Christopher Hitchens dies aged 62

[Vort]

Originally Posted by OvisAries

Alright, hold on. Just stop.

I've discovered the problem.

It is that our premises are different.

You've dismissed all evidence based upon sensory perception. Even 'reading a gauge' on a tool that we've built qualifies as sensory perception and therefore is unreliable, in your view.

Not so. You have utterly missed the point of my objections, regardless of how carefully I tried to phrase them. Please reread what I wrote to gain an understanding of what I was saying.

Originally Posted by OvisAries

How can you know anything whatsoever, with that thinking?

Indeed, this is the point I was making. When Dawkins or Hitchens or OvisAries makes a judgment about existential phenomena, it is then incumbent upon Dawkins or Hitchens or OvisAries to define and defend their criteria.

Originally Posted by OvisAries

The notion that you're a 40-something college educated man with children instills me with a truly profound sadness.

3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated.

Originally Posted by OvisAries

Hope you had happy holidays.

What, me and those children whose existence saddens you? How special.

Originally Posted by OvisAries

God Bless.

How? By giving me more children to make you sadder?

Bye, OvisAries. I hope never to have the misfortune of interacting with you again, in any form, online or in the flesh.

[OvisAries]

Huh.

To my recollection (and by 'my recollection' I mean 'what you said verbatim') on 12-23-2011 at 8:31AM, regarding our knowledge of the sun:

"Given how unreliable our sensory impressions are in many instances, I dispute that as "proof"."

And then on 12-24-2011, 10:26 AM, regarding the existence of the sun:

"Any demonstration you offer -- any at all -- will be based on sensory perception. That is the best you can possibly do."

And in the same post, in regard to the notion of scientific measurements:

"How do we measure any such thing? Is the knowledge of those quantities just magically transported into our very beings? Or do we use sensory input to, say, read a gauge?"

And again in the same post, in response to me listing things we know of the sun:

"Only through sensory perception."

Time and time again, you dismiss sensory perception as a viable base upon which to claim that things are known. Meaning that time and time again, you have dismissed all that has ever been and will ever be known.

I operate on the basis that our only method of knowing the world (sensory perception) is that upon which we must base all knowledge. If you stand by your earlier comments, then you clearly believe otherwise. And if that is the case, then we have found the root of our communication difficulties.

Onwards.

Indeed, this is the point I was making. When Dawkins or Hitchens or OvisAries makes a judgment about existential phenomena, it is then incumbent upon Dawkins or Hitchens or OvisAries to define and defend their criteria.

Just as you don't believe in unicorns, Dawkins and Hitchens don't believe in God. And the three of you reach that conclusion in the same fashion: None of you have been presented with any reason that you deem worthy to consider the existence of God (for Hitchens and Dawkins) or Unicorns (for you) as fact.

Please notice: the onus is not on you to disprove the existence of unicorns. Similarly, the onus is not on Dawkins or Hitchens to disprove the existence of God.

The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim. This is something you have seemed to misunderstand.

What, me and those children whose existence saddens you? How special.

I have no problem with your children. Evidently, I can't even wish you 'happy holidays' without you throwing it in my face. That's really not very Christ-like.

Also, your comment is misdirected in any case. If you're going to be indignant, at least read what you're being indignant about. Again: my comment expressed no issue with your children. Merely with the notion of an adult man whose exponentially growing "facts that cease to exist when I choose to ignore them" folder is on public display.

How? By giving me more children to make you sadder?

I'm only trying to be friendly. We're all god's children, whether we agree on certain things or not. Be my brother, Vort, as all men are brothers.

Bye, OvisAries. I hope never to have the misfortune of interacting with you again, in any form, online or in the flesh.

So judgmental, such vitriol. There's no need to be nasty, Vort. I'll leave this here for your reference:

3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated.

I would say 'God Bless', but you might take offense.

Ovis

[annewandering]

We believe what we wish to believe in religion, science or anything else. If I chose not to believe either Vort or Ov then it doesnt matter what they say. If I believe the world is my own creation then behold it is. Anyones debate or jabber on the subject is just for my entertainment since I know I created you as a hobby. I have set the boundries of my belief and you can say what you want. My beliefs will remain.
You may convince me I am wrong but it will be due to my feelings on what you say, not whether it is correct or incorrect.
Of course you are free to think I am wrong but that is just more entertainment for me if I refuse to feel your argument for separate existence is worthwhile considering.
Everything we believe is based on feeling and it doesnt matter if its science, religion or philosophy. Of course most people will give consideration to the views and beliefs of others if they are convincing or have convinced enough people to bring peer pressure to bear.

[OvisAries]

Originally Posted by annewandering

If I believe the world is my own creation then behold it is. Anyones debate or jabber on the subject is just for my entertainment since I know I created you as a hobby.

What.*

I'm speechless.



*(It was a conscious decision to place a period in lieu of a question mark. It's less a question and more of a statement of utter shock.)

[annewandering]

You didnt know I created you as a hobby? I must have forgotten to tell you that. oh well. Now you know.

[Colirio]

Originally Posted by OvisAries

The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim. This is something you have seemed to misunderstand.

I agree with you.

It's an extremely negative thing to not believe in God.


Oh, and if Vort wasn't giving you the silent treatment, he would tell you that he still doesn't believe in the sun as you have yet to prove it exists.

Originally Posted by OvisAries

But we must use sensation in order to prove anything, to know anything, to understand anything. Therefore, denying the validity of sensory perception is to deny reality, to deny existence, and to deny all that has been known, is known, and ever will be known.

I actually DO agree with you on this statement!

And because it was so well spoken, I will also post the scientific formula for proving God exists.

Alma 32:26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

Alma even uses the word "experiment" for us to understand what he is saying.

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

And following Alma relates to us a few variables that can sour the experiment and taint the results.

38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life.

And then Alma lists the results of the experiment when conducted properly.

41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.

42 And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

43 Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.

This is the same experiment that has been tried by millions and millions of people. This is not the experiment that is limited to a few random scientists at a university trying to earn a paycheck and a name for themselves in a scientific journal. This formula is available for everyone to try.

It's not always easy. It won't necessarily yield the results quickly. But it does work each time it is tried.

[OvisAries]

I agree with you. It's an extremely negative thing to not believe in God.

Well, I suppose it could be considered in that light. Though that's not quite what I meant.

I did not mean 'positive/negative' in an 'uplifting/depressing' sense. Not at all.

By 'positive claim', I meant the 'claim for the existence of something', as opposed to a 'lack of a claim for existence' as Dawkins and the gang portend. Between those two, the burden of proof is really on those of us with faith in God to try to prove our beliefs to them (Dawkins & co.); we can't simply demand that they disprove God and, should they fail, claim that we're automatically right. That's not intellectually honest and that's not how it works. The burden of proof lies with we who make the claim, and not with those who we present it to.

Apologies for the ambiguity.

Oh, and if Vort wasn't giving you the silent treatment, he would tell you that he still doesn't believe in the sun as you have yet to prove it exists.

If Vort wasn't giving me the silent treatment, I'd likely be banging my head into a wall for shame at the human race. I'm glad he stopped before his silliness drove me to extremity.

This is the same experiment that has been tried by millions and millions of people. This is not the experiment that is limited to a few random scientists at a university trying to earn a paycheck and a name for themselves in a scientific journal. This formula is available for everyone to try.

It's not always easy. It won't necessarily yield the results quickly. But it does work each time it is tried.

I'd certainly agree that those are beautiful scriptures, and I think they're significant, certainly. Though I don't know that I'd exactly qualify them as 'scientific', as the process is really more subjective and personal than objective and factual. I'd not exactly call it 'science', because it's an intimate, personal matter, different for each individual, whereas 'science' is the same for everybody, by its very nature.

I genuinely appreciate your insightful commentary, Colirio. It's quite refreshing.

And Vort, if you're out there, remember: Jesus loves everyone, including those who deny the reality he's created. (Though personally, I find that it might be quite offensive to the lord.)

God Bless!

Ovis

[annewandering]

But science is NOT factual unless we agree that it is. In fact much of what is considered science is no more factual than saying the sun revolves around the moon. You have laid your argument on a very uneven surface. Just as uneven as Vort's. Both rely on our belief as to whether you are right or wrong much more so than if you actually are right or wrong.

[anatess]

How in the world do you guys pass High School without understanding the scientific method of establishing a theory by providing scientific evidence?

I am quite flabbergasted. I mean, surely the American Education System is not THAT bad???

Yes, gravity is not a fact - its a scientific theory. But, the stability of the evidence of gravitational computation is such that you can put man in a tin can and launch him to the moon with it! You can't say the same for the theory of God's existence. Religious folks can't even agree on what He's supposed to be! But we all know that... That's why we put a lot on Faith!

[annewandering]

Originally Posted by anatess

How in the world do you guys pass High School without understanding the scientific method of establishing a theory by providing scientific evidence?

I am quite flabbergasted. I mean, surely the American Education System is not THAT bad???

Yes, gravity is not a fact - its a scientific theory. But, the stability of the evidence of gravitational computation is such that you can put man in a tin can and launch him to the moon with it! You can't say the same for the theory of God's existence. Religious folks can't even agree on what He's supposed to be! But we all know that... That's why we put a lot on Faith!

anatess, it has nothing to do with our education although I have doubts sometimes about how much it helps people learn to think instead of regurgitate.
The point I have been making has been leading to one thing. There is only one thing that is absolute truth. Science changes its opinions as often as women change hairstyles so we can not consider it the last word on anything. We can consider it the present word but that's about it. I believe God is the truth that will never change. He is not turned this way and that by the winds of what is believed at the time. He will always be who He is. If we listen to Him we can learn all truth including what is actually true in science. Science and religion are all the same thing if they are truth. Some day we will find that many of the things that we believe are absolutes really werent. We will never find that God was not the truth. We will never find that what He tells us is false although we will find that He has given us bits and pieces at times since we have been too stubborn to learn the whole truth and we have also been a bit stubborn at hearing what He has actually told us.
As far as getting to the moon we can get there and still not understand, properly, the principles that got us there. I can get to NY and still not understand how a car or plane works.
A huge amount of science is based on what seems to work. A pretty good example is the speed of light. We base a lot of theory on it being the fastest thing in the universe. I doubt that it is. When we discover its not then wheeeee! We got a taste of that from the colliders seeing a particle seem to go faster than it should have. Talk about panic!
In the end there is only one thing we can trust to be true and that is God.