Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 05 2009 at 11:47
Epignosis wrote:
You sure do like making generalizations. Your using "religion" as a catch-all term reveals that you are trying to capture water with a net.
I think the Bible involves ancient people trying to describe phenomenon they observed with their limited words and phrases. The biblical writings aren't the only ancient texts that do this. The Bible isn't a textbook that's purpose is giving us scientific detail on how the natural world works. You seem to keep insisting that it does, and therefore is wrong.
Religions based on the bible do that, and therefore they're wrong. You may see it differently, but then you're not a religious person (from the perspective of Christian religions).
Epignosis wrote:
It's like getting bent out of shape over a toaster manual not giving you complete information on the inner workings of the toaster, in what order it was manufactured, or where the materials came from, etc.
Please tell any clergyman that you're a Christian but you also think that the Bible is little more than a toaster manual, and then ask him what he thinks about you.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 05 2009 at 11:48
jampa17 wrote:
^ Yeah... I like that explanation... I don't remember where I put a post in which I explain That I saw someone moving objects with his mind and doing a lot of crazy things... what I suggest is that there's people who understand that other level of reality (in your words, other dimmensions) and could manipulate some "natural rules" which is an empty definition as we are discovering more and more "rules" that change our earlier believings... so, you called superior dimensions to what I called that other side of things that we're not have prooved yet, but that doesn't mean that it do not exists...
it's a logical explanation... science has no explained everything yet...
I've seen them too, and they're called "magicians". Which is a euphemism for "illusionists". I enjoy watching those performances, too ... but I also know that they're not real.
Briefly, a three dimensional character would be invisible to a two dimensional character, yet could still come close and be perceived as being near. (place your hand a cm from your flat monitor...you are not touching it, but presumably a flat 2D creature could feel your presence (i.e., warmth, etc).
You could even touch the screen, and the flat creature would perceive a small part of you, but not all of you (compare this to Moses seeing only God's backside).
However, you as the 3D creature could perceive the 2D world all at once, including what is inside the flat person's house, and even all of the flat person's inner workings, all at the same time.
So if God exists in a higher spacial dimension, He could still be physical, and interact with His creation without being seen, speak and be heard but not seen, only show part of himself, observe all of our internal organs at the same time as our external bodies, transport people and things from one place to another as if by magic (but not magic- you see, he would merely have to lift the 3D person or object into a higher dimension and place that person or object elsewhere in the 3D world), etc.
To a 2D creature, a 3D creature would have all manner of abilities and powers. I might even be considered a god to the 2D creature.
Yet I have never "violated" physics (or at least what could be theoretically true of dimensional planes).
I hope this makes sense.
I think that you have a somewhat naive way of making an analogy here, at least from the perspective of a physicist. Still, even if it was true that somehow God was just a 4th dimensional creature (or nth dimensional - there are more than 4) who created our world as a 3 dimensional variation of Origami ... even in that case you would have to explain to me how that could in any way be consistent with Christian belief, or with evolution by natural selection. The former sees God as a transcendental entity totally outside or beyond the physical world, the latter explains the formation of life as a process driven almost totally by chance (at least when seen as a whole - the individual steps along the way follow simple rules of cause and effect).
Where does the Bible say this Mike?
This does not state that God could not have set it all into motion. For that matter, do you believe matter has always existed (from eternity past)?
You sure do like making generalizations. Your using "religion" as a catch-all term reveals that you are trying to capture water with a net.
I think the Bible involves ancient people trying to describe phenomenon they observed with their limited words and phrases. The biblical writings aren't the only ancient texts that do this. The Bible isn't a textbook that's purpose is giving us scientific detail on how the natural world works. You seem to keep insisting that it does, and therefore is wrong.
Religions based on the bible do that, and therefore they're wrong. You may see it differently, but then you're not a religious person (from the perspective of Christian religions).
Epignosis wrote:
It's like getting bent out of shape over a toaster manual not giving you complete information on the inner workings of the toaster, in what order it was manufactured, or where the materials came from, etc.
Please tell any clergyman that you're a Christian but you also think that the Bible is little more than a toaster manual, and then ask him what he thinks about you.
Shuffle the labels around however you like, none of this is detrimental to my belief system.
And I clearly wasn't calling the Bible "little more than a toaster manual."
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
Posted: December 05 2009 at 11:53
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
^ Yeah... I like that explanation... I don't remember where I put a post in which I explain That I saw someone moving objects with his mind and doing a lot of crazy things... what I suggest is that there's people who understand that other level of reality (in your words, other dimmensions) and could manipulate some "natural rules" which is an empty definition as we are discovering more and more "rules" that change our earlier believings... so, you called superior dimensions to what I called that other side of things that we're not have prooved yet, but that doesn't mean that it do not exists...
it's a logical explanation... science has no explained everything yet...
I've seen them too, and they're called "magicians". Which is a euphemism for "illusionists". I enjoy watching those performances, too ... but I also know that they're not real.
He wasn't moving playing cards or cutting people in cauphins... no... he wasn't an illusionist... He wasn't Chris Angel... but hell... you should do some research about them... many religions, or cultural tradiotions if you like have methods to do that kind of things... that take me back to said that there exists people who can walk on water or fly... but, I'm sure I didn't convince you right...???
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
Posted: December 05 2009 at 11:55
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
You sure do like making generalizations. Your using "religion" as a catch-all term reveals that you are trying to capture water with a net.
I think the Bible involves ancient people trying to describe phenomenon they observed with their limited words and phrases. The biblical writings aren't the only ancient texts that do this. The Bible isn't a textbook that's purpose is giving us scientific detail on how the natural world works. You seem to keep insisting that it does, and therefore is wrong.
Religions based on the bible do that, and therefore they're wrong. You may see it differently, but then you're not a religious person (from the perspective of Christian religions).
Epignosis wrote:
It's like getting bent out of shape over a toaster manual not giving you complete information on the inner workings of the toaster, in what order it was manufactured, or where the materials came from, etc.
Please tell any clergyman that you're a Christian but you also think that the Bible is little more than a toaster manual, and then ask him what he thinks about you.
Shuffle the labels around however you like, none of this is detrimental to my belief system.
And I clearly wasn't calling the Bible "little more than a toaster manual."
He is always twisting what believers are saying... I'm a Catholic and understand very well Rob... maybe that "very" is too much, but I feel your system has a lot of sense... even if you don't believe on the methods of church...
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 05 2009 at 11:56
jampa17 wrote:
He wasn't moving playing cards or cutting people in cauphins... no... he wasn't an illusionist... He wasn't Chris Angel... but hell... you should do some research about them... many religions, or cultural tradiotions if you like have methods to do that kind of things... that take me back to said that there exists people who can walk on water or fly... but, I'm sure I didn't convince you right...???
You can always convince me ... but only by presenting solid evidence. You haven't even explained in detail what that person did, you only listed some things he didn't do.
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
Posted: December 05 2009 at 12:04
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
He wasn't moving playing cards or cutting people in cauphins... no... he wasn't an illusionist... He wasn't Chris Angel... but hell... you should do some research about them... many religions, or cultural tradiotions if you like have methods to do that kind of things... that take me back to said that there exists people who can walk on water or fly... but, I'm sure I didn't convince you right...???
You can always convince me ... but only by presenting solid evidence. You haven't even explained in detail what that person did, you only listed some things he didn't do.
yeah... I put a post but I think it was on the Creationist vs Evolunist poll... well.. he can touch people at distance... he can put to persons at a distance form ten feet and make them close their eyes, then he touch the person on the right in the back... and then the person on the left said that someone has touch his back... he do that with several persons -he touch them in different parts-, most of my friends... then he move cell phones from side to side... and he could also make some things to float -all of them have a light weight- but he wasn't and actor or a magician... he did all that before a concert... he was a guitar player and he had suppose to play with my band... and before we went to the stage, he start doing that things while we were hanging out... so...
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 05 2009 at 12:43
^ this one's quite fun to watch though ... and it even features Led Zeppelin.
His points are quite obvious though ... astrology, faith healers, miracles, UFOs ... it's all just "bunk". Or, to be precise, most of it has proved to be nonsense. Rational people should draw the conclusion that all is, beyond a reasonable doubt (since it all follows the same pattern).
^ this one's quite fun to watch though ... and it even features Led Zeppelin.
His points are quite obvious though ... astrology, faith healers, miracles, UFOs ... it's all just "bunk". Or, to be precise, most of it has proved to be nonsense. Rational people should draw the conclusion that all is, beyond a reasonable doubt (since it all follows the same pattern).
And that's fine...because I think astrology, faith healers, "miracles" (as magic tricks, not miracles as Humphreys describes them), and UFOs are bunk too. None of this has anything to do with biblical Christianity.
Well, UFOs are real, since there are "unidentified flying objects" from time to time.
This is a little idea I thought up...it will probably be ripped to shred but so be it.
Imagine that most people had very poor ability to perceive color. Some were born with better ability, some almost none (color-blind) but most could be taught to improve their abilities (much as a good ear in music is). Suppose that some families were more inclined to perceive red, and therefore saw a red-tinged world, and taught their children who became more adept as seeing red than other colors. (Everyone sees black and white just fine). Other families blue, purple, cyan, etc.
Now there were times when people from different families would meet up and talking about how they saw the world. Sometimes fights would break out, because what was most vivid and important in one's person's vision was either absent or barely perceptible in another's.
As people became more and more numerous, eventually one family would win the fight, and teach subsequent generations their color. At first lots of conflict would ensure, but eventually most would at least be able to perceive the culturally dominant color. Now, always there would be some who could perceive other colors as well. And because the world itself was actually multiple colored, these people would seem to understand things no one else could. Again lots of unrest.
Sometimes large cultures of one color would come up against a culture of another. Sometimes they would simply co-exist, but inevitable sometimes fights would break out and occasionally full war.
Eventually as the world co-mingled more and more, it became clear that there were two solutions, everyone had to at least accept the existence or validity of all the colors, or all had to agree to simply live in a black and white world.
Since the second option was more straightforward, and actually allowed people to work on common perception, great strides were made. Many decided to forgo worrying about color at all. Many generations went by where many children were never taught to sharpen their ability to perceive color.
Eventually, some people in the new society decided "I'm not sure there is color at all." and further "Anytime color enters into the picture, people start fighting." And then decided to try and put and end to this color business.
The black and white world is a functional one.
But the world of color is much richer, and whether you perceive it or not, it's there.
I do admire the ingenuity of the analogy and would congratulate you on that certainly. Let's continue with the positives shall we ? With regards the inevitability of the conflicts and antagonism that arise from competing perceived orthodoxies/ignorance, you have nailed that sucker. (and also summarised very neatly the wearyingly predictable outcome of all these religious/non-religious threads on PA) I also agree there has to be more than just a pragmatic conclusion to everything - after all, life wouldn't be worth living without those critters that stubbornly refuse to be verifiable e.g. beauty, love, wonder, art, imagination, horror etc
However, the one fly in this anointment is that the visible spectrum alas, is a measurable and quantifiable scientific phenomena that can (as far as I know, I ain't no student of science) be proven to exist by boring ol' facts.
That aside, it's flawless but I hope you have not played unwittingly into the hands of your opponents here ?
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
Posted: December 05 2009 at 13:08
I picked it for a reason - color is a perceptual phenomenon. You can quantify it with wavelength, but what color actually is is completely subjective. There is no way to know if you and I perceive red in the same way.
In scientific terms, color is an artificial demarcation of a continuous set of wavelength. Without a perceiver, color doesn't even exist.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: December 05 2009 at 13:28
Negoba wrote:
I picked it for a reason - color is a perceptual phenomenon. You can quantify it with wavelength, but what color actually is is completely subjective. There is no way to know if you and I perceive red in the same way.
In scientific terms, color is an artificial demarcation of a continuous set of wavelength. Without a perceiver, color doesn't even exist.
I picked it for a reason - color is a perceptual phenomenon. You can quantify it with wavelength, but what color actually is is completely subjective. There is no way to know if you and I perceive red in the same way.
In scientific terms, color is an artificial demarcation of a continuous set of wavelength. Without a perceiver, color doesn't even exist.
In that case I'll be a purpleist.
Or a Deep Purpleist . OK, point taken so if colour is subjective (because of the individual limitations of the human eye blah etc) then it is not a property of the entity in question ? So it doesn't exist. (But light clearly does and can be verified by proof ?) Mmmm... way over my furry head.....BTW I am just joshing with the following, so no 666 point size indignant gothic bold typeface responses please) - I thought our respective abilities to perceive colour was dictated by (gulp) evolution i.e. our remote vertebrate ancestors possessed 4 independent vision channels (the lucky tetrachromatic pups) but around the time of the (gulp) dinosaurs we lost 2 of these (in an ancient forum debate presumably) and are left with a stingy 2 channels ?.
Getting back to your story (which I liked) there is of course practically no limit to what can be perceived but not proven, and this must boil down to plain vanilla faith. No atheist that I know has any beef with the latter. It's only when folks start to claim they have an enhanced perception that makes such insights available to them that our heckles start to rise. I don't mean to disrespect your beliefs for a second, but such an exalted cognition is implied in your story IMO.
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
Posted: December 05 2009 at 15:49
Color is subjective because we are perceiving a quantitative difference (frequency) as a qualitative perceptual difference. That conversion factor is an artifact of this human mechanism, and its sense organs.
The frequency of light is an objective reality, a property of the object. Color is a propert of the subject (observer).
Hence my harping on the differnces between objective and subjective reality.
And I won't get upset when we're just talking about the effectiveness of a particular story for describing the Universe, when we both agree that's what we're doing.
I happen to believe that the theory that is called "Evolution" is the best such story currently out there to describe that process in the objective world. It has surplanted some religious stories on its particular realm of thought, but does not preclude the existence of Divinity in general.
Edited by Negoba - December 05 2009 at 15:53
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Joined: June 18 2008
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Points: 512
Posted: December 05 2009 at 16:01
I think it would be reasonable to say that we essentially see colors the same way due to evolution and common descent. We essentially have the same receptors.
I can see a problem arising in this idea due to how the brain works. I don't know if there's any way to detect if people see colors differently using some kind of brain scan.
But due to evolution and common descent, I think it's safe to say we see colors similarly until shown otherwise.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.254 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Theist - Agnostic - Atheist Poll
Topic Options
Epignosis wrote:
Please tell any clergyman that you're a Christian but you also think that the Bible is little more than a toaster manual, and then ask him what he thinks about you.
