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..23~24~25~26~27..35..42..49..56..63..64~65~66 [Next]
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-06-17 20:29, kambiz wrote:
Hey, I just answered a question you now deleted!!

Hahahaha

Kam


Sorry about that! I'd hoped to change it fast enough so that wouldn't happen.
"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
Bahai.org is the official Bahai website, yes.....

The description presented there summarizes things for the external reader, who may want a general description, but as I say Baha'u'llah revealed 100 volumes of the Word of God. There's a lot in there which gives a richer understanding of what forces are at play

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
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
I'm sorry if I appear to be oversimplifying, but those 100 volumes either came from the same God, or they came from multiple Gods, unless some very basic laws of logic have been suspended. There either is, or isn't, exactly one God.
"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."
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27136 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On 2012-06-17 20:46, LobowolfXXX wrote:
...some very basic laws of logic have been suspended. There either is, or isn't, exactly one God.


You are avoiding two questions there:
1) Does formal logic apply to religious issues
2) How could one come to feel certain that there is one or more than one thing which people are calling divine and some are calling God? In this case the allegory of the ants and the foot might serve for dialog.
...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
Formal logic should always apply to religious issues Jonathan. However, to all intents and purposes Lobo is correct in that those 100 volumes came from the one God. However, there are several other perspectives of seeing that which are at once easy to understand, yet predominantly humbling as what is exactly "logic".....

My understanding of this will not be divulged further, since it is definitely delving into the really deeper parts of Baha'i theology, the understanding of which is very much subjective and definitely not critical to the workings of the Baha'i Faith. I would not do the several passages relating to this (that I am aware of) and the several untranslated passages (from the Farsi and Arabic, that my wife is aware of)any justice by expressing my own opinion here, beacause I may well be very very wrong.....

....its a work in progress for me....or BS as Steve puts it 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!
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5021 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
Capricious God Violently Shakes Ant Farm Day After Bestowing Orange Slices Upon Colony

APPLETON, WI—Less than 24 hours after their god bestowed two delicious orange slices upon them, local ants reported the capricious deity had picked up the entire ant farm in which they live and shaken it violently, leaving many to wonder what they had done to incur the all-powerful being's deadly wrath.

"Yesterday, when we received his bountiful gift of sweet fruit, we thought we had pleased him mightily with the tireless labors of our digging," worker ant #103 said Saturday as she helped to rebuild the underground passages and chambers the vengeful god had completely decimated without warning. "But now he has laid waste to everything we, his followers, have erected to his glory. Why? Why has he done this to us?"

"Must we dig in different directions, or perhaps dig even longer and more complex tunnels?" the ant continued. "He has given us no clear sign, no indication of what he wants from us! How does one please such a fickle god?"

The deity, whom the ants know as "Marcus," has long been feared for his volatile and arbitrary behavior. Though he occasionally grants the insects small gifts of sugar water, sources said he routinely abandons the ant farm for days at a time, which sows chaos throughout the colony as hunger-driven hysteria rules its tunnels. Marcus has also been known to smite individual ants by concentrating the sun's rays into deadly beams with his mysterious lens of fire.'


More here
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2012-06-17 12:47, mastermindreader wrote:
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


Alright, just give me an answer. Are you saying that the Big Bang Theory is fact?

Do we have different semantics for differnet communitites? I mean do us common folk use the word theory to mean one thing and the scientific community use theory to mean something else? Are we supposed to put more trust in what the scientific community says? If so I won't even mentioin gloman warming which is not climate change or something else. No beating around the bush here. Is The Big BAng Theory fact or is it a theory? I am tirerd of hearing it is a a scientific theory but it is more than a theory. Smile . Because I can then say that God created everything and it is a religious theory and then ask. Why should the scientific community hold more clout than the religious community? I am not saying they should because I do not believe they should. But they should hold no less. That statement should draw fire. Incoming

I feel that the scientific community are just playing with words in order to further what they bellieve. It is like being pregnant...you not a little pregnant, you are or you aren't. Just as its a theory or its a fact. Thta is al lI am saying.
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
Hi landmark,

You are correct in that there "seems" to be mixed messages coming from God throughout history. However, unlike the ants, we are capable, with our intellect and powers of investigation, to discern exactly what the message is from God for His servants.

If you have any questions regarding this, I hope to be able to assit you with it. I, personally, feel comfortable with where I am at with regards to the "perceived" mixed messages from different religious Texts. It appears that you have some questions from your post above Smile

Am I correct?

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
Quote:
On 2012-06-17 22:44, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-17 12:47, mastermindreader wrote:
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


Alright, just give me an answer. Are you saying that the Big Bang Theory is fact?

Do we have different semantics for differnet communitites? I mean do us common folk use the word theory to mean one thing and the scientific community use theory to mean something else? Are we supposed to put more trust in what the scientific community says? If so I won't even mentioin gloman warming which is not climate change or something else. No beating around the bush here. Is The Big BAng Theory fact or is it a theory? I am tirerd of hearing it is a a scientific theory but it is more than a theory. Smile . Because I can then say that God created everything and it is a religious theory and then ask. Why should the scientific community hold more clout than the religious community? I am not saying they should because I do not believe they should. But they should hold no less. That statement should draw fire. Incoming

I feel that the scientific community are just playing with words in order to further what they bellieve. It is like being pregnant...you not a little pregnant, you are or you aren't. Just as its a theory or its a fact. Thta is al lI am saying.



I think acesover makes some valid points here (I'm trying to be impartial)

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 20:55, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-17 20:46, LobowolfXXX wrote:
...some very basic laws of logic have been suspended. There either is, or isn't, exactly one God.


You are avoiding two questions there:
1) Does formal logic apply to religious issues
2) How could one come to feel certain that there is one or more than one thing which people are calling divine and some are calling God? In this case the allegory of the ants and the foot might serve for dialog.


There is one other issue that everyone seems to be avoiding. That is how many people believe in Christinaty and how many are agnostics or atheists? Don't these numbers count for anything? Or can we definitely say the majority here is wrong? Smile

The minority believes the majority is wrong, hmmm? Have to give this some thought.

I am sue you guys have some sort of answer as to why th majority is wrong. I for one would like to hear it. Wait I take that back I probably don't want to hear it but go ahead anyway. We definitely know the the minority blows their horns louder. Which I am sure you ae going to respond with, In order to be heard. 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
No. I don't believe the Big Bang Theory is a fact. It is a scientific theory that, at present, best explains what we have observed and learned about the nature of the universe.

Yes. "Scientific theory," as noted in the links I provided does NOT mean the same thing as the word "theory" means in ordinary conversation.

Quote:
A theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word "theory." A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena. Scientific theories explain nature by unifying many once-unrelated facts or corroborated hypotheses; they are the strongest and most truthful explanations of how the universe, nature, and life came to be, how they work, what they are made of, and what will become of them. Since humans are living organisms and are part of the universe, science explains all of these things about ourselves.

These scientific theories--such as the theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, evolution, genetics, plate tectonics, and big bang cosmology--are the most reliable, most rigorous, and most comprehensive form of knowledge that humans possess. Thus, it is important for every educated person to understand where scientific knowledge comes from, and how to emulate this method of gaining knowledge. Scientific knowledge comes from the practice of scientific thinking--using the scientific method--and this mode of discovering and validating knowledge can be duplicated and achieved by anyone who practices critical thinking.


http://www.geo.sunysb.edu/esp/files/scientific-method.html

A detailed explanation of the differences between scientific "facts," "hypotheses," and "theories" can be found at the same link. I highly recommend that you read it because it answers every single question you keep asking.

But don't worry! There is nothing there that should shake your faith or contradict it. As I keep telling you, your own Church doesn't dispute the Big Bang theory and, in fact, it was developed initially by a priest.

Good thoughts,

Bob
PS - Must I keep reminding you that I am NOT an atheist? Smile
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5021 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2012-06-17 22:51, kambiz wrote:
Hi landmark,

You are correct in that there "seems" to be mixed messages coming from God throughout history. However, unlike the ants, we are capable, with our intellect and powers of investigation, to discern exactly what the message is from God for His servants.

If you have any questions regarding this, I hope to be able to assit you with it. I, personally, feel comfortable with where I am at with regards to the "perceived" mixed messages from different religious Texts. It appears that you have some questions from your post above Smile

Am I correct?

Kam

"As flies to wanton boys are we to th' gods,
They kill us for their sport."

Lots of ways to tell the story. Lots of ways to fill in the dots. We Flatlanders can't see off the page. Let's just all get along and not worry about that which can't be known.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2012-06-17 23:11, mastermindreader wrote:
No. I don't believe the Big Bang Theory is a fact. It is a scientific theory that, at present, best explains what we have observed and learned about the nature of the universe.

Yes. "Scientific theory," as noted in the links I provided does NOT mean the same thing as the word "theory" means in ordinary conversation.

Quote:
A theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word "theory." A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena. Scientific theories explain nature by unifying many once-unrelated facts or corroborated hypotheses; they are the strongest and most truthful explanations of how the universe, nature, and life came to be, how they work, what they are made of, and what will become of them. Since humans are living organisms and are part of the universe, science explains all of these things about ourselves.

These scientific theories--such as the theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, evolution, genetics, plate tectonics, and big bang cosmology--are the most reliable, most rigorous, and most comprehensive form of knowledge that humans possess. Thus, it is important for every educated person to understand where scientific knowledge comes from, and how to emulate this method of gaining knowledge. Scientific knowledge comes from the practice of scientific thinking--using the scientific method--and this mode of discovering and validating knowledge can be duplicated and achieved by anyone who practices critical thinking.


http://www.geo.sunysb.edu/esp/files/scientific-method.html

A detailed explanation of the differences between scientific "facts," "hypotheses," and "theories" can be found at the same link. I highly recommend that you read it because it answers every single question you keep asking.

But don't worry! There is nothing there that should shake your faith or contradict it. As I keep telling you, your own Church doesn't dispute the Big Bang theory and, in fact, it was developed initially by a priest.

Good thoughts,

Bob
PS - Must I keep reminding you that I am NOT an atheist? Smile



Back on June 15 I posted this:

I have been in agreement with the evolution theory for a long time now. Just to make it short it goes like this. God created whatever and let it evolve by itself. Then when man appeared he gave him an immortal soul. That is my short version. I could go on and on about this.

This also includes the BBT in my thinking. The whatever bit being the BBT.


I know you are not an atheist but rather one who believes in a diety if I am not mistaken
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 23:11, mastermindreader wrote:
No. I don't believe the Big Bang Theory is a fact. It is a scientific theory that, at present, best explains what we have observed and learned about the nature of the universe.

Yes. "Scientific theory," as noted in the links I provided does NOT mean the same thing as the word "theory" means in ordinary conversation.

Quote:
A theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word "theory." A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena. Scientific theories explain nature by unifying many once-unrelated facts or corroborated hypotheses; they are the strongest and most truthful explanations of how the universe, nature, and life came to be, how they work, what they are made of, and what will become of them. Since humans are living organisms and are part of the universe, science explains all of these things about ourselves.

These scientific theories--such as the theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, evolution, genetics, plate tectonics, and big bang cosmology--are the most reliable, most rigorous, and most comprehensive form of knowledge that humans possess. Thus, it is important for every educated person to understand where scientific knowledge comes from, and how to emulate this method of gaining knowledge. Scientific knowledge comes from the practice of scientific thinking--using the scientific method--and this mode of discovering and validating knowledge can be duplicated and achieved by anyone who practices critical thinking.


http://www.geo.sunysb.edu/esp/files/scientific-method.html

A detailed explanation of the differences between scientific "facts," "hypotheses," and "theories" can be found at the same link. I highly recommend that you read it because it answers every single question you keep asking.

But don't worry! There is nothing there that should shake your faith or contradict it. As I keep telling you, your own Church doesn't dispute the Big Bang theory and, in fact, it was developed initially by a priest.

Good thoughts,

Bob
PS - Must I keep reminding you that I am NOT an atheist? Smile


It is an interesting article by an intelligent individual. Having said that in order to have used scientific method and according to him cretive thinking which go hand in hand it seems that one must dismiss religious possibilities (a supreme being). Is not that in of it self prejudice? Where is the unbiased creative thinking? If one is to follow true creative thinking and scientific thinking does one have to forego religious possibilities?
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 23:30, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-17 22:51, kambiz wrote:
Hi landmark,

You are correct in that there "seems" to be mixed messages coming from God throughout history. However, unlike the ants, we are capable, with our intellect and powers of investigation, to discern exactly what the message is from God for His servants.

If you have any questions regarding this, I hope to be able to assit you with it. I, personally, feel comfortable with where I am at with regards to the "perceived" mixed messages from different religious Texts. It appears that you have some questions from your post above Smile

Am I correct?

Kam

"As flies to wanton boys are we to th' gods,
They kill us for their sport."

Lots of ways to tell the story. Lots of ways to fill in the dots. We Flatlanders can't see off the page. Let's just all get along and not worry about that which can't be known.



I agree with you landmark, lots of ways of telling the story. However, don't you think the story, as told by those who back up their words with their deeds, holds more weight than the story as told by Jonny Boy down the road who offers it as just that...a "story"??

What factors command our collective attention as a human race to the words spoken by someone?

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
2181 Posts

Profile of The great Gumbini
Ron at what point then do you believe any history books? To be able to prove something in history happened you would have to be there is what you are saying? I wonder at what point to you believe any account of anything that ever happened that YOU did not see? And at what point do you actually believe an account of history? You have 2 books in front of you. The Bible (written by men inspired by God) and a History book written a couple of hundred years ago talking about a war that is being described to an author. Do you NOT believe either one? Let's say the soldier telling the story is the only living soldier from that war and he wanted to tell his story. Are you saying since you can not "prove" either one we are not to give it too much weight?


Good magic to all,


Eric
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5021 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
I agree with you landmark, lots of ways of telling the story. However, don't you think the story, as told by those who back up their words with their deeds, holds more weight than the story as told by Jonny Boy down the road who offers it as just that...a "story"??

Our deeds have no bearing on whether the story we told is true, which is unknowable. So perhaps it would be better to concentrate on the deeds, and not fight over the story.
kambiz
View Profile
Inner circle
Perth, down by the cool of the pool
1129 Posts

Profile of kambiz
No-ones fighting landmark, and I genuinely value your thoughts.......I really enjoy friendly exploration Smile

I struggle with the idea that anyone who is anyone could have access to the truth about all mysteries in the universe. There are only a handful of individuals in the earths history who have claimed to have access to all knowledge (that we are aware of as of today), and all of the universe's mysteries.....why would you believe anyone who is anyone instead?

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!
R.S.
View Profile
Loyal user
CT one day I'll have
201 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On 2012-06-18 01:27, The great Gumbini wrote:
Ron at what point then do you believe any history books? To be able to prove something in history happened you would have to be there is what you are saying? I wonder at what point to you believe any account of anything that ever happened that YOU did not see? And at what point do you actually believe an account of history? You have 2 books in front of you. The Bible (written by men inspired by God) and a History book written a couple of hundred years ago talking about a war that is being described to an author. Do you NOT believe either one? Let's say the soldier telling the story is the only living soldier from that war and he wanted to tell his story. Are you saying since you can not "prove" either one we are not to give it too much weight?


Good magic to all,


Eric


No, you don't have to "be there", but the claims in said book must be falsifiable. If there was an ancient book by numerous authors that told of Leprechauns and the magical powers of Leprechauns and was held in high regard by the Irish community and some folks even today contend that the book was inerrant, would you automatically believe in Leprechauns? What if there was another ancient book about Garden Fairies which the Scottish held in high regard, which by the way, CONFLICTED with the claims of the book of Leprechauns? How would you go about determining which, if either, book was correct?

Where there are claims, the burden of proof is on the claimant to provide sufficent proof for those claims. In my Leprechaun analogy, I wouldn't expect YOU Gumbini, to disprove the claims of the Irish. And then if you can't do that (disprove the claims) I wouldn't then call for support of Leprechaun claims because YOU failed to disprove them.


Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27136 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
So far, the big bang theory is the best model available.
...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..23~24~25~26~27..35..42..49..56..63..64~65~66 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.33 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