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..22~23~24~25~26..34..41..48..55..62..64~65~66 [Next]
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Getting back to earthquakes for a moment, I was interested to see James Lovelock's interview in the Guardian.

Quote:
Three years ago, he received a heating bill for the winter totalling £6,000. His age means he has to have the heating on full in his poorly insulted home and, with his disabled son, Tom, living in a house next door, his outgoings on fuel rocketed. Damp winters on the edge of Dartmoor were taking their toll, so in recent years he has overwintered in St Louis, his wife's hometown in Missouri. The experience altered his attitude to the politics and economics of energy. Having already upset many environmentalists – for whom he is something of a guru – with his long-time support for nuclear power and his hatred of wind power (he has a picture of a wind turbine on the wall of his study to remind him how "ugly and useless they are"), he is now coming out in favour of "fracking", the controversial technique for extracting natural gas from the ground. He argues that, while not perfect, it produces far less CO2 than burning coal: "Gas is almost a give-away in the US at the moment. They've gone for fracking in a big way. Let's be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it."


Good to see that a man in his tenth decade can still think for himself and change his mind.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27157 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On 2012-06-17 00:55, acesover wrote:
... You can call them scientific guesses. However the only thing that makses them scientific is that some scientiet made the something up...


As it happens that is not the case. The story of n-rays is a pretty good example of just how much that is not the case.

The only thing that keeps "guesses" as "scientific" is that those guesses have been used to calculate and predict measurable things which would not be found unless those specific guesses were relevant to the shared world we live in ... and that those measurable things have then been experimentally verified. Science = best model of observable/measurable existence available at this time.

You are welcome to call any statement you want your belief and to have faith in anything you imagine and your feelings will be valid and true for you.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
173 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On 2012-06-16 20:11, The great Gumbini wrote:
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


Simple logic dictates that you don't presuppose the answer to the question that you're asking. In this case the question being, who/what created the universe? You say, "But you see the believer starts with God." (And I'll add that they end there too, with no scientific testing of that hypothesis along the way). Why is it that that's the ONLY place that sort of logic is applied? When you hear a rattle in your car, do you take it to the mechanic and tell him to start by just replacing the entire engine? When you experience shortness of breath and slight chest pains after a rigourous workout, do you immediately go to the doctor and demand a heart transplant? Why are the rules of logic changed when it comes to the question of the origin of the universe? As Hitchens said, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."


"What is it about "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" that you find so hard to believe?"

That is an unfalsifiable claim.


"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?"

Sure. Of course, this is again an unfalsifiable claim.


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
173 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On 2012-06-16 21:36, kambiz wrote:
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


Kam my friend,

This is nothing but a word salad. I was looking for a one word answer. Deist? Smile

Just curious, that's all.

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27157 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
What do the words "In the beginning..." do for the reader? What do they permit the reader to imagine and gain a sense of knowing about?

Have you considered that the words are not: "In your beginning I..." ?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5024 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2012-06-17 09:30, Woland wrote:
Getting back to earthquakes for a moment, I was interested to see James Lovelock's interview in the Guardian.

Quote:
..."fracking", the controversial technique for extracting natural gas from the ground. He argues that, while not perfect, it produces far less CO2 than burning coal...




But CO2 and earthquakes are not the only issues with energy extraction; there are other big problems with fracking (Halliburton one of the major pioneers of the technique interestingly enough), not the least of which is contamination of the water table:
Quote:
[M]ore than 1,000 other cases of contamination have been documented by courts and state and local governments in Colorado, New Mexico, Alabama, Ohio and Pennsylvania. In one case, a house exploded after hydraulic fracturing created underground passageways and methane seeped into the residential water supply. In other cases, the contamination occurred not from actual drilling below ground, but on the surface, where accidental spills and leaky tanks, trucks and waste pits allowed benzene and other chemicals to leach into streams, springs and water wells

It is difficult to pinpoint the exact cause of each contamination, or measure its spread across the environment accurately, because the precise nature and concentrations of the chemicals used by industry are considered trade secrets. Not even the EPA knows exactly what's in the drilling fluids. And that, EPA scientists say, makes it impossible to vouch for the safety of the drilling process or precisely track its effects.

"I am looking more and more at water quality issues…because of a growing concern," said Joyel Dhieux, a drilling field inspector who handles environmental review at the EPA’s regional offices in Denver. “But if you don't know what's in it I don't think it’s possible." http://www.propublica.org/article/buried......ies-1113


So it's kind of like saying that the stuff in Dr. Bob's tonic bottle is safe, even though the manufacturer refuses to say exactly what ingredients are in the bottle. I would view this push towards fracking with a lot more skepticism.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2012-06-17 09:32, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-17 00:55, acesover wrote:
... You can call them scientific guesses. However the only thing that makses them scientific is that some scientiet made the something up...


As it happens that is not the case. The story of n-rays is a pretty good example of just how much that is not the case.

The only thing that keeps "guesses" as "scientific" is that those guesses have been used to calculate and predict measurable things which would not be found unless those specific guesses were relevant to the shared world we live in ... and that those measurable things have then been experimentally verified. Science = best model of observable/measurable existence available at this time.

You are welcome to call any statement you want your belief and to have faith in anything you imagine and your feelings will be valid and true for you.


I agree with yor last statement if when you say you...you mean all inclusive including yourself. Then I agree. However if your you means only those who disagree with your way of thinking then I do not agree.
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
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2012-06-17 01:31, mastermindreader wrote:
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?


Whoever wrote that quote was indeed very intelligent individual. However I would have a lot more respect for him if he ended it by saying: " However even with all that data it is still only a theory and until proof positive is obtained it will remain so". Smile

I have said before that I can go along with the BBT and a few post above I told you how I see it.
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
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27157 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On 2012-06-17 10:38, acesover wrote:...

I agree with yor last statement if when you say you...you mean all inclusive including yourself. Then I agree. However if your you means only those who disagree with your way of thinking then I do not agree.


a* - look at how far you are willing to go in order to distract yourself and others.

You (anyone) get to believe as you please. What you ask others to believe about what you claim to believe is...

So, how are you doing the the distinctions between statements about the inner world of how you feel and the outer world of what can be measured?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
kambiz
View Profile
Inner circle
Perth, down by the cool of the pool
1129 Posts

Profile of kambiz
Quote:
On 2012-06-17 10:12, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-16 21:36, kambiz wrote:
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


Kam my friend,

This is nothing but a word salad. I was looking for a one word answer. Deist? Smile

Just curious, that's all.

Ron


Word salad because you didn't understand a component? If so, what parts can I clarify for you.

Let there be no doubt, the relationship a Bahai has with the mysteries of the world and it's Unknowable Essence is unheard of in the history of the world. If I could put it into a modern-day recognized word, I would, but I genuinely cannot categorically fathom a description for a God. I struggle to fathom a description for Baha'u'llah but at least He presented me with a limited form, by which my petty, useless and limited mind could find some comfort, because really, for me, talking about anything unlimited and an Essence of the Essence of Essences is really fruitless......

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
Quote:
On 2012-06-17 11:02, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-17 10:38, acesover wrote:...

I agree with yor last statement if when you say you...you mean all inclusive including yourself. Then I agree. However if your you means only those who disagree with your way of thinking then I do not agree.


a* - look at how far you are willing to go in order to distract yourself and others.

You (anyone) get to believe as you please. What you ask others to believe about what you claim to believe is...

So, how are you doing the the distinctions between statements about the inner world of how you feel and the outer world of what can be measured?


NO WHERE DO I ASK ANYONE TO BELIEVE ANYTHING. Quite the opposite I say and continue to say, believe what you want.
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
Acesover-

Once again I would point out that the word "theory" as used in science does NOT mean the same thing as when you say "It's only a theory." Reread the last sentence of the quote I provided:

Quote:
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]


See also, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

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. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.


http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1194 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-06-17 11:14, kambiz wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-17 10:12, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-16 21:36, kambiz wrote:
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


Kam my friend,

This is nothing but a word salad. I was looking for a one word answer. Deist? Smile

Just curious, that's all.

Ron


Word salad because you didn't understand a component? If so, what parts can I clarify for you.

Let there be no doubt, the relationship a Bahai has with the mysteries of the world and it's Unknowable Essence is unheard of in the history of the world. If I could put it into a modern-day recognized word, I would, but I genuinely cannot categorically fathom a description for a God. I struggle to fathom a description for Baha'u'llah but at least He presented me with a limited form, by which my petty, useless and limited mind could find some comfort, because really, for me, talking about anything unlimited and an Essence of the Essence of Essences is really fruitless......

Kam


How about "monotheism"?
"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."
Steve_Mollett
View Profile
Inner circle
Eh, so I've made
3010 Posts

Profile of Steve_Mollett
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
- Albert Camus
kambiz
View Profile
Inner circle
Perth, down by the cool of the pool
1129 Posts

Profile of kambiz
Hahahahaha........thanks Steve, whatever floats your boat 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!
kambiz
View Profile
Inner circle
Perth, down by the cool of the pool
1129 Posts

Profile of kambiz
To external eyes looking in Lobo, the Bahai Faith is a monotheistic religion, however, there are so many other elements which add richness and depth to ones understanding of creation, which take it into deistic, agnostic and polytheistic elements, as well as other areas which cannot be summarized with one word....

.....but either way, if you can't be bothered, then Steve has it all worked out for you on the religions behalf 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!
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1194 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Bahá'u'lláh taught that there is one God whose successive revelations of His will to humanity have been the chief civilizing force in history."

From Bahai.org. Is that not an authoritative website regarding Baha'i teachings? "one God" is a pretty good working definition of monotheism,
"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
Not exactly......it depends on the way one views the descriptions detailed in the Writings in the nature of the minor and major Prophets in religious history.

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
Hey, I just answered a question you now deleted!!

Hahahaha

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!
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27157 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On 2012-06-17 03:33, Bill Hilly wrote:
Anybody here subscribe to the Big Crunch possibility?


? No idea how much matter there is but that's one of the possibilities. Since that idea made it to popular culture there've been some significant observations which suggest there is something acting which has a net effect of making galaxies appear to accelerate away from each other. Also there's a great deal of missing matter/energy predicted by the standard model so it's an exciting time for physics in the large (and small) while folks look for more details.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
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..22~23~24~25~26..34..41..48..55..62..64~65~66 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.3 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