A question about Dungy

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    damn you 347 lol i have not even responded to your last post and you have already given me something else to respond to lol
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Taz a lot of your points are what they are, you either believe or don't, but it's not fair to criticize the Bible for not talking about the sins of the church committed after the Bible was written (although it contains many prophecies of ongoing sin in the church until Jesus returns).  The Bible discuss in detail the contemporaneous sins of the church, prophecies that the church will continue to sin, but in the end God will come to set things right. 

    And I think you must be in denial if you say you have no doubt whatsoever that maybe, just maybe the Bible is true after all.  Come on, you know it. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

     

    There are ways to prove the existence of God with logic.  i would recommend to everyone a google search on "The uncaused cause".  it's very interesting and follows logic principles.  this is just one of the arguments for His existence. 

    Do you really consider that logic? That basically, everything that happened before this point in time can be traced back to a single point that has no causal precedent and that since there is no causal precedent to that event, the creator if the argument decided to call that “God”. 

    Honestly, do you actually think this logically proves god’s existence? There is no proof in the theory – only declaration. First of all, there is no proof that everything can be and must be traced back to a first event. Just because the author says there must be, does not mean that is so. It is a false conclusion. Second, because he concludes it is so, he decides to call it “god”. That is like me proving Fermat’s Equation using faulty reasoning and deciding to call it “Eric”. Again, not proof, just declarative statements meant to mimic logic. It is Sophistry. 

    All people are not God's children.  Politicians (especially Senator Kerry during his failed (thank you God) bid to become President) love to say we're all God's children.  This is unsupported Biblically.  Jesus told the Pharisees "You are of your father, the devil".  Even Churches get this wrong.  It's a nice pie in the sky type of thought, but a complete lie from the devil.  If he can get us all to think that we're God's children, then he can dupe us into believing our behavior means nothing because we're all going to heaven.  truth is, (according to the Bible) that God is God to everyone but Father only to those who are born again.  I know that will ruffle some feathers, but that's what the Bible says.  When your parents called you in for supper when you were a kid, did all the other kids in the neighborhood come with you and sit down at the table?  No.  You and your siblings showed up.  Same thing with God.  When He blows the trumpet, only His children will be allowed to the table.  Not because of anything righteous they have done, but rather what He has done for them.  Now, like human parents, God and the devil have some good kids and bad kids.  i know some children of the devil that I love to hang out with.  I also know some children of God I can't stand.  Doesn't matter though.  heaven is the ultimate "it's who you know" place.  Doesn't matter how screwed up your life was, if your God's child, you get in.  If not, bring your asbestos underwear. 

    So, you are a predeterminist. If what you say is true, then your behavior does mean nothing. According to you, the reservation list has been written and it isn’t mutable so if OJ is on the list, he is ordering the steak and if Mother Theresa isn't on the list, well, I am sure she likes her Kung Pao spicy. Seems like a rather silly way to live. BTW, when did God get a trumpet? I thought that was Gabriel.

     

    The agenda of the Church, as Jesus laid it out, is to get as many peopl into heaven as possible. 

    I don’t think you get it. That entirely contradicts your “who you know” statement of predeterminism above. If God has already made the list, why is it the church's agenda to convert people? No wonder you bought into the Uncaused Cause fallacy. 

    I never doubt God but I often doubt myself, human nature and all.... 

    Tennyson wrote, “There is more faith in honest doubt than in half the creeds.” Blind faith only gets one so far. Examination of one’s beliefs creates a more solid foundation. Perhaps this is why your arguments tend to vary wildly. Without examination, your beliefs seem to lack logic, coherence and conviction.

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    "And I think you must be in denial if you say you have no doubt whatsoever that maybe, just maybe the Bible is true after all.  Come on, you know it." - mighty

    What the hell Mighty? You asked me and I gave you an answer just because you dont like the answer doe snot mean you can answer it for me. I am not in denial what so ever about the bible, you might think it is teh true word of god but i dont and i do not doubt that what so ever. I think you have a right to your beleafs and you should give me that same respect. i am not sh*ting on the bible i am being as respectful as i cal be in this conversation so please try and afford me that same respect. I am set in my beleafs just as you are set in yours and i have not once said it was wrong for you to leave what you beleave. You asked me and I answered you, i have no doubts about the bible what so ever, from where i sit it is a work of fiction.  

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    We might want to bear in mind that even if you view the bible as a historical record, much of that would be primarily an oral history.

    Ever play that game "Telephone" ?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    [QUOTE]We might want to bear in mind that even if you view the bible as a historical record, much of that would be primarily an oral history. Ever play that game "Telephone" ?
    Posted by prairiemike[/QUOTE]

    Not to mention the vested interest the church had in collecting the records and having them amount to something. I have no doubt that some of it was basically fudged on purpose.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from 347pg. Show 347pg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Do you really consider that logic? That basically, everything that happened before this point in time can be traced back to a single point that has no causal precedent and that since there is no causal precedent to that event, the creator if the argument decided to call that “God”.  Honestly, do you actually think this logically proves god’s existence? There is no proof in the theory – only declaration. First of all, there is no proof that everything can be and must be traced back to a first event. Just because the author says there must be, does not mean that is so. It is a false conclusion.

    What???  All our science is predicated on observation.  Everything we observe has a cause.  Newton's first LAW of motion says an object at rest (all matter before the big bang let's say) will stay at rest until acted on by an unbalanced force.  Science, accepts this as a law.  Are you saying you know of instances where Newton's first law of motion doesn't apply?  There's a Nobel Prize waiting for you if so.  If you don't want to call it God, I'll go with Eric (my college roommate's name and he was a smart guy).  No faulty reasoning here unless you want ot go up against science as well as God.

    So, you are a predeterminist. If what you say is true, then your behavior does mean nothing. According to you, the reservation list has been written and it isn’t mutable so if OJ is on the list, he is ordering the steak and if Mother Theresa isn't on the list, well, I am sure she likes her Kung Pao spicy. Seems like a rather silly way to live.

    Not a predeterminist in the sense you are thinking.  I berlieve God knows everything there is to know, without effort.  He has already seen the future (else He is not God) and has seen whether or not I make it. So in that sense it is predetermined.  However, he did not make my choice for me.  That is why we don't know the future.  He's not going to let us come and say to Him "well you already predetermined I was going to hell so I didn't bother trying".

    BTW, when did God get a trumpet? I thought that was Gabriel. 

    You're right, the Archangel blows the trumpet at God's direction

    The agenda of the Church, as Jesus laid it out, is to get as many peopl into heaven as possible.   I don’t think you get it. That entirely contradicts your “who you know” statement of predeterminism above. If God has already made the list, why is it the church's agenda to convert people?

    God made the list based on His foreknowledge of what the Church would do in evangelizing. See above.

    No wonder you bought into the Uncaused Cause fallacy. 

    The fallacy is not understanding the logic.  If there is no intelligent design, there can not be a 2nd law of thermodynamics after the big bang. 

    I never doubt God but I often doubt myself, human nature and all....   Tennyson wrote, “There is more faith in honest doubt than in half the creeds.” Blind faith only gets one so far. Examination of one’s beliefs creates a more solid foundation. Perhaps this is why your arguments tend to vary wildly. Without examination, your beliefs seem to lack logic, coherence and conviction.    Posted by EnochRoot

    Hmmmm.  My point was that I doubt that I'm always doing everything correctly, whereas, I have no doubt that God is doing everything correctly.  Sorry for the ambiguity.  I regularly examine my beliefs to try and make them line up with the Bible more closely.  If they seem incoherent, it's because it will take a lot more than posting here to explain them and how they weave together.  This is not a perfect forum for this type of debate, however, it is very civil and does force you to read and try to understand what the other person is saying without being talked over.  I appreciate the debate.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    What???  All our science is predicated on observation.  Everything we observe has a cause.  Newton's first LAW of motion says an object at rest (all matter before the big bang let's say) will stay at rest until acted on by an unbalanced force.  Science, accepts this as a law.  Are you saying you know of instances where Newton's first law of motion doesn't apply?  There's a Nobel Prize waiting for you if so.  If you don't want to call it God, I'll go with Eric (my college roommate's name and he was a smart guy).  No faulty reasoning here unless you want ot go up against science as well as God.

    Uhh, really. I am completely flabbergasted at your attempted rebuttal. 

    1. All of our science is not based on observation. Much is based on theoretical proof which is later proven. 
    2. While everything we observe might have cause, it doesn't mean that everything has a cause. That is an assumption. 

    3. When did I say Newton's Law was wrong? Since you did bring it up though, Newton's Laws apply to macroscopic objects under everyday conditions. They do not apply under several well known circumstances such as extremely small scales, extremely high speeds and extremely strong gravitational fields.  

    No need to take on science. You just need a fact adjustment.

    I am not sure I should continue because you are making it far too easy.

    Not a predeterminist in the sense you are thinking.  I berlieve God knows everything there is to know, without effort.  He has already seen the future (else He is not God) and has seen whether or not I make it. So in that sense it is predetermined.  However, he did not make my choice for me.  That is why we don't know the future.  He's not going to let us come and say to Him "well you already predetermined I was going to hell so I didn't bother trying".

    It isn't the sense that I was thinking. It was the sense you were stating - that God already has a guest list of people who will achieve salvation and you are either on that list or you aren't. That is what you wrote. Now you seem to be contradicting that. Please maintain some type of conviction and consistency. It helps when debating points.

    God made the list based on His foreknowledge of what the Church would do in evangelizing. See above.

    With apologies, but now that is just kooky talk. You are now trying to rationalize two entirely disparate concepts and, frankly, it isn't working. 

    The fallacy is not understanding the logic.  If there is no intelligent design, there can not be a 2nd law of thermodynamics after the big bang.  

    <Scooby Doo response - arrhhh???> It really looks tome at this point that you are just regurgitating catchphrases of the creationists without a real grasp as to what they might mean or how to apply them in debate. You remind me of the woman who told Bertrand Russell that astronomy was poppycock and that the Earth was flat and carried through the universe on the back of a turtle. When he asked what the turtle was standing, she told him, "You are very clever, but everyone knows it is turtles all the way down."

    Hmmmm.  My point was that I doubt that I'm always doing everything correctly, whereas, I have no doubt that God is doing everything correctly.  Sorry for the ambiguity.  I regularly examine my beliefs to try and make them line up with the Bible more closely.  If they seem incoherent, it's because it will take a lot more than posting here to explain them and how they weave together.  This is not a perfect forum for this type of debate, however, it is very civil and does force you to read and try to understand what the other person is saying without being talked over.  I appreciate the debate.

    I know what you were saying and I have to say, based on your response, you are doing it exactly backward as examination intends. You are trying to make a straight line (your beliefs) from a potentially crooked ruler (the Bible). The point is not to make your beliefs line up to the purported standard. The point of doubt is to challenge the standard. If the standard is correct, it will hold up under any challenge and will therefore be that much stronger.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Enoch,

    I think we were all having a civil discussion but in your last post you crossed the line with personal attacks.  There is no need to ridicule the other person.  Just explain why you think they are wrong.

    Taz - I'm sorry, I guess I doubt so much, I believe everyone does.  But I hoped that surely after all this discussion, we would create a little doubt in you.  Darn. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    I wasn't comparing the worth of the Bible to these other book.  In fact, to me there is no comparison.  I was just saying the Bible is worthwhile even though it is old.  Wisdom doesn't get outdated.

     ( I agree wisdom is never outdated so if that is what you meant then ok that is a valid point)


    Mighty had an excellent point in that the Bible doesn't hide it's dirty laundry.  It has to air it out to prove that redemption is possible (even Vick).
      
    (Once again in my opinion if you think the church aired out all of its dirty laundry in the bible you are naive to think so. They might acknowledge that they are not perfect and that they will sin but that does not mean they openly talk about ALL of their sins. For example when was the last time you went to church and they openly bashed their own church? When was the last time you saw a preacher bad mouth the very church he belongs to for all of the sins I mentioned before that came after the bible was written? Have you ever once seen a preacher stop in the middle of a Sunday morning sermon and say something bad about how all those priests touched little boys? I find it hard to believe that they openly talk about their own modern day sins in church on Sundays. If anything they try to move past them and sweep them under the rug. )


    Many people (not just Church going people) hate gays.  To say it is only the Church is a misnomer (not saying that you said that though).  I've been, continue to be, and will forever be lumped with people I don't want to.  I'm sure you have too.  If people are so shallow that they cannot see that there are differences of opinion in the Church, then that is their problem.  I can only try to influence one person at a time.  I do believe people look at all the bad things in the Church as an excuse to not have to attend.  It's inconvenient.  Now if it were held at Gillette stadium.....
     (I never said just church people hate gays what I said was you have to acknowledge that even if you personally hate gays that many with in your church do in fact hate gays. I realize that there are just as many if not more people outside the church that hate for the sake of hating but you can not deny that many with in your church hate gays. I get what you are saying, it s ucks that you get lumped in with those people but they hate in the name of god and that will always make you and other look bad. If you don’t like it then those people should be weeded out and excommunicated. I do not think hate is a word in god’s vocabulary and I don’t think he would support anyone who hates in his name. I don’t stare away from the church because of all the bad things, or because its inconvenient I don’t go to church because as you have seen in my posts through out I do not believe in organized religion. I do not go church because I choose not to it has nothing to do with inconvenience. I know what you mean though, other people that are not me use inconvenience as a reason for skipping out. But I don’t skip church I do not attend all together. I am getting married in October and when me and my future wife talk about this kind of thing she says how she thinks it would be fun to bring our kids to church on holidays and such and I always tell her if she wants to do that then she can do it but that I will not attend with her. And I will not teach my kids to go to church or any of it. If they grow up and choose to become church going people then I am 100% with them making that choice once they have all the information to make a educated choice but I will not force religion on them the way so many other people do. )

    Sexuality is a choice.  Different things (both good and bad) in youth affect our choices.  Like I said, I know there is debate on this point, but I haven't seen any credible evidence to the contrary.


     ( You and me will go back and forth about this all day because you are dead wrong. You do not choose to be gay it just is what it is. And in fact it is things like that that give your church such a bad name because that is such an uneducated thing to say. You don’t wake up one day and say you know what I think I am going to be gay today, that is not how it works. This is one point we will not get over because like I said I think you are dead wrong. I know gay people and it’s not like they just said hey I am going to s uck d ick for the rest of my life, they were born different from straight people and by different I just mean they have a different sexual preference. And when you say there is debate on this subject what you mean is people with in the church debate this subject and everyone else not in the church acknowledges that being gay is not a choice. You said that people make church people out to be wacko’s and it is stuff like this that makes that so. Only church people try and say being gay is a choice everyone else see’s it for what it is which is they do not make a choice to be gay they are just gay.) 

    Ok, I'll agree with that, but it is still your choice to accept or reject.


    (yes but if you reject you will become a outcast with in your own church, well in some cases at least. But I am glad we could at least agree on this one point lol)   ( And if I can ask what arguments are put forth? When was the last time you were in church during a sermon and someone stood up and challenged what the preacher was saying?)

    About 10 years ago, really (but she was mentally disturbed so I can't really count that time.  I'm not making fun of her either.  She was institutionalized by the state.) So your point is taken.  But I regularly come out of Church and think, well the preacher missed that one, it doesn't line up with the Bible.  The Bible is the plumb line for me.  

      (Exactly my point, you will leave church and think wow the preacher really missed on this one thing but do you challenge him? You know its hard to believe that everyone agrees with the church on everything but yet no one challenges them? Why because then you become an outsider in your own church. The only person to say anything was an insane woman, that’s sad. I think in order for something like the church to work there needs to be open debate on a consistent basis.   
    (I have never seen anyone question anything at Church in my entire life. So what argument is put forth exactly? And I read the bible when I was a young man and I had not made up my mind on religion at that time so you are wrong about that.)

    Sorry
     (No sorry needed I just wanted to let you know that I didn’t make my mind before I read it, I try to be an objective person so I don’t make my mind till after I have the facts.)



    The Bible says "Do not forsake the assembling of yourselves together".  We need Church because we need each other.


    ( I like the sound of that, I am not being a joker either that truly sounds nice to hear, we need the church because we need each other that’s a nice way to look at it. I just don’t see it that way. I am one of those people who hate most people lol so I honestly don’t feel like I need people. I need the people I need, I need my future wide because I love her and she is my lady lol but I don’t need a church full of people. I get what your saying though it just does not apply to me personally.)

    NOOOOOOO.  What I'm saying is that demons believe in God, but their belief means nothing because it doesn't lead to following God.  If your belief in God doesn't lead you to following God, you faith is like that of demons.  It means nothing.  I was not calling you a demon and I apologize if it came across that way.  Belief MUST cause us to BE something.  It must cause us to respond to God.


    (Ok but does following god mean you have to be a church goer? Can I not follow god in my own way? My belief causes me to be a better person does that count as responding to god? Or do people literally have to follow the exact same way as you?)
      (are you kidding me? Jesus loved people enough to die for them it has nothing to do with the church.)

    People are the Church.  It is not some building; it is the people in the building.


    (point taken, I was not looking at it that way so I take that back because that is a very good point. But I still say god didn’t die for the church he died for his people.)


    I never said little.  But you can't throw the baby out with the bath water.  Besides, were not in Church because we're perfect, we're in Church because we need salvation.


    (true you the people are not in church because your perfect you are correct and you the people are there for salvation I get that but the preachers and the higher up’s are not you, they are not there for salvation they are there to give you salvation as if they are god themselves. I am sure you won’t agree with that but that’s the way I see them. And those are some major sins I listed, big enough that if I was a church goer I would have cut my ties from the church after that. The simple fact that the church used to kill men of science because their finding did not link up with what the church was telling people is enough for me to know 100% that the people who run things in the church are power hungry people who will do anything to keep “their people” in line and under their control. I know it sounds like a Lex Luther plan or something lol but I don’t trust those people. They will do anything to prove they are right until there is nothing left to do and then they will finally admit they were wrong after killing god knows how many people. They did not apologize for killing Galileo until 1994 and they killed him 100’s of years before that.)  ( I am glad as well it’s a good conversation)

    Yeah, and Yapple, I agree with you about the Globe letting this go on.  It's amazing.


    (I agree good for the globe for letting this go on.) ( You get much respect from em as well, its an honor to be in this debate with someone who spent 24 years fighting for my freedom so I truly respect you for that)

    I appreciate that


    Science and technology cannot change human nature.  Jesus can though.  I am a recipient of that change.  I am in no way perfect, but He can definitely change people.


    (See I would say people change people, god has nothing to do with it. Unless you have some photo of god coming down from heaven and putting his godly hands on a sinner and “changing” them. I think people will take comfort in god and use that comfort to help themselves change but that does not mean god literally changed them. And I did not say Science changes human nature, you asked me to name one thing that we have progressed other then technology in the last 12000 years and I answered you. Science since 12000 year ago has told us that we are not the center of the universe and that the sun is in fact the center of our universe a point that Galiao had to die for because it went again what the church was saying at that time. They literally killed a man for not lying about his findings, they wanted him to lie and he would not so they put him to death. That does not sound very godly to me. With Science man has progressed since the bible was written which is why in some backward a ss states you still can not talk about Evolution in some classrooms. Because god forbid you bring in an alternate theory into the world other then Adam and Eve.) 

    Not the same thing, however, knowing human nature and its propensity for more vileness, I can guarantee that is where we're heading.  Why will these people be any less deserving of marriage rights?  You wait and see.

      (I disagree, I do not think letting gay people get married is opening the flood gates for other groups to plead there case, and to be honest that sounds a lot like a scare tactic to scare people away from letting gays get married. ‘don’t let gays get married or else next thing you know your 11 year old will be married to a 46 year old’ that is propaganda. The USA will never allow grown men to marry kids. Also why is that there is no outrage by the church that in some states people can marry and have sex with their pets but you are all up in arms about gays getting married? Kind of screwed up.)   ( So we all have the right to pursue happiness but not gays? Is that what you are saying? You might be right we might not ever be truly happy but we all have a right to try and make the best of things and TRY TO BE HAPPY and you wotn even allow gays the same right to TRY to be happy with each other. And why because you think it’s a sin? Who the heck are you? (I don’t mean you I just mean people in general) So you think it’s a sin? Great for you why should what you think have any bearing on what two adults want to do with their lives? What makes you so important? )

    It's not me, it's the majority.  When they get beat at the polls, they take it to courts.  What is wrong with civil unions?  Why do they have to call it marriage?  It's a Biblical term defined in the Bible as man and woman.


    (Because it is there right to get marred that’s why, maybe in some third world country it is expectable to deny some people the same rights as others but we live in America and if they want to use the word married so they can tell their babies that they are married mommys and daddys then that is there right. Who are you (not you directly of course) to tell someone else what they can and cant do? What makes your opinion so important? If they want to get married they should be allowed to, the people standing in the way are not god and they can not speak for him I don’t care what the good book says you can not speak for him. If god is truly on your side on thi subject then why has he not come down to smite these sinners? If he would be truly upset about gays getting married then where is he to stop them? Cause Tony Dungy is not god and neither is anyone else in the church.)   ( All I was doing was restating a point that Pmike made which was, if you belong to a group of people like say the KKK and you don’t hate jews but the majority of people in the KKK do hate the Jews then you will be lumped in with them because you choose to be a prt of that group. You might not hate gay people but many inside your church do and so if you are a member of that religion you will be lumped in with them. If I was a member of a group and I didn’t agree with something as big as hating gays I would leave that group.)

    I don't see a lot of hate for gays as you say and I've been in Church the majority of my life.  I think you may be a victim of the liberal media that likes to paint the Church as a bunch of wackos.

    (I don’t avoid the church for that reason, I avoid the church because I do not believe in organized religion. I don’t need the church to tell me how to warship god I can do that on my own thank you.)

    "Do not forsake teh assembling of yourselves together"

    ( Very true I have no proof he is one of those people but because he is a part of a church that hates gay or has many people within it that hate gays he will be counted among them. If he does not like it he should find a new church.)

    Unfortunately, the liberal media has painted just about every church in the same light.


    (well if the wacko’s with in your faith did not make it so easy for the “liberal” media to paint that picture they wouldn’t paint it. And that goes for the wacko’s in all faiths not just yours of course) ( I am sorry did I miss something, are gay people trying to make it so “normal” people cant get married? Did they spare head a campighn to try and make it so Tony Dungy couldn’t get married? No they didn’t it was him and his people who did it so that’s why they are hater’s and gays are not. Gays are not trying to stop you from doing anything but you are trying to stop them from something so that is how it is different.)

    As I said, it was started by God and defined in the Bible.  I cannot just go and change the definition of a word in the dictionary.  Why do I have to let them change the definitioon of marriage just to feel right about themselves?

    (Because it is the right thing to do. And I thought going to church was soopossed to teach to do the right thing. If it is as simple as a definition then why do you care so much? It seems to me that the church is simply afraid of change. The fought change when it was science trying to change our knowledge of the world around us and now they are doing it with the gays)
       ( Please don’t tell me you are a supporter of the worst president to ever sit in the white house? But you are right that is another topic for another time.)

    I see him as one of the best.  No attacks since 911 on the homeland.  Maybe not always the best methods, but you or I might not have done as well in teh same position.
       ( I am going to leave this one along because if we start talking about Bush I will lose my temper and offend you. Bush has the lowest approval rating in the history on this country so I will let that speak for its self.)    (You are right he never said he wouldn’t help white people, which is why I have said over and over again that mostly I am mad at the papers and reporter who keep saying stuff like “Dungy is such a good person for going out of his way to help young black people” that drives me insane, I am sorry but I work with kids, and I don’t do it because I like helping white kids, or because I want to help black kids I do it because I want to help kids in general. All kids, skin color is not an issue. And I also don’t buy into the whole “young black men have it so much harder” everyone everywhere has it hard and everyone could use a hand skin shouldn’t have anything to do with it.)

    Well then maybe your argument is with the writers who say this stuff and not with Dungy at all.
      (Maybe it is with the media but I don’t see dungy disagreeing with them. Plus I have seen too many people on this thread say that he has openly said he is out to help young BLACK men. I think he should be out to help all young men not just men of the same color. If a white man said such things he would be called a racist and so should Dungy.) 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from tedyaz22. Show tedyaz22's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    MVPkilla I got question for you, who wrote the above post for you? It wasn't you you're not that smart, nor that good a writer/speller.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    I am heading out for the weekend, I will catch up with all you boys on Monday. try not to run away with th ethread huh lol talk to you later 347, Mighty, and EnochRoot. Keep it cival guys!
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from 347pg. Show 347pg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    What???  All our science is predicated on observation.  Everything we observe has a cause.  Newton's first LAW of motion says an object at rest (all matter before the big bang let's say) will stay at rest until acted on by an unbalanced force.  Science, accepts this as a law.  Are you saying you know of instances where Newton's first law of motion doesn't apply?  There's a Nobel Prize waiting for you if so.  If you don't want to call it God, I'll go with Eric (my college roommate's name and he was a smart guy).  No faulty reasoning here unless you want ot go up against science as well as God. Uhh, really. I am completely flabbergasted at your attempted rebuttal. 

    1. All of our science is not based on observation. Much is based on theoretical proof which is later proven. 

    Even theories have their basis in observation. I'd like you to name me a scientific theory that someone thought up out of the blue without at least having some indication through observation or mathmatics that the theory might be a possibility.

    2. While everything we observe might have cause, it doesn't mean that everything has a cause. That is an assumption. 

    I agree that the uncaused cause doesn't have a cause.  Everything else has a cause and you have no theories to assume otherwise.  Your assumption that causality is not required is more like someone changing the rules because they don't like how it affects their argument.  You can't have it both ways.

    3. When did I say Newton's Law was wrong? Since you did bring it up though, Newton's Laws apply to macroscopic objects under everyday conditions. They do not apply under several well known circumstances such as extremely small scales, extremely high speeds and extremely strong gravitational fields.   No need to take on science. You just need a fact adjustment. I am not sure I should continue because you are making it far too easy.

    Ok then lets hear your theory about the big bang.  If all matter in the universe was in equilibrium and at rest, what moved it out of that condition?  What caused it? 


    Not a predeterminist in the sense you are thinking.  I berlieve God knows everything there is to know, without effort.  He has already seen the future (else He is not God) and has seen whether or not I make it. So in that sense it is predetermined.  However, he did not make my choice for me.  That is why we don't know the future.  He's not going to let us come and say to Him "well you already predetermined I was going to hell so I didn't bother trying". It isn't the sense that I was thinking. It was the sense you were stating - that God already has a guest list of people who will achieve salvation and you are either on that list or you aren't. That is what you wrote. Now you seem to be contradicting that. Please maintain some type of conviction and consistency. It helps when debating points.

    You must not have read my next statement:
    God made the list based on His foreknowledge of what the Church would do in evangelizing.


    See above. With apologies, but now that is just kooky talk. You are now trying to rationalize two entirely disparate concepts and, frankly, it isn't working. 

    Ok, well then maybe this will help you understand that the 2 are completely and utterly linked.

    For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.Roman 8:29-30
    The predestinating came after the foreknowing.  If that doesn't do it for you, let me know.


    The fallacy is not understanding the logic.  If there is no intelligent design, there can not be a 2nd law of thermodynamics after the big bang.   <Scooby Doo response - arrhhh??? /> It really looks tome at this point that you are just regurgitating catchphrases of the creationists without a real grasp as to what they might mean or how to apply them in debate. You remind me of the woman who told Bertrand Russell that astronomy was poppycock and that the Earth was flat and carried through the universe on the back of a turtle. When he asked what the turtle was standing, she told him, "You are very clever, but everyone knows it is turtles all the way down."

    Hmmmm.  The 2nd LOT says entropy (the measure of disorder) is always increasing.  If that is so, there should be more and more disorder in the universe. But we see our world which is very orderly (cue the macrocosm / microcosm rebuttal), totally flying in the face of the LAW.  Really, I'm not trying to say I was there or asking you to believe in God because of science.  Faith is required.  Is my understanding (or yours for that matter) the end all argument?  No.  But science cannot disprove God.  It can be used to make a case for Him.  So far you have used it to insult me, but have given no theories that disprove Him.  I'm ok with that if that's all you've got.  But if your going to debate, let's debate.  So far I haven't even got a scooby snack from you shaggy.  I'm not pretending to know everything about science, I'd appreciate you doing the same.

    Hmmmm.  My point was that I doubt that I'm always doing everything correctly, whereas, I have no doubt that God is doing everything correctly.  Sorry for the ambiguity.  I regularly examine my beliefs to try and make them line up with the Bible more closely.  If they seem incoherent, it's because it will take a lot more than posting here to explain them and how they weave together.  This is not a perfect forum for this type of debate, however, it is very civil and does force you to read and try to understand what the other person is saying without being talked over.  I appreciate the debate.

    I know what you were saying and I have to say, based on your response, you are doing it exactly backward as examination intends. You are trying to make a straight line (your beliefs) from a potentially crooked ruler (the Bible). The point is not to make your beliefs line up to the purported standard. The point of doubt is to challenge the standard. If the standard is correct, it will hold up under any challenge and will therefore be that much stronger.
    Posted by EnochRoot

    I've already spent over half my life putting the standard to the test.  Doubt is no longer an issue for me.  Too much evidence imho.  The ruler is straight.  If you want to debate that, I'm willing to listen.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Hi guys, I have been reading this thread after it got past the normal stuff that any Colts related thread goes through.

    I just have to say one thing that really needs to be applied to the larger debate, we need to seperate science and religion for the good of this debate. Trying to use science to infer God will never work because science is purely physical. Just like science can never prove something that isn't physical does not exists.

    First thing, First Cause is not science, it is ancient logic, and faulty logic. Second, Newton's three laws of physics are not the same as first cause. They are the laws that only work in large bodied systems. You ask when Newton's Laws do not apply; they do not apply in quantum mechanics, particle wave theory, et al. In short, they do not apply to quantum singularities and their events, which is the very "stuff" of creation (big bang, supernova, etc, etc).

    Second, there are zero ontological arguments that logic can actually settle. And ontological arguements are "metaphysical," which means they are categorically not scientific. So someone arguing against Aquinas, Aristotle, or Plato is not arguing against science, but they are arguing against the metaphysical application of bad logic. These are two very different things.

    You say that science cannot disprove God. This is true. It can disprove many things in religious mythologies, but it cannot (even if it proves some first cause or disproves first cause) disprove God because the concept of God is beyond empirical evidence.

    Unfortunately, for that very reason it cannot, even in the most remote case, make a "case" for God's existence. It is, simply put, out of bounds. You cannot move from a known to an unknown and expect the latter to be made truthful or even plausible. You cannot ground the belief in a non-physical thing in a set of rules that apply only to the physical world.

    Ontology always stumbles into poor logic. In some ways, Descartes proves this even better than Aquinas. Like most ontological arguments he tried to avoid logical terminology because he knew it cannot stand scrutiny. For instance, cogito ergo sum is a misnomer. In his meditations (which are also a means to prove the existance of the ontological "Other," or God) he recuperates cogito by removing ergo and claiming it isn't a syllogism but a meditation.

    Of couse it is a syllogism, just a poor syllogism that has already asumed the existence before it proves it, but that is another story. "I think, I am," still doesn't work logically, but at least he wasn't claiming it was logical at that point. 

    Resolving the "uncaused cause" into proof of a deity, much less a specific deity, actually breaks the rules of the foundational ruls of the science, and the unmoved mover, like an ourobouros, is a self-consuming notion cannot get beyond its first premise.

    1.) Occam's razor would categorically rule out answering any question with a non-empirical conclusion. That means that we cannot go beyond the known system for answers untill the system itself is exhausted.

    Another, more likely, explanation is that the Universe itself is infinite in time, and non-contingent. While this doesn't satisfy the tenets of empiricism just yet, it does satisfy the tenets of non-complexity. And even then, you cannot get there until every other possible physical explanation is exhausted. There is no room for metaphysics at any rate.

    Simply declaring that there must be a "cause" is a priori. Bad logic and bad science. We have no way of knowing that there must be a "cause" because some things that happen happen without cause. The entire field of Quantum physics is based on this research. Things happen at the subatomic level with absolutely zero cause.

    This most definitively disproves the arguement for a First Cause based on anything Newton (who was an Alchemist and heretic) said and based on any natural argument that things must be caused. There is no finger flicking the pinball of the Big Bang. We already know it happened on its own because the conditions have been duplicated where just such things occur at the subatomic level.  

    Whether matter itself was created (which is not the same as cause) falls completely outside the argument of First Cause. But what has been proven is that there was no first cause. There didn't need to be. All that was needed was particles being particles.

    Also, the fact that subatomic occurences are defined as an aleatory order of event has been taken by some to automatically precluse any concept of a universaly engineer. Although this is true, once again it only shoots down one variety of religious explanation.

    The truth is that in absolute time, we are not far from proving that the universe is infinite. Particles have already been noted to exists both as mass and as energy and in all "times" in simultaneity. However, even if science can prove the universe is infinite, there will still be people who believe that something is beyond that.

    Science cannot disprove that faith, but no scientific argument can ever be made to even state that as possible. But more on that later.

    2.) As for logic. We'll break it down to the most bare bones version of the First Cause metaphysical arguement.    

        a.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
        b.) The Universe began to exist.
        c.) Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

    Here are the three basic rules of logic:

    1.) Every logical system must be internally consitent, therefore self-contradiction is not allowed.
    2.) Every logical system must be sound, therefore no true premise can engender a false inference.
    3.) Every logical system must be complete, that means that no premise (really no statement) cannot be falsified, and vice versa, all statements must be verifiable within the system.

    To a one, every law is broken by the metaphysical arguement.

        a.) The first premise contradicts the inference. If everything that begins has a cause, then     claiming that a supreme being exists because of this logic means you are claiming that     the supreme being has a cause." Therefore the logical system is inconsistent.
        b.) Even if the first premise were verifiable, it is possible that this particular first premise     can result in a false inference once we start attaching specifics to the logic and move     away from universals. I could just as easily say that the Demiurge created the world, and     another could say God, and another could say something entirely different. Each of these     abstract concepts are mutually distinct, therefore one of the them has to be false. If the     logical  system provides the grounds for a single false conclusion it is bad logic, or a     fallacy. Hence, the system is unsound.
        c.) The very first premise is not falsifiable, nor is it verifiable. We don't know that every     that begins has a cause, nor do we know that the Universe "began" and is not infinite and     non-contingent itself. Hence, this system is incomplete.

    If we are slavishly adhering to the rules of the "First-Cause," as a purely metaphysical (non-logical) argument, then the concept as pushed by Aquinas isn't the one that should be used. Almost a millenium before that Plato wrote about the Demiurge, who is not God, and he didn't "create" matter, but was more of a cosmic bricoleur. Read Timaeus for more info. Furthermore, every attempt to extend this manifested yet another "cause of the cause of the cause" until Aquinas just haphazardly stapled religion and logic together despite the fact that one is a chicken and the other a fox and called it a day.

    Using bad logic or false science to prove something that isn't logical or scientific is sophistry.

    As for myself, I will say this as a 'devout' atheist. ;-)

    Faith and Science are two completely different animals. You can have one with the other, but usually science precludes faith because it has this nasty habit of encroaching on things that were once taken as religious fact. But there will always be even when the entire physical world is explained a space for some people to imagine beyond the physical into the metaphysical. 

    But trying to bully science into proving metaphysical arguments, be they Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Islamic, is not the same thing as having science prove it, or even make the "case" for it. They are mutually distinct, and true "Faith" doesn't need the ratification of science to continue.

    And there are  legions of scientists, who are also religious and who are also not religious, who are simply saying "Leave science out of this." It isn't the enemy of religion, only an explanation of the physical world that obviates some older more literal interpretations of the physical world. While some atheists who happen to be scientists might want to disprove God, science isn't out to disprove God. Metaphysics is out of bounds there.

    I would argue that the faithful man debases his own principles, and sullies the one beautiful thing about faith (the fact that unlike utopian positivism it acknowleges on some level that man is essentially or at least partly irrational) by trying to shoehorn his beliefs into a system that weakens them. In other words, resorting to false scientific arguments to prove "faith" betrays a lack of faith. If you have fatih, then you don't need the quasi-scientific crowbar to jam it in.

    My mother is very spiritual, but not dogmatic. She understands that science will never help her case. When we discuss these things she just says she believes it because she feels it. I don't believe it at all, but that is at least moving on some level.

    If you are faithful, have faith, for the rest of us there is nihilism or there is atheism and science and realm of fact and how to bridge the gap between what we know to be rationally good and the fact that man kind will always do irrational things that are sometimes bad.

    Best to all here. Have a nice weekend.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy


    This thread is making my brain hurt, but I would just like to mention that the reasoning that Z uses here is exactly the kind of thinking that could lead an imaginitive mind to speculate that our entire universe could, in fact, be the equivalent of a sub-atomic particle in a fantastically larger system.

    Ever try to wrap your mind around THAT?

    What if we're all just characters in "Horton Hears a Who"?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Ever try to wrap your mind around THAT?


    Most people try to avoid that line of thinking. That would make our already insignificant existence even less relevant to the larger scheme. Humans have always tried to paint themselves as more important to the universe than they actually are. But you are right that this thread can make your brain "hurt". Though it has been pretty civil, this debate is without resolve, as there can be no difinitive proofs for either side. Which is why history tells us that religion has been the cause of most wars! At least the logic applied here has seemingly repelled the trolls, who have trouble with five letter words!!!
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Yapple. Show Yapple's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Apparently, no one wants to face the fact that there is one great unanswerable question...How did the universe begin ( and how did we get here and what happens after etc )?
    Scientists say there was one tiny atom and then, a big bang which created convenient hydrogen and gravity. A universe hundreds of billions of light years in size from one single atom?
    Religious people say someone named god simply created everything, including convenient hydrogen and gravity and a universe hundreds of billions of light years in size from one single wave of his magic wand? 
    So where did that atom come from? Was it just hanging out there in space for eternity? But space wasn't created until the big bang. Was it? Was that atom just floating in a big black void? And what created the big black void? And what is eternity? Doesn't everything have to have a beginning and an end?
    And if you're religious, where did god come from? Who created him? Was he just hanging out in a place called heaven for eternity and he just got bored and created hydrogen and gravity and Republicans? And what is eternity? Doesn't everything have to have a beginning and an end?
    It's that human nature thing again that we want to ask questions and imagine the answers will happily suit our own personal beliefs and alleviate our fears. However, there is no answer to this. Not from science or religion.
    Go Pats!
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    [QUOTE]Hi guys, I have been reading this thread after it got past the normal stuff that any Colts related thread goes through...
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    Much thanks. I believe some of those arguments were already made earlier, but it is nice to have it all wrapped up in a single post.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    [QUOTE]Enoch, I think we were all having a civil discussion but in your last post you crossed the line with personal attacks.  There is no need to ridicule the other person.  Just explain why you think they are wrong. Taz - I'm sorry, I guess I doubt so much, I believe everyone does.  But I hoped that surely after all this discussion, we would create a little doubt in you.  Darn. 
    Posted by themightypatriots[/QUOTE]

    Apologies, but I call things as I see them. If someone is contradicting themselves or trying to fit square pegs into round holes, I will say so. In this case, it appeared to me that the argument was not being kept on the square and a lot of catch phrases were being written without a true knowledge of the meaning behind them. 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Ah, everything gets more fun when Z joins the discussion.

    I think you are right - science and logic probably cannot prove the existence of God.  But does that mean they contribute nothing toward the question, and believers ought not to look for any support in the world they see around them and in human reason?  No.  As eagerly as the atheist relies on evolution and the earth's orbit of the sun, the believer will rely on the ordered universe, human dominion of the planet and principles of causality that govern everything we see.  But in the end, both possibilities are open to us, we must all judge for ourselves what seems most plausible.

    So, Z, could you give us some examples of things that happen at the sub-atomic level with "absolutely zero cause"?

    "Also, the fact that subatomic occurences are defined as an aleatory order of event has been taken by some to automatically precluse any concept of a universaly engineer. Although this is true, once again it only shoots down one variety of religious explanation."  Sorry, missed your argument there.  Please elaborate. 

    "The truth is that in absolute time, we are not far from proving that the universe is infinite."  Again, please explain/elaborate.

    "a.) The first premise contradicts the inference. If everything that begins has a cause, then     claiming that a supreme being exists because of this logic means you are claiming that     the supreme being has a cause." Therefore the logical system is inconsistent."  The first premise is that evertyhing that begins to exist has a cause.  Claiming that there is a supreme that did not begin to exist, but rather simply exists, in no way contradicts the first premise.

    "If the logical  system provides the grounds for a single false conclusion it is bad logic, or a fallacy. Hence, the system is unsound."  Ok, then ...

    At 1:00pm the cookie jar was full.
    At 2:00pm the cookie jar was empty.
    Somebody ate those cookies.

    Is unsound because this provides the grounds for the conclusion that Tasney ate those cookies, when the truth may be that Enoch or 347 ate them. 

    "c.) The very first premise is not falsifiable, nor is it verifiable. We don't know that every     that begins has a cause, nor do we know that the Universe "began" and is not infinite and     non-contingent itself. Hence, this system is incomplete."  Yes, but in everything we observe in daily life, when something starts to happen it's because something caused it.  Even at the subatomic level there are causes for some things - hydrogen nuclei repel each other because of electrostatic repulsion, but hydrogen nuclei close enough to each other combine because of the nuclear force.  Maybe there are some subatomic events that have no cause, I'm not a scientist, you haven't named any.  But the vast majority of what I see has a cause, so I will take the great leap of faith that the universe probably has a cause too. 

    "If you have fatih, then you don't need the quasi-scientific crowbar to jam it in."  Agreed.

    "My mother is very spiritual, but not dogmatic. She understands that science will never help her case. When we discuss these things she just says she believes it because she feels it. I don't believe it at all, but that is at least moving on some level."  No, you are trying to say there is no "cause" for faith, no cause other than our feelings.  Well obviously our feelings have a lot to do with it (I really really hope there is a God) but I can find support in what I see and in common sense.  It doesn't make sense to me that the universe always existed.  It seems highly improbably that human beings inherited the earth through a random process of natural selection, or that a collection of dust randomly combined to form our planet in a spot that would sustain life, when even a few degrees north our south would kill us.  But that's just me. 

    "man kind will always do irrational things that are sometimes bad."  Sometimes bad?  Look around you.  People are destroying each other.  If there is no God, there is no hope for humanity.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    So, Z, could you give us some examples of things that happen at the sub-atomic level with "absolutely zero cause"?

    Sure Mighty.

    Every single quantum event is acausal. They are deterministic, which means their behavior can be predicted, but they are acausal. Atomic decay, quantum double slit, everything is random. Objects don't even 'exist' in the way that people think they do. Definite location and state only happens when something is observed and things 'collapse' into a definite state. Look up Schrodinger's Cat for an example in 'common sense.'

    "Also, the fact that subatomic occurences are defined as an aleatory order of event has been taken by some to automatically precluse any concept of a universaly engineer. Although this is true, once again it only shoots down one variety of religious explanation."  Sorry, missed your argument there.  Please elaborate.

    Some atheists take the randomness of quantum events to mean that the universe couldn't be designed. All this means is that the universe is caused.

    They make the mistake of replacing cause with being.

    In no way can you even begin to make a case one way or the other. Physical nature can tell us nothing about something that is not physical.

    "The truth is that in absolute time, we are not far from proving that the universe is infinite."  Again, please explain/elaborate.

    Well they are nigh on their way to finding the Higgs Boson particle. Once that happens the guarantor of mass in the universe will be a known. And beyond that, just stop and think. If quantum mechanics tells us increasingly that the universe is random, and that the universe is non-contingent and simultaneous, then eventually on this trajectory it will prove itself out shortly in absolute time: minding that human civilization is only about 10,000 years old an the vast, vast majority of scientific advance has occured in the last 300 years, we see it is accelerating. 

    "a.) The first premise contradicts the inference. If everything that begins has a cause, then     claiming that a supreme being exists because of this logic means you are claiming that     the supreme being has a cause." Therefore the logical system is inconsistent." 

    The first premise is that evertyhing that begins to exist has a cause.  Claiming that there is a supreme that did not begin to exist, but rather simply exists, in no way contradicts the first premise.


    OK,then you switch back to the old version, pre-Big Bang.  And it is still incorrect, because it assumes the Universe had a "beginning." The Universe may have a had a discernable beginning from this perspective, but from another perspective it might not have the same beginning.

    And even then, the answer is a non-sequitur. How does it follow logically that universed must have been created by something else that wasn't created?

    Sorry, I taught logic for the better part of two years, and that isn't logical.

    "If the logical  system provides the grounds for a single false conclusion it is bad logic, or a fallacy. Hence, the system is unsound."  Ok, then ...

    At 1:00pm the cookie jar was full.
    At 2:00pm the cookie jar was empty.
    Somebody ate those cookies.

    Is unsound because this provides the grounds for the conclusion that Tasney ate those cookies, when the truth may be that Enoch or 347 ate them.


    For starters it is unsound because it assumes someone at those cookies. Someone could have eaten the cookies. The cookies could have evaporated into thin air. It could be a different cookie jar.

    This is the second part of the fallacy. It assumes that something happens. This is either a priori, OR begging the question.

    The most elaborate sustainable inference from that is that the cookies are now gone. Logic is an a-hole. That is why I don't like it.

    "c.) The very first premise is not falsifiable, nor is it verifiable. We don't know that every     that begins has a cause, nor do we know that the Universe "began" and is not infinite and     non-contingent itself. Hence, this system is incomplete."  Yes, but in everything we observe in daily life, when something starts to happen it's because something caused it.  Even at the subatomic level there are causes for some things - hydrogen nuclei repel each other because of electrostatic repulsion, but hydrogen nuclei close enough to each other combine because of the nuclear force.  Maybe there are some subatomic events that have no cause, I'm not a scientist, you haven't named any.  But the vast majority of what I see has a cause, so I will take the great leap of faith that the universe probably has a cause too.

    What you observe in daily life if not causality, but less than 100% correalation. And it only appears to 'happen' at that time because you see it.

    I think you are confusing 'cause' with 'being,' which are two different things altogether. I am actually more comfortable debating 'being' because it is metaphsyics which is kissing cousins with what I study.

    That is Kant, Hegel, Heidegger. Guys I love.  Not Hawking, who I read but with less fervor.

    And it is fine that you take a leap of faith, that is point of faith. If you could prove the existence of god, faith would be meaningless and the entire point of religion would moot. What is God if man can create the Apocalypse? Nothing.

    Man cannot, so God is safe.

    No, you are trying to say there is no "cause" for faith, no cause other than our feelings.  Well obviously our feelings have a lot to do with it (I really really hope there is a God) but I can find support in what I see and in common sense. 

    But now you are making a common sense argument that offends anyone that disagree's with you. I disagree. So I lack this 'common sense'? 

    There is no scientific cause for faith in a supernatural being. An jet repair manual can't tell you how to cook a pizza.

    I also think that you take my meaning of irrational in a negative sense. Humanism is irrational, but I choose some humanist beliefs because I feel them to be proper. Irrationality is what seperates man from machines. Rationality is what seperates intelligent life from non-intelligent life.

    I would argue that irrationality is the highest faculty. Progressive politics couldn't exist with that fictional impulse to dream a better world!!!!!

    Pure 'rationalism' only ends up in very scary inhumane dystopias. 

    It doesn't make sense to me that the universe always existed. 

    OK, that is fine. I don't begrudge you that. My father feels the same way. It doesn't make sense to me that God exists, hence I am an atheist. Neither of us can twist the arm of science to prove our point or even make it likely. That is my one and only point. Science is not capable of measuring or discovering or even inferring non-scientific things.

    I take care to consider the possibility that something beyond the physical world exists, but I find it unlikely. To me it is more likely that what we consider the universe is just there.

    The "Crunch" theory cannot be proven yet, but God will never be proven. If he can be, he ceases to be God. Why would a religious person want to part with that?

    It seems highly improbably that human beings inherited the earth through a random process of natural selection,

    Actually it is pretty much a certitude. And words like inhereted are biblically loaded. Human beings just developed here, just like countless other forms of life and intelligent life developed where they are. It is pretty much indisputable.

    or that a collection of dust randomly combined to form our planet in a spot that would sustain life, when even a few degrees north our south would kill us.  But that's just me.

    But it did. Things randomly happen all the time in physics. You only need a planet about the size, about the distance from a sun that is about the same size and makeup as our own, and something that has about the right total chemical makeup. In the universal 'soup' it has probably happened more times than can be counted. It is 99.99999~ percent likely that there is other life out there, and the odds of intelligent life developing within four billion years on a planet like earth aren't that 'random.' It is about 1/10,000 IIRC.

    People win the lottery with lower odds than that.

    "man kind will always do irrational things that are sometimes bad."  Sometimes bad?  Look around you.  People are destroying each other.  If there is no God, there is no hope for humanity.

    Exactly the perfect reason to take responsbility without a cosmological guarantor. Even if there were a God, which I do not know to a certainty, I think he would be proud of that.

    Zizek writes about this in his latest book 'Violence.' Operating outside the cover of the big Other (religion, politics, etc).
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from frankdawop. Show frankdawop's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Ummm... what if D-O-G spelled cat ...
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Atomic decay, quantum double slit, everything is random.  Please explain how we know there is no cause for these events.

    Well they are nigh on their way to finding the Higgs Boson particle. Once that happens the guarantor of mass in the universe will be a known. And beyond that, just stop and think. If quantum mechanics tells us increasingly that the universe is random, and that the universe is non-contingent and simultaneous, then eventually on this trajectory it will prove itself out shortly in absolute time: minding that human civilization is only about 10,000 years old an the vast, vast majority of scientific advance has occured in the last 300 years, we see it is accelerating.   Sorry, them's a lot of big words and I've got a small vocabulary.  Why don't you spell it out, step by step. 

    And even then, the answer is a non-sequitur. How does it follow logically that universed must have been created by something else that wasn't created?  It doesn't, but that's not what we were debating.  We were debating whether the system was inconsistent.  So you no longer believe it's inconsistent?

    Sorry, I taught logic for the better part of two years, and that isn't logical.  Leave yourself out of this.

    For starters it is unsound because it assumes someone at those cookies. Someone could have eaten the cookies. The cookies could have evaporated into thin air. It could be a different cookie jar.   Come on Z, for someone who skips so many steps in his arguments, I would hope you would cut me some slack.  But if you insist ...

    The cookie jar would become empty only if someone ate the cookies.
    The cookie jar became empty.
    Someone ate the cookies.

    Now back to your original point - "If the logical  system provides the grounds for a single false conclusion it is bad logic, or a fallacy.  Hence, the system is unsound."  My system above provides the grounds for the conclusion that Tasney may have eaten the cookies, when in fact Enoch or 347 may have eaten them.  Unsound?

    "What you observe in daily life if not causality, but less than 100% correalation. And it only appears to 'happen' at that time because you see it."  I let go of a pen, and it falls to the floor?  Not causality?  Less than 100% correlation?  Please explain.

    I think you are confusing 'cause' with 'being,' which are two different things altogether. I am actually more comfortable debating 'being' because it is metaphsyics which is kissing cousins with what I study.  Please explain.

    But now you are making a common sense argument that offends anyone that disagree's with you. I disagree. So I lack this 'common sense'?  The common sense is not in the ultimate conclusion, but in the daily observation - one thing causes another.  But of course you will explain how that is only less than 100% correlation.

    Human beings just developed here, just like countless other forms of life and intelligent life developed where they are. It is pretty much indisputable.  Human beings may have developed here, but you don't know what caused them to develop here - you don't know if there was a non-physical force guiding their development, and as you've said so many times, science can't prove that there wasn't.  But yes, random events happen all the time - did human existence happen randomly - you say yes, I say no. 

    I would argue that irrationality is the highest faculty.  :-D

    And words like inhereted are biblically loaded.  And you never use any loaded words?

    But it did.  It did, but was it caused randomly?  I doubt it, you are sure of it. 

    Exactly the perfect reason to take responsbility without a cosmological guarantor.  Good luck!
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    I have to say I do not think I can hang with big Z lol. This debate has seemingly become too rich for my blood lol Z you are a smart mo fo and it truly make smy head hurt to read your posts lol. I was hoping 347 would have replaied to my last post but not yet I guess. Once again good for the globe for letting this thread go i thought it would be deleted by now.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from 347pg. Show 347pg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Killa

    i'm working on a response to your post.  Sorry for the delay.  Hope you had a good weekend.

    Z-  Thanks for this post.  I’m a creationist from the word go, but this thread has certainly evolved – from Dungy/Vick to Quantum Mechanics!

    You say that science cannot disprove God. This is true. It can disprove many things in religious mythologies, but it cannot (even if it proves some first cause or disproves first cause) disprove God because the concept of God is beyond empirical evidence. Unfortunately, for that very reason it cannot, even in the most remote case, make a "case" for God's existence.

    If God exists, I assume He would give us some indication that He is there.  Why would He hide himself in a box?  I think if you look at the design in the universe, you can see indications of God.  He wants us to find Him. 

    It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings. Proverb 25:2

    The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.  Psalms 19:1

    Empirically, I would tend to agree with you, although deductions from science, I feel, can lead to a case for God.  If science points to intelligent design, which I believe it does.  Then a case for God (not proof) is supported.  If science points to evolution, then a case for God is not supported (generally speaking that is).  The debate, then, is not really that science cannot support the concept of God, but what does science indicate.


    Another, more likely, explanation is that the Universe itself is infinite in time, and non-contingent. While this doesn't satisfy the tenets of empiricism just yet, it does satisfy the tenets of non-complexity. And even then, you cannot get there until every other possible physical explanation is exhausted.

    If the universe is infinite in time, then we have a problem.  If so, it would have taken an infinite amount of time for us to get to where we are.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't travel an infinite amount of time or space and "get anywhere".  We can’t be at the half-way point to infinity, because half of infinity is still infinity. 

    We have no way of knowing that there must be a "cause" because some things that happen happen without cause. The entire field of Quantum physics is based on this research. Things happen at the subatomic level with absolutely zero cause.

    I’m assuming you are referring to the 3rd idea in quantum physics “the movement of these particles (quanta) is inherently random”.  I would suggest that because we don’t understand what makes quanta act like they do, is no reason to assume there is no cause.  We may find out that they actually follow a set of rules that our science cannot, at this time, explain or measure.  Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not saying QP is suspect, I’m saying our understanding of it is suspect and incomplete.  How can you have googlolplexes of random quanta interactions with no impact on the macro world?   It would seem to me, you could have no order or control over a world that has that much randomness going on at the sub-atomic level.  Our science is evolving, electron orbit shells versus probability clouds as an example.

    Science cannot disprove that faith, but no scientific argument can ever be made to even state that as possible. But more on that later. 2.) As for logic. We'll break it down to the most bare bones version of the First Cause metaphysical arguement.         a.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.     b.) The Universe began to exist.     c.) Therefore, the Universe had a cause. Here are the three basic rules of logic: 1.) Every logical system must be internally consitent, therefore self-contradiction is not allowed. 2.) Every logical system must be sound, therefore no true premise can engender a false inference. 3.) Every logical system must be complete, that means that no premise (really no statement) cannot be falsified, and vice versa, all statements must be verifiable within the system. To a one, every law is broken by the metaphysical arguement.     a.) The first premise contradicts the inference. If everything that begins has a cause, then     claiming that a supreme being exists because of this logic means you are claiming that     the supreme being has a cause." Therefore the logical system is inconsistent .   

    I understand what you are saying, but, by definition, God is outside of time and outside of the universe (especially if He created it).  The uncaused cause is not so much logic, but showing that logic fails to provide a cause for Him, i.e. He is beyond logic.  If the logic cannot prove or disprove Him, it at least, indicates the possibility.

    Faith and Science are two completely different animals. You can have one with the other, but usually science precludes faith because it has this nasty habit of encroaching on things that were once taken as religious fact. But there will always be even when the entire physical world is explained a space for some people to imagine beyond the physical into the metaphysical.  But trying to bully science into proving metaphysical arguments, be they Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Islamic, is not the same thing as having science prove it, or even make the "case" for it. They are mutually distinct, and true "Faith" doesn't need the ratification of science to continue. And there are  legions of scientists, who are also religious and who are also not religious, who are simply saying "Leave science out of this." It isn't the enemy of religion, only an explanation of the physical world that obviates some older more literal interpretations of the physical world. While some atheists who happen to be scientists might want to disprove God, science isn't out to disprove God. Metaphysics is out of bounds there. I would argue that the faithful man debases his own principles, and sullies the one beautiful thing about faith (the fact that unlike utopian positivism it acknowleges on some level that man is essentially or at least partly irrational) by trying to shoehorn his beliefs into a system that weakens them. In other words, resorting to false scientific arguments to prove "faith" betrays a lack of faith. If you have fatih, then you don't need the quasi-scientific crowbar to jam it in.

    Posted by zbellino

    I understand what you mean, however, being on the other side of the argument, I have noticed most non-religious people think the religious crowd is mostly wacko, especially if it is all on blind faith.  It it’s all blind faith, then were all deluding ourselves with a metaphysical argument that has no basis.  To turn the coin over, does basing your beliefs all on science make that belief any better that the religious system?  I don’t need science to prove God.  As a matter of fact, if the Bible said (as Billy Graham once said) Jonah ate the whale, I would believe it (wacko comment invitation).  However, I’m trying to live out Provebs 25:2 and see where God has hidden Himself in our world.  Maybe to some, I’m doing a terrible job, and I’m sure I am.  However, the debate is to enjoyable to miss, and the opportunity to understand the “other side’ of the argument is too compelling.

    In response to your response to Mighty, I would ask where you got your 1/10,000 figure for life on this planet.  The literature I’ve read (although probably slanted in the other direction), states astronomical odds of this happening including things such as the correct mass, rotation, distance, polar tilt,  gravitational fields of not only the sun and moon, but also of the other planets, the heat of the sun, the amount of correct evolutionary steps involved for getting us from the amoeba to h o m o sapien and the untold bad steps in between, the inference that ecosystems need to evolve together and that one step for one species could stomp out a food source for another, and the list goes on.  I think the 1/10,000 number is completely suspect, no disrespect intended.



     

Share