Balancing The Two - SciForums.com

b0urgeoisie

08-10-04, 12:29 AM

I believe that trees are an important part of our global ecosystem.
I understand the truth that marine phytoplankton are much more important. I recognize the value of our coral reefs as the environment for unimaginable numbers of endemic species.

I understand that trees are living creatures created by God for a purpose that has for a long time been greater than our understanding. It is because a system that would be almost completely closed would have to be created by itself to be stable.

The universe is an evolving place. It is difficult to determine its purpose. The rules of creation are even greater than that for creating life. Because, I believe in God I believe he had a number of hours greater than my ability to assign a number to. It is for that reason, prophets in the Bible would say he always has been. To say that does not say he has always been how He is now. With knowledge greater than I am able to describe we could call him omniscient and who would argue. I believe that God has an understanding of physics that he can perceive time the way we perceive space. With a knowledge of all manner of science he could start the tiniest reaction that would have the greatest over all result. As an observer of his creation he could influence the overall reaction and yield.

I believe that it is more personal than just an experiment. I believe we are His children. I think that He has done things to help us. I think there have been a lot of people that have twisted and morphed the meaning of His directions. I think there have been too many wicked things done in His name. I think he would want us to do what we could to better our lives.

I think it is the best interest of our species to maintain a healthy planet. I believe all people have a responsibility to clean up after themselves. I value life. I believe that no matter what happens next; we should try to help those that will be happy to be happy. We should allow for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Which means we should investigate where the answers to our health may be waiting. God allows us to be imperfect. If stem cell research is the answer then we should look where it goes. I recognize that it is a huge step from human cloning. (most religionists I know do not) I do not believe anything we can do with science is going to make God jealous. Let us examine King David. I believe that he ruled and his people accepted him as called of God. But, I know that if God is all knowing and would never choose to establish a monarchy. The people were just doing that. And, it was not going to wipe them out and was reasonable for the culture. So perhaps he was called by God directly our merely by him being a product of a system. I don't know. I wasn't there. I know that not every person who claims to be God or a prophet will be.
I think we have a responsibility to respect the rights of the people who would pay for that kind of research. We should consider what we can do with the research before we dive in. Because, if we chose health over the beliefs of the people who have concerns of any kind it should be so we can offer results. We must know more before we can start cloning. There is still so much to learn that we could not in good conscious create an intelligent person. I am not against it because God said so. I have only read one passage that concerns cloning and it was an example of God doing it. I just don't think we know enough about intelligence to have to tell someone they are an experiment that the world is watching. Unless you harvest a cell from a zygote and can preserve it to find out what kind of person it will be before the experiment you can't be sure of the genetic material. Until you can scan a person genome down to the last base pair in an instant you can't clone him/her.

The impression I get from most people is they will only believe in God if He/She fits what they want. Or they refuse to believe because the understanding they have does not allow for it. They understand God to be a certain way but it conflicts with something they believe so they choose not to believe. Either way that is your choice.

Some people think they have a right, given by God, to force peaceful people be a certain way. I don't think anybody has that right. Very rarely, for criminals and times of war, some people have that duty. But, it has never been about religion. Even when the war was over religion. The war is wrong but people on both sides have a duty to preserve life and liberty.

I believe God wants us to do the right thing and we should look for it. I don't believe we are supposed to sit and wait for God to come down and cure disease. He would never say "Hey your moving in on my turf. Quit with all that evil science! Unless it was evil. It shouldn't take God to tell us what is right and wrong. If we are to get anything after this life we need to take our talents and increase them. The guy who lost everything is the guy who buried his talents for fear of getting punished.

Now where can you demonstrate for me where my religion tells me I can't learn about and teach and live bioethics. You may not agree with my stands an some issues. But, you cannot say that it is because my religion is in the way.

b0urgeoisie

08-10-04, 12:49 AM

Hi Bourgeoisie,
What do you mean?
Are you suggesting that natural evidence is inappropriate for supernatural claims?

shaky evidence for shaky claims ??? :)

I believe they are different spokes on a wheel. Natural evidence can't prove or disprove Gods existence. I think natural evidence could show us how He interacted in the past and present with the Earth. But it does not speak to his existence.
I would only present evidence to you if I felt I had to convince you. You should be looking for evidence and make your own decisions. I am only saying that you don't look for a lesson in math at a concert. The signature of math is there. But, there are more effective ways.
The same is true for spiritual matters. I could never prove or disprove God's existence in a study of lobster migration. Both sides could argue that evidence is there but there are more effective ways to discover spiritual understanding.

Cris

08-10-04, 02:18 AM

b0urgeoisie

I think you are wrong.

Science and religion are incompatible – one is based on reason the other isn’t. How can they be compatible under such opposing paradigms?

I believe certain things that you could call religious.

Belief in a god is one of them, correct?

You would know that the bible starts with an example of human cloning.

Taking a rib from Adam and creating woman is clearly not cloning. Cloning would be the creation of another Adam, right? You are stretching an idea and trying to make it fit with modern science and it doesn’t fit. The bible authors had no notion of cloning and the bible intended no such thing.

You would know that in the first book of the modern Bible it says life sprang from the water.

Well, no – read the bible more carefully. Plant life came first and that is life, right? And that did not come from the waters according to the bible. And the waters brought forth water living creatures. And later earth living creatures were formed. Again you are trying to stretch a point and are miss-quoting the bible. Neither is it clear from abiogenesis theories that water was needed for very early life to form.

If I chose to impose what you believe religion to be. How do you know what I believe?

Because you said so - ”I do believe in God and have evidence that is appropriate to support my beliefs. (supernatural evidence for supernatural claims)”

I am comfortable with what I believe. What is not easy is listening to people from both sides telling me I should only do one or the other.

Perhaps they also realize that the two sides can never be reconciled.

Perhaps you could tell me what I'm fit to do.

When I studied law it became very apparent that a strong ability to use logic was essential. Science is a similar discipline. Religion is incompatible with both. If your religious beliefs are strong then you cannot be a logical thinker and will fail at both law and science. If you ever become logical then logic dictates that you must reject religion. Determine where your strengths are and choose accordingly.

Pete

08-10-04, 02:19 AM

Can you provide an example of supernatural evidence?

I'm genuinely interested.

davewhite04

08-10-04, 04:51 AM

Simply because science and religion are incompatible.

Cris:

Sir Isaac Newton, arguably the greatest scientist ever, didn't have any problems mixing the two. Or are you going to say that science is different now, and no sane person believes in God because we landed on the moon?

Dave

davewhite04

08-10-04, 05:27 AM

When I studied law it became very apparent that a strong ability to use logic was essential. Science is a similar discipline. Religion is incompatible with both. If your religious beliefs are strong then you cannot be a logical thinker and will fail at both law and science. If you ever become logical then logic dictates that you must reject religion. Determine where your strengths are and choose accordingly.

Cris:

I noticed this about you sometime ago but did not mention it. You seem to think that if someone believes in God this automatically makes them illogical in every area of their life. Why?

Can it be that you are so arrogant as to think there is absolutely no possibility of God existing, and you have the proof for it?

Maybe you're illogical Cris.

Dave

water

08-10-04, 08:02 AM

Simply because science and religion are incompatible.

Science is a tool. It has no inherent values or ethics -- but those given to it by the users of science.

Science is comparable to a needle: a needle does not decide what I will, can or should do with it. I can sew a dress or poke someone in the eye.

So is science: it can help people to lead healthier lives, or it can corrupt them.
It all depends on who takes science into his hands.

Crunchy Cat

08-10-04, 09:35 AM

But, I do believe in God and have evidence that is
appropriate to support my beliefs. (supernatural evidence for supernatural
claims)

Now this sounds interesting. What kind of supernatural claims and evidences
are being referred to?

Cris

08-10-04, 09:48 AM

Davewhite,

Sir Isaac Newton, arguably the greatest scientist ever, didn't have any problems mixing the two. Or are you going to say that science is different now, and no sane person believes in God because we landed on the moon?

But think how much better he could have been had he not been shackled by the heavy yoke and limitations of religion.

water

08-10-04, 09:53 AM

But think how much better he could have been had he not been shackled by the heavy yoke and limitations of religion.

How can you know that he indeed could have been "better" had he not been shackled by the heavy yoke and limitations of religion?!

Cris

08-10-04, 10:13 AM

Davewhite,

You seem to think that if someone believes in God this automatically makes them illogical in every area of their life. Why?

It is a way of thinking that is strengthened by practice and constant focus. If half your time you choose to do the opposite then you weaken and dilute your ability to think logically at other times.

Can it be that you are so arrogant as to think there is absolutely no possibility of God existing, and you have the proof for it?

It is an imaginative fairy tale that has been propagated for thousands of years in thousands of different forms and variations. Why would anyone ever consider that such silly ideas might be real in the light of modern science? It is no more meaningful to attempt to prove that a god doesn’t exist than it is to attempt to prove that the wizard of oz doesn’t exist. They are both fictional characters.

If you want to make a case that such imaginary things are not fictional then show some proof – no one in several thousands of years has yet come close.

Maybe you're illogical Cris.

But I’m not the one being confused by believing fictional characters are real.

Alpha

08-10-04, 10:16 AM

Also, there should be a forum for Bioethics.Bioethics is a subset of ethics & morality, for which there is already a forum. It could use some more activity.
I understand that trees are living creatures created by God for a purpose that has for a long time been greater than our understanding. It is because a system that would be almost completely closed would have to be created by itself to be stable.Perhaps you ought to forget bioethics. Trees weren't created by God for some purpose, they evolved. If you can't understand biology you shouldn't be in bioethics.
I believe we are His children.We are our parents children.
I think that He has done things to help us.That would require breaking the laws of nature.
Or they refuse to believe because the understanding they have does not allow for it. They understand God to be a certain way but it conflicts with something they believe so they choose not to believe. Either way that is your choice.And if it conflicts with the understanding that reality is consistent?
Can it be that you are so arrogant as to think there is absolutely no possibility of God existing, and you have the proof for it?I suppose you think I am arrogant.
Science is a tool. It has no inherent values or ethics -- but those given to it by the users of science.Are you sure about that?
So is science: it can help people to lead healthier lives, or it can corrupt them.
It all depends on who takes science into his hands. Science is like any other tool, but it is the user who is responsible, not science (the tool) itself.
It is no more meaningful to attempt to prove that a god doesn’t exist than it is to attempt to prove that the wizard of oz doesn’t exist. They are both fictional characters.On the contrary. The concept of God is relevant to the existence of the universe, while the wizard of Oz is not relevant to anything of comparable importance.

Cris

08-10-04, 10:20 AM

Rosa,

How can you know that he indeed could have been "better" had he not been shackled by the heavy yoke and limitations of religion?!

Can you show that the illogic of religion didn’t interfere with his ability to think clearly at all times?

davewhite04

08-10-04, 10:45 AM

Cris:

It is a way of thinking that is strengthened by practice and constant focus. If half your time you choose to do the opposite then you weaken and dilute your ability to think logically at other times.

LOL, have you got first hand experience of this?

It is an imaginative fairy tale that has been propagated for thousands of years in thousands of different forms and variations. Why would anyone ever consider that such silly ideas might be real in the light of modern science? It is no more meaningful to attempt to prove that a god doesn’t exist than it is to attempt to prove that the wizard of oz doesn’t exist. They are both fictional characters.

What silly ideas? Read the Bible again and come back and tell me it is a silly book. Cris, tell me a single person in history that is comparable to Jesus Christ?

This is what Napoleon thought:

"I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and I founded empires, but on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded his empire upon love, and at this hour millions of people would die for him."

Napoleon Bonaparte, french emperor (1769 - 1821)

Now I will hazard a guess that you'll question the actual existance of the historical Jesus, well so be it. I know who I would rather learn from.

If you want to make a case that such imaginary things are not fictional then show some proof – no one in several thousands of years has yet come close.

I admit that it is faith that mainly drives my belief. However you seem convinced that there is no God, without even faith. So really the burden of proof is on you as you are making the claim.

But I’m not the one being confused by believing fictional characters are real.

Here, a good example of you being convinced about biblical characters being fictional, without a shread of proof, just hot air.

Dave

davewhite04

08-10-04, 10:50 AM

I suppose you think I am arrogant.

I don't know if this was directed at me?

Dave

Cris

08-10-04, 10:54 AM

Alpha,

The concept of God is relevant to the existence of the universe,

Not if one is logical. The two fairy tales are identical in that they both posit the idea that magic can make things happen. Both are equally irrelevant to cosmology.

Cris

08-10-04, 11:22 AM

Davewhite,

LOL, have you got first hand experience of this?

Yes.

What silly ideas? Read the Bible again and come back and tell me it is a silly book. Cris, tell me a single person in history that is comparable to Jesus Christ?

It is silly because it has no factual credibility and people are expected to believe it is true. That is silly.

JC represents the concept of something coming to remove all our fears and grant us all our dreams and showering us with perfect love. There is nothing in comparison – it is the ultimate utopia that everyone is drawn to desire. And nothing in the universe indicates that such a thing is or will ever be possible. It is a false dream, or at least one at which is going to take us a very long time to achieve with our own hard work.

This is what Napoleon thought:

"I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and I founded empires, but on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded his empire upon love, and at this hour millions of people would die for him."

Napoleon Bonaparte, frence emperor (1769 - 1821)

It’s a wonderful inspirational concept but offers nothing in the way of proof of gods or that such characters need to exist or for such ideas to exist.

I admit that it is faith that mainly drives my belief. However you seem convinced that there is no God, without even faith. So really the burden of proof is on you as you are making the claim.

How so? All concepts of gods remain fictional until someone like yourself can show otherwise. You have proposed that such things are real yet you admit you don’t have any evidence (you use faith). Why is there any onus on me to prove the default that such things are fictional when there is no evidence to believe otherwise?

Here, a good example of you being convinced about biblical characters being fictional, without a shread of proof, just hot air.

They are fictional by default – this is fact. There is nothing to prove. The onus remains on you to show they are real since it is theists who introduced and created the ideas not me.

Alpha

08-10-04, 11:28 AM

I don't know if this was directed at me?

DaveYes, you are the one I quoted.
Not if one is logical. The two fairy tales are identical in that they both posit the idea that magic can make things happen. Both are equally irrelevant to cosmology.Just because the God theory is unproven doesn't make it irrelevant. It's a theory that should be proven true or false. The wizard of Oz isn't a theory.

davewhite04

08-10-04, 11:48 AM

It is silly because it has no factual credibility and people are expected to believe it is true. That is silly.

What lack of factual credibility are you referring to?

You have proposed that such things are real yet you admit you don’t have any evidence (you use faith). Why is there any onus on me to prove the default that such things are fictional when there is no evidence to believe otherwise?

I can admit to you that I have no physical evidence of God, but I do have faith. You write as if you're an authority on the non-existance of God, so do you admit that you don't know if God exists or not? If you say he doesn't exist, then I'll assume you have faith too.

Dave

b0urgeoisie

08-10-04, 11:49 AM

It's a theory that should be proven true or false.
What kind of experiment should we design to do that? What evidence should we collect to prove or disprove God's existence?

davewhite04

08-10-04, 11:50 AM

Yes, you are the one I quoted.

Ok. Nothing you have written would lead me to think that you're arrogant in this context, why did you ask?

Dave

b0urgeoisie

08-10-04, 11:52 AM

...and people are expected to believe it is true. That is silly.

You can believe or not nobody is making you do anything. What you are not allowed to do is force atheism on people who choose to believe. You are not allowed to restrict employment or any other thing because people choose to believe.

b0urgeoisie

08-10-04, 11:58 AM

Bioethics is a subset of ethics & morality, for which there is already a forum. It could use some more activity.
Bioethics is too large to be only a subset. It is going to be the biggest debate around the world for some time. The questions will only grow as our knowledge does. With the genome project comlete and questions about stem cell research and cloning growing people will become very divided. When you consider abortion is a bioethical concern you must agree that the topic is too large to be a subset.

water

08-10-04, 12:03 PM

Science is like any other tool, but it is the user who is responsible, not science (the tool) itself.

While I said before you:

Science is a ***tool***. It has no inherent values or ethics -- but those ***given*** to it by the ***users*** of science.

Can you show that the illogic of religion didn’t interfere with his ability to think clearly at all times?

I just think it is pointless to make guesses about "how could it be if he had ..."

thefountainhed

08-10-04, 12:26 PM

I don't think there is any ethical debate involved in for example, human cloning without religion. What values are challenged in the instances that a human is cloned, or that a fetus enhanced? I do not think one can make the claim that there exists qualms in genetic manipulations/modifications without religion. Thus, in a debate on bioethics, religion and science and inexorably linked.

Now, are religion and science incompatible? I think that is entirely dependent on the kind of religion. Any relogion seeped in the supernatural cannot be compatible with science by definition.

Jan Ardena

08-10-04, 12:31 PM

thefountainhed,

Now, are religion and science incompatible? I think that is entirely dependent on the kind of religion. Any relogion seeped in the supernatural cannot be compatible with science by definition.

Religion and science are compatible when they stick to their respective genres. In fact one cannot be perfectly understood without the other.

Jan Ardena.

thefountainhed

08-10-04, 12:55 PM

Religion and science are compatible when they stick to their respective genres. In fact one cannot be perfectly understood without the other.

Since I hinted at the point that some religions may not be seeped in the supernatural, let's assume that you refer to religions that are based on the supernatural. And for argument sake, let's take as the whipping boy, Christianity:

The very foundation of Christianty, the belief in an omnipotent, omnipresent God, who cannot be experienced in the physical, and whose being cannot be proved within the physical world, is at odds with the whole basis of science: conclusions based on observation.

b0urgeoisie

08-10-04, 12:59 PM

I think for something to be supernatural it still must follow rules. But, those rules are only a greater manifestation of rules that we understand. I don't know exacltly what the nature of God is. But, I believe that He is bound by rules the same as anything else.
I think God has knowledge of all things. I think evidence for this can be found in the Bible. When Jesus was tempted to turn a stone into bread he refused. He may have known how but also knew that kind of reaction would effect more than just a stone. He would have had to surpress an immense amount of nuclear energy.
Perhaps those miracles that appear supernatural are only a demonstration of forces that have not been discovered. People who won't allow for a supreme being allow for all kinds of other irrational thinking. Who doesn't believe attitude can effect everything?

thefountainhed

08-10-04, 01:10 PM

What people choose to believe must lie outside the two fundamnetal paradigms. Besides you use the bible as if it were fact.

BTW,
this "People who won't allow for a supreme being allow for all kinds of other irrational thinking. " this not good for your argument. You implictly imply that allowing for God is irrational. By definition, scientic conclusions are rational, and therefore does not allow for a God is currently deined by Christianity.

Cris

08-10-04, 02:18 PM

Alpha,

Just because the God theory is unproven doesn't make it irrelevant. It's a theory that should be proven true or false.

There is no such thing as a god theory in the scientific sense. To become a theory evidence is required and there is none for gods. Even a hypothesis needs some evidential support.

Without evidence for gods all you have is speculative imagination, which is essentially indistinguishable from fiction, or the wizard of Oz.

Cris

08-10-04, 02:24 PM

B,

You can believe or not nobody is making you do anything.

OK but why bring this up?

What you are not allowed to do is force atheism on people who choose to believe.

Why not? There doesn’t appear to be any rules that stop religionists forcing their ideas on those who don’t want to believe, in fact it is a basic requirement of Christians to preach and convert others.

I’m not sure of your point here or why you are raising this issue.

You are not allowed to restrict employment or any other thing because people choose to believe.

That’s enforceable by law I believe. But why is that an issue here?

Cris

08-10-04, 02:35 PM

B,

What lack of factual credibility are you referring to?

The lack of facts that force you to believe on faith rather than evidence.

I can admit to you that I have no physical evidence of God, but I do have faith.

Isn’t that a rather silly thing to do?

…do you admit that you don't know if God exists or not? If you say he doesn't exist, then I'll assume you have faith too.

The suggestion makes no sense. It is like asking whether you believe that Sherlock Holmes doesn’t exist. Both Holmes and God are fictional characters so of course they don’t exist. One doesn’t need faith to believe that fictional characters do not exist.

b0urgeoisie

08-10-04, 02:37 PM

What people choose to believe must lie outside the two fundamental paradigms. Besides you use the bible as if it were fact. That is not my intention. I could not decide on your behalf that the Bible is factual. I can in the context of my argument uses biblical passages. So long as I am not trying to prove the Bible with the Bible.

BTW,
this "People who won't allow for a supreme being allow for all kinds of other irrational thinking. " this not good for your argument. You implicitly imply that allowing for God is irrational. By definition, scientific conclusions are rational, and therefore does not allow for a God is currently denied by Christianity.
I believe in God. - That is irrational.
I believe that God is rational but with my limited knowledge I cannot explain Him.
I believe others should not be forced to believe. But, I think if you choose not to believe you should allow for the possibility. The same as you allow for other irrational traditions. People recognized the value of art before they could analyze it mathematically.

the preacher

08-10-04, 03:13 PM

B:
Perfect as the wing of a bird may be, it will never enable the bird to fly if unsupported by the air. Facts are the air of science. Without them a man of science can never rise.
Ivan Pavlov (1849 - 1936)
religion has no facts only fantasy, so stick to one or the other, as all ready been said, you cant be a man of science, if you have religion draging you down.
what you've got to do is decide, do you want level mountains, (with science) or move mountains (with faith).
science has done more for the development of western civilization in one hundred years than Christianity could in two thousand.

b0urgeoisie

08-10-04, 03:54 PM

Why not? There doesn’t appear to be any rules that stop religionists forcing their ideas on those who don’t want to believe, in fact it is a basic requirement of Christians to preach and convert others.
There is a clear distinction between sharing ideas and forcing belief or non-belief.
That’s enforceable by law I believe. But why is that an issue here?
What law? It is an issue because we both share the same concern. You would never allow me or any other person to limit you because you choose not to believe. I expect to be free to believe and free to enjoy life to the best of my ability.
The purpose of this thread was to invite persons who are both educated and religious to share their thoughts. Criticism is OK too. But, remember that the purpose of this thread was never to prove or disprove God or any mechanism of spirituality.
I believe that for a person to be whole he/she (with apologies most of my posts will assume masculinity) must investigate more than just logical pursuits. They should answer questions pertaining to spirituality. The answer should be their own. I cannot say what your answer should be. But I think you should have one.
I believe the same of art. You should have a way to express yourself artistically. Or at least know that you choose not to do so.
Because, atheism is a decision. It is a statement the same as any religion. If you don't care or are undecided you are not an atheist. If you believe there is no god you assert that you have knowledge of such. It is very unscientific to do so.
The reason science is great is you accept that you may be wrong and hold that your entire paradigm is contingent on the weight of current evidence. Linus Pauling (I choose not to check the spelling on his name.) died still convinced that the key to genetic coding lay in a protein structure. He won two TWO TWO Nobel prizes. He died after Watson and Crick published their findings. Because science allows you to hypothesize and gather evidence.
My theory was : I believe that there may be a god. I think he may have a nature that is X.
My experiments include: I believe that the nature of God suggests that if I asked God His answers would be Y.
I found Y to be true. Therefor I believe X to be true. It is logical then for me to accept something that appears illogical.
My conclusion should not be important to you. That is why the gross bias iin the experiment is not important. You are free to say what you like about my conclusion or your own. You are not free to force me to accept your conclusion as my own. Just as I can share without forcing. I have never told anybody "believe or..." I have many times told people "I believe....you should consider exploring....for yourself and come to your own conclusions."
There are people today on both sides who are eager to force their beliefs. In every country of the world people try to create legislation that forces there agenda on everyone. Efforts to ban this or remove that. Do you think everyone is so stupid that, on something that is very personal, they will need to be told what to think?

Pete

08-10-04, 06:08 PM

When I studied law it became very apparent that a strong ability to use logic was essential. Science is a similar discipline. Religion is incompatible with both. If your religious beliefs are strong then you cannot be a logical thinker and will fail at both law and science. If you ever become logical then logic dictates that you must reject religion. Determine where your strengths are and choose accordingly.

All that logic dictates is that your conclusions follow from your premises.
In life, premises boil down to fundamental beliefs, values, and axioms.

Cris, can you provide a logical defense that your own fundamental beliefs and values are better than a fundamental belief that the Universe exists for a consciously chosen purpose?

Cris

08-10-04, 07:59 PM

Pete,

All that logic dictates is that your conclusions follow from your premises.

Hmm OK good enough for this discussion. But the intention is that the hoped for conclusion is as close to truth as possible based on available evidence, right? And of course being fully aware that inductive reasoning always includes a statistical risk of error.

In life, premises boil down to fundamental beliefs, values, and axioms.

Doesn’t that depend on how you define fundamental beliefs and values? I would hope that any premises I form in life remain based on facts as is required in the making of valid premises. So I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here.

Cris, can you provide a logical defense that your own fundamental beliefs and values are better than a fundamental belief that the Universe exists for a consciously chosen purpose?

You are assuming that the term “fundamental belief” used here twice in different contexts is equally weighted and where each form the basis of valid premises. But that isn’t true is it? While my beliefs and values are based on factual conclusions the concept of a universe with a consciously chosen purpose is simply idle speculation, is it not?

I see no meaningful contest here.

thefountainhed

08-10-04, 10:26 PM

Cris:

Welcome back, it's been a while.

Hmm OK good enough for this discussion. But the intention is that the hoped for conclusion is as close to truth as possible based on available evidence, right? And of course being fully aware that inductive reasoning always includes a statistical risk of error.

The problem with this statement is the implication that truth is realizable outside each paradigm. One cannot get "close"r to the truth because the truth exists indepently within each paradigm. Thus, given a set of rules, a conclusion reached within the ruleset is only true within the given ruleset and not necessarily outside of it.

Within a given faith, if the fundamental rule is the existence of a God, then this is a truth within said paradigm. The same would imply for a conclusion reached using logical axioms. As one cannot provide a ubiquitous set of axioms that comprise of all rules in the physical world, we cannot say that a given truth is universal.

While my beliefs and values are based on factual conclusions the concept of a universe with a consciously chosen purpose is simply idle speculation, is it not?
No, this is a statement of value. It is relative.

Pete

08-10-04, 10:40 PM

the intention is that the hoped for conclusion is as close to truth as possible based on available evidence, right?
I see truth as a side issue.
To think logically is to assume the truth of some premises, and deduce conclusions consistent with the premises.
By introducing the concept of evidence, you are stepping beyond pure logic, and assuming other values, specifically the value of (objective) evidence.

And of course being fully aware that inductive reasoning always includes a statistical risk of error.
Of course. But not forgetting Hume's problem of induction (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Problem%20of%20induction).

I would hope that any premises I form in life remain based on facts as is required in the making of valid premises.
I suggest that for any premise you present, I can show that it is based on underlying premises, or is a fundamental belief. I think that I use the term 'values' to mean some part of our worldview that determines which beliefs we choose to accept.

While my beliefs and values are based on factual conclusions the concept of a universe with a consciously chosen purpose is simply idle speculation, is it not?

I happen to agree, but I acknowledge that that is due to my own fundamental beliefs and values that:
1) Objective reality exists
2) My perceptions are a reasonably accurate reflection of reality
3) Induction is a valid method of drawing factual conclusions
4) Testable utility is a reasonable measure of value

I hesitate to affirm that this list is any more or less valid or valuable than any other internally consistent set.

(I made that set up on the spot, so it might not be complete, or in simplest form)

Pete

08-10-04, 10:59 PM

My experiments include: I believe that the nature of God suggests that if I asked God His answers would be Y.

I think the problem might be objectivity.
Is Y directly observable by others, or only to yourself? If only to yourself, then how do you know that your experience can be relied on?

It is natural to believe that our subjective experiences reflect an objective reality, but I think it is important to always remember that it is an unreliable reflection. If the reflection can't be independently confirmed, I would be reluctant to draw strong conclusions. Of course, your values may differ.

water

08-11-04, 02:42 AM

The problem with this statement is the implication that truth is realizable outside each paradigm. One cannot get "close"r to the truth because the truth exists indepently within each paradigm. Thus, given a set of rules, a conclusion reached within the ruleset is only true within the given ruleset and not necessarily outside of it.

Within a given faith, if the fundamental rule is the existence of a God, then this is a truth within said paradigm. The same would imply for a conclusion reached using logical axioms. As one cannot provide a ubiquitous set of axioms that comprise of all rules in the physical world, we cannot say that a given truth is universal.

Yes -- the holistic explanation of meaning: One cannot understand the claims a certain theory makes without understanding a significant portion of the theory of which they are part. Elements of a system -- the terms in a theory -- receive meaning from being inter-related with eachother.

We therefore cannot say that a truth is universal -- as any claim we make is part of a certain theory or paradigm, and makes sense only within this theory or paradigm.

davewhite04

08-11-04, 03:42 AM

Hello Cris,

The lack of facts that force you to believe on faith rather than evidence.

I don't need faith to actually learn valuable lessons from the Bible, the Bible is full of wisdom, facts if you like. Not scientific theories though, more to do with human behaviour and such.

Isn’t that a rather silly thing to do?

Not really, why? I'm humble enough to admit that there is someone greater than I, are you?

The suggestion makes no sense. It is like asking whether you believe that Sherlock Holmes doesn’t exist. Both Holmes and God are fictional characters so of course they don’t exist. One doesn’t need faith to believe that fictional characters do not exist.

Well Sherlock Holmes is a creation of Sir Conan Doyle, and he based the character on a real life professor he knew. Perfectly logical explanation. Now can you tell me who came up with the character God? And proove he is ficticious... Billions of people would be interested if you could Sherlock :)

Dave

davewhite04

08-11-04, 04:07 AM

you cant be a man of science, if you have religion draging you down.

Have you even heard of Sir Isaac Newton?

Dave

Jan Ardena

08-11-04, 05:41 AM

thefountainhed,

Since I hinted at the point that some religions may not be seeped in the supernatural, let's assume that you refer to religions that are based on the supernatural. And for argument sake, let's take as the whipping boy, Christianity:

Christianity isn't seeped in the supernatural, the religion, by virtue of its name, is seeped in the personality of Jesus, who on occasion performed supernatural events. Christianity, like any other bona-fide religion, is a way of life as exampled by Jesus. But his life did not only consist of supernatural events, he did practical things and he spoke practically. He was able to perform seemingly supernatural events due to his spiritual position, which was due to how he lived his life.

The very foundation of Christianty, the belief in an omnipotent, omnipresent God, who cannot be experienced in the physical, and whose being cannot be proved within the physical world, is at odds with the whole basis of science: conclusions based on observation.

This is a tricky one. An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being (God), can actually be experienced within everything, because He would ultimately be the source of everything. There couldn't be anything else, otherwise he would not be omnipresent.

The point of religion is to eventually understand that you, the personal self, are part and parcel of Gods Self or personal energy, and everything else, is also part of this being. Regulate your life to these principles and you will realise.

The point of science (modern) is to understand how this physical reality is also a part of this omnipresent being, even if they only see this being/thing as the universe.

My point being that the physical reality we observe is different from the reality of self and identity, so they can never clash.
It is when they try and usurp each others positions, by stating "God created everything and no more needs to taught" or "God does not exist therefore abolish all religion", conflict ensues.

Jan Ardena.

Pete

08-11-04, 08:21 AM

Christianity isn't seeped in the supernatural, the religion, by virtue of its name, is seeped in the personality of Jesus, who on occasion performed supernatural events.
Without Christ's divinity and resurrection (two undoubtably supernatural things), there is no Christianity.

An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being (God), can actually be experienced within everything
Only if you equate God with everything, then add conscious omniscience and omnipotence.
The difficulty is that God's omniscience and omnipotence are apparently untestable, since he also appears to be capricious.

b0urgeoisie

08-11-04, 12:28 PM

I think the problem might be objectivity.
Is Y directly observable by others, or only to yourself? If only to yourself, then how do you know that your experience can be relied on?

It is natural to believe that our subjective experiences reflect an objective reality, but I think it is important to always remember that it is an unreliable reflection. If the reflection can't be independently confirmed, I would be reluctant to draw strong conclusions. Of course, your values may differ.
Three points
1. I explained that I accept that my whole experiment was bias. I can't do any better. I can not take logic any further into an illogical or irrational pursuit.
2. Objectivity is no longer held as a possible state. Most modern methods of philosophy accept that fact. It is impossible to remove your own experiences from your perspective. Subjectivity is all we have. We can try to shave down some obvious and gross bias. But, ultimately we can only judge from our perspective.
3. I believe Y is observable by others. But not the Y outcome of my experiment. But, only if persons choose to apply the experiment themselves. But, to each his own. (pardon the cliché)

b0urgeoisie

08-11-04, 12:34 PM

Einstein, Albert (1879-1955) *
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is
blind.
_Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium_ (1941) ch. 13

God does not play dice with the universe.

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18.

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival
of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet"

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and
I'm not sure about the former.

"Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that
created them."
- Albert Einstein

5. ". . . true religion was never a narrow thing. True religion concerns man and the entire universe in which he lives. It concerns his relationships with himself and his fellow men, with his environment, and with God his creator. It is therefore limitless, and as boundless as that eternity which it teaches lies ahead of every son of God. . . . Here is the spirit of true religion, an honest seeking after knowledge of all things of heaven and earth."
~ Henry Eyring (1901-19)
mathematician, physicist, PhD., Doctor of Science
from Science and Your Faith in God

b0urgeoisie

08-11-04, 12:40 PM

Jan Ardena

08-12-04, 08:13 AM

Without Christ's divinity and resurrection (two undoubtably supernatural things), there is no Christianity.

Then what you describe would not be Christianity in accordance with its name. If you love or have deep respect for someone, their birth and death would not be the cause of such affection, it would be the very person, themself.
His birth and death were consistent with a person of his magnitude.
His whole life was spent teaching people how to get to his level.

Only if you equate God with everything, then add conscious omniscience and omnipotence.

You would have to be conscious to be omniscient and omnipotent.
Why don't you regard consciousness as (at least) part of the everything?

The difficulty is that God's omniscience and omnipotence are apparently untestable, since he also appears to be capricious.

What do you mean by untestable?
Has anybody tried?

Jan Ardena.

thefountainhed

08-12-04, 09:39 AM

Jan,

thefountainhed,
Christianity isn't seeped in the supernatural, the religion, by virtue of its name, is seeped in the personality of Jesus, who on occasion performed supernatural events. Christianity, like any other bona-fide religion, is a way of life as exampled by Jesus. But his life did not only consist of supernatural events, he did practical things and he spoke practically. He was able to perform seemingly supernatural events due to his spiritual position, which was due to how he lived his life.

Mostly true, except the overriding principle in Christianity is the belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God, and the way to salvation (ultimate goal for a Christian) is in accepting this fact and living one's life accordingly. To believe in Jesus as the son of God implies a belief in the supernatural-- the acceptance of a idea which is unprovable because it is not evident in nature unless you share a faith...

This is a tricky one. An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being (God), can actually be experienced within everything, because He would ultimately be the source of everything. There couldn't be anything else, otherwise he would not be omnipresent.
This is a circular argument. You assume that God is omnipresent and in that assumption, draw the conclusion that he must thus be everywhere. The conclusion is however unreachable as you have not shown that this procalimed omniprescence and ominscience is factual.

The point of religion is to eventually understand that you, the personal self, are part and parcel of Gods Self or personal energy, and everything else, is also part of this being. Regulate your life to these principles and you will realise.
This may perhaps be the point of religion as seen by you but I cannot concur.

The point of science (modern) is to understand how this physical reality is also a part of this omnipresent being, even if they only see this being/thing as the universe.

This is clearly not the point of modern science, as within science, this omnipresent being cannot be accepted as no evidence shows its presence.

My point being that the physical reality we observe is different from the reality of self and identity, so they can never clash.
It is when they try and usurp each others positions, by stating "God created everything and no more needs to taught" or "God does not exist therefore abolish all religion", conflict ensues.

I am sorry but that barely made sense to me. What do you mean by a differentiation between physical reality and the reality of the self? You are not arguing from the philosophical standpoint that reality is subjective, are you? I think that would present major problems in the belief of a God.

Jan Ardena

08-12-04, 11:17 AM

thefountainhed,

Mostly true, except the overriding principle in Christianity is the belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God, and the way to salvation (ultimate goal for a Christian) is in accepting this fact and living one's life accordingly.

The overiding principle in Christianity is to come to the understanding that you and every living entity is a son of God. This primarily requires faith in accepting Jesus as the son of God. Having accepted that, one accepts Jesus as the role model for life and starts to live accordingly. During this period one begins to understand the truth of Jesus' teachings, as all his teaching are enfused within the experience of life itself, not that it is separate knowledge.
Science is a part of day to day living, likewise art, and philosophy. Each life enrichening, but not life itself.

To believe in Jesus as the son of God implies a belief in the supernatural-- ...

Yes it does, but just believing isn't enough to understand, which is why we have teachers like Jesus who through his example can show how to live a successful life, free of anxiety and fear.

the acceptance of a idea which is unprovable because it is not evident in nature unless you share a faith

Plus, live according to the example set by great souls.

Are scientists trying to find out if God exists?

This is a circular argument. You assume that God is omnipresent and in that assumption, draw the conclusion that he must thus be everywhere. The conclusion is however unreachable as you have not shown that this procalimed omniprescence and ominscience is factual.

If it is circular, therefore illogical, then it has to be.
Because it is illogical to us, it does not mean that it is universally illogical, to c laim that would be nothing short of arrogance.
We can live our lives as logical as we can, then there comes a point where logic does or can not apply.
Music is both logical and illogical and it works best when the two are in connection. If it was purely logic it would lack variety resulting in dull boring notes. It it was performed without logic, it would be an unintelligable noise with no end in sight. You put the two together you get great music, which can communicate on different levels and manifesting itself in the physical reality. This is art, which is also knowledge.

This may perhaps be the point of religion as seen by you but I cannot concur.

It really doesn't if you concur or not, it is what it is, just as science is what it is, art and philosophy also. The point of religion is not what he or she thinks, it is how it is described in the scripture.

This is clearly not the point of modern science, as within science, this omnipresent being cannot be accepted as no evidence shows its presence.

It doesn't matter whether or not it can be accepted, nor does it matter that no current evidence shows His presence. If God exists then He exists. Just by accepting He doesn't, or not finding evidence is not enough to claim He doesn't exist.
What i don't understand is, why do atheist scientists think that there should be physical evidence of God other than the universe itself?
Would they expect to find?

I am sorry but that barely made sense to me. What do you mean by a differentiation between physical reality and the reality of the self?

The observer and the observed are two different positions.

Jan Ardena.

water

08-12-04, 03:24 PM

The observer and the observed are two different positions.

Yes. Also, regarding observation, this general consideration is useful:

Observation demands a subject that observes -- the observer, and an object that that is the observed. As long as there is observation, there is a subject and an object. Observation also means that the object *is not* the subject, there is the observational distance between them.

It is this *observational distance* that makes it possible to observe -- observational distance makes us aware of the observation; it makes us say "I see an apple."
By definition, we cannot observe das Ding an sich, the thing itself. It is because of this observational distance.

Observational distance is what shows us that things are always in context, and that within this context, we can take different POV's -- and that will make the observed thing look different. Let's say that we see the things through different hazes, but always through some.

In society, some hazes are regarded as normal, and as we grow up, we tune in to the kind of haze preferred by the society we are born into.

The "normal hazes" are then regarded as "objectivity", the not so normal/not so accepted/not so frequent hazes are regarded as "subjecitivity".

These "normal hazes" have great social value (they ensure social stability in the end) and are so common -- that we often aren't aware of them anymore. Not being aware of them easily leads to thinking that they are not there.

Hence the loud cries for "objectivity" -- that also imply that observation is possible without observational distance.

(Of course we can observe ourselves, but then it is still the duality of subject vs. object, as we do see ourselves as objects of observation.)

Pete

08-13-04, 03:38 AM

Then what you describe would not be Christianity in accordance with its name. If you love or have deep respect for someone, their birth and death would not be the cause of such affection, it would be the very person, themself.
His birth and death were consistent with a person of his magnitude.
His whole life was spent teaching people how to get to his level.
No. You are describing what I call Christo-Buddhism, not Christianity.
You appear to be considering Christ in the same way that Buddhists treat Buddha - as an enlightened human. According to Christians, Christ is more than human. He is God; a monotheistic God.
Christ did not teach people how to "get to his level". If the Gospels are accepted as true, Christ clearly considered himself to be the leader, judge, and Son of God. To aspire to be at Jesus' level is to aspire to be Divine, or consider Christ to be less that what He said He was.
If Christ was not Divine, than Christianity is a mistake. Christo-Buddhism is still an option, but it's not Christianity.

You would have to be conscious to be omniscient and omnipotent.
Why don't you regard consciousness as (at least) part of the everything?
Perhaps I should have said Eternal consciousness.

What do you mean by untestable?
Has anybody tried?
It's only testable if God cooperates. When the test fails, there's no way of telling if it's because God is being capricious, or if He doesn't exist.
I've tried.
Right now, I seriously asked God (out loud) if He would please turn a lemon on my table into an apple, as a simple test of His omniscience and omnipotence. It's still a lemon. If it changes later, I'll post an update.

Jan Ardena

08-13-04, 05:10 AM

Pete,

No. You are describing what I call Christo-Buddhism, not Christianity.

Christianity means to follow in the footsteps of Christ Jesus.

You appear to be considering Christ in the same way that Buddhists treat Buddha - as an enlightened human.

One only has to develop a little understanding of Jesus to realise that he was an enlightened being.

According to Christians, Christ is more than human. He is God; a monotheistic God.

Some Christians believe this, some don't. Jesus being one with God is not the same as him being God, try and understand.

Christ did not teach people how to "get to his level". If the Gospels are accepted as true, Christ clearly considered himself to be the leader, judge, and Son of God.

Please demonstrate.

To aspire to be at Jesus' level is to aspire to be Divine, or consider Christ to be less that what He said He was.

Jesus was divine in that he served the Divine, unconditionally with love and devotion.

If Christ was not Divine, than Christianity is a mistake. Christo-Buddhism is still an option, but it's not Christianity.

It appears you don't fully understand the point of Christ Jesus' life.

Perhaps I should have said Eternal consciousness.

Can consciousness itself be observed why you discriminate between "consciousness" and "eternal consciousness?"

It's only testable if God cooperates.

How do you know God doesn't cooperate?
Maybe we aren't cooperating.

When the test fails, there's no way of telling if it's because God is being capricious, or if He doesn't exist.

If God exists, then God is everything and if God is everything then there is no need to set up any type of test, just think about it for a moment.
At least try and understand who and what God is, because if God exists then it is in your interest.

I've tried.
Right now, I seriously asked God (out loud) if He would please turn a lemon on my table into an apple, as a simple test of His omniscience and omnipotence. It's still a lemon. If it changes later, I'll post an update.

This type of test is ignorant of who/what God is.
It is actually a test to try and prove the non-existence of God.

Jan Ardena.

Pete

08-14-04, 08:08 AM

Christianity means to follow in the footsteps of Christ Jesus.
You're repeating yourself, which means we've reached an impasse.
I continue to maintain that when other people use the term 'Christianity', they mean something different to what you think; specifically that to be Christian means to believe Christ is God.

You are entitled to your own language, of course... but it makes communication difficult.

One only has to develop a little understanding of Jesus to realise that he was an enlightened being.
Enlightened or not is irrelevant to me. The important word was 'human'.
Buddhists (in general) acknowledge that Buddha was human, Christians (in general) acknowledge that Jesus is God.

Some Christians believe this, some don't. Jesus being one with God is not the same as him being God, try and understand.
The vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus _is_ God. Try and understand.

Christ did not teach people how to "get to his level". If the Gospels are accepted as true, Christ clearly considered himself to be the leader, judge, and Son of God.

Please demonstrate.

Matthew 25:31-33

To aspire to be at Jesus' level is to aspire to be Divine, or consider Christ to be less that what He said He was.

Jesus was divine in that he served the Divine, unconditionally with love and devotion.
How do you resolve that point of view with John 8:58?
Here's some further online reading for you regarding Christ's divinity lots of resources here (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=jesus+%22claim+to+be+god%22&meta=), and even more here (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=Divinity-of-christ&meta=).

It appears you don't fully understand the point of Christ Jesus' life.
I doubt the factual reality of the Gospel story.
I do, however, hold a reasonable understanding of what it says.
As to the 'point' of it... well, you are welcome to make up whatever point you see fit.

How do you know God doesn't cooperate?
Maybe we aren't cooperating.
Please state what you mean.
I know that God doesn't cooperate, because an omniscient and omnipotent being has the power to provide unambiguous proof of their existence. If no proof is forthcoming on request, then obviously God is not cooperating with said request.

If God exists, then God is everything and if God is everything then there is no need to set up any type of test, just think about it for a moment.
At least try and understand who and what God is, because if God exists then it is in your interest.
Now you're being Hindu (pantheist). If you want to argue that God is everything, great! But again, that's not Christianity (monotheist).

This type of test is ignorant of who/what God is.
Pleas explain.
You appear to have a very different notion of who/what God is to Christian scholars. I really think you'd be more at home with Hinduism.

It is actually a test to try and prove the non-existence of God.
Please don't insult my intelligence.
For a positive result, the test requires both the existence and cooperation of God.
A negative result does not prove that God doesn't exist; it proves only that if God exists, He chose not to cooperate in that particular instance.
It's a shame, since cooperation would seem to cost an omnipotent being nothing.

A more general version is to simply say "God, please show me that you are."
I've tried this test repeatedly. I assume that the (omniscient) God knows how to show me (any unambiguous repeatable evidence would be sufficient), and that the (omnipotent) God has the power to show me... so why doesn't He? Obviously, He wants me to remain unsure, and continue to behave as I am. I'm happy to do what He wants.

Godless

08-15-04, 12:06 AM

I am preparing to attend law school. My career ambition is to play a role in bioethics for the United States. I have both some formal religious training and a background in biology.

It sounds like a contradiction

I often envy people who are one side or the other.

Why eny just choose one side.

Also, it would be easy to disregard God altogether.

Well then if it's so easy why not do it? I think they contradict your chosen profession unless you can keep from your religious influence determining the outcome of your profession.

I do believe in God and have evidence that is appropriate to support my beliefs. (supernatural evidence for supernatural claims)

Oh!! then that's great what are the evidence you speak off? and please don't quote the bible, It's just full of discrepancies.

Okinrus;

Religion and science are completely compatible provided what you believe in religion is consistent with physical observation

This is the first time I've ever heard of this. Most religiousnist just invent there own pseoudo science theories to have them rediculed by real scientists.

B;
I believe that trees are an important part of our global ecosystem.
I understand the truth that marine phytoplankton are much more important.

Ok! this is why I answer your thread; How can marine plankton be more important then the oxygen that trees provide for us to breath?.

BTW I'm not a scientist, nor a lawyer just a simple atheist.

Godless.

b0urgeoisie

08-15-04, 03:09 PM

Ok! this is why I answer your thread; How can marine plankton be more important then the oxygen that trees provide for us to breath?.Godless.
Because, if you take the total biomass of all the trees on earth you cannot come close to the total biomass of all of the phytoplankton. If they are both photo-autotrophs then the amount of oxygen produced by phytoplankton is greater than that produced by trees. If you include endosymbiotic phytoplanktons than the difference increases. That is no indication that trees are not important. It is only a mandate to protect our coral reefs.

b0urgeoisie

08-15-04, 03:15 PM

@MacM
Who wrote the conclusion. The paper you indicate as Dr. Tyron's work only lists some of his work. The rest is commentary on what it means. I find the commentary to be so full of holes that I do not care to list them all yet. I will, however, write a response after I do a little more research. I am convinced that the author of the paper is intelligent. But, it seems clear, to me, that they are wrong on every count except for where they have posted the work of others. It looks like solid bricks held together with hopes and wishes for mortar.

Godless

08-15-04, 08:28 PM

Well thanks Bourgeoisie!

I like learning even at my old age.
So in a sense good luck with your career choice. And remember to keep your beliefs from influencing your decissions on your job. That's all you really got to do.

Godless.

Leo Volont

08-16-04, 05:47 AM

Because, if you take the total biomass of all the trees on earth you cannot come close to the total biomass of all of the phytoplankton. If they are both photo-autotrophs then the amount of oxygen produced by phytoplankton is greater than that produced by trees. If you include endosymbiotic phytoplanktons than the difference increases. That is no indication that trees are not important. It is only a mandate to protect our coral reefs.

Then we must be seriously screwed! If the health of the Coral in the Tropical Zones is any indication, then it appears that the Oceans are getting toxic. I don't suppose that what is dying in the Tropics is being proportionally replaced in the Northern (and Southern) Waters which might be getting warmer.

But so far the ratio of Oxygen to the other gases is still holding at a nice level 19%. How can this be explained in the face of the drastically changing Environment? It has to be coming from somewhere.

Because oxygen so readily combines, being stored in rust and other oxides, the atmospheric Oxygen must always be in the process of renewal. I'm surprised that the level can sustain itself so evenly while we are all convinced that the sky is falling.

b0urgeoisie

08-16-04, 09:35 AM

Then we must be seriously screwed! If the health of the Coral in the Tropical Zones is any indication, then it appears that the Oceans are getting toxic. I don't suppose that what is dying in the Tropics is being proportionally replaced in the Northern (and Southern) Waters which might be getting warmer.

But so far the ratio of Oxygen to the other gases is still holding at a nice level 19%. How can this be explained in the face of the drastically changing Environment? It has to be coming from somewhere.

Because oxygen so readily combines, being stored in rust and other oxides, the atmospheric Oxygen must always be in the process of renewal. I'm surprised that the level can sustain itself so evenly while we are all convinced that the sky is falling.

The reefs are only a small part of the phytoplankton. You can expect to find the surface of the entire ocean to be saturated. Phytoplankton, at least how I am applying the term, is a huge group. Including both algal and protist organisms. Deep sea chemo-autotrophs play a role as well.
It is true that some experts are convinced that our reefs will be gone in twenty years. We will still have oxygen but our oceans will never be the same. But, the autotrophs, that created the gaseous oxygen, that changed our atmosphere to aerobic, were around long before the reefs.

Jan Ardena

08-16-04, 02:42 PM

Pete,

You're repeating yourself, which means we've reached an impasse.
I continue to maintain that when other people use the term 'Christianity', they mean something different to what you think; specifically that to be Christian means to believe Christ is God.

If i am repeating myself, it is only to get into your skull that a Christian is a person who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ and Christianity is the name given to a society of Christians.
That Jesus is the Almighty God, is debatable and therefore cannot really be a sole reason for becoming a Christian. If however this does occur, then it is just one aspect of the whole thing.

You are entitled to your own language, of course... but it makes communication difficult.

My own language?

The vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus _is_ God. Try and understand.

People can and do believe what they like, but the meaning of "Christian" is one who follows in the footsteps of Jesus Christ by way of his teachings and example.

How do you resolve that point of view with John 8:58?

There is nothing to resolve, it is straight-foreward;

58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

"I am" meaning that he has always been.
His statement is clearly related to time as he claims; "before Abraham was born..."

"14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[4] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

I do, however, hold a reasonable understanding of what it says.

I don't think you do. You're problem seems to be that you think it is simple, and you see it from a superficial point of view i.e. the cat sat on the mat. You have not displayed any real understanding of the meaning of the words in its proper context.

As to the 'point' of it... well, you are welcome to make up whatever point you see fit.

This is your mistake.

Please state what you mean.
I know that God doesn't cooperate, because an omniscient and omnipotent being has the power to provide unambiguous proof of their existence.

If you know that God does not cooperate, then you have proven His existence (if only to yourself). If you think there is no God becuse there seems to be no cooperation, then maybe you need to find out if the tests are applicable to the subject.

If no proof is forthcoming on request, then obviously God is not cooperating with said request.

As i said, understand what God is and how he works, by giving serious attention to the scriptures and asscotiating with people who are themselves serious in God-consciousness. It doesn't matter which religious title they come under.

Now you're being Hindu (pantheist). If you want to argue that God is everything, great! But again, that's not Christianity (monotheist).

I'm not being anything, my point is relevant in all bona-fide religions.

Pleas explain.

You think God is some kind of order supplier.
You think He is separate to yourself and everything you observe. Of course you're entitled to think and believe that, but it doesn't help you, it only affirms a belief based on nothing but your own desire to live in a world where God does not exist. :)

You appear to have a very different notion of who/what God is to Christian scholars. I really think you'd be more at home with Hinduism.

Don't worry about that, lets just talk about God.
God has to be the same no matter the religious title, it is only our lack of understanding that creates the idea of different Gods. With a good source, the understanding becomes easier.

Please don't insult my intelligence.

I was merely hilighting it.
The fact that you are so quick to believe God doesn't exist after putting your order in, shows your total lack of sincerity.

For a positive result, the test requires both the existence and cooperation of God.

If God exists, then it only remains for you to understand that He exists, not to try and turn apples in mangos. Seriously try and think about that, it may sound simple, but it is very deep and worthy of contemplation.

A more general version is to simply say "God, please show me that you are."
I've tried this test repeatedly. I assume that the (omniscient) God knows how to show me (any unambiguous repeatable evidence would be sufficient), and that the (omnipotent)

Ask yourself this; What could God show you that would make you know He is ominpotent and omniscient and therefore God Himself?
Bearing in mind that whatever you decide must have those characteristics which has to be over and beyond anything you have ever experienced in order for it to undoubtedly valid.

Obviously, He wants me to remain unsure, and continue to behave as I am. I'm happy to do what He wants.

Why obviously?
This is part of your insincerity, you simply cannot make those claims unless you understand God and know that to be the case, or in your heart/mind you are trying to convince yourself that God does not exist. Always keep in the back of your mind that you may be at fault.

Jan Ardena.

thefountainhed

08-16-04, 05:43 PM

Jan:

thefountainhed,

The overiding principle in Christianity is to come to the understanding that you and every living entity is a son of God. This primarily requires faith in accepting Jesus as the son of God. Having accepted that, one accepts Jesus as the role model for life and starts to live accordingly. During this period one begins to understand the truth of Jesus' teachings, as all his teaching are enfused within the experience of life itself, not that it is separate knowledge.
Science is a part of day to day living, likewise art, and philosophy. Each life enrichening, but not life itself.

The most important aspect being the belief of a God. This being is supernatural, and thus the religion is seeped in the supernatural.

Are scientists trying to find out if God exists?
Some undoubtedly are, but I gather the vast majority realize it is a futile search and thus do not.

If it is circular, therefore illogical, then it has to be.
Because it is illogical to us, it does not mean that it is universally illogical, to c laim that would be nothing short of arrogance.
We can live our lives as logical as we can, then there comes a point where logic does or can not apply.
What is possible outside our ability to understand as humans is quite frankly irrelevant. We are attempting to understand this so called being within our capacity as humans, and to therefore claim that since the possibility of the being's existence is a reachable conclusion, it therefore can be used as a possible explanation is not practical. I could be a left handed superman capable of flight and time reversal, but logic and this reality says I am not. Thus for all practical purposes within this reality, I will choose to believe that I am indeed not this superman.

Music is both logical and illogical and it works best when the two are in connection. If it was purely logic it would lack variety resulting in dull boring notes. It it was performed without logic, it would be an unintelligable noise with no end in sight. You put the two together you get great music, which can communicate on different levels and manifesting itself in the physical reality. This is art, which is also knowledge.

You cannot make this analogy. Your cannot make this silloqy: Music is to noise(for lack of a better term) as Religion is to science. Music is indeed art, and our experience of music can be both logical and emotional. A logical peace of music does not mean it is repetitive. In fact, I am at odds to understand what you mean by a logical piece of music.

Religion and science contradict because the very basis of science is conclusions reached through experimentation. Religion asks that you forgo the experimentation and accept a belief. They are incompatible.

It really doesn't if you concur or not, it is what it is, just as science is what it is, art and philosophy also. The point of religion is not what he or she thinks, it is how it is described in the scripture.
You miss my point. Every religion has it;s own sets of beiefs, and different people believe or accept religion for different reasons. There is no universal reason for the religion. This was my point.

It doesn't matter whether or not it can be accepted, nor does it matter that no current evidence shows His presence. If God exists then He exists. Just by accepting He doesn't, or not finding evidence is not enough to claim He doesn't exist.

Of course it matters that no evidence shows that he exists. And noone is claiming that he does not exist. I accept the possibility of the being's existence, but this is not a logical step.

What i don't understand is, why do atheist scientists think that there should be physical evidence of God other than the universe itself?
Would they expect to find?
Because the universe does not behave as what the "scriptures" claim God to be.

The observer and the observed are two different positions.

Jan Ardena.
I do not see how this is relevant to your position. I accept other people's rights to believe whatever the hell they want to believe. I would be the last person to claim that religion or God have no valuable purpose. I am saying however that the two-- science and religion, are two paradigm that are incompatible. They are able to coexist in a forced manner because man seems to seek more than the logical.

Pete

08-16-04, 08:04 PM

Jan,
Do you understand that you are using the word "Christian" in a different way to most people who identify themselves as "Christian"? That's what I mean by your own language. The concept to which you attach the term "Christian" is different to the concept which other people attach to the term. This means you are not speaking the same language.

Do you understand that when Jesus spoke the word I am He was unambiguously claiming to be God?

You appear to think that I believe God doesn't exist. Why?
I believe that if God exists, he doesn't want to prove it. I make no statement on God's existence. I am sincere in this, whether or not you understand it or believe it, and I ask that you cease to question it.

What could God show you that would make you know He is ominpotent and omniscient and therefore God Himself?
I've already answered that question - a lemon becoming an apple before my eyes, on invocation.

More generally, begin with a null hypothesis of the form:
"There is no relationship between a specified invocation to God and the occurence of a specified event."
Then test the hypothesis. I would accept a significant result showing that the null hypothesis should be rejected as reasonable proof of God.

For example, the null hypothesis might be "There is no relationship between this faith healer invoking God to heal a sick or injured person, and that person recovering within a (day/week/month/year -choose one)".
This could be tested by taking a pool of sick people, dividing them into (matched) experimental and control groups, performing the invocation on each person int he experimental group, then comparing the health of the two groups.

I don't know if that particular example is a good one, but it doesn't matter. Any invocation with testable outcome would do. Also in this example, some tricky experiment design would be necessary to allow for any placebo effect.

Note that other general tests may also be sufficient. The causal part of the relationship does not necessarily need to be an explicit invocation.

Finally, I really suggest you do some wider reading to see what other religious philosphers have said on what Christianity is and isn't. I also suggest you examine Hinduism - if you don't believe that Christ is necessarily supernatural, if you don't believe He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14 is very relevant to this discussion, by the way. Meditate on Jesus' conversation with His disciples), if you don't 'confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead', then you can still be what you call "Christian" while embracing the pantheist principles of Hindu or Buddhism.

Jan Ardena

08-17-04, 01:02 PM

Pete,

Do you understand that you are using the word "Christian" in a different way to most people who identify themselves as "Christian"?

It doesn't matter what people identitfy themselves as, a Christian is someone who follows in the footsteps of Jesus Christ;

Webster,

christian; 1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

Its plain and simple, any deviation from that, is not Christianity in its pure form.

Do you understand that when Jesus spoke the word I am He was unambiguously claiming to be God?

Did you not read my reply to that?

You appear to think that I believe God doesn't exist. Why?

I am merely responding to you, if it seems that way, maybe it is the impression you give.

I believe that if God exists, he doesn't want to prove it. I make no statement on God's existence. I am sincere in this, whether or not you understand it or believe it, and I ask that you cease to question it.

Not a problem.

I've already answered that question - a lemon becoming an apple before my eyes, on invocation.

1) What aspect of this demonstration would you regard as omnipotent, and how would you recognise that omniscience would be characteristic of the performer?

2) Do you think that this performance would lead you to accept the divine characteristics mentioned above, without question, or would you try and prove that it was or was not a trick of your mind or some other way?

3) If you decided to seek some logical/rational explanation for the event, then how could your request have had any real value or sincerity despite what you may have thought?

More generally, begin with a null hypothesis of the form:
"There is no relationship between a specified invocation to God and the occurence of a specified event."
Then test the hypothesis. I would accept a significant result showing that the null hypothesis should be rejected as reasonable proof of God.

Again you are displaying a real lack of understanding as to what/who God is.
If God exists, and from Him comes the universe and every thing/one therin, then He is connected to everything in a most essential way. So to conduct an experiment using Gods potencies, which includes your own ability, to find if God exists, is to deny His existence as a Supreme Being before you've even started.
It is something like trying to find yourself, and asking people if they have seen you.

Finally, I really suggest you do some wider reading to see what other religious philosphers have said on what Christianity is and isn't.

My description of "Christianity" is correct. How we view Christianity does not alter the basic meaning. If that changes, then it is no longer Christianity in its pure form.

I also suggest you examine Hinduism - if you don't believe that Christ is necessarily supernatural, if you don't believe He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14 is very relevant to this discussion, by the way.

Him being "the truth, the way and the life" (i thought it was light not life), does not mean he is proclaiming that he is God. He is proclaiming that through him (his example and teaching), we too can become favoured sons of God.

Meditate on Jesus' conversation with His disciples), if you don't 'confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead', then you can still be what you call "Christian" while embracing the pantheist principles of Hindu or Buddhism.

They are different aspects of the same God.

Do you know the story about the 10 blind men all touching one elephant, a phenomenon they had no previous knowledge about, all giving different description?

Jan Ardena.

b0urgeoisie

08-17-04, 04:27 PM

Pete is correct to say fundamentalist Christianity is outside of logic. Logical arguments can be made for it. But, if you didn't know about God you wouldn't logically guess he exists. You have to learn first then decide.
Jan is correct to say the message of Christianity is about more than just the supernatural. It is about being a good person as exemplified by Jesus.

Jan Ardena

08-17-04, 08:11 PM

b0urgeoisie,

But if you didn't know about God you wouldn't logically guess he exists.

Why not? It is the most logical position.
What other conclusion could one come to when considering ones origin?

You have to learn first then decide.

In the same way one learns that he is a product of his parents.

Jan Ardena.

Jan Ardena

08-17-04, 10:08 PM

thefountainhed,

The most important aspect being the belief of a God.

If you love someone unconditionally there is no question of "most important aspect," if there is sincerity.
In spiritual life, the relationship one has with his spiritual master is one of unconditional love from both the preceptor and the student, the only difference being their positions. The importance of such a relationship is the affection you hold for someone.

This being is supernatural, and thus the religion is seeped in the supernatural.

God, is not described as "natural" in any way by Jesus. Adding "super" to natural does not separate it from being a natural occurance, it only draws attention to the fact that it is not understood by the known laws of nature.

What is possible outside our ability to understand as humans is quite frankly irrelevant.

Are you implying that human logic is the length and breadth of human understanding?

I could be a left handed superman capable of flight and time reversal, but logic and this reality says I am not.

No, the fact that you're not, says your not.

Thus for all practical purposes within this reality, I will choose to believe that I am indeed not this superman.

And for all practical purposes within this reality, some people choose to believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light to salvaion. They choose to believe that there is more to life than what they physically observe with their natural senses. This can be understood more clearly with art and philosophy, not science.

In fact, I am at odds to understand what you mean by a logical piece of music.

I mean the execution of music purely as a logical and mathematical process with no applied emotion.

Religion and science contradict because the very basis of science is conclusions reached through experimentation. Religion asks that you forgo the experimentation and accept a belief. They are incompatible.

Religion is a way of life, and the requirements of this method has nothing to do with conclusions reached through experimentation. The instruction "Thou shalt not kill" in no way require scientific analasys.
Science is what we do to learn about the universe that we live in, by making experiments and observations.

Fire and water conflict if the mixture is not right, but when they are mixed properly they are capable of enormous power, it is the same with religion and science.

You miss my point. Every religion has it;s own sets of beiefs, and different people believe or accept religion for different reasons. There is no universal reason for the religion. This was my point.

Religion appeals to a broad spectrum of peoples with varied cultures and mentalities and though all the beliefs appear different, they have one ultimate aim, to love, respect and serve, mankind, all living beings, and God. So there is a definate reason for religion, without it we will be no better than the lower animals. This can easily be observed in modern society.

Of course it matters that no evidence shows that he exists. And noone is claiming that he does not exist. I accept the possibility of the being's existence, but this is not a logical step.

Of course you're claiming He doesn't exist, otherwise why should it matter that no current evidence suggests the He exists.
If you accept the possibility of God's existence, then how can you say it is not a logical step?

Because the universe does not behave as what the "scriptures" claim God to be.

Huh?? :confused:

I am saying however that the two-- science and religion, are two paradigm that are incompatible. They are able to coexist in a forced manner because man seems to seek more than the logical.

Perhaps you should give serious attention to the quotes made by Albert Einstein.

Jan Ardena.

Pete

08-17-04, 11:31 PM

It doesn't matter what people identitfy themselves as, a Christian is someone who follows in the footsteps of Jesus Christ;

Webster,

christian; 1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

Its plain and simple, any deviation from that, is not Christianity in its pure form.
It appears to be your opinion that "the teachings of Jesus Christ" were essentially invitations or instructions to "get to His level". Can you support that point of view?
It is my assertion that "the teachings of Jesus Christ" include that He was God, above the level of other humans.
You might want to re-read John 1:1-34. I think you've also not responded to Matthew 25:31-36 (the preceding two parables are similar, but not as explicit).
After reading those two passages, how can you maintain that "the teachings of Jesus Christ" imply that it is possible to "get to His level"?
Strive to be like Christ, yes... follow Him, yes, but be the Son of God in the way it is applied to Christ? That's not biblical.

You might also wish to look further into your dictionary definitions of Christian... particularly the belief in Jesus as Christ. Do you know what that means?

Like I said, I believe we've reached an impasse. I do not expect you to change your mind. You are entitled to your own opinion, misguided or not. But I do wish you would acknolwedge that yours is not the only opinion on the matter, and not the majority. Certainly not among those who label themselves as Christian, nor among those who have spent most of their lives pondering scriptural issues.

Did you not read my reply to that?
To verbalise "I Am" was to claim to be God, plain and simple. It is not a simple statement that "I always existed", but rather that "I AM - eternally and self-essentially". By saying these words, Christ was making it plain that He considered himself more than human, and equal to God. That is why the story goes that He had to make Himself absent to avoid stoning.

You appear to think that I believe God doesn't exist. Why?
I am merely responding to you, if it seems that way, maybe it is the impression you give.
Maybe. Maybe it's a comprehension problem.

1) What aspect of this demonstration would you regard as omnipotent, and how would you recognise that omniscience would be characteristic of the performer?
Strictly speaking, it's not a demonstration of omnipotence, but a demonstration of the ability to turn lemons to apples. For a good test, the particular demonstration should be a randomly chosen event that is logically possible, but is unimaginably unlikely. My understanding of "omnipotence" is something like "able to directly cause any event, regardless of physical or statistical constraints". So to test it, one must choose some event or events that are normally constrained by physics, statistics, or both.
Omniscience is evidenced by God's awareness of the invocation. You could test it more directly if required, but it is enough for me that an omniscient entity would be aware of the invocation, where a non-omniscient entity probably would not.

Do you think that this performance would lead you to accept the divine characteristics mentioned above, without question, or would you try and prove that it was or was not a trick of your mind or some other way?
I think that perhaps I would seek repeatability and independent confirmation.
Let's say that the lemon did become an apple - what would I do next? I'd be pretty overwhelmed, so it's hard to say...
Maybe I'd confirm that it was an apple by touch and taste. Then perhaps I'd drop to my knees in prayer. Then perhaps I'd find my wife, and invoke something else -"God, please heal my wife's eyesight". This has several purposes - repeatability, independent confirmation, evangelism, and a real human good. Next, I'd make my way to the hospital emergency room.

If repeatability failed, I'd be in trouble. It would be natural for me to begin to doubt myself. If I didn't, it would be natural for me to hold some frustration - God would be proven to me, but I would be unable to credibly spread that proof to others...

Of course, all this is speculation until that first evidence occurs - I regularly seek that first level, and just as regularly fail to find it.

If you decided to seek some logical/rational explanation for the event, then how could your request have had any real value or sincerity despite what you may have thought?
The event was specifically chosen to have no logical/rational explanation, other than the "escape clause" that my senses have no relation to reality. That, however, is the path to madness.

Again you are displaying a real lack of understanding as to what/who God is.
If God exists, and from Him comes the universe and every thing/one therin, then He is connected to everything in a most essential way. So to conduct an experiment using Gods potencies, which includes your own ability, to find if God exists, is to deny His existence as a Supreme Being before you've even started.
It is something like trying to find yourself, and asking people if they have seen you.
Sorry, I don't buy it.
The test is not so much a test for the existence of God (as defined by yourself) as a test for the existence of omnipotence and omniscience. Everything exists (obviously). The test is whether anything is omniscient and omnipotent.

Him being "the truth, the way and the life" (i thought it was light not life), does not mean he is proclaiming that he is God. He is proclaiming that through him (his example and teaching), we too can become favoured sons of God.
Read John 14 (the source of the quote). Pay particular attention to verses 8 and 9. Combine this with John 1 and Matthew 25, and I fail to see how you can maintain that Jesus did not claim to be above other humans. But like I said before, I think we're at an impasse on this point.

They are different aspects of the same God.

Do you know the story about the 10 blind men all touching one elephant, a phenomenon they had no previous knowledge about, all giving different description?

Are you aware that that is a Hindu parable?

All roads lead to the top of the mountain, also according to Hinduism.

But do they really? How do you know all roads are climbing the same mountain? How do we know if we're touching the same beast or not?

You have indicated that you believe the truth of these parables, and you are welcome to do so. But be aware that it is originally a Hindu belief, not a Christian one.

Jan Ardena

08-18-04, 11:23 AM

Pete,

Part 1.

It appears to be your opinion that "the teachings of Jesus Christ" were essentially invitations or instructions to "get to His level". Can you support that point of view?

Read Matthew chapter 5.

It is my assertion that "the teachings of Jesus Christ" include that He was God, above the level of other humans.
You might want to re-read John 1:1-34. I think you've also not responded to Matthew 25:31-36 (the preceding two parables are similar, but not as explicit).

1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1:2
The same was in the beginning with God. (the preceding two parables are similar, but not as explicit).

1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1:2
The same was in the beginning with God.

Here a little glimpse into the omnipotency of God. He is the word and separate from the word. The word being the begining of creation.

1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
1:4
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Here is an example of God's energies, He creates everything, and in Him is life, which is described as "light" This clearly indicates that life (light or soul) is not created like the created things i.e. universe. But has its source in God.

1:6
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
1:7
The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

John was sent from God who came for a witness (Jesus), so that Jesus could bear witness of the Light (life, light, soul) that dwells in God. (John 1.4) It is confirmed in the following verses;

1:8
He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

1:9
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

The "true light" meaning the Almighty God, from whom everything emanates.

1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

1:13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The word was made flesh. If we go back to the begining of this chapter it states;

1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1:2
The same was in the beginning with God.

God is simultaneosly one, and different to the "word" which was made flesh. Do you see my point now? Whatever relationship God has with the "word" is non different from the relationship with Jesus.

1:15
John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

We can use this verse to clear up the "I am" claim. If we go back to verses 1.12 to 1.14, we get an idea of Jesus' make up, and he is clearly not an ordinary human being. HE is God's energy (the word) made flesh by Himself. (1.13)
The first verse says "In the beginging was the word," what is that "begining?" It is the begining of the material manifestation, the creation. So the "word" is endowed with all knowledge, but it is simultaneosly one and different to God.

Jan Ardena.

Jan Ardena

08-18-04, 05:27 PM

Pete,

Part 2

After reading those two passages, how can you maintain that "the teachings of Jesus Christ" imply that it is possible to "get to His level"?

This is with regard to Matthew 25:31-36, which talks of the "son of man" coming into his glory. Jesus is not the "son of man," not by any definition. The son of man is he that is born of blood, will of the flesh or will of man. (John 1.13)

something else;

Luke 22:70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

Strive to be like Christ, yes... follow Him, yes, but be the Son of God in the way it is applied to Christ? That's not biblical.

In John 1:12 it says;
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
This is very biblical, but you must develop some understanding of what God is otherwise we are in darkness, no understanding of the reality of everything.

John 1:5
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
1:10
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
1:11
He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
QUOTE]

You might also wish to look further into your dictionary definitions of Christian... particularly the belief in Jesus as Christ. Do you know what that means?

Please enlighten me with sources.

[QUOTE]To verbalise "I Am" was to claim to be God, plain and simple. It is not a simple statement that "I always existed", but rather that "I AM - eternally and self-essentially".

Why plain and simple? There would be no sense in "...before Abrahman I am God Almighty"...... it simply doesn't fit.

"I am" is saying there is no "was." Abraham was a man born of a woman, he came and went. Jesus is more or less saying, i have not changed, and i will not change, so there is only the present, hence the perfect term, "I am."

By saying these words, Christ was making it plain that He considered himself more than human, and equal to God. That is why the story goes that He had to make Himself absent to avoid stoning.

In actual fact he is more than human, and is qualitively equal to God. He just isn't as great as God, and he never claimed to be.

My understanding of "omnipotence" is something like "able to directly cause any event, regardless of physical or statistical constraints".

When we talk of an omnipotent god, we mean an all-powerful being. This doesn't mean He is more powerfull than something, it means He is all-powerfull, the Supreme Power, the greatest.

So to test it, one must choose some event or events that are normally constrained by physics, statistics, or both.

How can you test something whose energies are the very source of power that is in control of everything, including you, your mind, your ability and all the physical implements you may use?
If you are not aware of that, then how can you hope to recognise the source itself?

I think that perhaps I would seek repeatability and independent confirmation.
Let's say that the lemon did become an apple - what would I do next? I'd be pretty overwhelmed, so it's hard to say...

I'm really sorry, but i think this is just idle specualation. Try and get grasp of how great God is.

Read John