I concur, but you are not addressing my point. To believe either is irrational. To point to specific examples where some people had claimed "miracle!" is a distraction form the point at hand. I am well aware of the phenomenon of confirmation bias in humans; please point it somewhere else; It doesn't apply to the question at hand.
There is no evidence supporting the hypothesis that Jesus was God, nor is there evidence that he wasn't God. There is no evidence that supports the existence of a God. There is no evidence that supports the non-existence of God.
Furthermore, proofs occur in logic constructs like mathematics. Proof is not part of the scientific method. Science deals with evidence, particularly the search for falsifying evidence. That is the power of science, and a good counter to our inherent confirmation bias.
I am a scientist, but I know that the scientific method doesn't address the unfalsifiable. The existence of God, or the God status of Jesus, existence of Heaven etc.. these are not falsifiable, and science does not deal with it. It has nothing to say about the matter, except that evidence, one way or another is lacking.
If a scientist makes an incorrect conjecture, do we condemn all of science?
Jesus fulfilled the old testament, thus ending it and beginning a new era of God's word. It is not contradictory for a person to say that a law applies to a specific time period and situation, and not forevermore.
Jesus was asked, what is the greatest commandment: He answered, "Love your God with all your heart, mind and soul. Next most important is:Love thy neighbor.
I paraphrase, but that is the gist.
I have trouble with the old testament, but I view it as a God intended process of molding a people into moral beings, readying them for the ultimate covenant of a personal relationship. Jesus said when asked about divorce and the laws of Moses permitting divorce that the Lord knew the hardness of their hearts and so permitted it, however let not man tear apart what God allowed to be joined.
The old testament, in my view, was to teach the people that there is one God only that you should worship, and that He is more important than anything else in the world. Put nothing before him.
Jesus only asked us to believe in Him that sent Him.
Proof for or against the existence of God does not exist. To believe one way or another is irrational. To say, "I don't have any evidence for a God, thus will not use such a concept to guide my life IS rational.
You advocate a concept that is very similar to a religion, and one that is equally dangerous.
No matter what, you will continue to sin. Saved, respectful or not. Only our spirit is cleansed. We might now want to DO THE LORD'S WILL, but it does not mean that we will succeed.
Byt he way, the only non-Christian thing you did in your post is to be an AC. Or is that not praying in public, as do the hypocrites?
Our supposition that Christianity is not pure fantasy is just as irrational as your supposition that it is fantasy.
Guilt? We should all feel guilty. Guilt is not bad. I screw up all the time. I get angry at my wife, and I am sharp with her. I am ignoring my son to write this post. No one is perfect. The need to ask forgiveness, I believe, has more to do with a)a desire to be good, and the realization that we are not good.
Besides, the key to salvation is to believe that Jesus can make you clean through his sacrifice, not by prostrating yourself in self hatred.
Look this game does not represent Christianity, or the qualities of its followers. So much hatred for Christianity on Slashdot. Gleeful and spiteful hatred up and down this article's postings.
eg. Reminds me of some people I used to meet: "They used to be my favorite band, but now everyone knows about them, so I hate them now. Must love an unknown band to make me feel special and unique."
Don't you know that a song, or computer system's worthiness come from its qualities as a work of arty or industry, and not its esotericism? If you'd fail to love continue loving Apple after it got popular, then you don't really love Apple, you love being able to say, "I do it different. I am unique. I am not the usual Joe."
I work for memory development lab at UC Davis, and we often employ the DRM paradigm to induce false memories. I have not read the research paper yet posted with this article, but that a virtual world can create false memories has been demonstrated by the numerous DRM studies which use computer screens to present their stimuli,( you know like all of them these days:)) In will read this paper in any case since it is in my domain, and possibly it has a new paradigm which may be useful.
Officially,/. is about nerdy news. However, the reality is different. Often the political articles are the most popular on/. and generate the most discussion. Perhaps it will ease your mind to think of it from a different perspective: Nerdy Perspectives about the News. A political discussion by nerds..
Nerds see themselves as being part of an enlightened and well established subculture. To ignore every discussion which transcends the traditionally geeky however, would be paramount to calling that subculture stupid, out of touch with the world that influences their lives, in a word, unenlightened.
It is obvious from the popularity of/. articles concerning rights, freedom, politics, and how we've been Bushywhacked for the last six years, implies that nerds care deeply about these issues. It is easy for the enlightened to see that we live in a dangerous world: from terrorism to oppression, from bi0 weapons to outsourcing IT to India, from global warming to bad presidents, surveillance to CowboyNeal's evil twin.
The point is this: Nerds are smart, and when thy looked up from their code and saw the desperation of the world's people, they saw a world that needed their comments on Slashdot.
I say this report is Bullshit. What professor, after making a huge discovery, proceeds to teach it to children before presenting it at a seminar of his peers? If these children are his peers, then I suggest he merely drew a symbol and named it 0/0.
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
-King James Genesis
- sounds like evolution to me.
Granted. Indeed I would not seek to argue against any of the points you've just made, and I did not in my original post. I merely showed that it may be possible for a creation to be made that disguises its true birthday from logic and science. I DID NOT advocate that this is the true state of our world, and nowhere did I make a case for a particular date of creation.
unfortunately, it is difficult to argue for the possibility of God and creation without others jumping in and erroneously believing that more was said than actually was stated. Given the history of bad reasoning from religious communities scared of science, it is natural for people to make this mistake, and just assume that I am just another zealot without reason since their experience with zealots gives them reason to convicts me a priori. However, it is a fallacy to conclude that because the reasoning skills of the proponents of a position are poor, then the position they are defending is also weak. It may be that those whom wish to defend their religion from agnostic philosophers and scientists are less trained in reasoning skills, and are blinded by the bad reasoning thats been drilled in their heads from childhood from their religious leaders and peers. However, I believe that with a fresh approach a proper defense of religion can be made if and only if, opponents are willing to let go of stereotypes, and use reason themselves in analyzing the arguments actually made.
Slashdot Mirror
Stereotyper.
There is no evidence supporting the hypothesis that Jesus was God, nor is there evidence that he wasn't God. There is no evidence that supports the existence of a God. There is no evidence that supports the non-existence of God.
Furthermore, proofs occur in logic constructs like mathematics. Proof is not part of the scientific method. Science deals with evidence, particularly the search for falsifying evidence. That is the power of science, and a good counter to our inherent confirmation bias.
I am a scientist, but I know that the scientific method doesn't address the unfalsifiable. The existence of God, or the God status of Jesus, existence of Heaven etc.. these are not falsifiable, and science does not deal with it. It has nothing to say about the matter, except that evidence, one way or another is lacking.
If a scientist makes an incorrect conjecture, do we condemn all of science?
Jesus was asked, what is the greatest commandment: He answered, "Love your God with all your heart, mind and soul. Next most important is:Love thy neighbor.
I paraphrase, but that is the gist.
I have trouble with the old testament, but I view it as a God intended process of molding a people into moral beings, readying them for the ultimate covenant of a personal relationship. Jesus said when asked about divorce and the laws of Moses permitting divorce that the Lord knew the hardness of their hearts and so permitted it, however let not man tear apart what God allowed to be joined.
The old testament, in my view, was to teach the people that there is one God only that you should worship, and that He is more important than anything else in the world. Put nothing before him.
Jesus only asked us to believe in Him that sent Him.
You advocate a concept that is very similar to a religion, and one that is equally dangerous.
Byt he way, the only non-Christian thing you did in your post is to be an AC. Or is that not praying in public, as do the hypocrites?
Thank you for making me laugh the first time in this article. God bless.
Guilt? We should all feel guilty. Guilt is not bad. I screw up all the time. I get angry at my wife, and I am sharp with her. I am ignoring my son to write this post. No one is perfect. The need to ask forgiveness, I believe, has more to do with a)a desire to be good, and the realization that we are not good.
Besides, the key to salvation is to believe that Jesus can make you clean through his sacrifice, not by prostrating yourself in self hatred.
Look this game does not represent Christianity, or the qualities of its followers. So much hatred for Christianity on Slashdot. Gleeful and spiteful hatred up and down this article's postings.
Exactly, which is why all my article submissions point toward the unsuspecting amateur.
Sure, just give us your credit card information, and we'll set it free for you.
I commend you on your thoughtfulness.
eg. Reminds me of some people I used to meet: "They used to be my favorite band, but now everyone knows about them, so I hate them now. Must love an unknown band to make me feel special and unique."
Don't you know that a song, or computer system's worthiness come from its qualities as a work of arty or industry, and not its esotericism? If you'd fail to love continue loving Apple after it got popular, then you don't really love Apple, you love being able to say, "I do it different. I am unique. I am not the usual Joe."
I work for memory development lab at UC Davis, and we often employ the DRM paradigm to induce false memories. I have not read the research paper yet posted with this article, but that a virtual world can create false memories has been demonstrated by the numerous DRM studies which use computer screens to present their stimuli,( you know like all of them these days :)) In will read this paper in any case since it is in my domain, and possibly it has a new paradigm which may be useful.
Nerds see themselves as being part of an enlightened and well established subculture. To ignore every discussion which transcends the traditionally geeky however, would be paramount to calling that subculture stupid, out of touch with the world that influences their lives, in a word, unenlightened.
It is obvious from the popularity of /. articles concerning rights, freedom, politics, and how we've been Bushywhacked for the last six years, implies that nerds care deeply about these issues. It is easy for the enlightened to see that we live in a dangerous world: from terrorism to oppression, from bi0 weapons to outsourcing IT to India, from global warming to bad presidents, surveillance to CowboyNeal's evil twin.
The point is this: Nerds are smart, and when thy looked up from their code and saw the desperation of the world's people, they saw a world that needed their comments on Slashdot.
he rediscovered the axiom!
How many light bulbs does it take to change a light bulb?
...
One, if it knows its own Goedel number.
THEY MUST BE RELATED!!
Yes because mathematics is a discipline of arbitrary rules, right?
I say this report is Bullshit. What professor, after making a huge discovery, proceeds to teach it to children before presenting it at a seminar of his peers? If these children are his peers, then I suggest he merely drew a symbol and named it 0/0.
Why is the algorithm producing that? Oh I introduced a nullity.
Furthermore, they shouldn't have called it a nullity. They should have called it a Bush.
Yes the difference is that people can do something about it today.
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. -King James Genesis - sounds like evolution to me.
and Iraq
unfortunately, it is difficult to argue for the possibility of God and creation without others jumping in and erroneously believing that more was said than actually was stated. Given the history of bad reasoning from religious communities scared of science, it is natural for people to make this mistake, and just assume that I am just another zealot without reason since their experience with zealots gives them reason to convicts me a priori. However, it is a fallacy to conclude that because the reasoning skills of the proponents of a position are poor, then the position they are defending is also weak. It may be that those whom wish to defend their religion from agnostic philosophers and scientists are less trained in reasoning skills, and are blinded by the bad reasoning thats been drilled in their heads from childhood from their religious leaders and peers. However, I believe that with a fresh approach a proper defense of religion can be made if and only if, opponents are willing to let go of stereotypes, and use reason themselves in analyzing the arguments actually made.
I think the idea is that He can do anything he wants, but will not break his word.