I am done with Wrong Planet!! !

Post Reply New Topic

How many bullets?

I agree that it isn't possible to prove everything, but there are a lot of things it is possible to prove. When someone makes a claim that goes against facts we take as proven, then their claim is likely to be theoretically provable, and they should prove it if they want to be taken seriously by others.

I was using God as an example.

In the Abrahamic religions, God is generally held to exist outside of space and time, and to be immaterial. Increasingly, there is a tendency by theologians to say He doesn't even act in this universe, He just created it and then stepped back. Science is only capable of dealing with things that exist in space and time and are material.

Of course, some people maintain God does act in the world, which would put Him back in the remit of science, but in 6000 years his actions have so far proven to not be reproducible, which is a bit of an issue.

(With all due respect, your talk of "human energy" doesn't really make any sense to me)

That's because you are thinking inside the box.

Energy isn't material as such in the fullest sense of the word, any more than gravity is. They might be material in a sense, because we can measure the effects of them, but they are invisible.

Human energy:http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-01/harvesting-energy-humans

Come on - didn't you see The Matrix?!

Hate to break it to you, but............. it's not real.

funny:-) but basically all conversations on any set topic tends to deflect unless someone is hell-bent to keep it on track...

back to the ranch...it is obvious that individual subjective contextual experience cannot be proved to someone else....unless kind of by contact high (or low) from being on the same tape....basically in terms of religion, the proof is in the pudding, and pudding in this case being metaphorical, people will have different definitions of what is pudding....anyway, there are logical arguments for disproving the existence of an external deity who is a primal cause of everything, but generally speaking there is no point in giving them except in very specific contexts as the people in this kind of religion are having a wide range of experience of which the idea of a primal cause is just one facet. If you try to take that away, the framework of their mental functioning will bring it back into place or they will crash into nihilism, as the whole system is giving them something that they emotionally need....

key point---any kind of mental framework is always subjective, but actions can intentionally coincide, and operations can be based on verifiable laws of the physical world...this is one reason why true religion is grounded in ethics, but also it is obvious that a person does not have to believe in much of anything to behave humanely. Some so called scientific-minded people see that those who believe in this or that religion are in many ways not behaving humanely, so the solution they see is to take away the religion, which makes no sense, plus they think they can actually do it, and that is ridiculous. A good example is what they tried to do in China, taking away religion from the people, which is tragic, and this kind of naive mass movement of Falon Gong sprang up to replace other very sophisticated religions such as Buddhism and Taoism which had organically evolved over many centuries.

I realize that you have to do your job of reciting the WP corporate catechism, but lets get real. That rule is irrelevent to this discussion.


We all know that the tactic of WP bullies is to pretend to be only "attacking the idea" but to do so in such a meanspirited way that its obviously really "an attack on the person". Bullies rarely have the honesty to do thier personal attacks by openly "attacking the person". In fact they hide behind that very rule to launch their attacks.

Not that you, nor anyone, can do much about it. There are always those who exploit the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law.

walrus, you're missing some things. Some facts that are proven can have multiple interpretations to them.

For Christians, God is self-evident. If it is their axiom and some of them have had experiences that in their mind confirms the axiom how is it possible for them to prove this? I believe even James Randi shies away from proving God.

You're forgetting a person's subjective experience.

Sorry I thought this thread had lost its way a long, long time ago.

I think we can write off RedHogRider ... the first post in this thread is his most recent post to date.

Well at least he left a debate on the way out. You bunch o' bullies.

Gravity is thought to be carried by force-carrying particles called gravitons. Energy is a property of matter. In any case, both count as "material" because, as you say, we can measure their effects.

That "human energy" is not a special type of energy. The heat energy in human bodies disperses after death in the same way energy from any other substance does.

I loved the matrix. The machines plugged into the human's nervous system I believe.

The "debate" is now about Troll Science and "The Matrix".

If it's about the matrix there is no debate because clearly I AM THE ONE. Anyway, I'm through with this debate, off to take the narc test on that other thread.

The_Walrus wrote:



It is no more arrogant then telling people they will be eternally damned if they do not accept someone's belief system---in fact the latter is much more arrogant...moreover, though I am a big fan of religion including Christianity which is one of my favorites (and have a shelf of just Christian books going almost up to the ceiling including the OT in Hebrew and the NT in Greek, plus various concordances and Bible dictionaries, it makes no sense to expect any smart person to accept that something immaterial caused something material. That is illogical and probably not even what most (educated) Christians think.



Actually in the sense of Christianity "space and time" would refer to human thought time in the specific framework of not realizing interdependence, but it is easy to see that a literal thinker might not grasp the nuance of this, which is why that religion may not be so well designed, though personally I still love it..



Then the whole idea of God would be of no functional value, so there would be no logical point for any theologian who has read the Bible to take this stance. The entire writing in both OT and NT is against that position, so I am thinking you are just kind of winging it (meaning blithely making this up) when you say this..



This is all anybody is capable of doing--dealing with things that exist in space and time, meaning functioning in conjunction with this position, no matter how 'esoteric' their understanding, but in order for the world to be affected and so (put in Christian terminology) for a sinner to be saved, there has to be a connection between these two position of the mundane world (wrong thinking) and redemption from it.... Again, the concept of "material" is being misunderstand. There are different gradations of materiality so "immaterial" actually means a finer materiality. This is pretty easy to discern from a reading of the NT.

Well I hope you find a nice place