Is there a god?

[Mach]

I
I accept your concession.

Mach: You say you read it. OK, that's sufficient for you? Great, case closed.

Apparently it's not a concession.

What it is Jerry, is your argument reduced to "Because Jerry said so".
Which is a lost argument. So, no, you forfeit if that's your position. Since you're agreeing with me, apparently it is your position. Care to save your argument?

You lost me here, what in the world are you saying?

Jerry, your reasoning in the prior post was:

1. Because Jerry read it, it is true and sufficient reason.
2. Mach wrote for Jerry to read "no gods exist".
3. Jerry read statement #2.
Therefore, Jerry agrees by Jerry's reasoning in #1, that no gods exist.

You apparently didn't understand that implications of your own logic, but I have demonstrated for you just the same.

That and the studies I have provided thus far, and more I haven't given here, yes

You have not yet addresed how science can be used on prayers.
I have already posted reasons why it's not possible, you have ignored them. Once again:

1. You cannot have a control since you cannot know if someone else is praying for the control or test subjects. This means it's not possible, and you have not been able to (and cannot) get around this.
2. The object of prayer, the concept of a "divine entity", is supernatural, i.e. outside of nature, and science (again) cannot be used to discuss it.
3. The concept of supernatural in general, existing, is a contradiction.
4. The concept of the common definition of the Christian god is contradictory.
5. What mechanism is offered as to why the universe in every case continues to follow what we observe as physics (science), but you offer a new mechanism (the answering of prayers), that would override the operation of the universe in a measureable way. No one has measured such anomolies, ever (because they do not exist).

How do you get from all of that, that it's somehow OK to claim prayer to gods get answered? (you cannot, and have not).

The guards, the cement wall and the razor wire.

I break in. Are you really not able to understand the difference? I think you do.

I don't claim to be able to examine the Nephilim, just examine records of them.

Ah, so I CAN see the person in solitary. What a concession on your part.

Now, you appeal back to your "record". How did a record of a Nephilim get made, if not by examiniation? If not by examiniation, how do they/you know it's a Nephilim? (you don't, and cannot). Let's chase your argument to it's unreasonable root. I'll go as far back as you like.

Well, I don't know, I've been doing a lot of foot work today for school, my rental agreement, etc., and the only thing I had to provide to anyone demonstrating, *proving*, that my children exist, were accepted records. Not once was I asked or required to physically produce any child.

No one questions whether or not it's possible that children exist, because we have evidence that children can and do exist.
It's strawman Jerry, no one is debating whether or not humans exist.

We have no evidence of the concept of deity.
I am asking you for physical evidence of the deity, and you cannot provide it.

Please provide a link to this record so that it may be examined by competent, credible, credentialed scholars in related fields for authenticity.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057503058-post146.html

I think you're being silly on purpose now.

If I demonstrate the logical conclusion of your argument, and you then call it "silly", do you understand that you're referring to your own argument? Not that I disgree!

-Mach

 

[Mach]

I quoted, with links, in the post you are responding to
Well, you are certanly entitled to your opinion.

This?
Using Jesus as an example, "a house divided against itself can not stand", so we therefore know that a given deity who apparently cares about getting anything accomplished does nothing contrary to their nature and purpose.

So, how can <anyone> verify this objectively?

-Mach

 

[Mach]

...and, the theory of gravity was written by human hands, as was the myan calendar, so don't be so distrusting of human hands.

Why would we base beliefs soley on trust, and not reason? Trust in this usage is synonymous with faith.

We do not trust the written word as true. We can all demonstrate gravity. Pick something up Jerry, drop it. You tested it. Also, all of science correlates with the theory of gravity. Yet no science correlates with your concepts of deities and prayers. See that? All of science, vs zero science. Again, science vs. not science. See the trend? It's no accident.

Let's test your theory about prayers and deities like we tested gravity. Oh wait, we cannot.

Are you sure you still don't see the difference between beleifs based on faith (your beliefs about deities and such), and those based on reason (science in this case)?

-Mach

 

[Mach]

Mach begins to bleed on the brick wall his head is impacting continuously.

I believe others helped me understand the world around me, and to them I am thankful, both people still alive, and historically. Jerry deserves his own introduction to reason and how it relates to reality, everyone does

-Mach

 

[Jerry]

Re: There is a big difference!

Trust science, thats what gave us the theory of gravitation. Not everything that comes from human hands are held to the same strict rigors of science and logic.

Science is a methid of behavior humans can choose to act out. Science is not it's oun being.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

And?

Science is a methid of behavior humans can choose to act out.

I agree, it is the method of knowing our cosmos, and for all we know, we're the only sentient beings capable of doing it. We are a way for the universe to know itself, and science is the process.

Its the best way of determining what is true about the universe.

Science is not it's oun being.

Whats your point?

 

[Jerry]

Wow Mack, I'm not sure where I lost you, but I didn't pen any of the evidence I first reviewed before making my own personal conclusion, so I'm at a complete loss as to how you could think that my position is one of 'because-I-say-so'.

Prayer and forgiveness: Can psychology help? | Spiritual Life | Find Articles at BNET.com

Psychology and Forgiveness

In recent years, American psychology has taken a welcome turn away from its long preoccupation with the causes and treatment of mental and emotional disorders. It is now paying closer attention to understanding and promoting the inherently healthy human traits that enhance the quality of life for both individuals and society. In his 1998 address to the American Psychological Association (APA), the association's president, Martin Seligman, challenged his colleagues to reorient their discipline toward a "new science and profession of positive psychology," which he maintained can become the "Manhattan Project" of the social sciences. Encouraged by Seligman's vision, many psychologists today are studying such qualities as moral responsibility, altruism, humility, courage, gratitude, and creativity. In the past, these attributes were often interpreted as unconscious adjustments to hidden, deep-seated emotional conflicts that were rooted in early life. Now these qualities are more likely to be regarded as independent dimensions of a healthy personality, with their own dynamics and laws of development that make for a fuller, richer life. Among these more positive human characteristics that contemporary psychology is exploring is forgiveness.

~snip~

Does God Answer Prayer? Researcher Says 'Yes'

The answer, according to a new Arizona State University study published in the March journal Research on Social Work Practice, is "yes." David R. Hodge, an assistant professor of social work in the College of Human Services at Arizona State University, conducted a comprehensive analysis of 17 major studies on the effects of intercessory prayer -- or prayer that is offered for the benefit of another person -- among people with psychological or medical problems. He found a positive effect.

"There have been a number of studies on intercessory prayer, or prayer offered for the benefit of another person," said Hodge, a leading expert on spirituality and religion. "Some have found positive results for prayer. Others have found no effect. Conducting a meta-analysis takes into account the entire body of empirical research on intercessory prayer. Using this procedure, we find that prayer offered on behalf of another yields positive results."

Hodge's work is featured in the March, 2007, issue of Research on Social Work Practice, a disciplinary journal devoted to the publication of empirical research on practice outcomes.

~snip~

Psychology Today: Prayer: Heavenly Helpers

It may have sounded like a doubtful approach to treating depression. But in his book Prayer Is Good Medicine: How to Reap the Healing Benefits of Prayer (HarperCollins, 1997), physician and researcher Larry Dossey, M.D., maintains that praying for oneself or others can make a scientifically measurable difference in recovery from illness or trauma. Furthermore, I respected Eddy highly, and was so beaten down by my mental condition that I agreed to the meeting.

When I arrived, I described the history of my illness and my feelings of despair. Then, the 12-person group shifted the focus away from my symptoms and asked me to imagine what wellness would look like for me. Although I could not remember a time when I was not anxious or depressed, I described in as much detail as I could the thoughts, feelings and behaviors I might experience if I were healed of my affliction. The group then affirmed that my desire was already a reality and agreed to hold in their consciousness my vision of wellness over the next 30 days, until we met again (a total of six monthly support meetings were held). Seventy-two hours after this prayer support began, the black cloud of depression began to lift. Within 90 days, I was completely free of my symptoms.

If there is a moral to this story, it is that no matter how sophisticated brain science and technology become, there is no substitute for human love and caring. Scientific studies (such as David Siegel, Ph.D.'s work with breast cancer survivors at Stanford University) repeatedly reveal that strong social bonds strengthen the immune system and ward off the harmful effects of stress on the cardiovascular system

~snip~

As to the records of all the verious gods, well, I didn't pen them either, so it couldn't be 'because-I-say-so'.

 

[Jerry]

Re: And?

I agree, it is the method of knowing our cosmos, and for all we know, we're the only sentient beings capable of doing it. We are a way for the universe to know itself, and science is the process.

Its the best way of determining what is true about the universe.



Whats your point?

The point that I had made was not to be so distrusting of anything the human had creates, be it the penning of scripture or the creation of the scientific method.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

There is a reason why science can be trusted, IT WORKS

The point that I had made was not to be so distrusting of anything the human had creates, be it the penning of scripture or the creation of the scientific method.

But there are reasons to grant credence to the findings of science, there is the peer review process where anyone can see the evidence, and reproduce the same outcomes to arrive at the same conclusion.

There is no such means of verifying mystical claims. They don't even survive the strict rigors of logic, let alone provide no evidence or testable claims.

There are reasons to distrust mysticism, psuedoscience, and superstitions. There is no reason to distrust the scientific method.

 

[Jerry]

Re: There is a reason why science can be trusted, IT WORKS

But there are reasons to grant credence to the findings of science, there is the peer review process where anyone can see the evidence, and reproduce the same outcomes to arrive at the same conclusion.

There is no such means of verifying mystical claims. They don't even survive the strict rigors of logic, let alone provide no evidence or testable claims.

There are reasons to distrust mysticism, psuedoscience, and superstitions. There is no reason to distrust the scientific method.

I noticed that you left out scripture. Good thing too: Intelligent Design: Essays and Source Material

You see, on top of practical aplication in my own life, I have credible evidence, which makes my faith "reasonable"...which must scare the hell out of the typical atheist.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

What?

I noticed that you left out scripture.

Left it out of what? How is this a reply to my post?

Good thing too: Intelligent Design: Essays and Source Material

Intelligent design is not science, now please respond to the arguments in my post properly.

 

[Jerry]

Re: What?

Left it out of what? How is this a reply to my post?

Intelligent design is not science, now please respond to the arguments in my post properly.

My source argues against ID, try checking the source before lecturing me on how to debate please.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

It was an irrelevant source

My source argues against ID, try checking the source before lecturing me on how to debate please.

Didn't need to, it was titled intelligent design. If it was for ID then its nonsense, if it was against ID then its preaching to the choir and I don't need it.

It was an irrelevant source that you didn't even explain what argument you were supporting by sourcing it, so I had no reason to check it. Again I ask you, please properly reply to my arguments in post #162

 

[Jerry]

Re: It was an irrelevant source

Didn't need to, it was titled intelligent design. If it was for ID then its nonsense, if it was against ID then its preaching to the choir and I don't need it.

It was an irrelevant source that you didn't even explain what argument you were supporting by sourcing it, so I had no reason to check it. Again I ask you, please properly reply to my arguments in post #162

I gave a link to my proper reply, but you chose to judge it by it's cover, not it's content.

It was so titled as a reference for a round-table debate on ID, which, again, my source argued against.

It would be as though you were going to participate in a True Debate titled by Vague "Intelligent Design", and made yourself a reference page titled after the thread itself, not your actual position on ID.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I'm NOT being dismissive Jerry

I gave a link to my proper reply, but you chose to judge it by it's cover, not it's content.

It was so titled as a reference for a round-table debate on ID, which, again, my source argued against.

It would be as though you were going to participate in a True Debate titled by Vague "Intelligent Design", and made yourself a reference page titled after the thread itself, not your actual position on ID.

Jerry, how would a round-table debate have any relevance to our previous discussion (distrust of human creations, why science is more credible than superstition?) I disregarded your source because you gave me no reason to look at it.

How hard is it to say "here is my argument, this source supports this argument with this snippet (in quotes), here is a link to the whole thing"?

Explain to me why I should look at it, and then I will. All you're doing is giving me a reading list rather than explaining your position, or citing a relevant quote from that source.

 

[Jerry]

Re: I'm NOT being dismissive Jerry

Jerry, how would a round-table debate have any relevance to our previous discussion (distrust of human creations, why science is more credible than superstition?) I disregarded your source because you gave me no reason to look at it.

How hard is it to say "here is my argument, this source supports this argument with this snippet (in quotes), here is a link to the whole thing"?

Explain to me why I should look at it, and then I will. All you're doing is giving me a reading list rather than explaining your position, or citing a relevant quote from that source.

About half way down you will find -gasp- SCIENCE!! which ends up supporting the validity of scripture.

This, in turn, serves to refute your claim:

There are reasons to distrust mysticism, psuedoscience, and superstitions. There is no reason to distrust the scientific method.

...because I know full well that you were lumping all religious beliefs in with "mysticism, pseudoscience, and superstitions", as you always do.

My point is that yes, there is credible, verifiable, repeatable *reason* to trust in scripture, which reflects and reinforces what I had previously said about not being so quick to distrust what is made by the hands of man.

All of this, in toto, serves to directly refute the claim:

These Humans must be taken at their word, as far as the prophetic status during said scribe work.

No, they need not be “taken at their word”. The scriptures they penned are scientifically falsifiable.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

So you say...

About half way down you will find -gasp- SCIENCE!! which ends up supporting the validity of scripture.

No, halfway down I find this:

This, in turn, serves to refute your claim:

What is "this" exactly? Don't just tell me "the evidence that refutes your claim is in there, about half-way down. Thats just lazy Jerry.

...because I know full well that you were lumping all religious beliefs in with "mysticism, pseudoscience, and superstitions", as you always do.

My point is that yes, there is credible, verifiable, repeatable *reason* to trust in scripture, which reflects and reinforces what I had previously said about not being so quick to distrust what is made by the hands of man.

I fail to find anything in here which could constitute scientific evidence that supported the validity of any scripture. Can you please CITE IT FROM YOUR SOURCE, AND QUOTE IT?!? Or perhaps paraphrase in a logical manner what the evidence is that supports your scripture?

If there is in fact that kind of scientific evidence, I am ALL EARS and will immediately convert to the religion of said scripture, for when the world knows of this said religion will be known as a science, and could be verified anywhere all over the world as easily as the chemical properties of table salt.

 

[Jerry]

Re: So you say...

No, halfway down I find this:

What is "this" exactly? Don't just tell me "the evidence that refutes your claim is in there, about half-way down. Thats just lazy Jerry.

I fail to find anything in here which could constitute scientific evidence that supported the validity of any scripture. Can you please CITE IT FROM YOUR SOURCE, AND QUOTE IT?!? Or perhaps paraphrase in a logical manner what the evidence is that supports your scripture?

If there is in fact that kind of scientific evidence, I am ALL EARS and will immediately convert to the religion of said scripture, for when the world knows of this said religion will be known as a science, and could be verified anywhere all over the world as easily as the chemical properties of table salt.

I'll not hear nor read accusations of laziness from someone who had to be TOLD to check a source.

Let me understand your request; you want me to explain what an autocorrelation is, or do you know what an autocorrelation is and you now want me to tell you how it is evident in scripture?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

If you don't like being called lazy, then show some effort

I'll not hear nor read accusations of laziness from someone who had to be TOLD to check a source.

You just don't get it do you? I didn't need to be told to check the source, I checked it when you posted it. I needed to be told WHY to check the source. You're awful at answering why questions. Here is what happened:

• You told me to check a source that was full of all kinds of things, and did not explain its relevance to our discussion.
• And then you identify it as an indictment of Intelligent Design, so again I ask the relevance to our discussion.
• So then you suggest that included in said source, in the middle, is "scientific evidence" that supports your scripture.
• I looked at the source again for a THIRD TIME and nothing stood out as scientific evidence for scripture.

You don't just give someone a source, with no explanation at all, and expect them to do your work for you. You make an argument, and if ASKED for a source for your claims, if your source is lengthy or contains various materials you quote the relevant passage that validates your claim, and provide the link in case one wishes to look into the validity of the source, or read the passage in its context.

Let me understand your request; you want me to explain what an autocorrelation is, or do you know what an autocorrelation is and you now want me to tell you how it is evident in scripture?

If an "autocorrelation" is what you're suggesting is scientific evidence that validates your scripture, please explain what it is, and its relevance to the scripture. Or at least identify where in that source the word "autocorrelation" is even mentioned. There is no scientific evidence there, just two images:

What are those supposed to mean? You give me a link, with those as my target and I'm supposed to just accept that it refutes my claim that "There are reasons to distrust mysticism, psuedoscience, and superstitions. There is no reason to distrust the scientific method."

Thats not how a debate works Jerry. Please, enlighten me about autocorrelations, while I browse the scientific literature @ Cornell for any mention of it in relations to scriptures.

Edit: Nope, nothing so far in regards to scriptures, however does it have anything to do with the statistical analysis, or signal processing? So far this is what I've gotten from a quick Wiki search:

 

[Bodi]

Is there a God?

That depends on what a person defines God as...

As one Supreme Being that created everything in Existence? Heck no! :lol:
That is understood as being fairly naive in this modern world...

Science has uncovered many secrets about the "gods" of the past...
It will do the same with the "One God"

 

[Mach]

Wow Mack, I'm not sure where I lost you, but I didn't pen any of the evidence I first reviewed before making my own personal conclusion, so I'm at a complete loss as to how you could think that my position is one of 'because-I-say-so'.

It's because you offer no reasons. That is, the reason you give is because you believe it.

Prayer and forgiveness: Can psychology help? | Spiritual Life | Find Articles at BNET.com
Does God Answer Prayer? Researcher Says 'Yes'
Psychology Today: Prayer: Heavenly Helpers

I read them Jer. What do they have to do with the debate at hand?
These are all appeals to authority. You need to read them and respond to the questions you are faced with. If you cannot, you lose the reasoned argument (you cannot.)

1. #1/#3 - not about the existence of divinity.
2. #2. the author laughably claims that because his meta-analysis of OTHER studies (of which some are questionable at best), demonstrates prayer works, it's worth of further study. (It's not worthy of further study, he's a hack and is apparently ignorant).

The paper doesn't have anything to do with verifying the existince of deities.

So, are you done appealing to other written things for you reasoning and are prepared to refer to your own reasons here on this forum?

As to the records of all the verious gods, well, I didn't pen them either, so it couldn't be 'because-I-say-so'.

What reasons do you give that these penned papers represent reality?
(none, because, there are no good reasons.) It's not an accident you won't answer it directly. You may appeal to another document, but we'll ask why you believe THAT document. You may appeal to another person, we'll ask why you believe THAT person. So far, you have just stated it as truth (because you say so). So, that's why people should believe in gods and godesses, zeus and thor and loki and vishnu and Santa Claus, "because Jerry said so"? Of course not.

Now, can you answer without referring to a paper that also doesn't answer anything? You shouldn't, by the way, because the reasoned answer is that it's all imaginary. Just leave it at that and have "faith" that it's real, if you choose.

-Mach

 

[partier9]

I wish Bacchus was real, he'd be the best god ever.

 

[Mach]

I wish Bacchus was real, he'd be the best god ever.

Well, based on that I believe this needs further investigation. My records lead me to beleive Bacchus may make a yearly appearance at Mardi Gras, so I suggest we camp out there each year to see if he shows. It's also widely known that you have to consume lots of food and drink to see him, oh well, the things we do in the name of science.

-Mach

 

[partier9]

Well, based on that I believe this needs further investigation. My records lead me to beleive Bacchus may make a yearly appearance at Mardi Gras, so I suggest we camp out there each year to see if he shows. It's also widely known that you have to consume lots of food and drink to see him, oh well, the things we do in the name of science.

-Mach

Well science is worth it, and he probably does show up. Though he probably enchanted all the beads in Mardi Gras, thats why everyone goes so crazy

 

[partier9]

I hear he lives in Las Vegas.