Do you believe; and why?

[Dill]

(05-09-2019, 01:30 AM)hollodero Wrote: I think that's wrong :) As this E=mc² formula states, mass is a form of energy. With fusion (or fission), energy gets set free from the resulting nuclei that is not "bound" to become mass again. In case of the sun, that energy (=photons) can light our day, or gets reflected into space, or gives us sunburns or whatever sun rays do. All that isn't a form of reverting energy back to mass (but rather creating heat/movement or do all kinds of processes that are "mass neutral"). Or heuristically, the sun gets lighter with the centuries, but the planets don't get heavier.

Now sure energy can create mass too, e.g. two photons can turn into an electron and a positron - as much as positrons and electrons can turn into energy. I guess that's how enterprise's warp drive works :) --- but really, everything I say here is to be taken with a grain of salt, I do not want to spread fake science or turn into a false science prophet :)

--- Btw. as for faith, I do not believe in supernatural beings like a god, but I certainly can't know for sure. That's all I feel confortable to believe and to say. I guess that's agnosticism.

The activity you describe (photon release, sunburning, etc.) is still comprised of sub atomic particles in various states. 

Let me put it this way.  If you could put the universe in giant plastic bag from which nothing could escape and then place it on a giant bathroom scale and weigh it at 1 pm.  It would be the same weight if you weighed it at  2 pm, no matter how much mass has been converted to energy or reconverted back to mass in the intervening hour.   Possibly.

[hollodero]

(05-09-2019, 03:43 PM)Dill Wrote: The activity you describe (photon release, sunburning, etc.) is still comprised of sub atomic particles in various states. 

Let me put it this way.  If you could put the universe in giant plastic bag from which nothing could escape and then place it on a giant bathroom scale and weigh it at 1 pm.  It would be the same weight if you weighed it at  2 pm, no matter how much mass has been converted to energy or reconverted back to mass in the intervening hour.   Possibly.

Well, the photons carry the energy away that is gained by the mass deficit of the resulting core in the fusion process. I see no reason to believe this energy is bound to turn into mass again. Hence, I do not think your assessment is entirely true. (It obviously isn't true regarding the annihilation of electron and positron. Those masses are just gone, e.g. converted into energy)

Now sure, since mass equals a lot of energy (two times the speed of light factors into it, after all), these are tiny fluctuations that don't matter much on a big scale. But I disagree, your system doesn't have to have the exact same weight at all times. Same overall energy, ok, that law stands. But there's no such law regarding conservation of mass.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-09-2019, 01:46 PM)jason Wrote: Why does somebody have to be wrong? I see a ton of similarities in most faiths. Could it be that God reveals himself to different people in different ways?

Because some religious doctrine claims that people who don't accept Jesus as their lord and savior their soul is damned. Even if they never heard of Jesus. That's a scenario in which only one faith can be correct.

Or religious doctrine states their is only one true religion and others are false.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-09-2019, 03:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Perhaps a soft determinism. Not the hard, 17th-century "mechanistic" kind.

People arrive at their beliefs as a consequence of many factors, most of which they have no control over, so there is always a deal of chance and accident in the formation of beliefs (fundamental beliefs about the nature of the universe). I don't see a "butterfly effect" setting off a rigid, linear concatenation of causes and effects determining that this person is going to be a Muslim and that one a Roman Catholic.

What I am arguing, though, is that fundamental beliefs cannot be chosen. They pretty much choose us.

I hate the Patriots. But I believe they won the Superbowl this year.  I may lie and claim they did not, or fudge it with some rationalization (they cheated!). But  I cannot "choose" to believe they did not win.   Our minds/brains are not made like that.

Same for answers to questions like are you a Christian/atheist/Buddhist?  People don't decide those issues like they decide to try rocky road instead of vanilla ice cream.  You choose to put bacon bits on your salad--or not. You do not "choose" to be an atheist. You can't help it. If someone makes a really convincing (to you) argument that there is a god, you will not be able to choose not to believe.

I suffered with soft determinism until my doctor wrote me a Rx.

[Dill]

(05-09-2019, 03:56 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I suffered with soft determinism until my doctor wrote me a Rx.

Did your doctor look like this?

[*michaelsean*]

(05-09-2019, 03:10 PM)jj22 Wrote: Not recent (Trump) times. But over time separation of state and church has become more and more blurred. You have ministers preaching about politics in the pulpit and that to me seems like it's too much.

Yeah recent times I meant the last century or so.  If that was the worst religion did, we'd be alright.  Think of how organized religion has controlled people over the last 2000 years. The corruptness of the hierarchy in the Middle Ages. Think of the inquisition, or the Muslim conquering of North Africa and the Middle East.  Organized religion has done a lot of good, but it's also done a lot of very bad.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-09-2019, 04:14 PM)Dill Wrote: Did your doctor look like this?

I only use female doctors with small hands. A joke for the over 40 crowd.

[Lucidus]

(05-09-2019, 12:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't value "truth" over happiness.

Going back to an example I said I was going to drop..... If I had a girlfriend who had a meaningless fling with another guy I would rather not know about it if it did not have any effect on our relationship.

Truth by itself has no value.  It all depends on how it effects your life.

Truth and happiness are not contrary, nor does one exclude the possibility of the other. 

Would not the effect be a violation of trust and a disrespect for the relationship itself? I must say, I would not personally be okay with such a thing being kept from me, as I it would deprive me the opportunity to even decide how I felt or how I would handle it, after the fact. 

I couldn't disagree more that truth, in and of itself, has no value. If truth itself contains no value, then no value could ever be derived from it. Of course, we both know that is not the case.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-09-2019, 03:32 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: God gave them free will without a conscience; the ability to know right from wrong or the "knowledge of good and evil."  So Adam and Eve had no way of understanding the consequences of their actions; obey=good, disobey=bad.  And God did this fully knowing they would disobey him before the first day of creation.  Why would God have any expectations they would obey knowing they wouldn't?  

That would be like me telling a baby not to poop in its diaper knowing the baby doesn't understand a damn word I'm saying.  Then feeding the baby Ex-lax.  Then getting mad at the baby for pooping in its diaper even though I knew the kid was going to poop in its diaper.  

Who knew a god could be omniscient and yet fall for a logical fallacy?

But Adam and Eve did know what the consequences of their actions would be, which was death. God made this clear to them when he said that they will "surely die" if they eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Even Satan knew that Adam and Eve understood what the consequence of their actions was because Satan went as far as to offer a rebuttal to what God said and counter argued that they wouldn't die but instead would become like God.

[fredtoast]

(05-10-2019, 06:47 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I couldn't disagree more that truth, in and of itself, has no value. If truth itself contains no value, then no value could ever be derived from it. Of course, we both know that is not the case.

And that is just vague philosophical mumbo jumbo.

I do not believe.  My mother is devoutly religious.  It would crush her and she would suffer the rest of her life if I told her I did not believe.  So I would be a total asshole to tell her the truth.  It changes absolutely nothing.  All it would do is make her miserable.


 

[fredtoast]

(05-13-2019, 12:21 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: But Adam and Eve did know what the consequences of their actions would be, which was death. God made this clear to them when he said that they will "surely die" if they eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Even Satan knew that Adam and Eve understood what the consequence of their actions was because Satan went as far as to offer a rebuttal to what God said and counter argued that they wouldn't die but instead would become like God.

Actually Adam and Eve did NOT KNOW the consequences of eating the fruit because if they did they would never have eaten it.
 
The real decision was not to eat the fruit or not.  It was to believe God or the serpent.

Why did Adam and Eve chose to believe the serpent over God?  Because they did not know the difference between good and evil.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-13-2019, 12:21 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: But Adam and Eve did know what the consequences of their actions would be, which was death. God made this clear to them when he said that they will "surely die" if they eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Even Satan knew that Adam and Eve understood what the consequence of their actions was because Satan went as far as to offer a rebuttal to what God said and counter argued that they wouldn't die but instead would become like God.

Is dying good or bad? Is becoming like God good or bad?

[*bfine32*]

(05-13-2019, 12:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually Adam and Eve did NOT KNOW the consequences of eating the fruit because if they did they would never have eaten it.
 
The real decision was not to eat the fruit or not.  It was to believe God or the serpent.

Why did Adam and Eve chose to believe the serpent over God?  Because they did not know the difference between good and evil.

(05-13-2019, 12:40 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Is dying good or bad?  Is becoming like God good or bad?

Who said they didn't know right from wrong? They knew it was wrong to eat the fruit; they just didn't know the affect.

[fredtoast]

(05-13-2019, 12:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who said they didn't know right from wrong? They knew it was wrong to eat the fruit; they just didn't know the affect.

Are we getting into another argument on semantics?  I consider "good and evil" to be the same as "right or wrong", and it seems your God does also.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-13-2019, 12:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who said they didn't know right from wrong? They knew it was wrong to eat the fruit; they just didn't know the affect.

If they knew the difference between good and bad, right and wrong; why weren't they ashamed of their nakedness until after they ate from the tree?

[*bfine32*]

(05-13-2019, 12:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Are we getting into another argument on semantics?  I consider "good and evil" to be the same as "right or wrong", and it seems your God does also.

No semantics argument; seems you and others are trying to change the meaning , but as the story is written: do you thing Eve knew it was wrong to eat the fruit? 

I do, she may not have known the consequences or the affect, but she knew she was not supposed to. WTS, none of it changes my original assertion that the affects of the fruit from this tree was something God did not give man it was something he took.  

[*bfine32*]

(05-13-2019, 01:11 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If they knew the difference between good and bad, right and wrong; why weren't they ashamed of their nakedness until after they ate from the tree?

Because they were no longer pure; they had sinned. As I've been saying they knew it was wrong, they just didn't know the affect, nor does any of it change my original assertion of this was something man took against God's will. 

[fredtoast]

(05-13-2019, 01:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No semantics argument; seems you and others are trying to change the meaning , but as the story is written: do you thing Eve knew it was wrong to eat the fruit? 

No.  She did not think it was wrong.  The serpent told her she would not die and she clearly believed him.  


If she thought it was wrong and she would die then she would never have eaten it.

[*bfine32*]

(05-13-2019, 01:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  She did not think it was wrong.  The serpent told her she would not die and she clearly believed him.  


If she thought it was wrong and she would die then she would never have eaten it.

Once again you're pointing to the affect and not the act. She knew it was wrong, but the serpent lied to her about the affect, so she defied God. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-13-2019, 01:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because they were no longer pure; they had sinned. As I've been saying they knew it was wrong, they just didn't know the affect, nor does any of it change my original assertion of this was something man took against God's will. 

So what knowledge did they obtain when the ate the forbidden fruit?