The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » A TOUGH QUESTION TO ANSWER.. (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..7..11..15..19..21~22~23~24~25..34..42..50..58..64~65~66 [Next]
kambiz
View Profile
Inner circle
Perth, down by the cool of the pool
1129 Posts

Profile of kambiz
That may also be true Bob, but I have little doubt that God is not responsible. According to Bahai teachings however, all manifestations of suffering in this planet are predominantly caused from mankinds unwillingness to stay firm and adhere to divine guidance.

There are "some" instances however where a natural disaster is a requirement for the progression of the earths balance etc. Winter may be considered a natural disaster to many animals, for example, but it is a necessary requirement for the refreshing arrival of spring.....but these natural disasters are quite rare, in comparison to the number we see today...


But I'm happy to accept that it "just happens", as long as a Divinity is not blamed....

Kam
If I speak forth, many a mind will shatter,
And if I write, many a pen will break.
.....and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay!
The great Gumbini
View Profile
Inner circle
2059 Posts

Profile of The great Gumbini
Kam,

I agree that we as a people can be far more blessed if we look to God. But to have our own destiny in our own hands is unattainable. Yes we do have control over a lot and wiser choices would yield much many many blessings. I was just not sure if you meant we control all of our destiny. I think I see what you are saying now.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Quote:
You drill for oil in Texas, you get an earthquake in LA, how convinced are you that we are not responsible?


Completely convinced.

And in the geat TMC/NVMS tradition of veering off into tangential directions, let me add that the National Research Council thinks fra...... either:

Quote:
The controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas does not pose a high risk for triggering earthquakes large enough to feel, but other types of energy-related drilling can make the ground noticeably shake, a major government science report concludes.

Even those man-made tremors large enough to be an issue are very rare, says a special report by the National Research Council. In more than 90 years of monitoring, human activity has been shown to trigger only 154 quakes, most of them moderate or small, and only 60 of them in the United States. That's compared to a global average of about 14,450 earthquakes of magnitude 4.0 or greater every year, said the report, released Friday.


Drill, baby, drill!
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
199 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On 2012-06-15 20:31, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-15 19:26, mastermindreader wrote:
Once again, acesover, the Catholic Church itself has no problem with the Big Bang Theory (or evolution for that matter). What happened "before" the Big Bang is a metaphysical question to which the Church offers an answer.


I have been in agreement with the evolution theory for a long time now.


Just curious to hear why you, as a theist, think that many other theists reject evolutionary theory.


Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
199 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On 2012-06-15 21:30, The great Gumbini wrote:
The problem with the Big Bang Theory (while very amusing) is the "Where did that come from" questions. With the Big Bang you must start with "I don't know" and then you go from there. So the starting point is the only problem. We want to know. With God we do.


Good magic to all,


Eric


It's more than amusing. Its the best explanation we have for the current state of the universe. You do know the difference between "theory" in common usage and a "scientific theory", don't you?

The fact that science takes a "I don't know" stance on certain questions is a point FOR the scientific method - not against it.

Of course we all want to know the answers to the big questions. But our desire to know is not an excuse to postulate something. For example, why stop at God as the ultimate explanation? What if we want to know what caused God? I think a SUPER DUPER SUPREME BEING (who likes ice cream, but only strawberry) created God. With the SUPER DUPER SUPREME BEING, now we know!


Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
Steve_Mollett
View Profile
Inner circle
Eh, so I've made
3010 Posts

Profile of Steve_Mollett
"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
- Isaac Asimov
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
- Albert Camus
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
199 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On 2012-06-16 11:53, kambiz wrote:
Eric, and what makes you think that the symptoms of society so lamentably lacking in a spiritual education is NOT causing all the so-called natural disasters you have mentioned?

You drill for oil in Texas, you get an earthquake in LA, how convinced are you that we are not responsible?
You cut down the trees in Brazil, you get a hole in the ozone layer. You pump carbon monoxide into the sky in Russia, you get a tornado in Perth. You are discounting the absolute interconnectedness of the planet, and how our lack of care and turning away from the Divine guidance contributes to these disasters....

I have no doubt, that God is not responsible....

Kam


The Earth experienced extreme weather, earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, etc. long before humans ever had a presence on the planet. No "turning away from the Divine guidance" was required for those weather events to occur.

And I'm sorry Kam, but I'm still confused as to your position. Are you a Deist, Theist, Atheist, or Agnostic?

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
The great Gumbini
View Profile
Inner circle
2059 Posts

Profile of The great Gumbini
Ron,

It is very simple. If you take the Big Bang Theory back as far as you can you MUST admit the point just prior to that is "I don't know". That then is your starting point. Argue as you may this is simply a fact. It is very hard to admit that because it seems almost as if proponents of the theory are making up a story. I mean lets face it this is how the account would have to go since something comes from something with the exception belonging to God Who always was and always will be. So from I don't know what came the right mixture of events that caused a Big Bang (I would imagine it should be call a REALLY REALLY Big Bang) that tossed into motion the perfect set of events that caused the earth and all life form to exist. However, on the other hand we have "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Was there a Big Bang? Maybe maybe not. But you see the believer starts with God. You mention my understanding of the word "theory" as used in science. Yes I'm fully aware it is not just a simple idea. I would also like to take this opportunity to explain to you that the words "faith" and "belief" used in the Bible are not merely fancy hopeful words as well. The both are in fact very "action" oriented. We see and THEN we believe. We have faith in Whom we KNOW. These words are predicated on a knowledge.

Why stop at God as the ultimate explanation? Simple once you found the answer what else would you look for? If I loose my cell found I will look for it. But once I find it I look no further. Now let me ask you this. The Bible has been around for a long time. What is it about "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" that you find so hard to believe? Let's say if you do not believe God exists today is it possible God existed long enough to create the heavens and the earth? Ron I would be most interested to hear your answer to this question.


Good magic to all,


Eric
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-06-16 17:09, R.S. wrote:
Its the best explanation we have for the current state of the universe. You do know the difference between "theory" in common usage and a "scientific theory", don't you?

The fact that science takes a "I don't know" stance on certain questions is a point FOR the scientific method - not against it.


If you believe the Big Bang theory, that's a great example of what I mean by faith and evidence, but no proof. If, as you said in that thread, that in the absence of proof what you need is more evidence, not faith, then I imagine you'll have to reserve judgment on the Big Bang...almost certainly for the rest of your life.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
kambiz
View Profile
Inner circle
Perth, down by the cool of the pool
1129 Posts

Profile of kambiz
Quote:
On 2012-06-16 17:19, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-16 11:53, kambiz wrote:
Eric, and what makes you think that the symptoms of society so lamentably lacking in a spiritual education is NOT causing all the so-called natural disasters you have mentioned?

You drill for oil in Texas, you get an earthquake in LA, how convinced are you that we are not responsible?
You cut down the trees in Brazil, you get a hole in the ozone layer. You pump carbon monoxide into the sky in Russia, you get a tornado in Perth. You are discounting the absolute interconnectedness of the planet, and how our lack of care and turning away from the Divine guidance contributes to these disasters....

I have no doubt, that God is not responsible....

Kam


The Earth experienced extreme weather, earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, etc. long before humans ever had a presence on the planet. No "turning away from the Divine guidance" was required for those weather events to occur.

And I'm sorry Kam, but I'm still confused as to your position. Are you a Deist, Theist, Atheist, or Agnostic?

Ron


My position in all this Ron is this, and it's very simple:

I follow the guidance of the Spirit of Truth, no matter where it manifests itself. The evidence is clear in all the INDEPENDENT global religious Scriptures. The Spirit manifests itself from age to age within different human embodiments. All of these embodiments of the Spirit share a Message tailored for a specific time. All these Manifestations claim that a God exists, so I believe in an Unknowable Essence, but my relationship with Him only develops form through my relationship with the Spirit of Truth, Who's most recent Manifestation is Baha'u'llah, that's all I know, and that's my position after years of independent investigation

Kam
If I speak forth, many a mind will shatter,
And if I write, many a pen will break.
.....and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay!
kambiz
View Profile
Inner circle
Perth, down by the cool of the pool
1129 Posts

Profile of kambiz
Apologies Ron, I wanted to address your point about natural disasters, but I forgot.

Yes I agree that there were natural disasters before humans came, but the frequency of those is as little known to me as it is to you Smile we will put that question down to faith huh? Lol

Kam
If I speak forth, many a mind will shatter,
And if I write, many a pen will break.
.....and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay!
Slide
View Profile
Special user
533 Posts

Profile of Slide
"If you believe the Big Bang theory, that's a great example of what I mean by faith and evidence, but no proof. "

If there was proof, it would stop being a theory. It would be a proof. But theory's don't require faith. A theory is the most plausible explanation of a series of observances and a new theory based on new evidence is not shunned (as in religion) it is embraced. Faith, for the most part, closes you off from the truth. Any thing that challenges your faith is to be ignored, shut out, or shunned. In science, things that challenge your understanding are what scientists live for.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-06-17 00:32, Slide wrote:
"If you believe the Big Bang theory, that's a great example of what I mean by faith and evidence, but no proof. "

If there was proof, it would stop being a theory. It would be a proof. But theory's don't require faith. A theory is the most plausible explanation of a series of observances and a new theory based on new evidence is not shunned (as in religion) it is embraced. Faith, for the most part, closes you off from the truth. Any thing that challenges your faith is to be ignored, shut out, or shunned. In science, things that challenge your understanding are what scientists live for.



Faith(n): Belief that is not based on proof

One of many definitions, of course, but a very common one. So, as you say, it is unproven. And since it's unproven, one who believes in it is engaging in an act of faith.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Fact of the matter is no one knows how the universe came into existance. It is all conjecture. In other words guesses. You can call them scientific guesses. However the only thing that makses them scientific is that some scientiet made the something up...HE HAS NO PROOF OF HOW THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED. End of story.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
kambiz
View Profile
Inner circle
Perth, down by the cool of the pool
1129 Posts

Profile of kambiz
Quote:
On 2012-06-17 00:32, Slide wrote:
"If you believe the Big Bang theory, that's a great example of what I mean by faith and evidence, but no proof. "

If there was proof, it would stop being a theory. It would be a proof. But theory's don't require faith. A theory is the most plausible explanation of a series of observances and a new theory based on new evidence is not shunned (as in religion) it is embraced. Faith, for the most part, closes you off from the truth. Any thing that challenges your faith is to be ignored, shut out, or shunned. In science, things that challenge your understanding are what scientists live for.



This is EXACTLY what true religion is, in a sorta kinda way Smile

Kam
If I speak forth, many a mind will shatter,
And if I write, many a pen will break.
.....and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay!
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Addressing my own post above about proof of the Big Bang Theory. You guys know what proof is don't you ? It is what you scientific guys say us religious guys don't have. Smile Just to let you know, you don't either. Smile
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On 2012-06-17 00:55, acesover wrote:
Fact of the matter is no one knows how the universe came into existance. It is all conjecture. In other words guesses. You can call them scientific guesses. However the only thing that makses them scientific is that some scientiet made the something up...HE HAS NO PROOF OF HOW THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED. End of story.


You still don't really seem to have an understanding of what is meant by a scientific theory. Pay particular attention to the last sentence in the following quote:

Quote:
A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word “theory” in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.[5]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

And for the umpteenth time, the Catholic Church has no problem with the Big Bang theory. Why do you?
Bill Hilly
View Profile
Elite user
449 Posts

Profile of Bill Hilly
Anybody here subscribe to the Big Crunch possibility?
Devious
View Profile
Inner circle
2120 Posts

Profile of Devious
Self edit, sorry folks.
Devious Deceptions
"Gadol Elohai!"
L'Chaim!
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
199 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On 2012-06-16 20:23, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-16 17:09, R.S. wrote:
Its the best explanation we have for the current state of the universe. You do know the difference between "theory" in common usage and a "scientific theory", don't you?

The fact that science takes a "I don't know" stance on certain questions is a point FOR the scientific method - not against it.



If you believe the Big Bang theory, that's a great example of what I mean by faith and evidence, but no proof. If, as you said in that thread, that in the absence of proof what you need is more evidence, not faith, then I imagine you'll have to reserve judgment on the Big Bang...almost certainly for the rest of your life.


I accept BB theory as the best explanation for the current state of the universe (so far). Got anything better to explain the expansion of the universe, the cosmic microwave background radiation, etc. etc.?

That being said, I encourage the gathering of more evidence, and if modifications to the theory are justified, so be it. Even if something came along that was SO persuasive that we had to completely chuck out the BBT theory, I'm OK with that too as long as it stands up to rigorous scientific standards. But we can make tentative judgements now based on what we do know. And what we do know fits nicely with BB theory.


Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » A TOUGH QUESTION TO ANSWER.. (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..7..11..15..19..21~22~23~24~25..34..42..50..58..64~65~66 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.25 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL