:: SuperTopo Rock Climbing Discussion Topic

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 81 - 100 of total 163 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

WandaFuca

Social climber

From the gettin place

May 26, 2010 - 07:37pm PT

Just more mental speculations on your part, Werner.

nature

climber

Tucson, AZ

May 26, 2010 - 07:40pm PT

you just have to get use to the fact that Werner knows the truth.

but the thing is his truth is radically different than most of the rest of us.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

May 26, 2010 - 10:36pm PT

Klimmer asks

What physical evidence would be deemed worthy enough to prove the existance of GOD to most Agnostics and Atheists?

I'm just wondering. If you are an Agnostic or Atheist please say what it would take. What will it take?

Perhaps it exists and you haven't asked.

I can't speak for anyone but myself... I would say that the way I look at things I'm not looking for "proof." The major issue is that a God which is constructed to fit what we know scientifically, is pretty much irrelevant. No way you can prove or disprove such a construction; it becomes a matter of faith.

As I've proposed elsewhere in the forum, the idea of God certainly has the power to make people act. And the consensus of what constitutes a philosophical system, a religion, regarding God, etc.. has tremendous power in organizing societies. However, to do that there does not have to be a realization of God as anything that interacts, in a physical manner, with the universe.

God just needs to be a compelling idea.

You run into all sorts of problems trying to construct a God active in the workings of the physical universe, directly pulling the strings, guiding evolution, intervening in day-to-day events.

Somehow this is not very satisfactory to people who believe in a real God, they want that to be more than "just an idea," as powerful as that can be. There is the desire for absolute truth, absolute right vs. wrong, etc, etc...

We have no proof of the existence of God at all, except what we perceive to be "true" ourselves, and our trust in others that claim to know that "truth" too.

What we know about the physical universe does not require the existence or nonexistence of God, God is irrelevant.

nature

climber

Tucson, AZ

May 26, 2010 - 10:46pm PT

Klimmer is taking the typical wrong approach in asking that question.

Essentially there is nothing I can imagine that could be construed as "proof".

For example:

Shanking hands with God would be proof. It would require a witness - maybe 10. Can that happen?

How about a conversation with God - a three way, or more. Someone else in the room also asking questions and hearing the same answers.

Heck, even better with both of those - video tape it so we all can be witness.

What you ask for isn't possible given the construct of what you believe your God to be.

Me... I'm neither Agnostic or Atheist. I am, however, non-duelist in my belief in God. There is nothing that isn't supreme consciousness that isn't God. Hindu Tantra. Go chew on it for a while. And before you make any assumptions realize that my belief in god and your belief in god share about nothing in common. You assume god to be something other.

Batrock started out this thread with this bullshit:

I'm am always amazed how everyone gets on their high horses around here acting like they can explain everything. The fact is science and religion both include some amount of necessary faith.

No... actually... your observations are seriously biased or something. The scientist I respect are the ones that admit they know nothing. You religious freaks should try that sometime. I'm amazed on what the human mind can cook up. y'all got it all figured out. Riiiight.

Science is a method. It works within its own constructs. So to try and ask for proof within that system of a being that is beyond anything science knows how to use its method again and thinking that by not having any answers somehow validates your premiss is nothing short of a Logical Fallacy. It's not quiet as bad as "there is no proof that god doesn't exist therefore god must exist" - but it approaches it.

But where I will agree is that yes, science does make assumptions. It makes a leap of faith that our physical world actually exists. There's no proof of that. Never will there be. And that's perfectly OK. We make a leap of faith that hot is hot, cold is cold. I speak and ask you to do something and you do what I ask. Brown is brown. Water you can drink. Without water you eventually dry up. Can I prove any of that? Again, no. But using the method of science, once I get past the initial leap of faith that my experience is "real" and your's is the same, the method can then work. We get that - us scientists. But we don't pretend we have all the answers. We have more questions than answers. That will always be true.

WBraun

climber

May 26, 2010 - 11:05pm PT

Nature -- "The scientist I respect are the ones that admit they know nothing."

This doesn't make any sense?

The material scientists do know an incredible amount of how the material manifestation works, how to manipulative the material energy, etc etc.

The material scientists also have discovered DNA.

Where is this "they know nothing?"

"They know nothing" is like saying the whole material manifestation is not real.

It is very real, although temporary.

You crater on a fall and you feel pain. Very real.

Even a dog is conscious of it's body.

Even an insect knows where to go for food.

Thus knowledge is there.

Where is this "They" know nothing?"

nature

climber

Tucson, AZ

May 26, 2010 - 11:20pm PT

prove they know anything.

prove there is DNA.

I left my thoughts without context. The effect I'm going for is simple. Looking at the universe and everything in it it's clear there is an almost infinite amount of things we could "know". We know so very little. A drop of water in all the oceans. A grain of sand among all sand grains on this rock we ride around on. We know nothing.

Edit:

It is very real, although temporary.

and your proof that it is either/both real and/or temporary is?

WBraun

climber

May 26, 2010 - 11:29pm PT

Nature -- "We know so very little."

You contradict yourself.

"We know so very little." is greater than nothing.

Thus "They know nothing" makes no sense at all.

I will cut you with a knife, and you will know you will bleed.

That knowledge is there.

"They know nothing" is at it's root mayavadi point of view and it is a very dangerous blunder.

nature

climber

Tucson, AZ

May 26, 2010 - 11:32pm PT

I made contrast, Werner. Your nitpicking on my words serves no point.

but if you must - do your own editing to what I wrote.

change:

"nothing"

To

"essentially nothing"

get my point?

Edit: and the entire context of all of that was to, again, simply point out that:

gets on their high horses around here acting like they can explain everything

Is a crock of bullsh#t.

WBraun

climber

May 26, 2010 - 11:48pm PT

"essentially nothing"

Is still something and not nothing.

So you've changed again.

Originally you said "They know nothing".

And now you've become upset.

mark miller

Social climber

Reno

May 26, 2010 - 11:53pm PT

What is this a bunch of "Stoners" sitting around, arguing philosophy 101? Get a real argument that hasn't been posted and argued for Millennium......

WBraun

climber

May 26, 2010 - 11:55pm PT

It's not even philosophy Mark.

It's a very simple thing.

nature

climber

Tucson, AZ

May 26, 2010 - 11:57pm PT

I'm upset?

Someone send me a memo letting me know that.

it's too bad you focus on the words and not the context tho.... just thought I'd help you out of that. I guess I fail. But what do I know anyway....?

WBraun

climber

May 26, 2010 - 11:59pm PT

Sorry, I forgot to put the question mark at the end of the upset word.

WBraun

climber

May 27, 2010 - 12:08am PT

But I have serious problems with this:

Without water you eventually dry up. Can I prove any of that? Again, no.

Why is this not prove-able?

I isolate someone and never give them water.

They will dry up ....

nature

climber

Tucson, AZ

May 27, 2010 - 12:13am PT

simple. Because you have no proof that anything exists. Your proof relies on internal observation. That observation cannot be proven outside itself. And nothing exists outside of all that exists.

That statement played into the comment regarding science and religion both requiring a certain amount of faith (to which I agree). In science we make a leap of faith that what we experience is actually real. But without that leap of faith we can prove nothing. And thus nothing is provable. It all has to work within the context we set forth in front of us.

So I can wake up one day and believe nothing. On another I can wake up and believe everything. And on both days I'm correct.

Edit: though I tend to believe that if you don't give someone water they will dry up.

WBraun

climber

May 27, 2010 - 12:20am PT

This makes absolutely no sense.

And thus nothing is provable.

The thief was caught red handed breaking into your vehicle and removing some of your things by many witnesses.

The thief says: This is not provable you must release me immediately.