DaVinci Code Protesters

[cardaway]

I think my reputation is fair here. My last post directed at you was purposefully sharp because you invite such rhetoric.

Most of the posts I was referring to are not responses to me. I would explain further but you decided to run away.

 

[declansdad]

I'd be happy to walk you through 12 steps that show the Bible to be true. But you have to approach it from a neutral mind, i.e. one that isn't bent on believing one way or the other. If you're already bent to believe that it's NOT true, and that there is no God, and you won't believe regardless of what I say, then it would be impossible for me, or anyone else, to ever convince you.

But doesn't that make the point?

You believe the Bible to be true because of your faith that it is truly the word of God and your judgement of other theories is already biased. While people who take a more scientific approach discount the Bible because it can not be proven to be 100% accurate.

 

[smartestnumber5]

So can I then assume that you think it is "logical" that a big bang just happened, and life was somehow magically created, as complex as life is, especially human life?

I'm not sure in what sense the first poster to use the term "logical" was using the word. I assume it was meant in a broad sense to mean "reasonable" or "sensible." In its more narrow form it would seem to mean having to do with the subject of logic or following the rules of the subject of logic. But the subject of logic actually has very little to do with the truth of statements and everything to do with the logical relations between statements given the assumption that they are true or false.

So I won't say that logic requires us to believe any particular statement, but I'll try to offer a sensible argument one might give in favor of not believing in a higher being who created us. Suppose our only two options of believing how the universe came about are the big bang and a creator (of course there are tons of other off the wall, but possible, explanations--for example, that aliens from another universe created this universe). Which of these is the better explanation--that's the question. Well, take the big bang as the answer. One problem here is that we still want more explanation--how did the big bang happen? What was here before that? So maybe God looks like a better explanation....BUT wait--suppose God is the answer. Well then we STILL have more questions to ask. How did God happen? What came before God? Did God create him/herself? Of course, the theistic reply to these questions is that nothing came before God, that God is eternal, etc. But if the theist gets to make such claims why can't I say the same thing about the big bang? Nothing came before the big bang. The big bang was the first cause of everything. There was no time before the big bang, etc. The idea is, the chain of causes backwards has to stop somewhere so are we going to stop it at God or are we going to stop it at the big bang (or some other physical event)?

Well one great reason to stop it at the physical event is Okham's Razor (closely associated with the principle of parsimony). These are two significant philosophical principles (and from what I understand, are also important scientific principles). They say, essentially, "Do not multiply entitied beyond necessity" or "stick with the simplest explanation--the one which requires belief in the smallest numbers of kinds of stuff in the world." Here's an example. Suppose my notebook is not on the kitchen table where I left it and I know I didn't move it. Somehow it was moved over to the couch. How did that happen? Well one explanation is that my gf picked it up and moved it. Another is that there is a ghost in the house and the ghost moved it. Which is the better explanation? The girlfriend of course. I already know she exists. I don't have to posit the existence of a thing I didn't already have good reason to believe in if my explanation is that my girlfriend moved it. But if I insist that the ghost must have moved it my explanation requires me to posit the existence of a new being--a ghost--which I didn't believe in before!

Now, of course, it might be the case that there really is a ghost that moved my notebook and by using Okham's razor I'm actually believing a false explanation. This could definitely be the case, but what Okham's razor does is tells us what we are justified in believing, not what is actually the case. (What principle, after all, could tell us for sure what is actually the case?)

One could reject Okham's razor as a good principle of justification of belief in explanations of events, but what principle should replace it? Can I believe anything I like? Anything that makes me happy? Anything I really feel is true in my heart? Unless there's a better principle of when belief is justified, looks like Ockham's razor is a good candidate. Thus, in trying to explain how the universe arose we should pick the explanation which does not force us to believe in entities we didn't already have reason to think existed--i.e. we should belive it was a purely physical event that caused the beginning of the universe.

One might object here that we already do have other reasons to believe in God. I don't know what those reasons would be and I suspect that if they were subject to the Okham's razor test they too might not look like such good reasons after all.

 

[JimB.]

Back to the OP: Not a bad movie. Maybe a bit long. I'll give it a "Jim-O-Meter" rating of about 7 1/2 out of 10.

To the philosophical "creation of the universe/Big Bang/God/No God" arguements, I'll add my 2 cents.

The Universe certain laws of physics. We know that for a fact. They are steadfast and not changing. PV always equals nRT. F always equals MA, etc. etc.

But scientist say that as we pry further & further into the earlier ages of the Universe, the laws of physics apply less & less. They do not work in all cases.

In fact, at the instant of the "Big Bang", the universe expanded FASTER than the speed of light for a few micro-milliseconds. I've read where some astronomers refer to this as "the ultimate free lunch".

But if physics IS PHYSICS, how can this be? Personally, the more I study science, the stronger my faith becomes. The order & majesty of the Universe (IMHO) is evidence of a supreme being/force/God.

Religion is a creation of man. Faith is not. If one does not believe, that's ok by me. But I do. And i would prefer if my faith in God is not referred to as a "fantasy", "fiction", etc. etc.. It's offensive. You have the right to say what I find is offensive. But manners and decorum would indicate that a closed forum such as this board is not the appropriate place for it.

 

[DISUNC]

Back to the OP: Not a bad movie. Maybe a bit long. I'll give it a "Jim-O-Meter" rating of about 7 1/2 out of 10.

To the philosophical "creation of the universe/Big Bang/God/No God" arguements, I'll add my 2 cents.

The Universe certain laws of physics. We know that for a fact. They are steadfast and not changing. PV always equals nRT. F always equals MA, etc. etc.

But scientist say that as we pry further & further into the earlier ages of the Universe, the laws of physics apply less & less. They do not work in all cases.

In fact, at the instant of the "Big Bang", the universe expanded FASTER than the speed of light for a few micro-milliseconds. I've read where some astronomers refer to this as "the ultimate free lunch".

But if physics IS PHYSICS, how can this be? Personally, the more I study science, the stronger my faith becomes. The order & majesty of the Universe (IMHO) is evidence of a supreme being/force/God.

Religion is a creation of man. Faith is not. If one does not believe, that's ok by me. But I do. And i would prefer if my faith in God is not referred to as a "fantasy", "fiction", etc. etc.. It's offensive. You have the right to say what I find is offensive. But manners and decorum would indicate that a closed forum such as this board is not the appropriate place for it.

This post is a 10 out of 10 on the DISUNC-O-METER!

 

[Viking]

Religion is a creation of man. Faith is not. If one does not believe, that's ok by me. But I do. And i would prefer if my faith in God is not referred to as a "fantasy", "fiction", etc. etc.. It's offensive. You have the right to say what I find is offensive. But manners and decorum would indicate that a closed forum such as this board is not the appropriate place for it.

Don't you think that it gets boring with the time: Each time you 'believers' run out of arguments gainst critics you call it 'offensive'

The main difference between science and religion is that science dares to say 'We don't know' whereas religions starts making up stories, because 'believers' can't face the fact that there are things we don't know - and may perhaps never now, i.e. where we're coming from and where we're going to.
As faith is the basis of religion it is a human creation as well.

BTW, the speed of light is the terminal speed according to physics NOW, but that may change. The speed of sound used to be a terminal velocity for quite a time. When the first railroads went into operation doctors told people their lungs would burst once they got past 20mp. Science evolves, adapts, changes. And finally: The laws of physics in other universes are most probably different from ours.

 

[Viking]

Such as? Examples? Scientists can't definitively prove the "big bang", their work is based on what they believe happened with what they see to work with, and what they believe they can reasonable estimate as far as time goes.

Does logic tell you that an explosion happened and we just "evolved" into the most complex lifeform ever known, with everything working together just right, all by chance?

I'm just looking for your examples, rather than your generalities.

Humans being the most complex lifeform? There's plants which have more chromosomes than us. Are you more complex than a 300' sequoia tree or an elephant, who has more perfectly controlled muscles in his trunk than you in your whole body? We humans have existed for a some 100,000 years now, our earliest ancestors can be dated back to about 6,000,000 years ago - so far. Dinosaurs roamed the earth for more than 100,000,000 years.
This planet is still evolving and everything on it with it. You'd only have to change a couple of parameters slightly and it will become inhabitable for us as it has happened several times for the then dominating lifeform in the past.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

But doesn't that make the point?

You believe the Bible to be true because of your faith that it is truly the word of God and your judgement of other theories is already biased. While people who take a more scientific approach discount the Bible because it can not be proven to be 100% accurate.

No, it actually misses the point. I said I'd be happy to walk anyone through 12 steps that show the Bible to be true, God to exist, etc... These are 12 logical, scientific points that start from the point of pure skepticism and end up with showing that they are true. I never said I'd show you it was true by my faith, but by 12 steps. Incidentally, I do believe the Bible to be true, NOT ONLY by my faith in it, after seeing what it says be true in my life, but also after doing research into evidence that is there for its truth. My judgment of other theories isn't biased, I just don't believe them after seeing the evidence for the Bible and God.

You, and many others, are already operating from the mindset of "it can't be proven to be true." If you hold that mindset b/c it hasn't YET been shown to you and you're waiting to be shown, with an open mind to facts even if they show your current point of view to be wrong, then that's an intellectual roadblock that can be overcome. However, my point was that if you hold the mindset that it can't be proven to be true and NOTHING will change your mind, then that's a volitional roadblock that can't be overcome until you ("you" in the general term) decide to be open-minded about the evidence provided.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

Back to the OP: Not a bad movie. Maybe a bit long. I'll give it a "Jim-O-Meter" rating of about 7 1/2 out of 10.

To the philosophical "creation of the universe/Big Bang/God/No God" arguements, I'll add my 2 cents.

The Universe certain laws of physics. We know that for a fact. They are steadfast and not changing. PV always equals nRT. F always equals MA, etc. etc.

But scientist say that as we pry further & further into the earlier ages of the Universe, the laws of physics apply less & less. They do not work in all cases.

In fact, at the instant of the "Big Bang", the universe expanded FASTER than the speed of light for a few micro-milliseconds. I've read where some astronomers refer to this as "the ultimate free lunch".

But if physics IS PHYSICS, how can this be? Personally, the more I study science, the stronger my faith becomes. The order & majesty of the Universe (IMHO) is evidence of a supreme being/force/God.

Religion is a creation of man. Faith is not. If one does not believe, that's ok by me. But I do. And i would prefer if my faith in God is not referred to as a "fantasy", "fiction", etc. etc.. It's offensive. You have the right to say what I find is offensive. But manners and decorum would indicate that a closed forum such as this board is not the appropriate place for it.

Excellent post. Well said.

 

[auntpolly]

I always find it amusing when these topics turn into religious "is He real or not?" debates. No one is ever going to change the other person's mind. I think it's safe to say we are all pretty set in our ways of thinking. But it's interesting to read the replies and sometimes I even learn a thing or two in the process

Well said! Just skimming over both sides of this debate in this thread, I see offensive remarks on both sides. Why can't everyone just respect each other's beliefs?

If this were a calm, intelligent exchange of ideas, it would be one thing, but anything with a or a or a is not an intelligent exchange of ideas.

I don't ever get upset when people disagree with what I believe -- just when they tell me I'm stupid for believing it.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

Don't you think that it gets boring with the time: Each time you 'believers' run out of arguments gainst critics you call it 'offensive'

The main difference between science and religion is that science dares to say 'We don't know' whereas religions starts making up stories, because 'believers' can't face the fact that there are things we don't know - and may perhaps never now, i.e. where we're coming from and where we're going to.
As faith is the basis of religion it is a human creation as well.

BTW, the speed of light is the terminal speed according to physics NOW, but that may change. The speed of sound used to be a terminal velocity for quite a time. When the first railroads went into operation doctors told people their lungs would burst once they got past 20mp. Science evolves, adapts, changes. And finally: The laws of physics in other universes are most probably different from ours.

Viking, you have volitional reasons that can't be overcome, until you say this - "OK, I think I'm right about what I believe, BUT I'm willing to listen to the evidence you will present, keep an open mind about it, and then, after all the evidence is presented, decide at that point what I will believe."

I don't think that's a statement you can make, is it?

 

[cardaway]

And i would prefer if my faith in God is not referred to as a "fantasy", "fiction", etc. etc.. It's offensive. You have the right to say what I find is offensive. But manners and decorum would indicate that a closed forum such as this board is not the appropriate place for it.

And by the same token it's completely offensive to claim there is only one way and everybody else is wrong. Both things happen on every thread on these topics yet there is always somebody pointing to the non-Christians like there is only one side doing it. It's quite puzzling how you and the others come to the conclusion that one side needs to be called out on this.

It's all basically why people say strangers should not talk about politics and religion. Usually I agree, and don't do it IRL, but as long as it's going on here I'm going to give my side when the topics are on the table.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

Humans being the most complex lifeform? There's plants which have more chromosomes than us. Are you more complex than a 300' sequoia tree or an elephant, who has more perfectly controlled muscles in his trunk than you in your whole body? We humans have existed for a some 100,000 years now, our earliest ancestors can be dated back to about 6,000,000 years ago - so far. Dinosaurs roamed the earth for more than 100,000,000 years.
This planet is still evolving and everything on it with it. You'd only have to change a couple of parameters slightly and it will become inhabitable for us as it has happened several times for the then dominating lifeform in the past.

Yes, Viking, I believe I am more complex than a 300' sequoia tree or an elephant, for various reasons. However, if you don't think you are, that is certainly your right to have that opinion.

 

[auntpolly]

And by the same token it's completely offensive to claim there is only one way and everybody else is wrong.

I'm not sure that anyone has said that -- to be fair. I don't know, if I'm wrong, I'll be happy to reconsider, but I don't think that defending your position is the same as saying you are right and everyone is wrong.

It's just so insulting when people have to resort to making fun (ex: ) to make their point. It makes them seem kind of stupid -- like they really don't have a strong argument, even if they do.

I'm in the middle -- I see all possibilities when it comes to faith, but I do believe in God.

 

[HomeSweetDisney]

Well said! Just skimming over both sides of this debate in this thread, I see offensive remarks on both sides. Why can't everyone just respect each other's beliefs?

If this were a calm, intelligent exchange of ideas, it would be one thing, but anything with a or a or a is not an intelligent exchange of ideas.

I don't ever get upset when people disagree with what I believe -- just when they tell me I'm stupid for believing it.

Yeah, I'm not too fond of the , , , smilies when people are having a "debate" on here. It comes off as very condescending and also like they are saying to you "I don't have a real argument so I'm just going to virtually roll my eyes at you and make myself come off as so much more intelligent that I don't even have to post a real response!" That's when these online arguments start getting really funny to read

 

[cardaway]

I'm not sure that anyone has said that -- to be fair. I don't know, if I'm wrong, I'll be happy to reconsider, but I don't think that defending your position is the same as saying you are right and everyone is wrong.

Many the statement about the one right god is made on these boards before any defending is needed.

I've seen the defense of these kinds of statements as just people expressing their strong faith. Guess what... it works both ways.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

I'm not sure that anyone has said that -- to be fair. I don't know, if I'm wrong, I'll be happy to reconsider, but I don't think that defending your position is the same as saying you are right and everyone is wrong.

It's just so insulting when people have to resort to making fun (ex: ) to make their point. It makes them seem kind of stupid -- like they really don't have a strong argument, even if they do.

I'm in the middle -- I see all possibilities when it comes to faith, but I do believe in God.

I believe I have been as non-offensive as possible, no smilies or smug faces in my posts!

I respect anyone's RIGHT to their belief, b/c it's just that - their RIGHT. But for me to respect their RIGHT to their belief, doesn't mean that I have to respect the belief itself, nor do I have to agree with it. What a lot of the arguments about everyone being right and nobody wanting anyone to tell them they're wrong boils down to is there are many people who don't believe in absolute truth. I, however, do believe in that. And if you take a logical, scientific approach to it, it can be shown to be true.

I've asked repeatedly from those who say they have "mountains of evidence" to tell me their evidence. Each time, I am offered none, much less a mountain of it! Why is that? As I've said, for those willing to have an open mind and approach this from an "I don't know, but I'm willing to listen" perspective, I'd be happy to share with you. But as I've also said, if you approach it from an "I don't believe and you won't convince me no matter how hard you try" perspective, then you're right, I won't convince you, b/c you don't WANT to be convinced.

Just let me know.

 

[cardaway]

Yeah, I'm not too fond of the , , , smilies when people are having a "debate" on here.

If she feels so strongly about them, maybe someday she'll actually stop using them.

 

[auntpolly]

Many the statement about the one right god is made on these boards before any defending is needed.

I've seen the defense of these kinds of statements as just people expressing their strong faith. Guess what... it works both ways.

Well, I don't agree with people who say that, for example, Jesus is the only way to heaven, but I defend their right to think it. If that's what they believe, they should say it. As long as they don't get in my face about it or get all judgemental, I respect their faith.

I don't see the difference between that and insisting there is no God. Both are equally strong and potentially offensive -- but neither offend me if the person is being honest, respectful, and just saying what they think.

 

[auntpolly]

If she feels so strongly about them, maybe someday she'll actually stop using them.

There's a time and a place for those things!

Just not when people are trying to have serious discussions about things they feel deeply about!

If someone is ever talking about why they don't believe in God or why they think Jesus = One way and I respond with a of any kind, please kick my butt -- I don't think I've ever done that.