[OreoCookie]

No, you misunderstand what he is saying and you're trying to wiggle yourself out of it.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

We have do not have any data showing that God does not exist. We have data showing that the easter bunny was made up.

So believing in something that has been proven to not exist is different than believing in something that has not.

Most of the "mystical" fair tale creations can be dated back and shown where they were invented... for example the easter bunny, and Santa Claus.

…and *gasp* the Abrahamic God!

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Q: How does it feel to believe there is nothing beyond this material existence?

you mean a heaven? no problem...you mean ultimately we are one with the universe? bliss

How does it feel to believe in no force greater than you?

no problem. i am therefore god of my my life

How does it feel to believe there is no greater reward for the righteous or punishment for the wicked?

it's life. a cute family of bunnies goes for a walk and a hawk swoops down and grabs one of the babies....food for the baby hawks....

How does it feel to believe it's all OVER for you with your bodily demise?

knowing this is it makes me do more now. not wait for something somewhere no one can prove.

is death really that scary?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, you misunderstand what he is saying and you're trying to wiggle yourself out of it.

No I assure you I am not. Unless of course you are trying to say you know my intentions better than I.

The quote I quoted. What does it mean Oreo. Tell us.

ebuddy couldn't have posted that, and also believe that God has no intervention. It simply doesn't jive. (I guess we will just have to wait till ebuddy responds since NEITHER of us can talk for him)

That isn't wiggling. That's just pointing out the facts. Being honest.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

…and *gasp* the Abrahamic God!

That doesn't give detail as to when such a thing were passed down erik. That was my point. Your link provided no such info.

Again, we can trace back as far as writings go. Beliefs and ideas that were passed down by mouth over thousands and thousands of years cannot be tracked.

We have no clue when the belief in the God Abraham, Noah, etc started.

[OreoCookie]

@Kevin
(i) You write that you believe in divine intervention.
(ii) You give thumbsup to a post as a whole (by ebuddy) saying that he prefers that `God has laid out a plan' (i. e. no divine intervention). You assume that everybody understands that you are referring only to one specific sentence.
(iii) Then you take a sentence out of its context and construe this as a support for your opinion. I've already explained what it means if you take it into context with the rest of ebuddy's post. If you take it out of context, I'm sure you can interpret it to mean anything. I prefer to take it into context with the other sentences in the same paragraph.

You are still wiggling: you went from full support of a post (thumbsup) to partial to partial within a new context, ignoring my comments on it (by claiming `I haven't explained it.'). It's spinning the facts

[ebuddy]

To clarify; it is perhaps beyond human perception to know a thing with certainty. In other words, it seems there is some debate that teeters from black to white. Whether God is active in our lives or whether we have free will and as such He is not active in our lives. There's an important "grey" missing in this discussion IMO. For example;

- did the man turn his life around because God came and took the bottle of alcohol away?
No. However, if the man was walking with his bottle, tripped on a sidewalk crack and the bottle broke open against the outside of a Church wall; this may affirm to him that his prayers just minutes ago for help were not in vain. He may be motivated with a rejuvenated focus on God that gives him the resolve to stay sober. Christians often speak of these types of instances and I've personally had some of my own. I call them "extra-coincidental". The now sober alcoholic may then express to others how God helped him quit alcohol and subsequently help 3 others off of alcohol, but he still quit of his own accord having free will. Was God active in this man's life? That's subject to semantics and one may never know for certain.

Either directly or indirectly, God was certainly active in this man's life, but in accordance with free will. God is active in the individual's life while the collective is still subject to the pre-ordered clock and the assigned events of that time.

[richwig83]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To clarify; it is perhaps beyond human perception to know a thing with certainty. In other words, it seems there is some debate that teeters from black to white. Whether God is active in our lives or whether we have free will and as such He is not active in our lives. There's an important "grey" missing in this discussion IMO. For example;

- did the man turn his life around because God came and took the bottle of alcohol away?
No. However, if the man was walking with his bottle, tripped on a sidewalk crack and the bottle broke open against the outside of a Church wall; this may affirm to him that his prayers just minutes ago for help were not in vain. He may be motivated with a rejuvenated focus on God that gives him the resolve to stay sober. Christians often speak of these types of instances and I've personally had some of my own. I call them "extra-coincidental". The now sober alcoholic may then express to others how God helped him quit alcohol and subsequently help 3 others off of alcohol, but he still quit of his own accord having free will. Was God active in this man's life? That's subject to semantics and one may never know for certain.

Either directly or indirectly, God was certainly active in this man's life, but in accordance with free will. God is active in the individual's life while the collective is still subject to the pre-ordered clock and the assigned events of that time.

Well, he might believe that god was involved.... but was he??

No matter what any of us believe religious or otherwise, without any hard proof or evidence, a belief is all it can be!!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@Kevin
(i) You write that you believe in divine intervention.

Yup

(ii) You give thumbsup to a post as a whole (by ebuddy) saying that he prefers that `God has laid out a plan' (i. e. no divine intervention). You assume that everybody understands that you are referring only to one specific sentence.

Yes, that is my fault. I should have just quoted the part I was thumbing up. But then again I didn't think anyone would really be bothered by such a thing, or take it this far... so be sure I will in the future quote ONLY what I am agreeing with. That way no one can tell me what I think or believe.

(iii) Then you take a sentence out of its context and construe this as a support for your opinion.

First, I didn't take anything out of context and construe it as support for my opinion. Esp now after reading ebuddies most recent post which pretty much goes along with what I believe.

Second, double edge sword. Had I done what you just said above, you'd accuse me of taking it out of context, blah blah. The reason I did not.

I've already explained what it means if you take it into context with the rest of ebuddy's post. If you take it out of context, I'm sure you can interpret it to mean anything. I prefer to take it into context with the other sentences in the same paragraph.

You've explained to me what you think ebuddy meant by it. Ebuddy's most recent offerings jive exactly with my view of how divine intervention doesn't mess with free will.

You are still wiggling

I assure you there is no conscience effort on my part or any attempt to wiggle. You continuing to claim I am doing something, I myself have no intentions of, or plan to is on the verge of being pretentious. As if you know what my intentions are more so than I. Which is absurd.

you went from full support of a post (thumbsup) to partial to partial within a new context, ignoring my comments on it (by claiming `I haven't explained it.'). It's spinning the facts

My only wrong doing was not quoting the SPECIFIC quote I was thumbing up. Had I known the thread would have been derailed to death because of it, believe me, I would have done so.

Maybe this "lecture" to me would have been better served in private message? As to not derail the thread?

A "Hey Kev, you should really just quote the parts you agree with so others wont be confused, just a tip"

I get these from moderators from time to time, and usually I take the to heart. gh for example has done this twice to me. And I respect him for it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To clarify; it is perhaps beyond human perception to know a thing with certainty. In other words, it seems there is some debate that teeters from black to white. Whether God is active in our lives or whether we have free will and as such He is not active in our lives. There's an important "grey" missing in this discussion IMO. For example;

This I agree with. There is a grey area.

- did the man turn his life around because God came and took the bottle of alcohol away?
No. However, if the man was walking with his bottle, tripped on a sidewalk crack and the bottle broke open against the outside of a Church wall; this may affirm to him that his prayers just minutes ago for help were not in vain. He may be motivated with a rejuvenated focus on God that gives him the resolve to stay sober. Christians often speak of these types of instances and I've personally had some of my own.

And I have as well. And people can call them off as "coincidences" but unless you experience it, it's hard to explain. It's of no doubt as to what the meaning behind the incident was. A feeling of reassurance. A warm feeling of say warm honey being poured from the top of your head down.

When I have such feelings, it usually is a warning to me. Telling me something I should already know, but maybe justifying it. Usually justification is the slippery slope. When people refer to "talking to God" this is what they are usually referring to. Those that have experienced it understand it when it is being used in said context. While others will use it to belittle the event.

I call them "extra-coincidental". The now sober alcoholic may then express to others how God helped him quit alcohol and subsequently help 3 others off of alcohol, but he still quit of his own accord having free will. Was God active in this man's life? That's subject to semantics and one may never know for certain.

Here are some good quotes the support divine intervention


Luke 11:9 "So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.

John 14:13 "Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

John 16:23 "In that day you will not question Me about anything. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you.

James 1:5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.

1 John 5:14 This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.

Either directly or indirectly, God was certainly active in this man's life, but in accordance with free will. God is active in the individual's life while the collective is still subject to the pre-ordered clock and the assigned events of that time.

If you ask God into your life and to help and intervene. That is still free will. Because you've made the choice.

God has intervened in my life many times. And he has made it very obvious as to what the deal was. Though I am not special. Everyone has this ability. Some choose to not listen.

It seems to me you and me are both on the same track when it comes to divine intervention and free will. Esp with this latest post of yours. The one early seemed a bit more iffy. But now that you've made it clear it looks like *I* didn't misunderstand your post. Divine intervention and free will can exist at the same time. You have to make a choice, and ASK GOD to give you this help. By doing so, you just made a free will choice.

Originally Posted by richwig83 

Well, he might believe that god was involved.... but was he??

We will never know either way. Well not in this world anyhow. IMHO

No matter what any of us believe religious or otherwise, without any hard proof or evidence, a belief is all it can be!!

Indeed. A belief. An Idea. Nothing wrong with ideas. There are certain ideas I take as the truth. Ones that are important. All the rest is pretty irrelevant. And a tool for distraction.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by richwig83 

Well, he might believe that god was involved.... but was he??

We will never know either way. Well not in this world anyhow. IMHO

No matter what any of us believe religious or otherwise, without any hard proof or evidence, a belief is all it can be!!

Indeed. A belief. An Idea. Nothing wrong with ideas. There are certain ideas I take as the truth. Ones that are important. All the rest is pretty irrelevant. And a tool for distraction.

[PER3]

So what the hell religion does "Big Mac" subscribe to, having started this thread?

Or was he/she/it just trying to start a fight?

[Dakarʒ]

Orthodox Jew, I believe.

[lpkmckenna]

BM is one of those Messianic Jews, I think. That's why he preaches so much.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by richwig83 

Well, he might believe that god was involved.... but was he??

Even if you believe that God is simply a human construct, God was involved in this man's life. In the case of a non-believer; "God" being figurative. Again, it becomes semantics.

No matter what any of us believe religious or otherwise, without any hard proof or evidence, a belief is all it can be!!

You can read or hear about the facts of any subject, but if you yourself are not intimitely involved in the details of those findings must consider whether you believe the conclusions or not. A predisposition or even a presupposition may be used to filter incoming information. While there may be an absolute truth, one would have to have some modicum of faith to make any claim with 100% certainty.

[ironknee]

if there is divine intervention, please name an example. besides the flood story.

if there isn't divine intervention, ie free will, why pray?

i'm reminded of the sago mining disaster. would that example support no divine intervention?

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- did the man turn his life around because God came and took the bottle of alcohol away?
No. However, if the man was walking with his bottle, tripped on a sidewalk crack and the bottle broke open against the outside of a Church wall; this may affirm to him that his prayers just minutes ago for help were not in vain. He may be motivated with a rejuvenated focus on God that gives him the resolve to stay sober. Christians often speak of these types of instances and I've personally had some of my own. I call them "extra-coincidental". The now sober alcoholic may then express to others how God helped him quit alcohol and subsequently help 3 others off of alcohol, but he still quit of his own accord having free will. Was God active in this man's life? That's subject to semantics and one may never know for certain.

Either directly or indirectly, God was certainly active in this man's life, but in accordance with free will. God is active in the individual's life while the collective is still subject to the pre-ordered clock and the assigned events of that time.

So what happened if the guy tripped in front of a liquor store after praying for help. Does that mean God was affirming that the man should remain an alcoholic? Or are 'extra-coincidental' events only significant when they prove to be beneficial?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

i'm reminded of the sago mining disaster. would that example support no divine intervention?

No, you see, when good things happen that didn't have a 100% chance of happening, that's divine intervention. When bad things happen, it's a tragedy that ultimately fits into God's plan. Since God isn't required or predicted to intervene in any particular circumstances, whatever happens can be worked into a universe with divine intervention.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

So what happened if the guy tripped in front of a liquor store after praying for help. Does that mean God was affirming that the man should remain an alcoholic? Or are 'extra-coincidental' events only significant when they prove to be beneficial?

It would depend on the disposition of the man in question and in accordance with free will, just as I can read your message to me and choose whether or not to respond. If the man was praying for help while passing by a liquor store and tripped in front of it, it is just as easy to assume God was telling him that alcohol is the only stumbling block in his life.

"Beneficial" is relative. Unfortunate circumstances can often manifest in beneficial ways even if the benefit is not immediately apparent.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

if there is divine intervention, please name an example. besides the flood story.

This will always remain subject to the disposition and perspective of the witness. Any evidence we observe can and often will be filtered through our own bias or presupposition. If we choose not to see divine intervention, we will not. If we choose to see divine intervention, we will. One would not have to cite Noah's flood by this measure, any flood or major event would suffice. Likewise for others, no event would suffice.

if there isn't divine intervention, ie free will, why pray?

Personally, I believe there is divine intervention in the lives of the individual, but contingent upon their disposition in absolute accordance with free will. Prayer is the opportunity for praise, gratitude, and the rekindling of focus. Too often it is those without faith most guilty of Biblical literalism, expecting that God should come and part the sea.

i'm reminded of the sago mining disaster. would that example support no divine intervention?

Knowing the lives of those miners weren't immediately terminated and having not been in that mine, I can only read accounts and imagine the range of actions, emotions, and spoken sentiment that prevailed there. Was there divine intervention in their lives? We'll never know. Some of them seemed to have professed faith in their final hours. Is there divine intervention in the lives of the loved ones? I suspect this would depend on their perspectives and focus.

Here a tragedy is invoked in the curiosity of God's seemingly absent nature; assuming the deity in question (God) would be as concerned about our physical existence as He is our eternal being.

IMO, most ironic in the context of disbelief.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It would depend on the disposition of the man in question and in accordance with free will, just as I can read your message to me and choose whether or not to respond. If the man was praying for help while passing by a liquor store and tripped in front of it, it is just as easy to assume God was telling him that alcohol is the only stumbling block in his life.

"Beneficial" is relative. Unfortunate circumstances can often manifest in beneficial ways even if the benefit is not immediately apparent.

This is where faith doesn't make any sense to me. It's like one can just make it up as they go along. Interpreting any event in any way to fit the mold of their faith.

But then I suppose you can turn it around and say that if this faith is what allows them to get past their problems... then it's a good thing. I'm just too logical and pragmatic about things. If I have a problem, I solve it myself or ask another human to assist me. Seems to work fine for me.

On the flip side I do see how faith in God helps others as my partner has a strong faith in God (actually he uses the term Universe, but I think in concept he's referring to the God of Abraham) although he has no faith in organized religion. I see on a daily basis how his faith helps him cope. To each his own I guess.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

This is where faith doesn't make any sense to me. It's like one can just make it up as they go along. Interpreting any event in any way to fit the mold of their faith.

But then I suppose you can turn it around and say that if this faith is what allows them to get past their problems... then it's a good thing. I'm just too logical and pragmatic about things. If I have a problem, I solve it myself or ask another human to assist me. Seems to work fine for me.

On the flip side I do see how faith in God helps others as my partner has a strong faith in God (actually he uses the term Universe, but I think in concept he's referring to the God of Abraham) although he has no faith in organized religion. I see on a daily basis how his faith helps him cope. To each his own I guess.

I really wish more people were like you, you've got a great attitude.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I really wish more people were like you, you've got a great attitude.

Thanks

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

This is where faith doesn't make any sense to me. It's like one can just make it up as they go along. Interpreting any event in any way to fit the mold of their faith.

This nature is not exclusive to faith. There is no discipline in which you can entirely avoid the arbitrary.

But then I suppose you can turn it around and say that if this faith is what allows them to get past their problems... then it's a good thing. I'm just too logical and pragmatic about things. If I have a problem, I solve it myself or ask another human to assist me. Seems to work fine for me.

I can appreciate that Atheist. I might add that there are those who are by all external measures, self-sufficient, logical, pragmatic, and successful yet still maintain faith in God.

On the flip side I do see how faith in God helps others as my partner has a strong faith in God (actually he uses the term Universe, but I think in concept he's referring to the God of Abraham) although he has no faith in organized religion. I see on a daily basis how his faith helps him cope. To each his own I guess.

I can appreciate your partner's distaste for organized religion. As a Christian, I remind myself that Jesus did not say; "on this rock I build my Catholicism, my Lutheranism, etc..." The personal relationship is the fruit of the faith and can often be as fruitful in times of joy as it is in times of pain.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

This is where faith doesn't make any sense to me. It's like one can just make it up as they go along. Interpreting any event in any way to fit the mold of their faith.

Let's ignore for a minute that their belief comes from faith — belief is belief, even if poorly founded. Is there really anything unusual about filtering what you see through your beliefs about how the universe works? When we witness some new event in the heavens, astronomers assume that the laws of physics and various other theories apply and use those to explain what they've seen. It's pretty much the same, except astronomers' beliefs are rational and religious folks' aren't.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Is there really anything unusual about filtering what you see through your beliefs about how the universe works?

It may not be unusual but I'd say it's something to be avoided if you want to remain open to alternative explanations for what's happening around you.

[BadKosh]

All this is assuming that we somehow know what Gods plan is? Perhaps we really are ant-like and have no idea as to the reality that God knows. Perhaps God has made sure that you will have no concrete proof until you are dead, so the faithful are easier to identify for him?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I can appreciate your partner's distaste for organized religion. As a Christian, I remind myself that Jesus did not say; "on this rock I build my Catholicism, my Lutheranism, etc..." The personal relationship is the fruit of the faith and can often be as fruitful in times of joy as it is in times of pain.

Agreed. We are agreeing a lot lately.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

except astronomers' beliefs are rational and religious folks' aren't.

What is rational to you, may not be to someone else.

[- - e r i k - -]

rational |ˈraʃ(ə)n(ə)l|

adjective
1 based on or in accordance with reason or logic : I'm sure there's a perfectly rational explanation.
• (of a person) able to think clearly, sensibly, and logically : Andrea's upset—she's not being very rational.
See note at sensible .
• endowed with the capacity to reason : man is a rational being.
2 Mathematics (of a number, quantity, or expression) expressible, or containing quantities that are expressible, as a ratio of whole numbers. When expressed as a decimal, a rational number has a finite or recurring expansion.

Rationality isn't relative to your own mindset.

[OreoCookie]

All rational conclusions have to be based on assumptions (in mathematics these are called axioms, in physics, it's called a theory). Starting from these assumptions, you can draw conclusions. Different assumptions can contradict each other, i. e. the use of these assumptions can lead to mutually exclusive conclusions. If you want to model `the world' around us, your theory (= set of assumptions) has to be consistent with evidence.

So you may assume that God exists and conclude various things. For example from this article here, we assume two things:
(i) God is omniscient.
(ii) Tensed facts exist.

From that we may conclude that `God knows tensed facts.' and whence `God is temporal/inside of time.' This is a strictly logical argument and has nothing to do with any interpretations of the Bible or so (although you can subject various portions of the Bible to similar analysis).

We can also make the argument that God lives outside of time by negating Assumption (iii):
(i) God is omniscient.
(ii') Tensed facts do not exist.

Now we conclude that `God is outside of time.'

Obviously Assumption (ii) and its negation (ii') are mutually exclusive.

You could remove Assumption (i), but I don't think this is something a monotheist would consider `sensible'. Logically, it is possible, though. The discussion of Biblical scholars addresses the second point only.

Some people may object and say that the second set of assumptions doesn't make sense as humans clearly do have a concept of past, present and future (i. e. temporal facts). Physically, this is not the case, time is `just another coordinate' which manifests itself in general and special relativity for instance. It is `just a label' like a distance, but in principle, one may look at space-time as a whole and then there are no temporal facts. There is ample literature on this subject arguing that `time is just an illusion that keeps everything from happening at once.'

Note that scientists usually prefer the latter as `the laws of physics should be the same at each point in time.' God's ingenuity according to that point of view is that He gave us suitable `laws of physics' according to which the world makes sense and evolves in the manner as we see it today. This question is not something for Biblical scholars to decide, but a matter for philosophical theologists to discuss. Neither point of view can be proven nor are Assumptions (ii) and (ii') in contradiction with the Bible. My point here is that you cannot have both, it's not a `buffet' where you can pick one and the other, depending on your mood and the context.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

rational |ˈraʃ(ə)n(ə)l|
Rationality isn't relative to your own mindset.

According to reason and logic.

I look around, and I can help but come to the conclusion that their must be a grander scheme here. That something much much smarter than us created this place as we know it. That is rational to me. To see this place, and believe it was all one big 1 in a zillion accident chance that works together so well... well that isn't too rational to me.

19
For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.
20
Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse

What you want to find, you will find. If you want to believe or have faith in something bad enough, you'll believe it's true. No matter if it is or not.

Those that seek, will surely find.

[Faust]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

rational |ˈraʃ(ə)n(ə)l|
Rationality isn't relative to your own mindset.

How do we know?


My table is brown. Someone else has stated the table is blue (hypothesis). Who is right? Both arguments are based on what is seen.
Who has a colour impairment? I or him? How rational can subjective perception be?

I am quite tall and have large hands for a female. Next to my friend who is well over six feet four, I look rather short.
He says I'm short. My shorter friend states I'm tall. She is a foot shorter than me. Who is right? Is anyone wrong?

A scientific report has stated that artificial sugar is extremely unhealthy based on their scientific research. Two years later, a counter report appears by another set of scientists revising that statement, now claiming that artificial sugar is not at all unhealthy. Were the other scientists wrong? Are the new reports right? What if those newly researched papers are proven wrong again tomorrow? And those in turn proven wrong next week?

Is the mind at all capable of making rational decisions? Can objects be clearly recognized by subjects? We all are subjects.

These are all more or less rhetorical questions based on subjective observations. I don't know the answer to any of them.

[BadKosh]

If "all things" had to have been created, then WHO created God?

Stephen Hawking suggested that God didn't have to be inside our universe.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Faust 

My table is brown. Someone else has stated the table is blue (hypothesis). Who is right?

That depends on your definition of brown. You can measure the spectrum of the incoming light and compare it with that which is reflected from the table.

Then your apply your definition of brown and compare it to your test results. Obviously you have to share the definition of brown, but then you'd be comparing Apples and Oranges (sic!).

Originally Posted by Faust 

I am quite tall and have large hands for a female. Next to my friend who is well over six feet four, I look rather short.
He says I'm short. My shorter friend states I'm tall. She is a foot shorter than me. Who is right? Is anyone wrong?

Those are relative measurements that don't contradict each other. Your actual height doesn't change, unless you magically shrink when you stand next to your tall friend or you grow a few cm when you stand next to your short friends.

Originally Posted by Faust 

A scientific report has stated that artificial sugar is extremely unhealthy based on their scientific research. Two years later, a counter report appears by another set of scientists revising that statement, now claiming that artificial sugar is not at all unhealthy. Were the other scientists wrong?

You're mixing conclusions with scientific facts here. As soon as you move away from the simple logical structures of set theory or so, you (have to) draw conclusions from indirect observations and through many layers of theory.

To apply this to your practical example: were to two conditions really the same? Or was one study conducted in the US and the other in Europe, i. e. was there a difference in the test groups and/or exterior circumstances (there are diseases that discriminate among race and gender, for instance). Or perhaps there were other factors (nutrition, food) that reacted with the substance you wanted to test?

Originally Posted by Faust 

Is the mind at all capable of making rational decisions? Can objects be clearly recognized by subjects? We all are subjects.

That essentially leads to the question of whether the moon still exists if we don't look at it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

If "all things" had to have been created, then WHO created God?

According to the Bible he was always. No begging, no end. Time is just a dealing with this word.

Stephen Hawking suggested that God didn't have to be inside our universe.

Or dimension for that matter.

And what may seem rational to one person, may seem irrational to another.

"A logical argument is sometimes described as "rational" if it is logically valid. However, rationality is a much broader term than logic, as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like, whereas logic deals principally with provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them. For example, ad hominem arguments are logically unsound, but in many cases they may be rational."

[Faust]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That depends on your definition of brown. You can measure the spectrum of the incoming light and compare it with that which is reflected from the table.

Then your apply your definition of brown and compare it to your test results. Obviously you have to share the definition of brown, but then you'd be comparing Apples and Oranges (sic!).

Two people. Each of them standing in the same position, same light spectrum, same distance from the table, same height, same age etc. This question was never resolved in philosophy. Do you have the answer? I know you just gave me the answer in your paragraph above. I was in wonderment though.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Those are relative measurements that don't contradict each other. Your actual height doesn't change, unless you magically shrink when you stand next to your tall friend or you grow a few cm when you stand next to your short friends.

Perception. It's nothing but a matter of perception. It is an example of what most of the discussion here consists of.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You're mixing conclusions with scientific facts here. As soon as you move away from the simple logical structures of set theory or so, you (have to) draw conclusions from indirect observations and through many layers of theory.

Identical substances, same country, same set of "testees". Different results. Et maintenant? Where am I mixing conclusions with scientific facts? Two reports, same country, same set of testees, different results, different conclusions. This happens weekly in the world of science so it's not really anything new.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That essentially leads to the question of whether the moon still exists if we don't look at it.

That is precisely it.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Faust 

Two people. Each of them standing in the same position, same light spectrum, same distance from the table, same height, same age etc. This question was never resolved in philosophy. Do you have the answer?

I just gave the answer: you have to agree on a spectrum that your brains consider brown (i. e. the spectrum of another brown object). That's similar to defining what 1 meter is, you just agree on a scale. Then you can take instruments that measure, in particular you can use different instruments to arrive at the same conclusion.

Originally Posted by Faust 

Perception. It's nothing but a matter of perception. It is an example of what most of the discussion here consists of.

No, it isn't, because you can measure your height. And your height will be the same no matter if you stand close to a smaller or a larger person. Comparative judgements (smaller/taller) may be subjective, but specifying a height isn't. There are comparative judgements that aren't subjective, e. g. when you say you are `taller than the average (female) Italian adult', then you take statistical data as input, calculate the mean height of all Italian women and compare your height with that mean height.

So quantitative measurements are objective, qualitative measurements usually aren't.

Originally Posted by Faust 

Identical substances, same country, same set of "testees". Different results. Et maintenant? Where am I mixing conclusions with scientific facts? Two reports, same country, same set of testees, different results, different conclusions. This happens weekly in the world of science so it's not really anything new.

Then the result is the same.
However, practically you cannot duplicate the same test exactly.

The most important point however is that there might be positive and negative effects of a certain drug or substance: if your sugar substitute is deemed `healthy' by one study then perhaps they might not have looked at other aspects of the drug. This occurs even if the studies were absolutely identical. Assume your test subjects (on average) are losing weight (since they eat less sugar and have no sugar cravings that are induced by competition product B) and are very healthy: heart rate, blood pressure, everything is in the green. In the second study, they test the fertility of their subjects and discover that the drug impedes fertility. Would you say that this drug/sugar substitue is healthy? Assume it's a drug, even if it has a detrimental effect on fertility but works fine otherwise, would that stop you to prescribe it as a drug for older women?

[Kevin]

Gonna post this one more time.

"A logical argument is sometimes described as "rational" if it is logically valid. However, rationality is a much broader term than logic, as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like, whereas logic deals principally with provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them. For example, ad hominem arguments are logically unsound, but in many cases they may be rational."

And really in life, nothing is for certain or "rational" or "logical". Except death.

And taxes.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

"A logical argument is sometimes described as "rational" if it is logically valid. However, rationality is a much broader term than logic, as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like, whereas logic deals principally with provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them. For example, ad hominem arguments are logically unsound, but in many cases they may be rational."

Of course logical and rational are not synonymous notions, but they are clearly connected. You can make logical arguments based on statistics or rational arguments based on statistics. Logical arguments usually require a degree of knowledge which we simply don't have.

But there are things that can be ruled out based on logical arguments alone, e. g. a `temporal God outside of time' as it is something that is based on contradictory assumptions. You can logically rule out that quantum fluctuations will have effects on a car crash. You can rule out that your actions will have no essential effect on the trajectory of the moon around the earth (e. g. when you drop a spoon).

When you do get in a bad car crash and you are saved by some lucky coincidence, you can choose to believe that it was `God's plan to save you'/`God's helping hand' (corresponding to the two viewpoints of `God outside of time'/`God inside of time'), but you cannot make predictions what will happen in the next car accident based on that.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

And really in life, nothing is for certain or "rational" or "logical". Except death.

Even if something very improbably happens to you (say, winning the lottery), it doesn't invalidate statistical/rational arguments. There are things that cannot be decided by logical arguments, there are limits and these limits are well-known. However, as soon as you make predictions based on your assumptions, these predictions can be proven to be wrong.

And the most important point is that even if you are `ignorant' (in the sense that you don't know something), it doesn't mean that there is no logical/rational connection between two facts. You seem to believe that a limit as to what we can understand implies a limit on rationality; this is not the case.

[Faust]

I think you misunderstood my point. What you say is perfectly correct, however, I was not talking about height but the perception of height. I gave merely perceptions of height. The perception of the mind. How things appear to us relative to how they are.

However, practically you cannot duplicate the same test exactly.

That is true. Nothing to argue here.

The most important point however is that there might be positive and negative effects of a certain drug or substance: if your sugar substitute is deemed `healthy' by one study then perhaps they might not have looked at other aspects of the drug. This occurs even if the studies were absolutely identical. Assume your test subjects (on average) are losing weight (since they eat less sugar and have no sugar cravings that are induced by competition product B) and are very healthy: heart rate, blood pressure, everything is in the green. In the second study, they test the fertility of their subjects and discover that the drug impedes fertility. Would you say that this drug/sugar substitue is healthy? Assume it's a drug, even if it has a detrimental effect on fertility but works fine otherwise, would that stop you to prescribe it as a drug for older women?

Oh, now you are bringing a whole set of new examples of probabilities on the table. Your conclusion is absolutely correct and of course I'll answer with yes and no to your last example. This, however, was not my point. My point was and is, that I "believe" in fallacy and false conclusions leading to false prepositions upon constructing anything really. I believe in stupidity and I believe that nearly everything we think and do is based on nominal absolution and, occasionally, I make the decision of labeling something to be "right" or "wrong" whereas neither is concluded on anything else but facts or theories I chose to believe in.
Person B might have a whole different set of facts and theories that he has chosen to label right or wrong. Not to speak of what person C might think of A and B. And thankfully so. I would hate to be limited to Spinoza. And I don't even want to think of Kant.

[Faust]

Uhm OreoCookie. You quoted me wrongly. You quoted Kevin (Edit: nothing against you Kevin) and used my name. I'm not religious and don't want to be mistaken for being so. Could you correct that please?

[OreoCookie]

Yes, that was a copy and paste mistake while adding quote tags. I've fixed it.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Faust 

I think you misunderstood my point. What you say is perfectly correct, however, I was not talking about height but the perception of height. I gave merely perceptions of height. The perception of the mind. How things appear to us relative to how they are.

Exactly, `perception of height' by its very definition is something subjective, height as a concept is not.

Originally Posted by Faust 

This, however, was not my point. My point was and is, that I "believe" in fallacy and false conclusions leading to false prepositions upon constructing anything really. I believe in stupidity and I believe that nearly everything we think and do is based on nominal absolution and, occasionally, I make the decision of labeling something to be "right" or "wrong" whereas neither is concluded on anything else but facts or theories I chose to believe in.

Of course we may make mistakes when drawing conclusions. That's something that we need to keep in mind as well. But what you are saying is that there are limits to what we can explain rationally vs. what may be rationally explained (practical example vs. ideal).

Originally Posted by Faust 

Person B might have a whole different set of facts and theories that he has chosen to label right or wrong. Not to speak of what person C might think of A and B. And thankfully so. I would hate to be limited to Spinoza. And I don't even want to think of Kant.

There are even cultures that don't believe in right and wrong as we do (Asian cultures for instance). But that's a whole different story and a matter of anthropology and sociology.

[Faust]

Exactly, `perception of height' by its very definition is something subjective, height as a concept is not.

Correct. I did not argue against this point.

Of course we may make mistakes when drawing conclusions. That's something that we need to keep in mind as well. But what you are saying is that there are limits to what we can explain rationally vs. what may be rationally explained (practical example vs. ideal).

Correct again. That is what I believe.

There are even cultures that don't believe in right and wrong as we do (Asian cultures for instance). But that's a whole different story and a matter of anthropology and sociology.

True. And it's more a quesiton of ethics as well.

[Kevin]

Have any of you felt you've done something wrong, even when you've never been taught that that particular thing or action was wrong?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Have any of you felt you've done something wrong, even when you've never been taught that that particular thing or action was wrong?

Yes, but what those things are vary wildly from person to person. For instance, I used to feel guilty for reading science books that were marked as beyond my age level. I'm curious where you're going with this.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Have any of you felt you've done something wrong, even when you've never been taught that that particular thing or action was wrong?

Are you referring to guilt or shame?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes, but what those things are vary wildly from person to person. For instance, I used to feel guilty for reading science books that were marked as beyond my age level. I'm curious where you're going with this.

What made you feel guilty for reading science books that were marked beyond your age limit?

As far as varying wildly, it seems humans as a whole pretty much come to agreement with MOST things as far as right and wrong. Why?

As far as where I am going.. I have no destination. I am just asking questions I ask myself. Seeing if I can find answers.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Are you referring to guilt or shame?

I would say a awareness of having done something wrong.

Is the act the wrong doing.. or the deciding to do the act?

If I don't know if something is wrong, and I do it, is it still a sin?