What if God..

[Nestharus]

To poot-
1. Read my definition of proof to get my definition of true. It's in the quote by the PhD ^_-. It doesn't say that something is true. Because it has always happened, it's taken for granted.

2. For quantum stuff, I'll give that one to you. I was told by Mr. PhD that quantum theory was quantum law now and has been for a little bit. He seemed happy to say that, lol.

3. Not talking about submitting these scientific theories to a group am I? The only thing that makes a scientific theory what it is is that it's based on an axiom(s). Now, actually submitting it as such would require what you stated, heh... Also, if it's proven to be true (quote quote quote), then it is a law. I'm not saying you are submitting it or w/e, I'm just stating that follow the most basic of definitions, that is what it becomes.

Now, eventually theoretical concepts in religion might be submitted as scientific theories when and if something happens like I stated above. Even if they aren't submitted and an answer is reached proving them false, they'd still be scientific theories/laws that state that whenever this happens this will not happen.

I'm not talking about globally submitting a new profound scientific theory to the world. I'm just talking about it in the more informal basic sense of the word that describes any given scientific theory. Even if it's not approved of and people do not agree with it and it's only accepted by you, it is still a scientific theory if it's based off of an axiom(s).

This was based off of more research.


By the way, I think we need to stop now because this is really starting to go off topic o-o.

 

[PurplePoot]

To poot-
1. Read my definition of proof to get my definition of true. It's in the quote by the PhD ^_-. It doesn't say that something is true. Because it has always happened, it's taken for granted.

Quotes from PhDs are varied and don't mean that much. Anyhow, there's a difference between observing something as occurring and explaining it. I guess that's another difference to add to the law/theory separation.

3. Not talking about submitting these scientific theories to a group am I? The only thing that makes a scientific theory what it is is that it's based on an axiom(s). Now, actually submitting it as such would require what you stated, heh... Also, if it's proven to be true (quote quote quote), then it is a law. I'm not saying you are submitting it or w/e, I'm just stating that follow the most basic of definitions, that is what it becomes.

Laws and theories are fundamentally different in more than their level of certainty.

 

[Nestharus]

Yea I know about laws being what's occurring and the theory being the explanation... :\.. after all, for laws I simply stated those fun statements.

However, I must bring up an older quote from me:

Now let's look back at our original example. It mentions hell, but it is still a philosophical theory because it has never been observed.

Someone bad dies and they appear in hell

Still a theory

Someone else bad dies and they appear in hell

A bit more plausible now

Bad people continue dying and they always appear in hell

Now it's a law. The law would simply state-
Insert->constant conjunctive statement <-End Insert If you are a bad person you will go to hell.

Now, would my quote be an accurate depiction of the theoretical aspect of a given religion moving from a philosophical theory into a scientific theory or not?


The original argument was that I was stating the affirmative to:
Religions (i'm referring to theoretical portion) are scientific theory (referring to end result).

The argument against was-
You are wrong and you can't use scientific that way.

In that quote I provide an example of what I'm talking about. We've been arguing over the definition of theory, and I think we all know what the definition of law and theory is... but you did semi get me on the difference between a law and theory : ).

However, if you notice, in my law examples, I didn't include the actual theories, and I treated law as sort of a step. That's why I put in the word semi ; ). Also, in my definition, once again, it was like something is true. However, it did not include the actual theory : ), and I think I might have said generalization somewhere, but I'm not sure o-o.

Now, I suppose you could argue that the beginning of the above reformation of a philosophical theory into a scientific theory is missing a hypothesis after the first observance, but eh... if you really want to get technical

philosophical
observance
hypothesis
observance
theory
mass observance
law

:\... all I did was add in hypothesis there, but we all obviously know what we are talking about.

Now let us return to the very first statement. Is my statement, in everyone's opinion, still wrong after all of this?

 

[PurplePoot]

No, because it does not explain the phenomena; it simply notes it. It may make it a law however.

 

[Aschy]

Now, please don't break this apart and say that bad is a matter of perspective.

Dude, lol.

The bad I'm talking about is pretty straight forward. The same bad that when my dog takes something that shes not suppose to have she knows.

 

[Nestharus]

Some more fun quotes from my older post-

Turning it into a scientific theory-
A scientific theory is built from an axiom. As time progresses, more and more will be known about the universe. As a result of this, answers will begin to be given to older theories so that they can be proven to be laws.

Let's say that with a technology, humanity has discovered a hell and has confirmed it to be the hell described by many religions (I am not very religious, I am just using this as an example).

I don't know, from the looks of that, it looks like you would be able to explain it pretty well if you were in that era. So perhaps rather than state the list I said above, it would be more akin to this-
Philosophical Theory
Advancement
Hypothesis
Observation
Theory
Mass Observation
Law


I'm talking about anything with a definite answer eventually having a full explanation and what not... and because the theoretical part of religions have definite answers, they will, from my example above, eventually turn into scientific theories/laws, lol. However, they might become laws before theories, or theories before laws, or w/e. I'm just trying to show an example : ). Don't take the examples so literally because they are, after all, broad and general examples :\.


To aschy:
Ok? that's special : )

 

[PurplePoot]

You don't proceed from a theory to a law. They are fundamentally different things.

 

[Nestharus]

I know that, I just stated that order in that example, and in my little paragraph, the theory might come first and the law later, or the law first and theory later, etc.

In the example above, there was already a hypothesis about something, and after that hypothesis appeared to be correct, it turned into a theory.


But I did already say they could come in any order, but the end result would be the same. In the end, you would have both, and you would have an affirmation to the question presented in the original philosophical theory built off of various ideas : ).

Btw, poot, you are quite formal with your presentations : ). I Remember the last time I had a debate this big on the forums, Ephy was the one there... was frustrating ;p.

 

[teamsabre2]

Oh Lol...

Where did the uncivilized barbaric guys? Never heard of them... And this thread really is pointless... But fun... And mostly annoying...

 

[Hakeem]

Scientific theories are plausible explanations.

False.

A scientific theory just needs to be plausible.

False.

it does not have to be tested in any way and does not have to meet any special requirements to be a scientific theory.

False.

---

The term "Scientific Theory" has many requirements. That is why I brought up conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories have no requirements. Anything can be construed as a conspiracy theory. You cannot make something up some day and that makes a Scientific Theory. You can call it a conspiracy theory, or a theory in general, but it is not a Scientific Theory:

A major concern in construction of scientific theories is the problem of demarcation, i.e., distinguishing those ideas that are properly studied by the sciences and those that are not.

This illustrates the difference between what you call Scientific Theories and what the rest of the world that has learned this term thinks.

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science.

See the bold and red parts in particular.

In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time.

A chief requirement of a Scientific Theory is that it is supported by numerous facts (obtained from experimentation) gathered over time.

How many experiments does it take, exactly?

More.

i used scientific because this has a definite answer -.-.

While there may be a definite answer, any casual theory that tries to explain the truth is not a scientific theory, because it lacks empirical evidence.

over time it will be a scientific theory.

If experiments are conducted that support the theory. If an experiment disproves the theory, then it is a false theory, and as such, will never become a Scientific Theory.

This is because it allows people to view it in whatever time period they want.

If your aim is to make statements that can be read the same in at any time, then do not make any.

this discussion being limited to a certain period of time

--allows people in the future to be able to read our statements with the correct context, so they understand the terms we use, should those terms happen to change at some point in the future. This is why you cannot accurately compensate for time, and must speak in the place where you live: the present.

 

[Elenai]

--allows people in the future to be able to read our statements with the correct context, so they understand the terms we use, should those terms happen to change at some point in the future. This is why you cannot accurately compensate for time, and must speak in the place where you live: the present.

To add to that point: This site, and all the contents thereof will long be forgotten, and destroyed: (Turned into binary dust) before the term for 'scientific theory' is reduced to 'hypothesis', if that should occur at all.

 

[Nestharus]

This debate already ended and the final answers to it were already given ; ). Me and PurplePoot ended it, and he did semi get me on one thing and fully got me on a couple of other things o-o. PurplePoot is ownage at debating ;o.

Ok, back to the original question at hand since I can use the terms I was previously using without any fits from others now ^_-.

Try expanding on the theoretical portions of religion to come up with your own philosophical theories. Do your theories sound more plausible? Do the religious theories sound more plausible?

In the end, over time, any theory with a definite answer is a scientific theory. What do you think your definite answer is? What do you think the probability of it being a true scientific theory is? What might the explanations be? What technology might be required to observe and study your statement?

Now try coming up with your own philosophical theories with your own ideas using logic derived from ideas on how the universe might work. Do these sound more plausible?

Now make a scientific theory based on various properties of the universe. Does this sound more plausible?

I'm trying to make a point ^_-.

Well, this exercise I presented here is a fun exercise and allows a person to come to their own conclusions about what might be going on in the world. This will allow a person to really form their own view point. Also, hopefully, it will turn into a scientific theory (based on some axiom) that is stretched far and wide. It will help people feel more firm in their own beliefs (higher possibility of being true). These exercises will also teach a person more about themselves and how they view the world : ).

Was your final philosophical theory very similar to a religion? Was it a multitude of religious concepts? Was it just totally different?

Was your scientific theory close to any religion? Was it a multitude? Was it totally different?

What are some similarities between your philosophical theory and your scientific theory?

After all of this, we can begin to really answer the question: What if a religion was or was not true? What would this imply? What other things might be true?

Yes, this all winds back to the initial topic, or I wouldn't have brought it up : ).

So what if your own philosophical theory was true or not true? What about your scientific theory?

Oh well, once again, this is just a fun exercise that is similar to the thread's topic : D.

 

[Pyritie]

That website is wrong though -.-, and it's also a .com site, so it's not like it has a 100% chance of being right

.Com used to only be for companies, but it's pretty much being used for all sorts of other sites. Like the hive for example. It's a .com yet it's just a gaming forum.

 

[Nestharus]

And that's why you can't really use it as a source : P.

.edu sites and .gov sites are valid source sites ^_-..

Oh well, back to topic pwz o-o

And in technicality, only .edu sites and .gov sites that have been up for more than 90 days are valid source sites : ).

 

[TheDivineBoss]

I officially rename the title to the ''What if the Government..'' thread.

I'm so proud of you guys*, wrecking up a religion thread and converting it to a lawschool thread.

* I am an athiest for your info.

 

[Nestharus]

Ahem, you mean science thread. The debate had nothing to do with govt or law :\.

But still, I've been trying to bring it back to the original topic o-o

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Okay, on-topic, huh?

God is neither man nor woman. God is a male mollusc. He has been sighted many times in the past, and many humans, believing themselves to be a superior species, and thought of God as a deity in humanoid shape, even after seeing Him. This is demonstrated by the depiction of Hindu deities, such as Vishnu, who are holding multiple arms, a misrepresentation of God's many tentacles, the idea of God being an old man with a bald head and a large beard also stemming from His octopus-like appearance. The many different religions and prophets are a result of one of God's favorite pastimes—trolling. He would perform numerous types of pranks, like talking to delusional people in their dreams, inspiring genocides, and Judaism. His favorite trick was making a devestating natural disaster, and saving one person, so they would think that their life served some kind of purpose. God's love of trolling is only matched by his sexual appetite, as witnessed by the Japanese many years ago. The rest is history.

 

[Ash]

Why is one method of curing a viral cold more reasonable than the other?

I hate the be the spanner in your, so very, well thought out argument, but you can't 'cure' a virus.

 

[tomv8]

god is a pair of sockies

 

[Dynasti]

god is a pair of sockies

Ok, why do you think he is a pair of sockies?

And if you hate God that much then stay out of this thread.

 

[Elenai]

I hate the be the spanner in your, so very, well thought out argument, but you can't 'cure' a virus.

Already knew that: and thus made the point "wait it out, cure the symptoms".

 

[PurplePoot]

But your god doesn't heal you (or other wordings)... I thought that was evident a long time ago.

 

[Elenai]

But your god doesn't heal you (or other wordings)... I thought that was evident a long time ago.

...what?

I think everyone is missing the point so I'm going to back track...

You are a person! You have a cold! You have several people that tell you how to 'get better'...One person says...say..."Eat some soup". You eat some soup, and you feel better. The cold is still there, and it still effects you, the soup didn't 'cure it' but it 'helped'. In the end you had to wait it out, and you got 'anti-bodies' to help you fight it in the future.

The cold is 'human flaws' things that are negative, like misplaced anger, abusiveness, habitual lying, etc.

The soup is religion, something that helps 'purify' your body. "helps" mind you, because religion doesn't 'cure you forever' of your cold. Because we are always sinning, and always flawed. But the soup helps. And the anti-bodies are 'what we learned from our mistakes' so we don't do it again.

In the end, we have to wait the cold out, but the soup helps, that is what the soup is for. Some soups work better than others, blah blah blah, all that stuff.

To note however, and addendum to that metaphor when it concerns Christianity, which is like this:

You have a cold, you got over your cold, but an insurance guy named Jesus made it to where you couldn't be held accountable for that cold, that may have caused you to miss work or something.

 

[Gausslander]

...what?

I think everyone is missing the point so I'm going to back track...

You are a person! You have a cold! You have several people that tell you how to 'get better'...One person says...say..."Eat some soup". You eat some soup, and you feel better. The cold is still there, and it still effects you, the soup didn't 'cure it' but it 'helped'. In the end you had to wait it out, and you got 'anti-bodies' to help you fight it in the future.

The cold is 'human flaws' things that are negative, like misplaced anger, abusiveness, habitual lying, etc.

The soup is religion, something that helps 'purify' your body. "helps" mind you, because religion doesn't 'cure you forever' of your cold. Because we are always sinning, and always flawed. But the soup helps. And the anti-bodies are 'what we learned from our mistakes' so we don't do it again.

In the end, we have to wait the cold out, but the soup helps, that is what the soup is for. Some soups work better than others, blah blah blah, all that stuff.

I'm assuming you're pleading 'insanity' now, because you sound completely brainwashed (seemingly beyond repair), and that pretty much makes your argument unsuitable.

 

[Elenai]

I'm assuming you're pleading 'insanity' now, because you sound completely brainwashed (seemingly beyond repair), and that pretty much makes your argument unsuitable.

Attacking my character instead of the post.

Good job, you are so good at debating. *sarcastic clap*

 

[PurplePoot]

That doesn't support religion in any way, shape, or form. It just says you feel good about it.

 

[Elenai]

The point was to show its purpose.

 

[Luckerguy]

I think God doesn't exist.

Why there is so much War on this World?!
Why there are so many bad people on this World?!
Why Child Porns exist ?!
Why do i ask you such things?!

 

[Elenai]

Why there is so much War on this World?!
Why there are so many bad people on this World?!
Why Child Porns exist ?!
Why do i ask you such things?!

Because God allows free will, and people abuse free will.

If he did not allow free will, then he would be a depravitous tyrant, instead of a benevolent king.

 

[Luckerguy]

But then,

Why God exist??? What does he do???

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Btw, poot, you are quite formal with your presentations : ). I Remember the last time I had a debate this big on the forums, Ephy was the one there... was [HIGHLIGHT]frustrating[/code] ;p.

Stop and think about what you just said. You are one user actively contradicting five users and a dictionary about the definition of a word. And you actively went out of your way to patronize one of the users you were contradicting. You're the one that's frustrated?

God is obviously a woman, because the average man would definitely fill the world with things as creepy as anglerfish.

 

[Pyritie]

<stuff about soup>

You do realise that soup is mostly a placebo more than anything, right? Sure it has nutrients and warmth and stuff, but soup certainly isn't going to beat actual medicine.

 

[Elenai]

You do realise that soup is mostly a placebo more than anything, right? Sure it has nutrients and warmth and stuff, but soup certainly isn't going to beat actual medicine.

It was a loose example...a very very very loose example based on normal practice.

 

[jesus.is.a.lie]

@Elenai. Hopefully you'll be able to read this.

Krishna (Rama, and many others) is actually one of the reincarnations of the hindu god Vishnu.

And yeah I believe that Dionysus is said to have a reincarnation story aswell (crushed by giants as far as I remember).

In any case, they're totally unrelated seeing that Dionysus is the god of wine and ecstasy, whereas Krishna/Vishnu is the protector god.

 

[Gausslander]

Attacking my character instead of the post.

Good job, you are so good at debating. *sarcastic clap*

You got me there. Here, let me try:

Pasta Soup. Do you know what's in Pasta Soup? Spaghetti. Do you know what the FSM is made out of? That's right, Spaghetti. Eating Pasta Soup makes you feel good, it's the fact that there's Spaghetti in it that does it.

Accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster into your life, and it'll be like having a magical invisible being secretly watching and hearing everything you do and say, while omnisciently supplying you with the feeling you've eaten Pasta Soup.

 

[Elenai]

Looks like someone completely missed the whole point of the metaphor, again.

 

[Gausslander]

That wasn't about the meaning of the metaphor, it was about the idiocy of your metaphor. Why don't you just state your points blankly in a way that doesn't make you seem like you're trying to captivate me into buying your book?

 

[Hakeem]

That doesn't support religion in any way, shape, or form. It just says you feel good about it.

Soup helps your mind in a cold, religion helps your mind in a life.

Your mind controls your body, so helping your mind helps you more than anything. Haven't you supported the idea of philosophy being mandatory?

You do realise that soup is mostly a placebo more than anything, right? Sure it has nutrients and warmth and stuff, but soup certainly isn't going to beat actual medicine.

You've got medicine to cure life? Hot damn, you're gonna be rich.

Above point as well; placebos are probably the most powerful force in your body. The soup could easily be more powerful than the medicine.

Why don't you just state your points blankly

"Religion helps."

Satisfied?

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

So, since either way the cold is going to go away anyways, religion's purpose is just to enjoy life a little more?

 

[Elenai]

So, since either way the cold is going to go away anyways, religion's purpose is just to enjoy life a little more?

I'd say you would enjoy it alot more. Since the cold keeps coming back, and if you don't eat the soup, or take medicine, or ect (in regards to the metaphor) you will not get better quite as quickly.

But in essense, religion in general is indeed to enjoy/cope with/have a more pure/healthy existence. IE: enjoy it a little more.

On a personal addendum/note however: Christianity in my opinion takes it a little further. Offering assurance that you won't lose a paycheck/something bad/etc, for having that cold in the first place, along with the 'feel good feeling' of a nice bowl of delicious cleansing soup.

Of course, just because religion makes your life a little more bearable, doesn't mean it isn't important There is more that it has done/does that is great.

 

[Deitri]

"G"od doesn't exist.
Sargeras is the real god.

 

[leet.firefox]

"G"od doesn't exist.
Sargeras is the real god.

Could you be any more ignorant? This does absolutely nothing but lower whatever respect anyone has for you. And don't be a smartass and post some more random ridiculous sentences.

Why you feel the need to muck up conversations with pointless dribble is beyond me.

If you find something that you truly need to say about this then state your opinion and explain why you have that view. Otherwise go back to throwing stones at a wall.

 

[Deitri]

Could you be any more ignorant? This does absolutely nothing but lower whatever respect anyone has for you. And don't be a smartass and post some more random ridiculous sentences.

Why you feel the need to muck up conversations with pointless dribble is beyond me.

If you find something that you truly need to say about this then state your opinion and explain why you have that view. Otherwise go back to throwing stones at a wall.

Am I really reading this?

 

[leet.firefox]

Yes, how does "Sargeras is the real god", a fictional character in a video game, provide a valid statement?

Tell me how you came to that conclusion.

 

[Elenai]

Ok, that's enough. Back on topic.

 

[Joe-black-5]

Deitri do you think you are funny? if you have something useful say it and support your point of view with facts and proof else keep up out of these kind of treads.

 

[Deitri]

Yes, how does "Sargeras is the real god", a fictional character in a video game, provide a valid statement?

I was being COMPLETLY ironic, an 7 years old kid could understand it was a ironic "statement", and I hope you know what does that word means.
Our conversation ends here.

 

[leet.firefox]

That's the point. It is not wanted here.

What if God was a male, what would he look like?

Who is to say god is male or female. Is that not what we came up with it. Gender based on body parts. God is beyond that, beyond our understanding.

What if God didn't(did) exist, what would happen?

We would all die, turn into dust, and float away through the cosmos.

 

[Gausslander]

I'd say you would enjoy it alot more. Since the cold keeps coming back, and if you don't eat the soup, or take medicine, or ect (in regards to the metaphor) you will not get better quite as quickly.

But in essense, religion in general is indeed to enjoy/cope with/have a more pure/healthy existence. IE: enjoy it a little more.

On a personal addendum/note however: Christianity in my opinion takes it a little further. Offering assurance that you won't lose a paycheck/something bad/etc, for having that cold in the first place, along with the 'feel good feeling' of a nice bowl of delicious cleansing soup.

Of course, just because religion makes your life a little more bearable, doesn't mean it isn't important There is more that it has done/does that is great.

Christianity doesn't do that, the "said" paradise of doing good in the name of god does that.
One of the reasons I'm not religious is that people say "When I die, I'm going to be with god!" Which is, basically, the same as any other backwards religion.
What you people don't understand is that whilst trying to say that religion is important, you're forgetting that all any of your religious texts do is to persuade you to be a better person.
If you feel it makes you happier to constrict conversation, not swear and be sweet and 'faithful', then by all means do so. But I do so without being addicted to god, I do so with no faith, I do so for people; not something that I have never seen, heard from, or been helped by in anyway. Why not spend as much time serving others as you do in church? Why not take the money that your church has gotten from you, and instead invest it in people?

 

[Elenai]

Christianity doesn't do that, the "said" paradise of doing good in the name of god does that.

Salvation is through grace alone, the grace of which is the gift of God, our sins bought with the blood of Christ who died upon the cross and was resurrected to give us the assurance that all who would accept the pardon of Christ, accept the son of God as the one who bought their iniquities, and removed them should never see the gates of Hell, having chosen God above themselves, and seeking ever to be with God in a pure existence, with the benefits of serving their fellow man in humility, and dignity, meek and pure, and without the constraints of sinful desires to pervert the deed while their life remains still here upon the earth until God should call them to Heaven to rest from their labours until the time should come that mankind and his world be remade as the inheritance of those who became as children to God:

The seed belief of Christianity, and the summary of its creed and meaning.

One of the reasons I'm not religious is that people say "When I die, I'm going to be with god!" Which is, basically, the same as any other backwards religion.

And?

What you people don't understand is that whilst trying to say that religion is important, you're forgetting that all any of your religious texts do is to persuade you to be a better person.

And?

If you feel it makes you happier to constrict conversation, not swear and be sweet and 'faithful', then by all means do so. But I do so without being addicted to god, I do so with no faith, I do so for people; not something that I have never seen, heard from, or been helped by in anyway.

Being addicted to God is like being addicted to volunteering at nursing homes. As for never seen, heard, been helped in anyway. I don't know about you...But I've certainly been helped by God.

And besides...Doing good deeds is only half the equation of being a good person. You must be pure also, and purity comes from God alone.

Why not spend as much time serving others as you do in church? Why not take the money that your church has gotten from you, and instead invest it in people?

What? We can't give God a few hours of a single day a week (sometimes two)?

As for yourself perhaps you should leave the HIVE and devote your life to helping others. Take the vow of poverty, and chastity, and do as the monks of old. Help the world, serve none of the self. Sell everything thou hath in thine possession, follow me! And thou shalt help thy fellow man with meek and unstained hands. Give all you have to the poor, and let nothing stand between you and helping others. And don't worry...everyone will forget your name when you die, and there is no eternity with which you can enjoy seeing what you accomplished in your good deeds. It isn't like there is any want to see what you've done grow and blossom with time...No one wants to see their good deeds 'passed forward', and no one ever wants to know how far their little bit of charity went in changing the life of a person. Afterall...it isn't like there is a place called Heaven where you can watch the ripples of your untainted deeds as they change so many things for the good...Who wants to go to Heaven and watch with God as their accomplishments echo throughout history? Certainly not any normal person...that would be completely selfish, and utterly depravitious... >.>

As for Churches and money: Churches have bills to pay too. Churches that provide a service to Christians, being a place to gather and listen, and pray, and be Christians without the jeering eyes of people such as yourself.

Churches do invest in people. Have you not heard of missionaries that go to places and build homes, and help the sick in 3rd world countries? Where does the funding come from? Churches of course, churches that are funded by the congregation, for serving a purpose to give Christians a place to be who they are, Christians.