Well not exactly, we were both really trying to imply that the spaghetti sh.t could be replaced with your God.

The point is, if you read my damn post lol, is that superstition and probability has everything to do with what you said.

It really is all that likely that - that thing could happen. Literally.

Probability can explain that scenario, simply put.

Later today then, or maybe tonight.

Lol, you went right back to your flawed logic, I can't believe it lol.

Don't call anyone close-minded, you can't even say something like that.

Ugh, you just don't get it.

__________________

Why does it have to be a god?

That's being intellectually lazy.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, let me better reiterate:

I don't believe it was what you thought it was.

I don't deny it f..king happened, although again - for gold to change, seriously, some impairment.

__________________

__________________

It changed to gold coloring by the way, not the element lol.

And on your point maybe it wasn't god, but then what else could it be?

__________________

Okay, since we're settled down.

That last sentence of yours, that's called Pascal's Wager if you're familiar with it, and it's a flawed and refuted argument many times over.

You simply get intellectually lazy and are amazed by the event at hand, in which you exclaim,"well this couldn't possibly have happened, it must be.....[insert whatever here]!!!"

Suposing that because something is hard to understand or is complex, that one should just then assume it's something to fill in the lack of knowing is a weak argument.

"Since God can not be both proven/disproven, I choose to believe in God".

That's the same thing.

How logic works (beats dead horse ) is that when there is a positive claim about something, not backed by evidence, and is either subjectively experienced or simply stated (applys to you), you must either present evidence that justifies your claim, or revert back into the negative claim until unpresidented evidence is given to accept a positive.

You can't prove a negative outside of arithmitic, math for example.

Since one cannot prove a negative, that does not ever mean you resort to accepting a positive just because there is a lack of conversation to be had.

Lastly, the color change completely wrecks your argument btw, simply put.

I had ample reason to say I was right, when I said I didn't believe you that it changed to gold.

It's also your fault for complaining, as you didn't specify, you simply said "it turned gold." Hence, why you "loled"; missed that little part huh?

The composition of a material changing is far different from a sense-orientented experience of something changing, such as seeing it turn gold.

Have you never heard the color argument? That's just one of many examples.

And from this, I can deduce that your lack of debate ethic, knowledge, and etiquette gives you no right to complain in here, at all.

I mean seriously; you haven't gotten any clue of the historical presidence for debate and it's trials; you don't know how to formulate logic - only flawed logic; you commit to dozens of fallacies, and you are subject to common sense-oriented traps.

My point being: this all matters because you're in a debate section, where one uses logic to debate - this is how you live your life outside of religion, believe it or not, otherwise you would go on believing anything anyone said without any evidence of so.

Do you know how crazy and anarchaic our world would be, had we taken in your procedure of logic?

I think one can only imagine.

Few examples:

1) Desire to work would be null, some people would, most wouldn't.
2) By anarchaic, I mean't lack of order, but in all reality, there would be anarchy - absense of government.
3) Moral code and ethical justice would go overlooked, there would be mass killings, evil deeds, prostitution, and so on far more than good things coming out of it.
4) Reward would dissapear, there would be no gauge of things anymore.
5) There would be no assembled language, arithmitic, education and so on. Everyone would do their own thing.
6) Everyone would exclaim special powers and/or traits, as well as exclaim phenomenal and supernatural happenings going on all the time.

I think you see the point. Why does religion get to be excluded? We apply none of this thinking outside of religion and we are far better off (amazing how bad things are now even so) than we could ever possibly be had we adopted the sort of thinking religion implys.

There is no on/off switch on how to think. There are situational exceptions where one must alter their type of thinking, but nothing like the abandonment of such.

You do exactly this when you truly believe in what a religious indoctrination gives you.

__________________

I don't think you appreciate the issue of finding out what created us when we have impaired human perception to begin with. Stop thinking you're high and mighty with your "I HAVE THE ANSWER!!!" and realize that life is nowhere near as simple as you want it to be.

There are theorys, people are working on it.

Remember how people thought the earth was round? How we should burn women for being witches? How we should kill thousands of people and more because God said he wants his land back?

Looking back on history totally doesn't make religion look like a horrible and idiotic thing used only to control the masses and give lesser people hope.

Yeah, i'm a liar. I'm not done with this thread :P

Joshua, I have a few things to say on the topic of miracles and the superstitious.

I understand that personal experiences can be powerful, eye-opening, and wonderful (in this case). But alas, to try and PROVE a miracle is almost futile. You see, in the world we live in today, people demand evidence... concrete evidence. This age is the age of science and if it cannot be proven in a lab, they will readily admit that it isn't necessarily true. But science goes through a lot before they declare something a fact or even plausible. Miracles fall short of science often enough, i've learned. With miracles you have the finished product, second hand accounts, and nothing in between. For anyone relying solely on logic, science, reason, or any combination of these (and more along those lines) that omit religion or theology... you must provide concreteness. There is no formula, no mathematical equation for miracles. Thus it is nearly impossible to try and convince anyone but yourself and the subject that they happened.

I too have seen a number of miracles and i believe in them. Yet I accept that some people just will not be moved by what I THINK is obviously supernatural. But again, because it doesn't carry numbers, equations, or solid evidence it is extremely difficult to "prove" your side to anyone that is not sensitive to the supernatural (eg. a lot of people).

__________________

"We laugh at honor and are shocked when we find knives in our backs, we follow those who cheat and steal. Look in my eyes, you won't find your way back. Our only compass smashed under our own heels, under our iron will. The abolition of man is within the reach of science. But are we so far gone that we'll try it?" - Dustin Kensrue

You have a complete misunderstanding then.

I don't understand the constant input of "science" which what we demand.

It's really rational thinking and logical evidence/discourse that will aid in believing something, you know, common sense.

For you to say you know things were miracles and you know they were supernatural, obviously, is arrogance and ignorance.

I mean if you want me to be frank, we can never know truth, you can never really know anything, but that is besides the point.

How can you ever say something is supernatural?

What about people throughout history who have claimed to of seen ghosts when all it was was super condensed energy balls floating around?

What about the people that believed in witchcraft, and even further back, sorcery?

I mean I could go on forever, what's to say your events are any more vivid or valid than others?

That's complete arrogance on your part to proclaim, as a subjective body, that you can know such a thing as what is supernatural, what a tall order.

Have you not considered the possibility that it's something we cannot naturally explain, or that your perception of what was is not actually is?

When one experiences and seeks investigation in life, you must always be humble and display humility during your trials.

You act as though this is an "age" of something, like pursuit of solid verifiable evidence is some sort of "movement" or stage in our progression as a whole. Like it's some bad thing, or seperate entity.

I mean seriously, that's just utter immaturity.

You're so ignorant as to abandon what you use for everything else in your life on 1 thing, and then have the audacity to be at distress or confusion as to why someone can't take you seriously.

There is no such thing as miracles, you know why? Why my subjective body can utter that statement?

Because evidence hasn't proven otherwise, and since I'd like to think of myself as a logical and rational person, I would resort to common sense procedure; and this is seriously the f..king 50th time I've said this:

If a positive claim is asserted, one must need verifiable, testable evidence (like everything else we observe and trust in our world) otherwise one must revert back into the original negative claim until there is reason to supose anything otherwise.

I mean seriously, have you not read my 6 short reasons of why your logic which you use for religion would never work if applied in normal everyday life?

You subconsciously use what I just said every moment of your life; you're literally working to change that when you act on religion. It's not natural to think the way religion implies you to.

__________________

I'm a bit confused. Didn't i just say that evidence and proof is needed for anything to be "scientifically accepted", which from my understanding is what the general consensus cares about? All i hear about nowadays is that if science can't prove it, it's not "true". I use the word "true" there very lightly and only to make a point. Perhaps my understanding is misguided, as you said... i would much appreciate an enlightenment as to my understanding of how our world accepts what is "real".



"For you to say you know things were miracles and you know they were supernatural, obviously, is arrogance and ignorance."

I never said i know that miracles exist, I simply believe they do. Belief in something is subjective, is it not? I never said i know for a fact it was the supernatural, nor did i say I know it's obviously true that miracles exist. I simply stated, QUOTE "I too have seen a number of miracles and i believe in them. Yet I accept that some people just will not be moved by what I THINK is obviously supernatural." I do not see the arrogance in that.



"That's complete arrogance on your part to proclaim, as a subjective body, that you can know such a thing as what is supernatural, what a tall order.
Have you not considered the possibility that it's something we cannot naturally explain, or that your perception of what was is not actually is?"

Isn't that the epitome of "supernatural"? That which we cannot explain naturally? I'm not getting the point.



"You act as though this is an "age" of something, like pursuit of solid verifiable evidence is some sort of "movement" or stage in our progression as a whole. Like it's some bad thing, or seperate entity."

Nah, i never said that. Perhaps "age" was the wrong word to use. But again with the first point i made in this post, does not the general consensus only care what science has to say about it? I mean, people are more apt to believe something proven in a lab than a theory (for the most part)... or am i mistaken? No it's not a bad "movement", and I was not implying that. I've just always understood our society and the world we live in as constantly advancing in a scientific sense, not theological or supernatural.

__________________

"We laugh at honor and are shocked when we find knives in our backs, we follow those who cheat and steal. Look in my eyes, you won't find your way back. Our only compass smashed under our own heels, under our iron will. The abolition of man is within the reach of science. But are we so far gone that we'll try it?" - Dustin Kensrue

*ahem*

Jim sure dropped the ball on that one. I hope Joel enjoys being full mod and RVideo enjoys being sectional mod with ban privileges.


F.ck you, Jim.

__________________