Staredit Network > Forums > Serious Discussion > Topic: "Read the bible to believe god exists?"
"Read the bible to believe god exists?"
Dec 10 2008, 6:46 am
By: KrayZee
Pages: < 1 « 17 18 19 20 2122 >
 

Apr 25 2011, 8:19 pm Sacrieur Post #361

Still Napping

Quote from Fire_Kame
Faith by no means in logical to begin with. We do many things otherwise illogical as humans, it is why I think that yes it helps to know logic, but not to rely on it.

Let's discuss logic and truth. Naturally, logic and truth are two different things, yet they are very closely related. Logicians like to apply the word truth to much of logic, and for a good reason. Logic concerns itself with truth preservation. There are some very interesting things to considered.

In symbolic logic, an argument is valid if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. There are certain forms of arguments that are known to be always valid (e.g., modus
ponens, mondus tollens, constructive syllogism). But for our purposes let's examine the truth table of and (or ^, as denoted in the picture).



What you're viewing is the meaning of the word and. This makes sense, say we had two sentences: Tom likes to run. Jim likes to run. Tom and Jim like to run (or more appropriately, Jim likes to run and Tom likes to run). So you see that logic is very close and dear to what truth actually is.

There is a concept called logical truth. This is a truth that is always true, and cannot be false. Examine: Either I live on Earth or I don't. Such a statement is logically true, because it is impossible to be false. There is also logical falsehoood, meaning that the statement is always false. To get to the point, logic is all about truth. In this way, logic is very useful as to knowing what is and isn't truth. There very well may be more ways to understand truth, but I know of no other ways to tell that it is the truth. You may guess at something, and your guess may be true-- but there is no way to tell if your guess is correct or not. That's what logic is for. If your logic contradicts your feelings, I would side with logic, because with logic you can be sure you are correct, while feelings can be deluded and easily wrong. It's the reason our courts are ruled with law and evidence, and not by how people feel.

There's no reason to think that logic is all there is to being human, or even that you must be logical at all times. We're not Vulcans (despite what my mother tells me). But that is to say when it comes to truth, don't rely on your feelings, they have a good tendency to be wrong.



None.

Apr 25 2011, 8:48 pm ubermctastic Post #362



Obviously logic can be useful, but relying on pure logic is impossible.
The problem with logic is that the inputs are already there.
Obviously eating food is required to live, but I don't necessarily have to eat food. Just because I will die if I don't doesn't mean I have to. Maybe I don't care if I starve to death. Eating food is not logically needed in any way. My existence might end, but I was going to die anyways. If we relied on logic alone, we would have all died a long time ago.

Logic, in reality, is useless.
If Tom likes to run and Jim likes to run then Tom and Jim both like to run.
If you ask me, nothing was proven in this statement. It's really just a rewording of the exact same thing.
We can pretend like we've got new information from logic, but we really don't. Logic is just a simplification of truths we already have.
If everyone likes pepperoni pizza but Bob, you can say like bob does not like pepperoni pizza. This does not mean that Bob does not like pizza, or pepperoni. He could dislike one, both, or neither. There is no logical way of proving any of that.



None.

Apr 25 2011, 9:24 pm Sacrieur Post #363

Still Napping

Quote from name:K_A
Obviously logic can be useful, but relying on pure logic is impossible.
The problem with logic is that the inputs are already there.
Obviously eating food is required to live, but I don't necessarily have to eat food. Just because I will die if I don't doesn't mean I have to. Maybe I don't care if I starve to death. Eating food is not logically needed in any way. My existence might end, but I was going to die anyways. If we relied on logic alone, we would have all died a long time ago.

You're confusing logic with some weird Neitzsche philosophy. Logic would go like this:

I need food to live.
I do not want to die.
Therefore, I should eat food.

---

Quote
Logic, in reality, is useless.

Do you know what a logic gate is?


Quote
If Tom likes to run and Jim likes to run then Tom and Jim both like to run.
If you ask me, nothing was proven in this statement. It's really just a rewording of the exact same thing.

"Both" is actually a signifier of and. Anyway, you failed to miss the point that there is a truth value in words, I used simple examples because they're easy to understand. Bob likes to run. Tom likes to run. Can both be true or false independently without affecting the other (i.e., Bob not liking to run does not affect the truth of Tom liking to run). However, if we put them together, Bob likes to run and Tom likes to run, then for that statement Bob not liking to run will make it false, because it is not the case that both Tom AND Bob like to run.

Quote
We can pretend like we've got new information from logic, but we really don't. Logic is just a simplification of truths we already have.
If everyone likes pepperoni pizza but Bob, you can say like bob does not like pepperoni pizza. This does not mean that Bob does not like pizza, or pepperoni. He could dislike one, both, or neither. There is no logical way of proving any of that.

Logic works off of the assumption that a premise is true or false. We then fill out truth tables (as shown above) to see all possible results. It helps in understanding what the truth is. For example, If Bob does not like pizza, then Bob does not like pepperoni pizza. This can be expanded further: If something sinks, then it is more dense than water. A balloon filled with that gas sank, so it must be more dense than water.



None.

Apr 25 2011, 9:27 pm ubermctastic Post #364



What I'm saying is that logic doesn't bring new information to the table, it just moves the information around and make it more organized.



None.

Apr 25 2011, 9:40 pm Sacrieur Post #365

Still Napping

Quote from name:K_A
What I'm saying is that logic doesn't bring new information to the table, it just moves the information around and make it more organized.

It brings information about the truth of something, this can be of particular use for problems where the answer is not obvious. As you may suspect, truth tables can very well go beyond what is simple, which is why symbolic logic becomes complicated. But for now, I'm going to stick simple. Try this:

If it is raining the sidewalk is wet.
It is raining.
Therefore, the sidewalk is wet.

We gained new information, because we concluded that the sidewalk is wet without having to look at the sidewalk. Let's step it up now.

B = Bob likes to run.
J = Jill likes to run.
L = Bob is lazy.
L2 = Jill is lazy.

If it is not the case that Bob or Jill likes to run, then Bob is lazy if Jill is not lazy.

(~(B v J)) ⊃ (~L2 ⊃ L)



None.

Apr 25 2011, 10:02 pm Tempz Post #366



I've read the bible and it has so many inconsistencies; It makes even more atheistic. Don't get me wrong i do think there is an afterlife, like rebrith which is supported by scientific fact (not Buddhist or something like that since its stupid as well (sitting under a tree for 20 years :0_o: )) and I've even researched Jesus as real or not. There were several historians in and around the time of Jesus most not even acknowledging him and the ones that do are so short its most likely a false document. Assuming the document is real then why would the son of god's documentation be so belittling.

My 2 cents.



None.

Apr 25 2011, 10:12 pm ubermctastic Post #367



I don't like to run. That doesn't make me lazy
I know how logic works, but you need 2 separate inputs to have an output. Usually the output is just a restatement of the previous two inputs.
For example density = mass/volume
The mass of an object is 10 grams and it's volume is 5 milliliters so the density is 10g/5ml which is then reduced to 2g/ml
Logic is just a "step up" from common sense, which is sadly not very common.

Jesus was very real.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Apr 25 2011, 10:19 pm by K_A.



None.

Apr 25 2011, 11:19 pm Tempz Post #368



I used the wrong word, i mean stupid things that aren't supported by scientific fact like how can a virgin give birth.
I read Josephus text on Jesus and it was fairy short as i stated, I haven't read Tacitus text on Christ however.

Just as well http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 26 2011, 2:42 am by Tempz.



None.

Apr 26 2011, 1:59 am CaptainWill Post #369



I think people generally agree that Jesus existed an an historical figure, just like Muhammad or any of the other prophets spoken of in Abrahamic religions.



None.

Apr 26 2011, 2:46 am Tempz Post #370



For hundreds of years people thought that the earth was the center of all orbit in the solar system. Proving my point that the general masses aren't always necessarily right.

However i reserve the right that there is a higher power...



None.

Apr 26 2011, 2:57 am Sacrieur Post #371

Still Napping

Quote from name:K_A
I don't like to run. That doesn't make me lazy

Okay, not what that's saying... It's a silly example based on hypothetical premises.

Quote
I know how logic works, but you need 2 separate inputs to have an output. Usually the output is just a restatement of the previous two inputs.

No, logic works differently. I won't continue to go into SL, but I will go into syllogism. A syllogism is the classical version of logic, established by Aristotle. It consists of two premises and a single conclusion, which comprises three lines.

A
B
--
C

This is an example of a syllogism, where A, B, and C are sentences; the bar represents therefore. A sentence is a a statement that can be either true or false. Sentences combine to form arguments, which are valid or invalid. Arguments cannot be true or false, nor can sentences be valid or invalid. Using the example from before:

If it is raining, then the sidewalk is wet.
It is raining.
----------------
The sidewalk is wet.

This argument is known as modus ponens (affirming the consequent). Here's another one:

If it is raining, then the sidewalk is wet.
The sidewalk is not wet.
----------------------------------
It is not raining.

This argument is known as modus tollens (denying the antecedent). Now consider:

If it is raining, then the sidewalk is wet.
It is not raining.
----------------------
The sidewalk is not wet.

This is an invalid argument form called denying the consequent. The sidewalk may very well have become wet from say, washing your car, or it could have just rained, but no longer raining. Consequently, the conclusion can be true, but it does not make the argument valid. What's interesting is that these three forms can be applied in all cases, so we simplify them with letters to represent sentences:

Modus ponens: If A, then B. A. Therefore B.

Modus tollens: If A, then B. Not B. Therefore not A.

Denying the consequent: If A, then B. Not A. Therefore not B.

You may fill in A and B with whatever you may like. Now let's make a truth table of the conditional (if, then).

A B | A ⊃ B
T T | T T T
T F | T F F
F T | F T T
F F | F T F

As you can see, this is what saying "if, then" actually means in terms of truth. Now here's a fun question. Is this the following statement true or false?

This statement is false.

An interesting paradox, because the statement cannot be false. If it is false, then it is false about being false, which means it is true, but it cannot be true because that would mean it is false.


Quote
For example density = mass/volume
The mass of an object is 10 grams and it's volume is 5 milliliters so the density is 10g/5ml which is then reduced to 2g/ml

What you're referring to is a mathematical equation... And surprisingly math hasn't been shown to be derived from logic.


Quote
Logic is just a "step up" from common sense, which is sadly not very common.

"Why call it common sense if it is so rare?" - Voltaire

Logic is something anyone can employ, and even a basic logic course can help one tremendously with crunching what life throws at you.

Quote
Jesus was very real.

This is good. You're making a statement that is falsifiable. Falsifiability means that you can prove yourself correct-- and that you may also be proved wrong. Unfortunately, by making that claim the burden of proof rests on you to prove it. In science we do not jump to conclusions, we employ the scientific method. If we were to take this statement as an example:

Hypothesis: Jesus was real.
Research
Conclusions from Research
Do they agree with your hypothesis?
If yes, then you have concluded that Jesus was real.
If no, reform your hypothesis and continue, or abandon it altogether.

Can we conclude that Jesus was not real? No. We cannot prove that Jesus was not real. This is because there is always the possibility that he did exist, but went unnoticed, or perhaps some freak accident destroyed all but a few records of him. This follows with the "if, then' above: If there is proof of Jesus, then he exists. If you refer to the truth table, on the second line, you'll see that this gives a false output. Therefore, we can never conclude that Jesus was not real.

What constitutes as good evidence. You may want to pick up some books by some scholarly figures to get a good sense of everything first. Search around and see if you can find any good archeology journals with peer reviewed studies (these are the best to get). Make sure you back up every claim you make with evidence.



None.

Apr 26 2011, 2:57 am Fire_Kame Post #372

a left leaning coexistence nut

Quote from Sacrieur
Quote from name:K_A
What I'm saying is that logic doesn't bring new information to the table, it just moves the information around and make it more organized.

It brings information about the truth of something

It brings information about the truth of something in the frame of thought we think right now. I hate to be picky, but it is typical for humans by nature to normalize whatever seems to be the typical case, throwing out outliers that make understanding the world around us more difficult. It is a result of us wanting to make sense of things. I think you could relate it to logic: the more parameters you add, the harder it will be to prove. If you add new data to your pool, then you will have a harder time proving its certainty and normalizing the info provided.




Apr 26 2011, 8:37 am MillenniumArmy Post #373



@private_parts




None.

Apr 26 2011, 2:47 pm KrayZee Post #374



I feel like I want to rewrite the first post in this topic. It's so old. :P



None.

Apr 26 2011, 4:18 pm rockz Post #375

ᴄʜᴇᴇsᴇ ɪᴛ!

I don't see how anyone can take the bible as fact when it contradicts itself in the first 2 chapters, since there are 2 different creation stories.



"Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman - do we have to call the Gentleman a gentleman if he's not one?"

Apr 26 2011, 7:08 pm Sacrieur Post #376

Still Napping

Quote from rockz
I don't see how anyone can take the bible as fact when it contradicts itself in the first 2 chapters, since there are 2 different creation stories.

I always thought the story of Noah was the best.

1) A flood covered mountain tops... Claiming the glorious height of 15 cubits... Or 6.75 meters.

2) Mass homocide of everyone. I mean really, do you honestly believe that everyone on the planet was evil except for Noah and his family?

3) Incest. Because the bible says it is wrong, but then how did they repopulate the Earth?

4) Too many animals. One of every species on the planet would be far too much for the ark merely the size of football field to carry. One of every genus is still far too much. And then there's the aspect of the number of animals being so great that there is no possible way that the boat wouldn't sink.

5) Viruses and bacteria. Noah saved these too?

6) Salt water creatures. Does the ark feature a salt-water aquarium? Because all of those animals are going to die.

7) Plants. They're not going anywhere, so they die under water.

8) Fossil record/rock layers. There is no indication of a global flood.



None.

Apr 26 2011, 8:37 pm ubermctastic Post #377



Use your logic to figure out if I enjoy having logic explained to me like I'm a 5 year old.
Of course my post was deleted as it was found irrelevant for me to explain that I understand logic.
Also, all of your logic examples had 2 imputs and 1 output.

It's funny that you claim to have read the Bible, because the only arguments I've seen made are against creation and Noah's Ark. Both of which are in the first 7 Chapters in the Bible. I could find more rediculous stories if I wanted to. I you really wanted to criticize a religion, you should have picked Scientology.

Now for your arguments...
I don't really think the 2 creation stories are separate, and I'll explain why.
-The first chapter, to me, looks like it is about how the earth comes into being.
-The second chapter, is about the Neolithic Revolution. Notice how Man is given dominion over the plants and animals. Later on, The humans gain sentinence, separating them from the animals, and begin to farm the Earth! :O

Noah's ark is about (you guessed it) a flood!
Many people like to think that the dinosaurs were killed in the flood, but they could have died centuries before the humans were there. Either way they weren't on the ark. It also didn't exactly tell where or how wide the flood was only how tall, and it would have been impossible for them to measure the depth so it was probably just a guess.

1 I'm sure a valley could have flooded enough to perhaps cover the largest mountain in sight.
2 You act like it's impossible for people to disagree with what God says. That's all it takes.
3 It says everyone on the face of the ground was wiped out. It doesn't say everyone that existed. Noah's sons married women that they brought with them in the ark.
4 How many species of animals existed in the region that Noah lived in when the flood happened. Do you know?
5 Noah wouldn't need to save viruses and bacteria. You can't possibly be serious with that statement.
6 Yeah, all the salt water creatures in the river valley -_-
7 Plants can live a long time underwater, especially trees.
8 Global flood? What?



None.

Apr 27 2011, 3:29 am Raitaki Post #378



Quote from name:K_A
Noah's ark is about (you guessed it) a flood!
Many people like to think that the dinosaurs were killed in the flood, but they could have died centuries before the humans were there. Either way they weren't on the ark. It also didn't exactly tell where or how wide the flood was only how tall, and it would have been impossible for them to measure the depth so it was probably just a guess.

1 I'm sure a valley could have flooded enough to perhaps cover the largest mountain in sight.
2 You act like it's impossible for people to disagree with what God says. That's all it takes.
3 It says everyone on the face of the ground was wiped out. It doesn't say everyone that existed. Noah's sons married women that they brought with them in the ark.
4 How many species of animals existed in the region that Noah lived in when the flood happened. Do you know?
5 Noah wouldn't need to save viruses and bacteria. You can't possibly be serious with that statement.
6 Yeah, all the salt water creatures in the river valley -_-
7 Plants can live a long time underwater, especially trees.
8 Global flood? What?
- As I remember, humans are created (and cast to Earth) only a few days after animals are created, and only 2 humans were kicked out, it's a miracle how humans survived the other animals, let alone dinosaurs. Also, if dinosaurs went extinct so soon, how did they die?

3) You forgot the animals. Again. And don't say god helped them repopulate.
4) I'm pretty sure the bible said he saved every single (land) animal species on Earth. That doesn't mean his region. And if it was just his region, then how did the unsaved land masses (like Australia) stock itself with animals? (inb4 shallow Christian states all continents were joined in Noah's time and is slapped in the face with the question of what magic separated the continents so fast)
5) RIP any species of bacteria that couldn't survive in water and wasn't on the ship when the flood happened.
6) If you're saying that salt water creatures were left in the river valley, RIP to them when the flood carries them away and they die of either salt shortage or being left flopping everywhere when the flood recedes. If you argue that the creatures where kept on board in their own aquarium, RIP to everything on the ship because of the weight of all that water.
7) As I said, plants even die when you overwater them. Also, if the flood can rise higher than even mountains, then they sure can cover the plants with water. No oxygen and carbon dioxide -> death.
8) You can't reject a global flood without rejecting the bible. So don't give us that response.



None.

Apr 27 2011, 3:40 am rayNimagi Post #379



To all the Christians: how do you know the Bible is more accurate than the the Rig-Veda, the Koran, or the Torah?

A Hindu would say, "Hinduism is the one true religion. I have felt it in my heart. I have been reincarnated countless times, and so have you." What makes you so sure that Christianity is the only way to eternal salvation, and that there even IS an afterlife?

Let me ask you this: if you were born a Muslim in a Muslim society, what religion would you be? You'd be a Muslim, or at least, you would be raised as a Muslim. Your parents would take you to the local mosque on Fridays, and you would pray to Allah. Wouldn't you believe that Islam is the true path to salvation? Would you convert to Christianity if you ever heard about it? I doubt it. Statistically, very few Muslims have ever converted to Christianity.

Jews do not believe Jesus was the Messiah. The Torah states the Messiah will:

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Torah says that the Messiah will:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world—on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
E. Not contradict the Torah (Jesus deliberately declares some of the Torah's teachings outdated.)

If, all your life, you were taught that the real Messiah was not Jesus, why would you convert to Christianity? You wouldn't.

What I'm getting at here is that the Bible is no more valid than any other religious text. Those who believe that "feeling" is why they "know" that their God is the only wrong are severely mistaken. Other peoples have felt that their God(s) was the only one(s), and they seemed to know it. Why is yours better than everyone else's?


Quote from Jack
Quote from Raitaki
Quote from Jack
How about this assumption: everything I can observe repeatably is fact. Or even, Everything proven by the scientific method is fact. Both of those are assumptions scientists make.
You forgot the thinking, hypothesizing, researching, discussing and collecting proof parts.
Also, it's still better than "everything written by groups of people who claim to took part/witnessed it is a fact".
Good thing that isn't the assumption we make.
Then what is?

Quote from name:K_A
1 I'm sure a valley could have flooded enough to perhaps cover the largest mountain in sight.
2 You act like it's impossible for people to disagree with what God says. That's all it takes.
3 It says everyone on the face of the ground was wiped out. It doesn't say everyone that existed. Noah's sons married women that they brought with them in the ark.
4 How many species of animals existed in the region that Noah lived in when the flood happened. Do you know?
5 Noah wouldn't need to save viruses and bacteria. You can't possibly be serious with that statement.
6 Yeah, all the salt water creatures in the river valley -_-
7 Plants can live a long time underwater, especially trees.
8 Global flood? What?

1, Are you saying that the entire world was NOT covered with water?
2. Some people are pro-choice. Why does God not do something about the supposed millions of fetuses "killed"?
3. How could the flood kill everyone if it was confined to one river valley? (see 1)
-Assuming humans lived in more than one area: If the flood killed everyone, then it could not have been confined to one place.
-Assuming humans lived in only one area: possible, but unlikely. Even the first humans lived in forests AND plains in East Africa.
4. See #1
5. Some bacteria are essential to life on Earth, e.g. decomposers.
6. See #1
7. Submerge a flower completely underwater, out of direct sunlight (since light should not have been able to penetrate deep water), for 40 days. Let's see if the flower will still produce seeds.
8. See #1

How about this hypothetical situation?
Assumption: Humans have lived in Afroeurasia, Australia, and the Americas since the beginning of time.
Prove me wrong.

A few of my "proofs":

-There are countless human skeletons scattered across every continent except Antarctica.
-There are still people living in Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia, North America, and South America.
-God told me so.

How about this other hypothetical situation?

Assumption: The only path to eternal salvation is to be the last human on Earth, because God told me so.
Prove me wrong.

A few guidelines you should live your life by under this assumption:
-You can steal, because the victim's life does not matter.
-You should murder everyone, since only the last man standing wins.
-You must always use contraception, because if you have a baby, you are getting farther away from achieving eternal salvation.

Critics of the assumption might say, "Those actions are morally wrong!" But then I'd say, "No, because God is the only source of truth, and God spoke directly to me. I have felt his love, and he has instructed us to have an epic free-for-all on the planet Earth. Don't worry, you'll just be sent to Hell for all eternity if you're not the last one left."

And saying, "Well, since that's not a real situation, it doesn't matter," or "Well the Bible is the real truth, so none of those are actually true," doesn't prove the assumptions wrong. Do I need to break out the Circle of Power again?



Win by luck, lose by skill.

Apr 27 2011, 4:41 am Sacrieur Post #380

Still Napping

Quote
It's funny that you claim to have read the Bible, because the only arguments I've seen made are against creation and Noah's Ark. Both of which are in the first 7 Chapters in the Bible. I could find more rediculous stories if I wanted to. I you really wanted to criticize a religion, you should have picked Scientology.

When did I ever claim to have read the bible? And I do pick on scientology. Xenu and I chill all the time :awesome:. And more ridiculous stories won't prove anything. But I do like the part where Elijah summons two bears to maul 42 children for making fun of his bald head. What a great way to get people to listen to what you have to say: kill their children.



None.

Options
Pages: < 1 « 17 18 19 20 2122 >
  Back to forum
Please log in to reply to this topic or to report it.
Members in this topic: None.
[03:30 am]
Vrael -- I will return to defeat him
[03:30 am]
Vrael -- he went 3-0 tvt 0-1 tvz and 1-0 tvp
[03:29 am]
Vrael -- ok guys inferno went 4-1 against me
[11:01 pm]
Vrael -- nude idk where ur friend request is
[11:01 pm]
Vrael -- lets meme this up
[11:00 pm]
Vrael -- ya im on
[10:55 pm]
lil-Inferno -- r u still on Vrael
[10:53 pm]
lil-Inferno -- NudeRaider
NudeRaider shouted: Vrael :uberw00t: gogogo! Can I watch? :D
ya w/e
[10:53 pm]
lil-Inferno -- I'm rusty AF, should be meme tho
[10:52 pm]
lil-Inferno -- Vrael
Vrael shouted: im gonna play me some sc if you're around we can rematch
okay let's play
Please log in to shout.


Members Online: Roy