RootsBooster Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Flamingjimmy is wrong about jimelals. They are invisible to people that don't believe in them. Beat me to it while I was stuck in home-time traffic .... I can make something up and prove it doesn't exist right now. They're called jimelals, and we all have one, its a bright green ball that follows all of us around and is completely visible at all times, floating right before our eyes. Seeing as I can't see one right now, and neither can any of you, it cannot possibly exist because by definition it can be seen at all times. I have proved, beyond all doubt 100% that Jimelals, as I have defined them, do not exist. This only works because you made it up and decided the limits of it's defining qualities to begin with, and as you knew it didn't exist in the first place there was no need for proof. However, If I told you there was something called Tweppers, and we all have one, its a bright green ball that follows all of us around and is completely visible at all times, floating right before our eyes, how would you prove there isn't? It could be that I see the Twepper (along with everyone else's) but you don't. Because I don't know the limits of it's qualities, I'm just defining it as I observe it, there could be other unknown factors or qualities/properties involved (ie, only people who believe in Tweppers 100%, without a trace of doubt, can see them - the Emperor's new Twepper! ). In addition to this, it could even be (however unlikely) that even though you made up the Jimelal, there could coincidentally be existing objects that someone (who can see them) could define the same as your Jimelals and (coincidentally) call them Jimelals (By the way, does anyone know what the hell this emoticon is supposed to be for... ?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 (By the way, does anyone know what the hell this emoticon is supposed to be for... ?) me if I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 There is no absolute proof in science though, only in mathematics. That's a given. When you do a MM or similar expt and find there is no anisotropy down to one part in 10^18 that's about as absolute as you can get. So you agree? ---------- Post added 16-05-2013 at 18:40 ---------- me if I know. HAH For 's sake, I've only just noticed the thing in the emoticon list for the first time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Now we have established the meaning of the emoticon I can think that it might prove useful when replying to I4M2 ... Oh, for 's sake, you are un:arrow:ing believable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted May 16, 2013 Author Share Posted May 16, 2013 I'm afraid that's just not my understanding of it.....They couldn't have been attributed to the Bible periods before we began to classify artefacts by cultures and had some understanding of geological stratigraphic relationships which all happened around the late 18th century[/Quote] Please excuse my shortening of your answers to respond to, it's for space saving only, if you feel I've not addressed something you consider important let me know and I'll go back to it. I'm not talking about 'science through the ages' - the thread is about those who claim science backs up their religious belief. What they are claiming, and I am alluding to is what we have come to call science which began, or at least began to bloom around the enlightenment period. As the people I'm challenging aren't claiming they have proof from 7th C. science I thought it was obvious that I wasn't talking about science from the pre enlightenment period either. That's a different topic for a different day. When I stated they did look for patterns in nature as proof of God, we know that they did view the Biblical stories as historic fact and look for physical evidence to verify it[/Quote] I was speaking about those post enlightenment scientists who were believers and using the scientific method to try to verify that belief - not any random believer from any random period of history. I'm not confusing it, I know what the scientific method is, I just think it's an outdated concept and I explained why[/Quote] But you agreed with the underlying principle, which is what is essentially the scientific method, but then you said you think it's an outdated concept and suggested the method was down to developing (or at least this is how I read it) individual experiments, but then suggested they still fall within the remit of the underlying principle. So essentially you either agree with the underlying principle or not, but I'm not sure which it is. If you don't (and this is what I'm calling the scientific method - not a method of experimentation - but the underlying principle of method) then I think you need to explain (at least for my benefit) why, because I'm really not sure if you understand what I mean by the scientific method, as you seem to both agree and disagree with me at the same time. I'm not writing a thesis on every religions relationship to science on Sheffield Forum, even for you Richard, life's just too short [/Quote] I never asked you to, I just wondered why you singled out Christianity, the reason you gave seemed too open to missing vital elements out. Again I go back to the 'divine law' in nature idea. You prove that rational laws exist you can at least infer the god exists- that type of thing. I'm pretty sure it stems from Plato originally, though I'm trying not to mention too many philosophers names [/Quote] That doesn't really answer the mechanics behind it which I asked for, I'm still not sure how you'd connect an inferred natural order with evidence that God exists - especially when to do so you would have to overlook well established ideas present in things like chaos theory. It would take a great deal of cherry picking on the part of the religious person involved. Lol nice way with words, would you mind me pm'ing you about this? Nothing particularly mysterious, I just can't discuss this on a public forum- you'll understand why[/Quote] You don't need to talk about it at all if you don't want. If you feel you need to a pm would be fine. I understand what you're saying but I'm afraid I don't see how the pluralist approach is any better[/Quote] I'm not sure the Buddhist approach is technically Pluralist - it doesn't say all religious paths are different but leading to the same goal or all paths are the same. It would say that all ideas should be equally respected but not that they were equal in value. Does that make it Pluralist - I'm not sure. Take the recent troubles in Burma and Sri Lanka between Buddhists and Muslims. How has following a pluralist approach to religion aided the situation there? The Buddhists there believe their peaceable morality is superior to that of others and this, in a twisted way, justifies their violence in suppressing Islam[/Quote] Neither I (and I know my teachers wouldn't), nor the Buddhist texts would condone the behaviour of the Buddhists in Sri Lanka. I can't comment on their behaviour or the ideals behind them further than that. Increasing things to their most complex forms can be tremendously helpful, but taking them out of context can lead you down the wrong road altogether. Do you see what I mean?[/Quote] Yes, which is what I was trying to get at - reductionism can miss out alot of vital information, and taking things in their most complex form can lead to confusion. To go back to my map analogy if we just took the whole map and lost sight of our destination we would be just as lost as if we took the reductionist view of just following the compass. That is why we need to look at things in context, but by reducing it to its most simple form we lose the map. We can look at the whole picture without automatically going down the wrong road with common sense - but if we reduce the idea so we don't have the whole picture we will most certainly go the wrong way. All boats or lack of boats are the same, it's your instinctive reaction when the storm hits at sea that determines how enlightened or not you are I think. (Hope you liked that one hehe)[/Quote] I disagree, and you're mixing ideas, you're confusing Taoist thought with Buddhist thought and they don't mix. Taoism deals with the way of things and how to interact with them, Buddhism deals with a single question. As I said before, Buddhism is an aspect of life, a path to a particular goal - it's not about understanding life and all the complex ideas that go with it. I'm not religious, I have no personal account to give if I take away my learning from others and my own understanding of it[/Quote] But you do - it's called life. If a man was abandoned as a child and somehow survived totally isolated without a helping hand from other people would you say he had no account to give? Okay, so scientists have theorised that our ability to create animisms or deities could be an evolutionary spandrel (that is a by-product rather than a direct product of reproductive selection) like our ability to create art, poetry, music or even male nipples.... I believe a revolutionary and radical new god and a whole new religion were born out of this background of conflict and politics[/Quote] Nothing you have said accounts for the creation of God - it accounts for the politicisation and transformation of pre existing deities. Even in extreme cases like that of pharoah Amenhotep IV it was an elevation of a pre existant God to an ideal. I don't disagree (as I have constantly said) in the politicisation of Gods, what I disagree with is the idea that humans created Gods for political purposes. From a philosophical standpoint we see this politicialisation alot, but rarely - if ever, have we seen the creation of a God for a political purpose. I remember during some research in a dusty old library once coming across an early modern diary of a parson from Norfolk. He was describing his awful neighbour who he'd bet wouldn't eat a frog from his back garden and of course the neighbour did and was forever after known as 'Willem the Frogeater'. Rarely do we deal with kings, queens or knights in archaeology or history, that's just what gets disseminated to the public. At the same time however, nothing in my 'real life' experience could prepare me for my neighbour popping over with frogs legs dangling out of his mouth[/Quote] Why not? I once chased a girl around with a spider on my tongue It is part of the context of my own experience[/Quote] It's placing your own experience into a context - that's not the same thing. Okay well this is your mission, good luck with it, I was just trying to show that a softly softly approach may pay dividends[/Quote] With most religious folk the softly softly isn't needed because most religious folk just get on with life and interact. This thread is for those special few who's religion is an ideal that they have to justify in order to convince others of that ideal. I'm offering a platform (which it seems, and it's no bad thing, as taken on a life of its own) for them to go into detail and bring it into the public sphere. I'm not sure if you've ever had the frustration of talking to one of these people but I assure you, for them, the only softly softly is in the manupaltion they employ in trying to convert you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Beat me to it while I was stuck in home-time traffic .... This only works because you made it up and decided the limits of it's defining qualities to begin with You are absolutely right, it does work, therefore it is possible to prove that some things don't exist in some circumstances. However, If I told you there was something called Tweppers, and we all have one, its a bright green ball that follows all of us around and is completely visible at all times, floating right before our eyes, how would you prove there isn't? It could be that I see the Twepper (along with everyone else's) but you don't. Because I don't know the limits of it's qualities, I'm just defining it as I observe it, there could be other unknown factors or qualities/properties involved (ie, only people who believe in Tweppers 100%, without a trace of doubt, can see them - the Emperor's new Twepper! ). I couldn't disprove that, but that doesn't change the fact I did disprove the existence of jimelals, which fulfilled my intention of negating the assertion that it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist ( me I'm pretentious!). In addition to this, it could even be (however unlikely) that even though you made up the Jimelal, there could coincidentally be existing objects that someone (who can see them) could define the same as your Jimelals and (coincidentally) call them Jimelals Sorry I guess I should have been more precise, by a 'visible green ball' I mean a ball that either reflects or emits light with a wavelength of approximately 550nm, not one that can be seen by magic. Maybe it's there by magic, maybe its origins are magic, but it really is a visible green ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 You are absolutely right, it does work, therefore it is possible to prove that some things don't exist in some circumstances. I agree then (unless you allow for the coincidental existence of another object by the same name going by the same description, see end comment on this post...) I couldn't disprove that, but that doesn't change the fact I did disprove the existence of jimelals, which fulfilled my intention of negating the assertion that it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist ( me I'm pretentious!). Again, I agree (again, unless you allow for the coincidental existence of another object by the same name going by the same description, see end comment on this post...) Sorry I guess I should have been more precise, by a 'visible green ball' I mean a ball that either reflects or emits light with a wavelength of approximately 550nm, not one that can be seen by magic. Maybe it's there by magic, maybe its origins are magic, but it really is a visible green ball. The "coincidental" Jimelal isn't necessary visible by magic. It could be that the "coincidental" jimelal either reflects or emits light with a wavelength of approximately 550nm, but for whatever mystical/supernatural/magical/psychological reason, unbelievers are prevented from seeing it. After all, let's not forget where this all started... I have yet to come across anything that disproves the existence of God, and without wishing to sound smug about it, I'm not expecting to. (not picking on you, Janie) If you're pretentious, Jimmy, then knows what I am ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 So why do you have faith, if not for wishful thinking? Why would you choose to ask that question to anyone with faith? presumably to imply that an atheist has no need of faith because they have a strength that a person with faith lacks in times of difficulty. Why do you lack faith? is it wishful thinking, a sense of freedom? a hope that that there is no existence after death? or a rebellion against control that makes life easier for you? ---------- Post added 16-05-2013 at 21:55 ---------- And you go using Dawkins as a perjorative Janie.... why....? You might find it hard to believe but I actually like Richard Dawkins, so much so that I actually spent over an hour watching him debate with John Lennox. . " Has science buried religion" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxF73wIcrjw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Why would you choose to ask that question to anyone with faith? presumably to imply that an atheist has no need of faith because they have a strength that a person with faith lacks in times of difficulty. Why do you lack faith? is it wishful thinking, a sense of freedom? a hope that that there is no existence after death? or a rebellion against control that makes life easier for you? Why would I choose the question to you, why not? A lack of faith is a rebellion against control, what's that meant to mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chorba Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 ................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.