Gnosticism
-
Originally posted by breytonhartge:
Now we are talking... finally on the same page after all that posting.
You have hit the nail on the head! Congratulations!
I believe the evidence that God is real.
My decision to believe is based on this good evidence, not speculation otherwise I would not be so committed.
People have already proven that my delusions are not delusions.
[b]But the point here is not about us. It is about you.
The issues you have to consider are:
1. Do you believe the evidence put before you?
2. If you do believe the evidence put before you, then is it considered good evidence by you?
3. If you say yes to points one and two, then there is no need to prove any delusions or speculations, because it is already good evidence.
However if you do not believe the evidence before you and you still believe, then you are speculating.... so what is the point?
[/b]
Firstly can your "evidence" stand up to scrutiny?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
What I suspect you will tell me is that your evidence is based on THE WORD OF GOD.
Of course you realise straight away that GOD is debatable and whether THE WORD you are referiing to is indeed what it claims to be.
After all Buddhist sutras and Hindu "scriptures" and The Koran all claim similar status of authority.
So please go back and think carefully what your evidence is and whether it is "good" evidence of the required standard that you can present to us shamelessly in a public forum or you should quietly shamefully share it among the believers in your churches and temples and mosques. -
Originally posted by casino_king:
err... we are not on the same page. You still have not answered the question.
Now we are talking... finally on the same page after all that posting.
Firstly can your "evidence" stand up to scrutiny?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
What I suspect you will tell me is that your evidence is based on [b]THE WORD OF GOD.
Of course you realise straight away that GOD is debatable and whether THE WORD you are referiing to is indeed what it claims to be.
After all Buddhist sutras and Hindu "scriptures" and The Koran all claim similar status of authority.
So please go back and think carefully what your evidence is and whether it is "good" evidence of the required standard that you can present to us shamelessly in a public forum or you should quietly shamefully share it among the believers in your churches and temples and mosques.
[/b]
It is not about what I believe, it is about whether you believe.
Actually for me, GOD is not debateable. FYI, i believe the WORD is indeed what it claims to be.
My evidence is good evidence in my humble opinion.
Actually I do not have to think anymore, the one that needs to think is you. Whether you consider this evidence that is before you good evidence. If you do not then case closed, we cannot proceed any further. It will be a cyclical argument. Always going round and round.
Cheers -
Originally posted by breytonhartge:
I hope you understand that it is a question of whether one should act and do according to some teaching Christian/Buddhist or Islam despite the fact that all these teachings are based on unsubstantiated claims without good evidence.
err... we are not on the same page. You still have not answered the question.
[b]It is not about what I believe, it is about whether you believe.
Actually for me, GOD is not debateable. FYI, i believe the WORD is indeed what it claims to be.
My evidence is good evidence in my humble opinion.
Actually I do not have to think anymore, the one that needs to think is you. Whether you consider this evidence that is before you good evidence. If you do not then case closed, we cannot proceed any further. It will be a cyclical argument. Always going round and round.
Cheers
[/b]
The christians hold on to their beliefs in a life and death manner and so do the Buddhists. Muslims as we all know, some of them anyway are willing to murder people including themselves if they think those people's governments are insulting or waging "war" against their religion.
The whole idea that you can accept claims and act accordingly without demanding good evidence is abhorent. -
The evidence can also be doctored so heck it just go with superstitions?
Superstions? On the contrary, I go with eternal unchanging truth. I'm willing to admit that it requires faith to belive that this eternal unchaging truth is the truth. You however are not willing to admit you put your faith in relative and forever changing truths2 billion people who have seen and experience God? Then these 2 billion people would have been in agreement with each other as to what they saw and experienced, yet you have all these denominations fighting with each other over who is more correct.
So, there will always be differences of opnion, even atheist are not in complete unision.
You view God sending His Son to die as evil, I however have a different view on what constitues evil and suffering(note both are distinct concepts and have different meanings)
Kind and loving God who is willing that his son DIE a horrible death but not willing to show himself to save the world?
As I've said, I see God in His creation. You however do not see God because in the first place you do not even acknowledge the existance of God based upon relative and temporal truths which you place your fate in.
How does one become so delusional naive and superstitious like you?
How does one become so close-minded as you? -
You use the words "eternal unchaging truth" in a manner that can only be described as "brain washed." Produce evidence that what you claim is "eternal unchaging truth" and it will go into the textbooks. Why would the people of the world reject "eternal unchaging truth?"Originally posted by plo30360:Superstions? On the contrary, I go with eternal unchaging truth. I'm willing to admit that it requires faith to belive that this eternal unchaging truth is the truth. You however are not willing to admit you put your faith in relative and forever chaging truthsSo, there will always be differences of opnion, even atheist are not in complete unision.
Exactly, "there will always be differences of opnion" so how do we resolve the matter? By looking at cold hard evidence and not by believing in superstitions.
I did not say that God sending his son is evil. I said that christians claim that God is so good he is willing to "send his begotton son" to die a horrible death.... but this same God is not willing to show himself and announce to the world that he is indeed alive and in existence and the christians are right.
You view God sending His Son to die as evil, I however have a different view on what constitues evil and suffering(note both are distinct concepts and have different meanings)
Sure you can see God in anything and everything as long as your standards are low enough or non existing. But please do it shamefully in your churches and your mosques and until you have real proof of the existence of God, then crawl out from your delusional holes and give us the evidence.
As I've said, I see God in His creation. You however do not see God because in the first place you do not even acknowledge the existance of God based upon relative truths which you place your fate in. Very Happy
Nope you are wrong... if you can give me solid evidence... I will become a christian immediately... and before you start quoting from "the Word of God" please make sure that anything you say conforms to the universally accepted standards that even christians, muslims and buddhists have no problems with:
How does one become so close-minded as you?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method -
Originally posted by casino_king:
That's the best you've got? wikipedia? a reader-entered description? I am sure you can do better than that....
Nope you are wrong... if you can give me solid evidence... I will become a christian immediately... and before you start quoting from "the Word of God" please make sure that anything you say conforms to the universally accepted standards that even christians, muslims and buddhists have no problems with:
[b]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method [/b]
http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/archives/fall2002/entries/scientific-realism/
which states: Scientific realism is thus the common sense (or common science) conception that, subject to a recognition that scientific methods are fallible and that most scientific knowledge is approximate, we are justified in accepting the most secure findings of scientists "at face value."
or
http://www.wordlist.org/sc/scientific-method.html
which states: there is no one "scientific method" that all scientists follow as an algorithm, and there is no consensus on what occupations and activities count as science. A liberal, descriptive conception of the scientific method accepts that creativity, genius, inspiration and new ideas may enter at any stage in the scientific process. What differentiates science from non-sciences is that such creativity is tested against experimental reality. Science depends on empirical methods to build a consensus among peers about which ideas are accurate, and which are not.
....so apparently the much lauded scientific methods also rely greatly on consensus....
....also apparently, your knowledge of what science really is, leaves a lot to be desired. -
To most modern young people.... Science is whatever is being taught in school lah ... teacher say its true than true lah... so simple..
to this perhaps C_K can start a crusade against teaching of Evolution as well on the following basis...
1) Its not repeatable in a lab
2) No one had actually witness evolution in progress (the argument being, it takes too long for it to happen)
3) No one really know what is the next stage of evolution
4) everything we sees in the text books about this evolve to that are all based on imagination (ie. artist impression on how it look like by looking at its bones).
5) what is known as evolution paths (or whatever its called) is based on the assumption that evolution is true, hence things must had evolved something else, hence proof that evolution exist.
Conclusion, based on C_K's logic, since the theroy of Evolution is not observable and repeatable by any independant third party, Theory of Evolution is proven to be false....
thank you C_K.
now... what is the other theory again? -
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
I do not know if it was you but I asked much earlier... "so science is not perfect and because of that you prefers something worse? Superstitions?"
That's the best you've got? wikipedia? a reader-entered description? I am sure you can do better than that....
http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/archives/fall2002/entries/scientific-realism/
which states: Scientific realism is thus the common sense (or common science) conception that, subject to a recognition that [b]scientific methods are fallible and that most scientific knowledge is approximate, we are justified in accepting the most secure findings of scientists "at face value."
or
http://www.wordlist.org/sc/scientific-method.html
which states: there is no one "scientific method" that all scientists follow as an algorithm, and there is no consensus on what occupations and activities count as science. A liberal, descriptive conception of the scientific method accepts that creativity, genius, inspiration and new ideas may enter at any stage in the scientific process. What differentiates science from non-sciences is that such creativity is tested against experimental reality. Science depends on empirical methods to build a consensus among peers about which ideas are accurate, and which are not.
....so apparently the much lauded scientific methods also rely greatly on consensus....
....also apparently, your knowledge of what science really is, leaves a lot to be desired.[/b]
You see, if you produce valid evidence that can by consensus be accepted, eveyone understands that as more evidence comes in, and new evidence comes in, we will have a better understanding.
Like I mentioned gravity and one of you laughed and said that to me even gravity is not real. Newtonian gravity is real given all the evidence Newton provided. Einstein came along and provided and new way of thinking and now we have a better understanding of gravity. It can be argued that it is possible that someone else will come along and give us an even better understanding of gravity.
Just because it is possible that someone else will come along and give us an even better understanding of gravity; we do not then say: We better use our own imagination and depend on delusions and imaginations and forget about determinig claims and pronouncements based on the well accepted principles of: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
That is why you have so many religions in the world making all sorts of claims and so many christian denominations and cults making all sorts of claims. All these claims are baseless without good evidence. -
...since we are still at wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_religion which states: The relationship between religion and science takes many forms. Generally speaking, religion and science use different methods in their effort to ascertain truth. The scientific method relies on an objective approach to measure, calculate, and describe the natural/physical/material universe. Religious methods are typically more subjective (or intersubjective in community), relying on varying notions of authority, through any combination of: revelation, intuition, belief in the supernatural, individual experience, or a combination of these to understand the universe. Science attempts to answer the "how" and "what" questions of observable and verifiable phenomena; religion attempts to answer the "why" questions of value and morals. However, some science also attempts to explain such "why" questions, and some religious authority also extends to "how" and "what" questions regarding the natural world, creating the potential for conflict.
Historically, science has had a close and complex relationship with religion; religious doctrines and motivations have often been central to scientific development, while scientific knowledge has had profound effects on religious beliefs. A common modern view, described by Stephen Jay Gould as "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA), is that science and religion deal with fundamentally separate aspects of human experience and so, when each stays within its own domain, they co-exist peacefully. Another view known as the conflict thesis—popularized in the 19th century by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, but now largely rejected by historians of science—holds that science and religion inevitably compete for authority over the nature of reality, so that religion has been gradually losing a war with science as scientific explanations become more powerful and widespread. However, neither of these views adequately accounts for the variety of interactions between science and religion (both historically and today), ranging from antagonism to separation to close collaboration.
The interesting to note is: inspite of the credibility and reputation of these folks, there are no accusations of delusions or suckers in the entire argument. -
They are just being polite.Originally posted by Chin Eng:...since we are still at wikipedia,
The interesting to note is: inspite of the credibility and reputation of these folks, there are no accusations of delusions or suckers in the entire argument. -
To get at the truth we have to discard such niceties.
-
You are so wrong.... evolution is the best explanation so far. Everybody who has a brain that is not brainwashed accepts it as the best explanation so far.Originally posted by vince69:To most modern young people.... Science is whatever is being taught in school lah ... teacher say its true than true lah... so simple..
to this perhaps C_K can start a crusade against teaching of Evolution as well on the following basis...
1) Its not repeatable in a lab
2) No one had actually witness evolution in progress (the argument being, it takes too long for it to happen)
3) No one really know what is the next stage of evolution
4) everything we sees in the text books about this evolve to that are all based on imagination (ie. artist impression on how it look like by looking at its bones).
5) what is known as evolution paths (or whatever its called) is based on the assumption that evolution is true, hence things must had evolved something else, hence proof that evolution exist.
Conclusion, based on C_K's logic, since the theroy of Evolution is not observable and repeatable by any independant third party, Theory of Evolution is proven to be false....
thank you C_K.
now... what is the other theory again?
There have been fossils dug up and independently observed and carbon dated and now housed in musuems for further study.
Just because you might be brilliant and come up with an alternative to evolution, nobody will pay you any attention if you fail to produce the evidence. -
for a person who insisted on observability and repeatibility, you accepted this?Originally posted by casino_king:You are so wrong.... evolution is the best explanation so far. Everybody who has a brain that is not brainwashed accepts it as the best explanation so far.
There have been fossils dug up and independently observed and carbon dated and now housed in musuems for further study.
Just because you might be brilliant and come up with an alternative to evolution, nobody will pay you any attention if you fail to produce the evidence.
1) Carbon dating have lots of limitions, and inaccuracies and all these are documented.
2) fossils being dug out, are mainly in the form of bones, the look and feel of how it looks like are based on artist imaginations or at best the scientist's own perceptions of things.
3) the explanation you get from schools is according to the text books. why the other theory of Creationism is not taught? its because people had this perception that religion should not be taught in school, hence anything with even the most remote link to any religion/belief systems are automatically rejected without 'trail'.
back to the fossiles, anyone really had observed evolution as it happens? or just study bones and say, oh... based on evolution theory, C must have evolved from B which must have evolved from A....
Tell me, have you or anyone one you personally know observed Evolution as it happens? or you just read some textbooks and simply accept that it must be true? -
Do you understand the concept of "best available?" Everybody agrees on what the best avilable explanation is and accepts that until someone comes up with an even better explanation.Originally posted by vince69:for a person who insisted on observability and repeatibility, you accepted this?
1) Carbon dating have lots of limitions, and inaccuracies and all these are documented.
2) fossils being dug out, are mainly in the form of bones, the look and feel of how it looks like are based on artist imaginations or at best the scientist's own perceptions of things.
3) the explanation you get from schools is according to the text books. why the other theory of Creationism is not taught? its because people had this perception that religion should not be taught in school, hence anything with even the most remote link to any religion/belief systems are automatically rejected without 'trail'.
back to the fossiles, anyone really had observed evolution as it happens? or just study bones and say, oh... based on evolution theory, C must have evolved from B which must have evolved from A....
Tell me, have you or anyone one you personally know observed Evolution as it happens? or you just read some textbooks and simply accept that it must be true?
That person who thinks that he has a better explanation can forget it if he cannot produce the evidence to back up his claims.
I might as well go on....
just becuase tap water is not perfectly clean, you do not then say ha ha! you see it is not perfectly clean also what! You then proceed to drink the water from the toilet bowl. -
If things can be based on 'best availiable', define 'best available', is best available, good enough? and good enough for who? by the way, not everyone subscribe to this theory of evolution, so the statement you put forward saying everyone agrees is false and unsubstantiated.Originally posted by casino_king:Do you understand the concept of "best available?" Everybody agrees on what the best avilable explanation is and accepts that until someone comes up with an even better explanation.
That person who thinks that he has a better explanation can forget it if he cannot produce the evidence to back up his claims.
I might as well go on....
just becuase tap water is not perfectly clean, you do not then say ha ha! you see it is not perfectly clean also what! You then proceed to drink the water from the toilet bowl.
Back to my question, have you or anyone or any of these scientist who wrote tonnes of papers ever observe or witness any process of evolution? we are not even at the part for verifiable by idependant third party yet. -
Originally posted by casino_king:
Ahem. Buddhism does not believe in God - so what kind of authority are you talking about? We are not concerned about 'only our sutras are right, all other religions are false gods/God'. We are more concerned for self-conquest/spiritual development. We do not worship any divine/higher beings. We all can attain enlightenment. Pls dont confuse - buddhism is not a religion under such contexts.
s to be.
After all Buddhist sutras and Hindu "scriptures" and The Koran all claim similar status of authority.
[/b] -
You have something better to offer with the required evidence in place? You will be nominated for the Nobel prize for sure. You think it is so easy as to think of something brilliant and publish it without producing convincing arguments and producing the necessary data based on sound and credible research?Originally posted by vince69:If things can be based on 'best availiable', define 'best available', is best available, good enough? and good enough for who? by the way, not everyone subscribe to this theory of evolution, so the statement you put forward saying everyone agrees is false and unsubstantiated.
Back to my question, have you or anyone or any of these scientist who wrote tonnes of papers ever observe or witness any process of evolution? we are not even at the part for verifiable by idependant third party yet.
The design theory people lost the case in court becuse it was the devil's conspiracy?
Think again my friend. Don't be naive and a sucker. I am not saying you are I am just saying don't be. -
How did you end up here???? When I clicked submit and saw your post I thought I made a mistake and posted a reply for the Christians in Budhhist territory.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Ahem. Buddhism does not believe in God - so what kind of authority are you talking about? We are not concerned about 'only our sutras are right, all other religions are false gods/God'. We are more concerned for self-conquest/spiritual development. We do not worship any divine/higher beings. We all can attain enlightenment. Pls dont confuse - buddhism is not a religion under such contexts.
So many Buddhist quote the sutras... this gives it authority. Otherwise they would be like me, basically quoting myself. -
The creationist lost because of the requirement to separate religion from state claus, and the court case is not about who is better, but rather if creation theory can be taught along side evolution theory.Originally posted by casino_king:You have something better to offer with the required evidence in place? You will be nominated for the Nobel prize for sure. You think it is so easy as to think of something brilliant and publish it without producing convincing arguments and producing the necessary data based on sound and credible research?
The design theory people lost the case in court becuse it was the devil's conspiracy?
Think again my friend. Don't be naive and a sucker. I am not saying you are I am just saying don't be.
and you have not answer my question
Now my purpose
If you can accept the evidence of theory paper from so call theorist, on the theory of evolution even when noone had ever witness even the remote glimse of it, ie. no eye witness account, non verifiable theory, a theory that even Darwin himself is not willing to die for.
why then is it not possible for us Christians, to believe the Bible? which is based on eye witness account, and whose accounts are even verified by independant third party and for which thousands of martyrs had willingly gave up their lifes to stood by it.
I can only conclude this one thing, you C_K, is not interested in debating in any sense, and your acceptability of evidence is only based on what make you yourself feels good, it has nothing to do with science, logic or even common sense. -
So by your kind of logic Islam is the one and true religion since muslims are willing to bomb themselves up for their cause? You are even more stupid than I thought.Originally posted by vince69:The creationist lost because of the requirement to separate religion from state claus, and the court case is not about who is better, but rather if creation theory can be taught along side evolution theory.
and you have not answer my question
Now my purpose
If you can accept the evidence of theory paper from so call theorist, on the theory of evolution even when noone had ever witness even the remote glimse of it, ie. no eye witness account, non verifiable theory, a theory that even Darwin himself is not willing to die for.
why then is it not possible for us Christians, to believe the Bible? which is based on eye witness account, and whose accounts are even verified by independant third party and for which thousands of martyrs had willingly gave up their lifes to stood by it.
I can only conclude this one thing, you C_K, is not interested in debating in any sense, and your acceptability of evidence is only based on what make you yourself feels good, it has nothing to do with science, logic or even common sense. -
I'm so glad.
Now we have brey, CE and vince .. machiam 3 heroes battling Lu Bu.
maybe plo can be Zhao Yun and deer can be Ma Chao.
Find Mc2 to be Huang Zhong.
me will be Luo Guanzhong manipulating behind the scene!
PS: Thanks Eternal Now for contributing also. -
You are a joker.Originally posted by Icemoon:I'm so glad.
Now we have brey, CE and vince .. machiam 3 heroes battling Lu Bu.
maybe plo can be Zhao Yun and deer can be Ma Chao.
Find Mc2 to be Huang Zhong.
me will be Luo Guanzhong manipulating behind the scene!
PS: Thanks Eternal Now for contributing also. -
I made you into Lu Bu .. you haven't thank me leh.Originally posted by casino_king:You are a joker. -
As said by casino_king:
"if you can give me solid evidence... I will become a christian immediately..."
sorry, cannot help but comment..... After 11 pages of ding dong - i feel the above statement from you, is the most precious.
because 7 years ago, i uttered a similar statement. and "evidences" came flooding into my life.....
Ah....God's presence is here, no matter if you like it or not. -
I can similarly quote Stalin or Hitler, if I find it contains wisdom. I have even quoted Jesus in my forum. I wld quote Confucian too when I have learnt about his teachings.Originally posted by casino_king:How did you end up here???? When I clicked submit and saw your post I thought I made a mistake and posted a reply for the Christians in Budhhist territory.
So many Buddhist quote the sutras... this gives it authority. Otherwise they would be like me, basically quoting myself.