Doctor: Teen Regains Pulse After Mother's Prayer
I'm not looking to start a religious conversation. This is truly amazing. Some things you cannot explain.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Riftsrunner is spot on, but if any of the other folks posting here want to call it a Miracle or a Divine Intervention... "more power to ya..."
But don't fall into the trap of one of Murphy's Laws... it won't usually work..
"Don't believe in miracles... Rely on them."
Good luck with that Philosophy/Belief/Religion.
or http://www.plusaf.com/linkedin/linked-in...
:)
My point is what AJAshinoff said "Some things you cannot explain".
I will leave you a thought here. I believe that knowledge is unlimited (or infinite if you prefer). And a fact of life is that any man has a limited capacity to acquire knowledge. Then, the consequence of both things is that all the knowledge of all human kind, accumulated, is almost nothing compared with the undiscovered knowledge. And this will be true forever. (The alternative is that human kind will reach the state of knowing all there is, falling in a tedious state for the rest of existence... that is dreadful!)
Socrates put it short: I only know that I know nothing.
By the way, being an atheist is having faith in a concept that nobody can prove. And the last clarification: be religious is different from believing in God. It is necessary to believe in God to be religious but it is not sufficient. I will not discuss religion with anybody that didn't ask for it, because I consider that arrogant from my point of view.
I celebrate the result, and yes, I believe the prayer had to do with it.
Also an atheist doesn't have faith. The burden of proof is on the theist that is making the affirmative claim. It is encumbent on the theist to provide solid evidence for their case. The atheist is just saying that the theist hasn't met their burden for the atheist to accept that the theist's god exists.
I presume you already heard this one and didn't accept it. OK, it is what I accept but I don't see where it is flawed.
Anyway, I agree with you that everything can be explained scientifically...... maybe my reasons are different from yours. I claim that God made a perfect universe, he invented the rules that science can discover, and we are just scratching the surface on how thoughts can affect health, for example. Look at Emoto's photographs to see something amazing.... of course Emoto also has detractors. Another thought..... if we think of the universe as a whole system, then the actions of the parts will impact other parts for sure, being those negative or positve, therefore praying should have some positive effects.
"Faith is the worst curse of mankind, as the exact antithesis and enemy of thought."
It's not because I'm a Christian.
A famous forefather once said "I disagree with what you said but I'll fight to the death for you to say it" --something close to that."
(I left to look it up)
Correction: Not a forefather but-- aw, heck, read it yourself--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beat...
Look around, reality defies your statement. Also, you have faith that reason is your answer to life's questions, no?
Albert Einstein
Belief in the supernatural is not wisdom, and despite your feelings, most certainly does contradict Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason. Embracing such contradictions is not "all good".
And even then many tried to discredit Him when made miracles in person. Nothing new. It wouldn't make any difference if He shows up again in person n terms of beliefs. That is not the point.
As for me reading more AR, I have seen no arguments that state that there is anything for me to learn there. Her foundation is flawed. I have stated such numerous times. Studying a flawed foundation isn't going to make it right, no matter how hard one studies it.
I'm not going to stop reading and learning because of it.
I'm a Christian who believes Jesus is "the door" of the New Testament and that dinosaurs once ruled the earth for millions off years.
Not preaching--stating my point of view.
+1 from dino. You'd have thought that 0 came from me.
(Hey, whoever has my back. That's not helpful. Thanks but no thanks).
LetsShrug, when I was a kid, I had a bunch of plastic play toy dinosaurs.
But I also had those little green vrs. gray plastic soldiers.
I also had the Alamo, a French Foreign Legion fort and other such stuff with little plastic people going to war.
But now? The answer is no.
I've always been fascinated with dinosaurs, though..
Somehow the American king of the Jurassic Period, Allosaurus, became my favorite.
Once I attempted to write a novel about allosaurs attacking a small college town from its own science department but I got distracted by trying to write something else.
I'm always trying to write something.
At least it's something to do.
Full Definition of FAITHFUL
1 obsolete : full of faith
2 steadfast in affection or allegiance : loyal
3 firm in adherence to promises or in observance of duty : conscientious
4 given with strong assurance : binding <a faithful promise>
5 true to the facts, to a standard, or to an original <a faithful copy>
I see nothing oxymoronic about the use of faithful with Objectivist.
Really, are you so put off with anything remotely resembling religion that even a term that merely means a true adherent causes you such distress?
It. Just. Plain. Can't.
A lot of people, I'd postulate, would be/are afraid of that Answer coming to light (pun unintended.)
But the Search is what science is all about, and when new discoveries cause old beliefs or theories to be overturned or discarded, that's just "life in the Big City."
I just don't have any problem with that...
I challenge anyone to show where I've demanded that other board members must embrace my position, unlike the most rabid of the atheists here who demand that any on this board must embrace their position else they should not be here. When they misrepresent the tenets of the faithful I am going to correct the record. These rabid atheists see it as proselytizing, but it is merely ensuring that people have truth instead of propaganda (something which I think AR would approve of, even if she didn't agree with the information).
turn" ...... Perhaps too late to correct?? (LOL)
Self-defining circular definitions are bloody hard to argue, and they seem to be all over the place in alleged 'discussions' such as these...
"It's true because the bible says it!"
"Why does the bible say it?"
"Because it's true!"
Sure.... yep, still very happy to be an atheist.
:)
How? When? Where? Proof? Photos? Witnesses? Videos?
And you wonder why this 'discussion' persists?
Will continue target mission below.
Wingman out.
I'll give you both a point here and now.
Pop! Pop!
I want to spread the points around. -- l'emperor Barry L'Obamasaurus
Hear me roar!
When I hear some crackpot say Jesus will appear at such and such a date, I am quite certain that is a time when Jesus will most definitely NOT appear.
If you don't care for what I just wrote, so be it.
I'm easy.
My problem with your first assertion is that it has no predictive value, so why make the assertion?
"return quite unexpectedly at an appointed time" simply says nobody knows when the event will happen, and nobody Will Know until After it's Happened, but the assertion really doesn't at all imply that the Happening Can Or Will "happen."
For a while I collected pamphlets and checkout-aisle newspapers and magazines Predicting the Second Coming, The Apocalypse and other 'future events' of that ilk.
Then, after a while, after all of the forecasted dates expired, they all went into the Recycling Bin.
That was 'easy,' too... :)
But a predictive value is found that an Antichrist will rule a hell on earth for 7 years before Jesus then comes back and rules the world for 1,000 years before all goes not the hell but to God.
It's all in Revelations.
A month ago I enjoyed a movie the Hollywood elite and critics who get invited to cocktail parties put down really hard--a total remake of Left Behind.
Its star, Nicolas Cage even received the Raspberry Award for worst actor of the year.
I saw this movie with a Christian friend .
After we watched the Netflix rental, we both agreed that the flick was bit uncomfortably slow at first but when the Rapture hit--What a ride!
There was nothing wrong with the acting of Nicholas Cage either.
Elite snot-heads just wanted to put him in down for the effrontery of starring in a faith-based movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6JbSi2h...
It's all in Revelations. "
That's a "Prediction"?!
You were kidding, right? That's like the economists who've 'predicted' 25 of the last three recessions... :)
It doesn't take a lot of effort to find a LOT of 'seven-year-periods' that could be labeled "hell on earth" but which did NOT seem to culminate with The Rapture.
But thanks for launching that concept into this thread, Allosaur. :)
The above statement is a no kidding solid fact.
,
:)
But I was humorous where?
And no, quoting the bible here does not constitute "proof," contrary to some folks' Beliefs.
:)
But whoever designed, built and started the 'game' has 'left the playing field,' so They probably took any Purpose with them when they left, no?
That's why I enjoy This kind of Game... :)
And I can enjoy those words without invoking any Supreme Being.
If you can't, so be it... I'm easy, too. :)
That's the kind of statement that always makes me stop and wonder...
If a God set the stage and then leaves, it kinda makes the 'God' as well as the 'setting the stage' part AND the 'and then leaves' pretty much a nice fiction. If you remove any or all of those 'initial conditions,' anything that follows still follows, even if 'none of the above' happened!
and then to call that the 'only rational explanation' begs a question that is immune to begging... or something like that! :)
We may or may not be closing in on an Answer to that Question, but 'we' are still looking. Until the proverbial repeatable Experiment can support a Good Theory, claiming that the Only Logical Explanation is "God Did It" is truly illogical.
Unless, in your personal Belief System, that IS a 'logical statement,' in which case, as I've also often said... "Discussion Ends There."
:)
Correction: I suddenly recall an atheist who DID say that to me, though many years ago.
It's almost as if organized atheists have a non-believing despise all things Christian religion of their own.
That is the general meaning of "atheism". In addition, if someone says something contradictory you logically say it can't be because contradictions cannot exist. Or if someone says something utterly meaningless it can't exist because he hasn't said anything at all. This is common in various claimed accounts of god but need not always be the case. This has been explained here many times.
To simply say that the universe has always existed is unsatisfactory. We can estimate the time of the origin of the universe. "Existence exists" is an excellent way of summarizing that we must accept reality as it is (as opposed to faking reality), but "existence exists" is not an explanation for the origin of the universe. Any philosophy that I am going to adhere to must have a satisfactory explanation for the origin of the universe. I have not found such a philosophy yet.
1) to be able to create what has already been done myself because I don't think that you can really say you know something until you can do it yourself; and
2) like Dagny and Rearden, I want to find the creator and learn from it/him/her.
Proving abstract statements, or even making claims to evidence, requires conceptually thinking ín principles grounded in reality, not imagination. Evidence is not proof but is required for it. You need conclusive evidence, not examples. That we have the capacity to abstract and reorganize thoughts in ways not found in reality -- like Disney characters -- is not evidence, let alone proof, of its existence, or "circumstantial evidence".
If someone claims to have a proof of something it's up to him to validate the standards of proof employed. This happens in science all the time; there is no known general theory of induction and the standards of proof must be developed as each science progresses with its own kinds of facts, observation, experiment and tests. Imagination plays a crucial role in scientific creativity but is not evidence.
Imagination is not circumstantial evidence, and neither is existence of the world evidence of the supernatural as its cause. The imagination and demands of mysticism are not circumstantial evidence for its own conclusions.
If it is in thanksgiving for the life that one has, for wisdom to choose well, for strength to bear one's burdens, for patience to deal with one's trials and tribulations, for courage to do the morally right instead of the easy or expedient, then God answers those prayers.
If you meant "obedient" then no, that's not what I said.
It has absolutely nothing to do with Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, and her philosophy that made it possible. This repetitive proselytizing for religion is contrary to the purpose of the forum and has no place here. Robbie doesn't care and is spamming anyway because he has admitted that he opposes Ayn Rand's philosophy and is constantly attacking it, regardless of his lack of understanding of what it is. Pushing his religion in contradiction (that much he knows very well) is all he cares about.
So, by that reasoning, I have to conclude that you would rather that God caused all your actions to occur so as to prevent any bad things from happening - to become a puppet. That's not rude, that's called reasoning (now that was meant to be rude).
Since God didn't prevent the bad thing from happening, and you seem to think that a "good God" would have done so, then you must believe that a God if he existed must therefore be evil.
This is not productive, so I'm stopping now.
Since you've brought up prayer, I'll pray for the hardness of your heart to be lessened and your eyes to be opened. God will not answer my prayer about you on such things, only yours. But that doesn't mean that I won't do it in any case, for me.
Someone who criticizes those of faith that God wouldn't have let a bad thing happen, inherently are saying that God must be controlling everything making us mere puppets, and that by allowing bad things to occur, is therefore evil.
I merely present the rational perspective from a Christian perspective. If that makes others uncomfortable, that is not my problem.
Once you give yourself over to that belief, Everything Follows Logically and Consistently after that.
Nobody can break that chain of 'logic.'
But it does NOT PROVE that God Exists! I might even prefer Occam's Razor, since the tangle of 'explanations' for a Good/Bad/Loving/Punishing God Figure just get more and more complex without leading to any conclusion. A 'belief' that the Universe provides Random Inputs, some of which we like and some of which just plain piss us off... well, for me that works with no further 'explanation' needed. (or wanted, which may be one of the root causes for 'beliefs.'... do you Need or Want such 'explanations'? The Answer to That Question, when pondered and investigated, might be even more telling.) My 53rd Law kind of looks at that... http://www.plusaf.com/falklaws.htm#53rd
I never said that that proves that God exists. I cannot prove that to you, nor would I try to, you must prove that to yourself.
God does not exist to give humanity free will, no more so than I exist merely to feed my cats.
I have no desire to prove to you that God exists, I cannot do so even if I wanted to, that is something that you need to do for yourself.
As for the 53rd law. I disagree. An individual is mostly responsible for the good and bad that happens to them, but there are happenstances that exist outside of the individual that factor into that as well - like a tornado, or a car accident, or cancer. How one reacts and adapts to such are within the control of the individual, but the circumstances in which people find themselves are not strictly under their control.
From your cats' points of view, maybe you DO 'exist solely to provide them with food, shelter, etc.'... their religion might logically prove that...
Your presumption that I 'need to [prove god exists] for myself' makes no sense to me at all.
Why should I? How do I, even if I chose to?
How would I recognize that my Proof was Valid or that It Worked At All?
Please reread the 53rd "Law."
And thanks for calling my attention to a typo in it... it should read "one OF two" ... Perspectives.
And I did update that Law's wording. Thanks for the inspiration!
As for proving "God." Can I prove "Love?" You can observe my actions, and you may attribute them as "love," but you cannot prove it, nor can I prove it to you. Nor can you prove to me your love for some one. Such is the understanding and "proof" of/for God.
But it seems that So Many People describe "God" as 'being somewhere' and 'doing things' in such tangible ways, that, well.... you may be right, and if you are, there are just TONS of confused people running around with a gross misunderstanding of "God"!
Thanks!
Although the theory of Downvoting is, as I understand it, a commentary on 'does the comment advance the thread's discussion?', so I can understand someone making that judgment. But I really have enjoyed our conversation!
cheers!
For more info on this phenomenon, please read the book Lazarus Effect by Sam Parnia. The record is held by a Japanese woman who apparently was dead for about 8 hours overnight in a cold Japanese forest. She was revived successfully with substantial (80%?) return of functionality. (No indication of prayer being involved in this instance.)
Jan
What I am saying is that we should not let someone else's belief benign belief system be a point of division. When a person says, "I prayed and my son got well." the proper response is "That is great!" not, "Statistically, there are 2% spontaneous revivals after cardiac arrest when the subject is young and has been immersed in cold water."
Jan
Jan
If you say I don't know it wouldn't be a crime. Not knowing allows an opening for faith and miracles.
Respect.
CPR is not very dramatically impressive, but there was a technique that used to be taught in CPR classes called 'the pro-cardial thump'. You basically thumped the sternum kinda hard with the base of your fist. If I thumped a dead Celtic chieftain on the chest (posit the time machine) and he came back to life that would look like an impressive miracle - but it would not be, from our scientific perspective.
I think that a miracle would be something that, no matter how advanced we got, we would not be able to explain it. This would be due to its being derived directly from a god that was greater than the entire universe and not subject to its limitations.
I cannot imagine a miracle.
Jan
If I understand this right, you believe all of this, all reality, all the experiments we do that appear to give time-invariant results, is God's creation. You're not asserting the gods are influencing experiments. You're not saying god talks to you and tells you what (s)he wants. You're not saying god intervened in a child's life but rather the universe in which life exists is a miracle.
If this is you're position, I don't see it as conflicting with Ayn Rand's view (based on the 2 books I read) one bit.
As for the kid, I think for some reason whatever he has to offer the world was too relevant to be lost before it could be delivered. Whether God's Creation or God Himself saved that boy its a miraculous event, particularly it happening at the moment of his mothers prayer.
a source of self-psychological comfort in life. OK! -- j
+1
isn't it interesting how they look like orchids? lovely!
-- j
And vice-versa! :)
If I were talking to them in person, though, I certainly wouldn't challenge their scientific claims.
And equally reliable and predictable!
:)
Wow! A whole new potential cult/religion in the making! With their/our Symbols on So Many Street Corners around the world Already!
A Miracle! (?) :)
The truly amazing thing is the body's ability to recover like this. On my first dive after certification, my elderly father-in-law drowned (face down, regulator out). I got to him after maybe 10-15 minutes after losing him. Very hard to find someone floating a little ways away in heavy swells. Got him back to the boat in another 10-15 minutes. In this case his heart never stopped, I suspect, because he moved when I smacked him. At like 70, he recovered in no time, with lungs half full of water. His first words: "Do you have my camera. Don't tell my wife."
As the mother of a (now young adult) child who should not be alive (rare genetic disorder)...I can only say that my belief in God has been constantly reinforced over the course of the last 22 years. And, I'm happy to report, this belief I have in the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, has done nothing to diminish my admiration for Ayn Rand. :) I've enjoyed, and shared, Ms. Rand's philosophy since I was sixteen years old.
What is that saying about there are no atheists in foxholes? I doubt there is an atheist who can hold their dying child in their arms without secretly hoping there is something more than secular humanism.
It wasn't my dying child, it was my dead child. Sure, I would have liked to have had a miracle even though I don't believe in them. My scream of rage and agony wasn't a cry for help from God. And Khaling is right, reality is inexorable.
In normal language a "miracle" is only something good that was highly unexpected, without the theology. It makes perfect sense that you hoped for such a miracle. Sorry you didn't get it.
I am usually a pretty open and a friendly person and as a result, I've had at least twelve people and two standbys trying to save my soul. As a matter of fact, I have a good friend who is very religious and keeps reminding me how he prays for me every day. Fortunately he is a musician with a great sense of humor, and both things make him an excellent buddy. I was going to use the phrase "saving grace" but I thought that was too religious. I don't want to fall off the wagon.
For me it's an educational voyage. Unfortunately, for more than the 'most part,' when I or other atheists encounter 'believers' in such discussions, the 'believers'' side of the discussion too often devolves into that circular logic of 'I believe it because the Bible says it's true and it's true because the Bible says it.'
That just does NOT work for me, so I enjoy the challenge of trying to find, if not root Cause, root Reason, and it's never been forthcoming. Hence my tenacity to my own belief system.
To 'conclude' that 'because we're here and we can't explain why means God Did It' is, for me, Supremely Irrational.
Yes, my background, training and inclinations are science and engineering, so if there's something "we don't know," my cohort will try to devise ways to Find Out What The Hell IS Going On!
Believers who quote their Bible (whichever one they prefer) as Proof never seem to demonstrate To ME that they have any interest in searching for new answers or testing the old ones. My cohort is virtually always testing old theories and beliefs. And I prefer that.
I'm not out to change anyone's beliefs... I'm mostly curious about how they Got Them in the First Place. Once in a while, my questions do make a difference...
After a Two Hour Discussion, one-on-one, with a devout Mormon, he verbalized agreement with my position that "the abortion issue is NOT a simple black-and-white/binary issue."
And a few months later, he took his family and moved out of Silicon Valley to the then-much-more-conservative Willamette Valley area near Corvallis, OR. Did I have an impact? Was it for good or for bad? I Have No Idea.
And maybe those events were truly coincidences, but it didn't stop me from asking my kinds of questions.
:)
Here's one of the paradox's that AR didn't address, to my understanding. She said "Existence exists," which is inherently true and is not in dispute. However, the best science that we have says that what exists - the universe - had a beginning which they call the "big bang." So what existed before the "big bang?" Did Existence exist before the beginning? I've begun to think that "Existence exists" = God. God is that which has existed forever and will exist forever.
There are also those who want to cherry pick scripture or the teaching of humans to demonstrate that God is inconsistent or fallible, when all it really demonstrates is that man is fallible.
I can't answer for your friend, but in my experience those in the LDS are some of the most consistent and rational of the Christian sects. If I were to have a choice of my neighbors or work colleagues, I'd choose LDS in a heartbeat.
As for abortion, I don't know if you've read my posting on that before, but it is an issue that can only be treated as grey. That is, unless we want to impose one set of rational views on others that posses other rational views. It is a situation where multiple rational views that are inconsistent cannot all be accepted. Thus, the least objectionable set of rational views must be accommodated. This is one of the failings of our current set of politicians, and political factions. Like some here who insist on things like voting "pure" for a candidate that has no chance of winning, but by doing so ensure that a worse candidate ends up winning, so is the situation with abortion. The purists on both sides prevent a compromise situation which would be more rational and moral overall.
There are those here that express those sentiments, if not outright, then implicitly.
I've used my reason, as have many others here, and come to a different conclusion.
You find it necessary to jump into a discussion with a different poster to interject your own sentiment. That's fine, but just pointing out that you're an interloper.
They boys recovery is beyond reason. The woman had faith that God would deliver her son from death. Until such time doctors can reason away the miraculous aspect of this boys recovery I'd think decent folk would just be pleased and satisfied to see the boy alive. This doesn't mean anyone should stop looking for a practical explanation.
Articles are posted here for discussion. The article clearly was religious in nature and was originally written and published to be just that. So are several others, such as the one promoted by Glenn Beck. There are thousands of cases every day of medical success for which we could be happy and which don't try to invoke religion. This one is circulating in the religious conservative media because it is obviously promoting religion, while the rest are ignored. Saying you didn't want to start a religious discussion in such circumstances is dubious.
The movie IS, fundamentally science-fiction, but most s-f has some scientific basis from which the 'improbable' sprouts.
Yeah, Glenn Beck... science-fiction without the foundation... :)))))) (usually)
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/02/248334-d...
Smith was submerged in the icy water for more than 15 minutes before first responders arrived.
The paramedics performed CPR on site for 15 minutes and doctors continued for almost 30 more minutes once he arrived at SSM St. Joseph Hospital West.
When his heartbeat didn’t return after 45 minutes, the doctors lost hope. His treating physician Dr. Nancy Bauer explained:
“He was gone. I’ve never felt someone so cold in my life.”
They called in Smith’s mother to tell her that her son wasn’t going to make it. She started praying.
“God, please don’t take my son,” she prayed.
Dr. Bauer recalled her coming into the room, sitting down, and calling out to the Holy Spirit. A few seconds later, Smith had a heartbeat.
“It gave me goosebumps.”
Evidence indicates that when the brain is without oxygen for more than ten minutes it is likely to suffer severe damage.
So even after his heartbeat returned, doctors were worried that he wouldn’t recover completely.
But after 48 hours, he opened his eyes. And when doctors asked him several basketball questions, he answered correctly, signifying that his brain would return to normal functionality.
When Today asked Smith about his experience, he had this to say: “There’s no really any explanation but how God wanted me to live for a reason so I’m alive now.”
As I said in my initial comment "Some things you can't explain."
No, I don't recall if there was any 'how THAT started up' part of the theory, but as I've said before, 'we're still looking for theories and evidence...' Science did not/does not Stop When Someone or Something Offers Up THE Answer.
Some theories get supported; some get tossed out when better data or experiments are developed. But Science NEVER 'stops' because someone or anyone says... "This Is THE Truth and we don't have to look any further." (like some certain book-thumpers seem to repeat over and over and over...)
I acknowledge that there are the "book-thumpers" as you describe them, and that they insist that no further exploration is necessary. I would put them in the same basket as the former head of the patent office who expressed the sentiment that everything that could be invented had been. That wasn't a religious sentiment, just a naïve one. There are many naïve people of faith.
As for "brane theory" that's interesting as a mechanism for the "big bang" but still doesn't answer the question as to where the membranes and all the matter came from originally. And what is outside of the expanse of the membrane?
In addition, there are questions about how inanimate atoms somehow organized themselves in a way that they were able to do more than just follow laws of nature. And eventually were not only able to do those things but were able to discern them and bend them to their will. These are profound questions that science doesn't appear anywhere close to being able to answer.
Asking "why?" is an interesting approach, though it seems a little simplistic To Me that the frequent answer is "God made it so."
Too unscientific for me, but again, that's Me.
The recent remake of the COSMOS series postulates some very plausible 'how things happened' theories, including evolution, too, unless one automatically rejects evolution as a possible Answer.. :)
It is just as logical....
Rather than 'simply' believing It Is....
Ayn Rand once wrote: " I am an intransigent atheist, though not a militant one. This means that I am not fighting against religion—I am fighting for reason. When faith and reason clash, it is up to the religious people to decide how they choose to reconcile the conflict. As far as I am concerned, I have no terms of communication and no means to deal with people, except through reason."
Why can't your desire for the right to believe what you choose and not be messed with, be extended to the rest of us?
Personally, I am not religious...but I'll accept (and expect) being damned, if I tried to make that the norm for everyone else.
More rational people could engage in philosophical questions or discussion, which would still require naming what we are talking about. Trashing atheists for using the word 'god' makes no sense.
'Other People's Beliefs" really means 'other person's beliefs,' and each of us is 'the other person' to someone else here, so we tend to love to discuss beliefs... any beliefs any Other Person sees fit to launch into a thread here.
Some kind of primal urge to Discuss and Evaluate and Compare and Contrast. It is, I'd venture, our common Inclination.
Few, if any, here oppose any Other Person's Right to Believe What They Believe, but most of us tend to be curious about How The Other Guy/Gal GOT to Their Beliefs.
'k?
What We CALL Gravity certainly Does Exist, even if we don't know much about it. We can describe and predict its characteristics and effects, one of the strongest ones being that we all don't fly off this spinning globe Because Of Gravity... whatever Does Cause or Create it!
Just because we don't (yet) know the cause or the 'why' of it does Not negate its existence or predictive value.
And putting Love in that comment is certainly a red herring. You should be ashamed of that Breach of Logic and Argument!
I can experience both, but cannot touch or objectively measure either. It is not a red herring, merely an example of something that everyone acknowledges exists, yet fails to meet the criteria that seems to be the standard that Objectivists have established to define "existence exists." Please show me in an objective manner that Love exists, yet we know that it does.
As for gravity, it is a physical force that is ubiquitous, and affects everything. By virtue of existing, i.e.; having mass, gravity must be present. But can you separate gravity from mass? Why couldn't God be the same?
I think there are too many anti-theists who want to paint God as being some old guy with a grey beard who lives up in the sky, sort of like the ancient depiction of Zeus. That is a very naïve and, I believe intentional, simplistic misrepresentation in order to set up an easily refuted strawman.
Surely you jest, or have some other meaning or definition behind that statement?!
Effects of gravity and mass are commonly discernible and measurable and predictable, through scientific experiment or common experience.
Love, on the other hand, clearly exists in myriad different 'shapes, sizes, causes and effects' and certainly there are NO 'meter-sticks' with which it can be 'measured.'
Experienced, sure! Described? Maybe, but poorly. Bottled and delivered? Only in perfume ads.
c'mon, Robbie! :)
Yes, you can discern gravity, but only referentially, not directly. You can observe its influence on other things, but you cannot point to it directly (and if you can, I suspect a Nobel prize in physics is in the offing). Please don't twist my words.
So, if you agree that love cannot be measured, how do you know it exists?
You can observe their effects, but not 'them.'
True!
But you CAN measure those 'discernible things' about gravity, but 'love'? ....
Air is Defined as the mixture of gaseous chemicals existing above the surface of the Earth.
Do you have some other well-defined and well-agreed-upon Definition that can be Proven or Disproven? Not very likely. Trying to live without something is a Very Bad example of a Proof of Existence. Likewise, water AND gravity...
Aristotle offered several arguments to prove the existence of God. One of them refers to the unmoved motor or mover. Ironically AR used the same term in AS... Anyway, the proof is logical. You're not convinced? Fine! Don't allow anybody to force you to think: the choice is yours :)
So I learned that now it is possible to actually see atoms whereas their existence was logically deduced long before.
"Nobody has seen an atom, never"....
Define "see" before you make that assertion, please... If 'see' means "with our naked eyes" or even "by reflected visible light" or any such similar 'definitions," yep, ain't nobody EVER gonna "see" an atom. Because they're smaller than the wavelengths of ANY 'visible light' we might 'see' with or perceive with our rudimentary eyes!
That argument is a non-starter without better 'definitions' up-front. Don't go there.
And while I certainly don't know Aristotle's arguments or proofs (and I will research that), I'll put money on the likelihood that his arguments or 'reasoning' involves some circular paths. I've never seen any that don't.
Cheers!
I read in other posts that it doesn't make sense to ask 'why does something exist?' and the argument is 'existence exists. Period.", which sounds like a tautology to me.
Yes, beware of circular logic: that is a real trap.
I'd never try to apply that approach to a "question" like 'why does something exist' or even try to Prove That Something Does Exist!
Hell, the philosophies and belief systems reviewed in the est Training made it pretty clear to me that, for example The Center Of The Universe is wherever your 'mind' is... because Everything In The Universe is radially outside in all directions!
As for Existence Existing, the similar 'argument' or explanation goes something like this... Everything you experience is experienced In Your Mind. It's fairly impossible to really prove that Anything Is Real because Everything (i.e., Every Experience) can be described as A Construct In Your Mind.
Love, pain, life, death? All constructs in your mind. Impossible to prove any external reality of any of it... If you choose to go down that path.
I reconciled that in My Mind by realizing that, yes, you can choose to see the Universe that way, but it's much more fun (and probably more useful) to live life based on the philosophy (theory, belief, whatever) that external reality Does Exist and to enjoy interacting with it!
:)
By the way, I have a generic answer for the generic question 'why do problems exist?' They are all caused by a contradiction. Even better, I know how to detect what specific contradiction for each problem, and (so far) I have always been able to understand how to eliminate the contradiction. That is real fun!
Asking why 'something' exists is, to me, too confusingly-broad of a bucket to try to fit things into or not-into.
Yes, your generic answer is one I can't dispute, but in my real world, the Problem Is to determine Which Contradiction Is The Root Cause of the Problem, which, if addressed, fixed or 'cured,' will effectively (and hopefully, economically,) eliminate/reduce/handle The Problem of the first statement.
If you have always been able to understand How To Eliminate The Contradiction, there must still be something missing, because the Original Problem Has Not Yet Been Eliminated... whatever it is.... Poverty? High Unemployment, Health issues?
Even Werner Erhard (of the est Training) had a popular mantra of his own... "Understanding is the booby-prize."
Somewhere past 'understanding' is Effecting A Solution.
Less confusing, I hope?
Cheers!
By the way, all the problems persist just because most people resist to think, and when they do, they accept compromising within the contradictions. I don't accept compromising.
Nice discussion, thanks.
In the first situation, First Define "Clapping"; in the second, First Define "Sound."
Nobody ever starts there or goes down that path, so the 'discussions' are, as a college friend of mine created the descriptive adjective, "Fruitile"... A combination of Futile and Fruitless.
:)
The evolutionary nod in science books is at the beginning or the end - as agreed to get grants and funding. In reality, scientists have been looking to find out who wrote the original information in each person's DNA. The information can only be created by intelligence - the intelligent being that created the code is God. I recommend a video for you to watch: Evolution's Achilles' Heels; 15 Ph.D. Scientists explain evolution's fatal flaws - in areas claimed to be it's greatest strengths. You will come away with a realistic view. I reconciled Rand to my Faith a long time ago. Proven Science: Everything is digital. We are living in a reality inside another reality. Time is slowing down. The universe is finite. What those things mean is awesome when you dig into the research. Some European scientists are well on the road to proving we are living in an amazing hologram of the likes we could not create ourselves. Studying the Bible is very interesting work - especially when you are studying the same science. A fun fact: Man never needed to believe the world was flat - the Bible tells us it is round. Mankind has always had a lot of catching up to do to know the science. I love how scientists do admit they are wrong when they discover it.
You have free will. There would be no point to being alive without it. God crated time and can see everything - being outside time. He knew what every choice we would make would be. He is God, our Creator, and He decided where He would intervene and not intervene - based on our choices. Global warming is a scam, but it could not be an extinction event unless God chose to let it happen. He keeps all things in balance. When there have been no temperature change for over a decade - well - hmmmm - oh, He has a sense of humor (He created that in us too.)
I am not alone in believing that when we were cast out of perfection, we lost the ability to directly know the other dimensions. The Bible talks about the 4 knowable dimensions."Ephesians 3:18 (KJV)
May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;"
Breadth in it's oldest meaning: scope, range, span . . . as in time.
People like me who are reconciling God and the Science He Created - ask you to read the Bible with an open mind - take it literally - it is for our understanding and learning. And reconcile it to science. You just might be surprised to finally start looking for the intelligence that created the DNA code - and millions of other Created phenomena.
By the way, I think that we have only begun to understand the universe and the vast coincidences that have caused intelligent life on Earth to come about may even reconcile quantum physics with consciousness. So, you and I while coming from different starting points, may actually meet up one day. (More likely with someone younger than me.)
No.
the Texas Lady.
Ayn Rand's *Alisa Rosenbaum" childhood was influenced by her Jewish family members. I see that basic principles and values in her philosophy. Even though she rejected faith, I see ingrained in her philosophy much of Jewish influence. Only through seeking the knowledge of the Bible, and science, and philosophy, etc. have I come to reconcile much of what she believes with my faith. This is a personal journey, and there isn't enough space here to delve into it. It is because I reason and research for the answers to the questions I believe are important, that I can make such statements. I am not offended by questions. I am offended by several statements above such as: "He is a mystic and will believe whatever he feels like, impervious to any logic. There is no point trying to discuss anything with him at that level."
and "My goodness, you are as sensitive as a sunburn on a rash . . . bellicosity." I do not have to be an atheist to be logical and objective - quite the opposite in my case. My belief has been concreted with much research, scientific and Biblical. If, by bellicose, you mean that I am aggressive to give others something sound to research and think about - then I am guilty.
(1) get offa da pittypot. We LOVE discourse, and even opposing viewpoints... but coming at it from a "I'm a victim" place will get you nada here. KNOW your background, know your source material, even be ready to cite it... and you may have people who will not only listen to your POV, but embrace it. And if they don't... they don't. Get over it, and if you **really** believe your POV is right, don't back down... but if you have doubts, you're in the right place. Otherwise... you're spewing air. It is what it is, and that's the way it is. WE have a saying - A=A. You can't BS the truth.
(2) I get insulted all the time - from ny old libtard freinds, from my Commie Red buds (and yes I still have some from that part of my life), from my own family, and even from my friends here. Know what? I let it roll off my back like oily water offf a duck. Maybe you should thing about trying the same? If you sport a thin skin here you're destined to doom...
We, for the most part, are a pretty open group of individuals, but individuals we are... You want a *good* cross section of people, then come at us with blatant honesty and with your cards on the table, and we'll answer you. You may not LIKE the answers, but again, it is what it is - I can name 9 groups that will give you pablum. WE - will give you flat out honesty. Like it or not.
Harsh? Maybe. But in my humble opinion, this gang of folk will tell you what it is (from their viewpoint) and not mamby-pamby you to not hurt your feelings. But in most cases, that honesty is what is reality.. MOST people hide from it - but - and this is a bigger but than my derrurier - if you can can embrace it, you will find not only you can find others who have a grip on reality, but you may find your philosophy twisted to a deeper sense of embracint your inner sense of honesty - and self.
Thats all I got to say for now... good luck to you!