Will,,, Forever???

WHAT???,,, Is it Expanding IN????

1245A Defender said:

The,, Universe,,, is ever expanding,,,, Always has been,,, Will,,, Forever???

WHAT???,,, Is it Expanding IN????

Click to expand...

The universe may well contract one day.

It's expanding into another universe (guess this universe isn't infinite after all ) which is why I believe in the multi-verse.

ETA:

Read this.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=274

Keylock said:

New to the forum and OC (now that OK has it, yeah).

I'd thought I'd jump in here on a subject that I find fascinating. I'll not weigh in with my personal thoughts (I'm a Deist) but instead would direct those interested in taking a listen to Tom Woods on this very subject. The presentation is done in six parts, each video will automatically start at the conclusion of the previous.

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/where-do-rights-come-from/

Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum!

Kudos to Tom Woods reference, don't agree with everything he says, but really enjoy his books on history and economics.

I'll start this with, that from my observations of Citizen, I have concluded that Citizen is not trolling you nor does he seem to be the trolling type.

Now back to the case at hand.

My experiences have led me to the conclusion that there is a "g(G)od." If even through existentialism the mere discussion of it's existence has either stroked it's ego or has created one through the simple act of discussion. Either way if you're on one side of the argument or the other I really don't think you're ever going to sway the other side to come to you.

There are spirits, auras, and other things that can't be explained using our "sciences."

I have heard spirits open doors and make thumping noises on stairs.

Freedom1Man said:

I'll start this with, that from my observations of Citizen, I have concluded that Citizen is not trolling you nor does he seem to be the trolling type.

Now back to the case at hand.

My experiences have led me to the conclusion that there is a "g(G)od." If even through existentialism the mere discussion of it's existence has either stroked it's ego or has created one through the simple act of discussion. Either way if you're on one side of the argument or the other I really don't think you're ever going to sway the other side to come to you.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone thinks citizen is a troll. I've lurked around long enough to know that lol.

There are spirits, auras, and other things that can't be explained using our "sciences."

I have heard spirits open doors and make thumping noises on stairs.

Click to expand...

Ahem. BS...

OK, I admit it may not be bs but then David Berkowitz had a dog that spoke to him as well so....

1) You think you heard spirits. You don't know you heard spirits. There is a difference, if not very subtle.

2) Science explains everything. Period. Us not having reached that level of science yet means nothing. The world wasn't flat before we discovered it was spherical if you know what I mean.

3) You are right in that there is no convincing people of what they don't want to hear...

I am personally of the opinion that all things related to areas such as ghosts, esp, precognition etc are mostly related to energy and magnetism. Energy is not destroyed after all nor is our energy and magnetism limited to our bodies.

Well that and the active imagination of primates that still have not evolved out of flight or fight...

Edit: I like your idea of having created a god through discussion though. That could lead to an interesting discussion.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Anonymouse said:

I don't think anyone thinks citizen is a troll. I've lurked around long enough to know that lol.



Ahem. BS...

OK, I admit it may not be bs but then David Berkowitz had a dog that spoke to him as well so....

1) You think you hear spirits. You don't know you heard spirits. There is a difference, if not very subtle.

2) Science explains everything. Period. Us not having reached that level of science yet means nothing. The world wasn't flat before we discovered it was spherical if you know what I mean.

3) You are right in that there is no convincing people of what they don't want to hear...

I am personally of the opinion that all things related to areas such as ghosts, esp, precognition etc are mostly related to energy and magnetism. Energy is not destroyed after all nor is our energy and magnetism limited to our bodies.

Well that and the active imagination of primates that still have not evolved out of flight or fight...

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

That why I said our "sciences" not science.

I believe that the "sciences" we have learned are grossly flawed. If we were to use science that is not flawed I believe that it's ability to explain things would be correct. I just don't believe the conclusions are going to be what you believe they will be.

Now as for your opinion about energies and magnetism. I believe that those could be the 'ghosts' that people have encountered.

Freedom1Man said:

That why I said our "sciences" not science.

I believe that the "sciences" we have learned are grossly flawed. If we were to use science that is not flawed I believe that it's ability to explain things would be correct. I just don't believe the conclusions are going to be what you believe they will be.

Now as for your opinion about energies and magnetism. I believe that those could be the 'ghosts' that people have encountered.

Click to expand...

I would accept any scientific finding. I have the utmost faith in science so to speak.

Scientists however leave a lit to be desired.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

detroit_fan said:

see, this is the type of stuff that really bothers me about this site. that is your personal religious view, many of us do not believe in that and I don't think quoting scripture should be allowed on OCDO. take it to a religious forum if you want to write that stuff.

Click to expand...

If you do not believe in the First Amendment then what do you believe in? You believe you should have the right to criticize a quote from the Bible, but that someone should not have the right to emphasize the same quote?

Why would a Forum based on the Bill of Rights infringe on those Rights? It is a right to quote scripture (or anything else for that matter), especially since it was COMPLETELY relevant to the OP's topic of discusison.

And, have you noticed that you are posting in the General Discussion sub-forum? Is this topic not "general discussion?" If you do not approve of a quote based on your religious beliefs then simply ignore it, much like I often do. We don't need to trample the rights of posters simply because we don't believe in the same things that they do.

I am sure many of the anti-gun folks would like to use your argument for removing firearms from the hands of citizens: "I don't like guns so people shouldn't be allowed to have them. Let's take all of the firearms so I am not insulted or scared." Would you approve of this?

We all believe in different things, and just because we may not agree with someone does NOT mean we should censor them or their comments.

KYGlockster said:

We all believe in different things, and just because we may not agree with someone does NOT mean we should censor them or their comments.

Click to expand...

+1


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2