UnderConstruction wrote:

Psalm23 wrote:
I know why people get cancer.

Oh? Do tell.

People get cancer because of the world that we live in.

Well, I was hoping for something a little more detailed to be honest.

Even a naturalist can understand this.

Well no, I don't think too many naturalists will understand this. Most people who are actually in the business of studying cancer will be looking for something a little more useful than "because of the word we live in".

No need to be so smug, construction.

Mutation(s) occur within a cell which cause vital control systems to fail. A "cancerous" cell begins dividing uncontrollably and eventually forms a tumor which may then metastasize. (Travel to other parts of the body.) Along the way, cancerous cells may obstruct vital organs or even hijack blood vessels in order to sustain themselves.

The same thing that created you and I (according to your worldview) causes cancer - random genetic mutation(s).

So we know very well what causes cancer. Furthermore, I would recommend studying entropy. Things move from order to chaos. (Essentially.) Give things enough time and corruption will slip in.

People get cancer because cancer is a part of our world

So, people get cancer because there is such a thing as cancer? This does not get any better.

I'm making a philosophic point, not a scientific one. See above. Next.

- in my opinion,

Oh I'm sorry, I thought you said you know, not you are taking a wild guess.

*sigh* My opinion is not a "wild guess". Thanks for the insult, though. [/sarcasm]

because of sin.

Well fuck me, all this time those uppity doctors have been wasting their time trying to find causes of cancer, they have been looking in the wrong place. So apparently, we get cancer because your skypappy thinks it is a reasonable way of doing things to create imperfect beings, then dish out indiscriminate punishments such as nasty, often fatal diseases.

Still, good thing medical professionals do not all think this way or medical knowledge may never have made it out of the dark ages.

I am sorry that you've been so deeply wounded by religion.

Your response is riddled with broad assumptions and generalities. Contrary to what I'm guessing your beliefs are (based upon your thick-as-peanut-butter sarcastic response), I do not wish to halt human progress by reverting to the dark ages. I am all for human progress, including the world of modern medicine.

Where did I state that sin was the problem and doctors should just give up? Oh wait, that's right - I never said that.

But why does God allow it?

Two main options spring to mind.

1) God is a cunt.
2) There is no God.

No prizes for guessing which I find more likely.

Interesting. So when it comes to the issue of cancer we ought to probe and experiment and attempt to learn as much as we can in order to understand it. However, when it comes to something a bit more mysterious and intangible, such as God, we ought to stop all serious inquiry and write it off as some ancient fairy tale?

What do you get when you multiply standard by 2?

Sorry to hear about your dog but that does not get you off the hook for talking complete and utter shite.

Shite, eh? And what exactly quantifies "utter shite"? Sounds arbitrary to me.

Yet another pile of unsubstantiated drivel. Of course God doesn't run like a scientific experiment; that's why we don't believe that he exists.

Nautilidae, think about what you just said. You don't believe in God because you can't run Him through the scientific method. Do you believe in an objective reality? Why or why not? You can't run that through the scientific method either and yet I'm willing to bet that you believe in it. Unsubstantiated drivel - right back atcha boi. Go ahead and attempt to substantiate objective reality through science.

You all should go and take a philosophy course at your local community college, I really think it would do you some good.

You believe that people get cancer because of sin. This is completely unfalsifiable.

As stated earlier: Objective Reality. *boom* Did you feel that? It was a MIND BOMB! Go ahead and falsify that one for me.

Cheers,
Cody, A.K.A. "the Mind Bomber"

Oh dear, he's raised the "entropy" canard. Oh this is going to be fun.

Psalm23 wrote:
No need to be so smug, construction.

Smug? Moi? Not a bit of it. I have nothing to be smug about on this subject and certainly claim no advanced knowledge of cancer.

Mutation(s) occur within a cell which cause vital control systems to fail. A "cancerous" cell begins dividing uncontrollably and eventually forms a tumor which may then metastasize. (Travel to other parts of the body.) Along the way, cancerous cells may obstruct vital organs or even hijack blood vessels in order to sustain themselves.

But thanks for filling me in on the basics though.

The same thing that created you and I (according to your worldview) causes cancer - random genetic mutation(s).

Do I detect the "random" canard lurking nearby?

At best this is a gross oversimplification, at worst a deliberate distortion of evolutionary theory.

So we know very well what causes cancer.

Funny, I did not see "sin" mentioned in your little Cancer 101 that you have just treated us to. How does that factor into it then? Is "sin" the mechanism that causes the genetic mutations?

Furthermore, I would recommend studying entropy. Things move from order to chaos. (Essentially.) Give things enough time and corruption will slip in.

Will that explain how "sin" fits into the cause of cancer?

I'm making a philosophic point, not a scientific one. See above. Next.

I'm not sure tautology helps with making this point, whether it is scientific or philosophical. All you did there was state the bleeding obvious.

*sigh* My opinion is not a "wild guess". Thanks for the insult, though. [/sarcasm]

Then perhaps you could share with us the evidence that allowed you to form this opinion?

I am sorry that you've been so deeply wounded by religion.

Bzzzzz, thank you for playing but I am not motivated by a grudge against religion.

Your response is riddled with broad assumptions and generalities. Contrary to what I'm guessing your beliefs are (based upon your thick-as-peanut-butter sarcastic response), I do not wish to halt human progress by reverting to the dark ages. I am all for human progress, including the world of modern medicine.

Where did I state that sin was the problem and doctors should just give up? Oh wait, that's right - I never said that.

In all fairness, I may have overgeneralised a bit but perhaps you could elaborate on your claim then, to avoid further room for such behaviour? How does "sin" fit into the causes of cancer you have stated above? If "sin" is indeed the reason that we get cancer, would there not be a more effective method of curing and/or preventing it, such as kissing sky daddy's arse?

Interesting. So when it comes to the issue of cancer we ought to probe and experiment and attempt to learn as much as we can in order to understand it. However, when it comes to something a bit more mysterious and intangible, such as God, we ought to stop all serious inquiry and write it off as some ancient fairy tale?

Now who's overgeneralising? I do not recall saying any such thing.

I would certainly not suggest that any and all inquiry into the existence of God/god(s) or any other supernatural phenomena should cease and desist. What I would suggest is that such inquiry should not be granted any kind of privileged status whatsoever, nor should those making claims about such phenomena expect to be taken seriously until they can provide evidence to back up their beliefs. Not so unreasonable, imho.

What do you get when you multiply standard by 2?

If you are accusing me of any specific example of double standards, please do spit it out.

Shite, eh? And what exactly quantifies "utter shite"? Sounds arbitrary to me.

Not so much arbitrary as a subjective standard. But since my post was specifically a challenge to the claim that "sin" is the cause of cancer and you have failed to provide any support for this wild ass guess opinion, I assume you concede at least that it is unsubstantiated?

What!!? What fuckwittery is this? Obviously god exists, the proof is right there in front of you!!!

He talks regularly with delusional psychotics those of faith, and performs miracles on a daily basis. Since he has conversations with them, there's proof right there that he exists, fools! He clearly exists because his presence is regularly reported. Scientific proof!

Why, only last year, my wife developed breast cancer. Her treatment was exceptionally fast, effective, comprehensive and compassionate. Then it was discovered that she had tumours on both ovararies. Again, after treatment at the first-class university hospital, she recovered. She still has 3-month check ups, but so far the prognosis is excellent. I didn't have time to pray; it wasn't high on my list of priorities, but obviously dozens of others must have, or she wouldn't have recovered. Could have saved all the comprehensive investment in time and facilities by oncologists, surgeons, specialist nurses, assistants, after-care services.....Thank you God, for this miracle through prayer .

I had forgotten about this thread, but having just reviewed what happneed since my last post i can't say that I am very surprised. Cody, what about my penguin experiment was it that you found far too bizarre to earn your prayer. You stated yourself that it is well within God's capabilities. And yet you then claim that God would not partake in a scientific experiment. How can you possibly know this? Did he tell you this himself?

I think a more pertinent question is why anyone prays to God at all while simultaneously believing him to be omniscient. If he truly is omniscient than you asking him to do something for you is pointless. With every little detail of the furture already known, anything that happens is bound to happen whether you pray or not.

I also fail to see how footballers turngin into penguins is all that odd. I would note here that I didn't ask for footballers to turn into penguins. I simply asked for footballers to disappear and for penguins to appear in their place. Anyway, i fail to see how this is anymore odd than a man being born of a virgin, walking on water, turning water into wine, raising the dead, and then coming back from death to spend an eternity looking into our bedrooms and checking to see if our partners have opposite genetalia. This is all before we consider that the only reason that said person perfromed the above acts is because his daddy wanted to create a loophole for people not meeting the standards that he set because of sin from people that he made without any knowledge between right and wrong.

But yeah, disappearing footballers and penguis is just so fucking bizarre.

I believe that God answers prayer.

Against all the evidence? Why?

If God does exist and if He is truly a "higher power" then we must not be able to even begin to understand or imagine his rationale for all that He does.

What does he do?

Psalm23 wrote:So we know very well what causes cancer. Furthermore, I would recommend studying entropy. Things move from order to chaos. (Essentially.) Give things enough time and corruption will slip in.

Actually, I recommend you study entropy, because you clearly have no fucking clue what it is.

Blitzkrebs wrote:Where is my burger?

There, there, Blitzkrebs. Here, have some burgers. Well, actually they're burghers, but let's not split hairs.

Created by a human in his own image, too.

Psalm23 wrote:

Psalm23 wrote:
I know why people get cancer.

People get cancer because of the world that we live in.

Mutation(s) occur within a cell which cause vital control systems to fail. A "cancerous" cell begins dividing uncontrollably and eventually forms a tumor which may then metastasize. (Travel to other parts of the body.) Along the way, cancerous cells may obstruct vital organs or even hijack blood vessels in order to sustain themselves.

The same thing that created you and I (according to your worldview) causes cancer - random genetic mutation(s).

So we know very well what causes cancer. Furthermore, I would recommend studying entropy. Things move from order to chaos. (Essentially.) Give things enough time and corruption will slip in.

That is hardly helpful in furthering knowledge of cancer and finding better ways to treat it. And actually I'd suggest studying immunology and genetics would be more effective. Evolution can provide a lot of insight into cancer as well.

Not that "entropy" is unimportant in any of these, but "entropy" is not what you have stated it to be. Entropy is about energy, not order and disorder as used in the common sense. I posted this link in another thread but you might find it useful: A Student’s Approach to the Second Law and Entropy

Psalm23 wrote:Nautilidae, think about what you just said. You don't believe in God because you can't run Him through the scientific method. Do you believe in an objective reality? Why or why not? You can't run that through the scientific method either and yet I'm willing to bet that you believe in it. Unsubstantiated drivel - right back atcha boi. Go ahead and attempt to substantiate objective reality through science.

You all should go and take a philosophy course at your local community college, I really think it would do you some good.

Well done, you've discovered solipsism.

I think you've missed the point that science is a method of investigating reality and reality can be defined as that which we observe (and it's logical consequences).

Now, yeah maybe it doesn't exist, if so, then nor does this argument or your god. So sure, that option is on the table, but it doesn't really help.

Now unless you actually want to assert that reality doesn't exist, shall we move on?

PS: If you want to look into the good that philosophy has done the last few pages of the "Philosophy?" thread has discussion on this matter, it seems in a few thousand years the major good it's done is that two philosophers hit upon the idea of writing down and precisifying the techniques of logic and erm, oh some people quite liked Karl Popper. (Also a lot of God-botherers love it as a means to inspect the inside of their colon by inserting their head up their arse).

That is hardly helpful in furthering knowledge of cancer and finding better ways to treat it. And actually I'd suggest studying immunology and genetics would be more effective. Evolution can provide a lot of insight into cancer as well.

True. Originally, developing new ways to treat cancer was not the question, though. UnderConstruction jumped all over me because I said I knew what caused cancer. I was merely demonstrating the fact that most High School Graduates know what causes cancer. (Biology 101) Treating it is another endeavor.

Actually, I recommend you study entropy, because you clearly have no fucking clue what it is.

Calilasseia wrote:Oh dear, he's raised the "entropy" canard. Oh this is going to be fun.

Not that "entropy" is unimportant in any of these, but "entropy" is not what you have stated it to be. Entropy is about energy, not order and disorder as used in the common sense. I posted this link in another thread but you might find it useful: A Student’s Approach to the Second Law and Entropy

It's true that Entropy traditionally only applies in this way. However, in statistical mechanics entropy may refer to randomness on the molecular level. (i.e. genetic mutation as a result of statistical chance)

The definition, understanding and working principles of entropy are rather broad, to put it mildly. See: http://www.tim-thompson.com/entropy1.html

Entropy, as I referred to it, is neither "canard", nor inapplicable.

Well done, you've discovered solipsism.

I think you've missed the point that science is a method of investigating reality and reality can be defined as that which we observe (and it's logical consequences).

Now, yeah maybe it doesn't exist, if so, then nor does this argument or your god. So sure, that option is on the table, but it doesn't really help.

Now unless you actually want to assert that reality doesn't exist, shall we move on?

No. We shan't move on. How does one determine whether what they are perceiving is real or just their mind playing tricks on them? If objective reality is not true then scientific investigation falls apart entirely. Science assumes that we live in an objective realm and it does this without any means for falsifying this broad assumption.

So, my point, as it has always been, (I didn't just discover solipsism yesterday) is that science can't falsify everything. Heck, science can't even falsify the very foundation of experimentation! So why do you believe in an objective reality? Where is your evidence? I need something testable, repeatable and most of all, falsifiable.

It can't be done. You can't run an experiment on objective reality without presupposing its existence in the first place. As I said earlier, scientific investigation and experimentation must assume that we aren't all just some cosmic dream, or your dream, for that matter.

Prove that God exists? We can't even prove that one another exist.



Cheers,
Cody

What the fuck is objective reality? is it an upgraded form of reality ?And wtf , dreams arn't real? Damn i was pretty sure i had a dream last night but it wasn't....damn reality not being real enough to exist.Btw i am speaking to myself , there is no way there could exists anyone but me ,i mean there are simply no evidences.[/stupid]

Psalm23 wrote:

That is hardly helpful in furthering knowledge of cancer and finding better ways to treat it. And actually I'd suggest studying immunology and genetics would be more effective. Evolution can provide a lot of insight into cancer as well.

True. Originally, developing new ways to treat cancer was not the question, though. UnderConstruction jumped all over me because I said I knew what caused cancer. I was merely demonstrating the fact that most High School Graduates know what causes cancer. (Biology 101) Treating it is another endeavor.

This is a blatant falsehood, I'm afraid.

I "jumped all over you" because you claimed that "sin" is the cause of cancer. How many of these high school graduates achieved that status by making such an absurd claim?

A claim I might add, that you have since chosen to avoid further discussion of. Perhaps this is merely an attempt at distracting us, in the hope that we will forget that you said it?

Oh please, Psalm23, you purport to be in a position to lecture me on entropy? Do fucking bring it on, because I'm going to enjoy this knife fight.

Psalm23 wrote:No. We shan't move on. How does one determine whether what they are perceiving is real or just their mind playing tricks on them? If objective reality is not true then scientific investigation falls apart entirely. Science assumes that we live in an objective realm and it does this without any means for falsifying this broad assumption.

No, it defines what it's studying as being objective reality. If you don't think that the world you see, hear, smell etc. is objective reality, what the fuck DO you think objective reality is?

Not that this really matters when I (or a lot of other people) discuss objective reality, this is what we are talking about. If you want to assert the existence of something else, then sure, tell us what it is and what your reason is for discussing it.

Psalm23 wrote:So, my point, as it has always been, (I didn't just discover solipsism yesterday) is that science can't falsify everything. Heck, science can't even falsify the very foundation of experimentation! So why do you believe in an objective reality? Where is your evidence? I need something testable, repeatable and most of all, falsifiable.

I've already answered this question twice. But sure, if you want to pretend that objective reality does not exist, then you don't exist, so you aren't objecting... Oh, your argument refutes itself. Pity.

Psalm23 wrote:It can't be done. You can't run an experiment on objective reality without presupposing its existence in the first place. As I said earlier, scientific investigation and experimentation must assume that we aren't all just some cosmic dream, or your dream, for that matter.

Nope. If we are in some cosmic dream then science investigates the cosmic dream and that "cosmic dream" is what we all call reality. The problem is that we don't have the first reason to state that the nature of reality is a "cosmic dream" or a "creation of mind" or "a giant hippo sneeze" or anything else. You have slipped into metaphysics and are making meaningless speculations about the nature of reality that aren't relevant to science.

Psalm23 wrote:Prove that God exists? We can't even prove that one another exist.

Depends what you mean by "prove", in the everyday sense we can certainly provide objective empirical evidence for it that removes doubt from most people's minds. In the mathematical sense, indeed we can't. In the mathematical sense we can't prove anything beyond the implications of axioms.

In which case we could preface every remark with "assuming objective reality exists and is roughly how it appears to be", but what would be the fucking point? It's obvious from context, it's not like we preface every comment with other blindingly obvious things like "assuming that I am speaking English and am a person".

It's just mindless pedantry to try and escape from the fact that all of us are working from the base position of describing a reality (the thing we observe). The difference is you claim that a god is in this reality for no objective reason at all and we don't make that claim.

Edit: Incidentally I have absolutely no problem with you assuming objective reality does not exist - as long as you behave consistently about it and stop doing these things which are pointless and incompatible with such a belief (like participating in this conversation, which is more consistent with you actually believing in objective reality).

Take your pick, but you can't have it both ways, it either exists or it doesn't.

Psalm23 wrote:
No. We shan't move on. How does one determine whether what they are perceiving is real or just their mind playing tricks on them? If objective reality is not true then scientific investigation falls apart entirely. Science assumes that we live in an objective realm and it does this without any means for falsifying this broad assumption.

So, my point, as it has always been, (I didn't just discover solipsism yesterday) is that science can't falsify everything. Heck, science can't even falsify the very foundation of experimentation! So why do you believe in an objective reality? Where is your evidence? I need something testable, repeatable and most of all, falsifiable.

It can't be done. You can't run an experiment on objective reality without presupposing its existence in the first place. As I said earlier, scientific investigation and experimentation must assume that we aren't all just some cosmic dream, or your dream, for that matter.

Prove that God exists? We can't even prove that one another exist.

You don't seem to understand the nature of science.

Science is the study of the subjective. Science isn't the study of things that we know to exist or occur; it is the study of things that we observe to exist or occur. You do not understand a fundamental aspect of science. Science doesn't prove anything; it allows us to gather a great amount of evidence that something exists or occurs. While we cannot prove that objective reality exists with science, we can provide some evidence for it with the scientific method. No, I cannot prove that anyone but myself exists. However, I can provide empirical evidence that things other than myself exist.

In this respect, you are correct; we cannot prove that God exists. However, that isn't what we want to do, is it? What we want is to provide testable, empirical evidence that God exists. In other words, as Carl Sagan once said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". We don't ask you for proof. We never did. We ask you for evidence.

Your "mind bomb" is nothing more than a fire cracker.

Calilasseia wrote:Oh please, Psalm23, you purport to be in a position to lecture me on entropy? Do fucking bring it on, because I'm going to enjoy this knife fight.

I'm not lecturing you on entropy, please calm down and put your knife away.

PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8196422

That article should speak for itself. I'm willing to bet there are others like it.

Take your pick, but you can't have it both ways, it either exists or it doesn't.

I guess I'm not being clear here. I certainly believe in an objective reality.

However, do you not see the glaring parallels between my belief in God and your belief in an objective reality?

You can provide absolutely zero evidence for it, except of course your own personal experience and the experience of "others" - yet, you believe it. As a matter of fact, you believe in it so dogmatically, intrinsically, and unquestionably that you may have never even questioned it before now. Furthermore, it has become the presupposition of all serious scientific inquiry, by which we learn and know so many things.

No falsifiable / scientific evidence: God and Objective Reality
Personal experience cited as reason for belief: God and Objective Reality
Considered "common sense" by some: God and Objective Reality
Proof presupposes the thing in which it is trying to prove: God through the Bible and Objective Reality through objective claims

No, it defines what it's studying as being objective reality.

No, it assumes what it's studying as being objective within reality. How does science "define" objective reality when it can't run tests on it or even begin to attempt to want to maybe possibly falsify it? Eh?

Not that this really matters when I (or a lot of other people) discuss objective reality...

Yes, none of what we discuss here matters when I discuss Jesus with my Christian friends, either.

this is what we are talking about. If you want to assert the existence of something else, then sure, tell us what it is and what your reason is for discussing it.

God is real, this is what we are talking about. If you want to assert otherwise.... see where this is going?

[sarcasm]I am an Arealist. I can't say for certain that objective reality doesn't exist but the burden of proof lies with those who say that it does exist. Where is your evidence?[/sarcasm]

I've already answered this question twice. But sure, if you want to pretend that objective reality does not exist, then you don't exist, so you aren't objecting... Oh, your argument refutes itself. Pity.

Who are you talking to? Wait.. who am I talking to? Mind bomb, isn't it?

The problem is that we don't have the first reason to state that the nature of reality is a "cosmic dream" or a "creation of mind" or "a giant hippo sneeze" or anything else.

Emphasis mine. We don't have the first reason to state anything about the nature of reality - even that it is objective. But I'm sure you'll go on and on, assuming it exists for no good reason at all. (Except that you want to believe it, of course.) Welcome to the world of faith, my atheist friend.

In which case we could preface every remark with "assuming objective reality exists and is roughly how it appears to be", but what would be the fucking point? It's obvious from context, it's not like we preface every comment with other blindingly obvious things like "assuming that I am speaking English and am a person".

No. What is "obvious" to you, is that you exist. You then assume that everyone else you encounter is the same as you. This is an assumption which cannot be tested or falsified. You can never know for sure whether or not you are talking to real, objective individuals, such as yourself, or mindless zombies with only the appearance of an objective existence.

I think, therefore, I am - but how can I objectively prove that YOU think and therefore, YOU are?

Can't.

Cheers,
Cody