Lol on your “Christian only” take

[I.O.U]

Both, of course.

If you ask the pilot if he believes he can fly the plane, he’ll reply, “Of course I believe I can fly this plane because I know I can fly this plane.” Knowing is a subset of believing.

I gather you understand “believing” differently.

"I believe I can fly this plane" Is not something I'd want to hear from a pilot before take off.

 

[I.O.U]

Yeah, you are the one who brought up fear. I guess the analogy is not working out for you?

Anyway, that was not my point at all (it was yours). My point was that you seemed to be groping about not knowing what the world was even for or how it works, and why a would be god would be doing what he is. I explained.

Umm. What do you mean I brought up the subject about fear?

 

[Lambano]

"I believe I can fly this plane" Is not something I'd want to hear from a pilot before take off.

I'd even less like to hear him say, "I don't believe I can fly this plane".

Okay, this example equates "belief" with a confidence factor of less than 100%. In my line of work, we deal with probabilities. We might design a test to show that we can be 60% confident that a computer part will have an annual failure rate of less than a certain percentage. Sometimes knowing something with 60% confidence is the best we can do with the time and resources we have. Sometimes we can "know" with > 99.7% confidence. And sometimes we can "know" with 99.9997% (six-sigma") confidence that something is true, which is about as close to dead-certainty as we can get.

Life is about making important decisions with insufficient data.

However, I'm more intrigued about something you said to Ziggy about "belief" (a mental process) being separate from what you can see, hear, feel, taste, and smell. Then, how do you process the data being input from your senses?

 

[I.O.U]

I'd even less like to hear him say, "I don't believe I can fly this plane".

Okay, this example equates "belief" with a confidence factor of less than 100%. In my line of work, we deal with probabilities. We might design a test to show that we can be 60% confident that a computer part will have an annual failure rate of less than a certain percentage. Sometimes knowing something with 60% confidence is the best we can do with the time and resources we have. Sometimes we can "know" with > 99.7% confidence. And sometimes we can "know" with 99.9997% (six-sigma") confidence that something is true, which is about as close to dead-certainty as we can get.

Life is about making important decisions with insufficient data.

However, I'm more intrigued about something you said to Ziggy about "belief" (a mental process) being separate from what you can see, hear, feel, taste, and smell. Then, how do you process the data being input from your senses?

As much as I understand about the human mind, is that there are different area's of the brain that processes and log all the sensory information that we input. Where mental health issues come into the equation, is where we attach a belief to those sensory inputs slowly altering the pure sensory information about the external world. Eventually the mind breaks down as any computer would if you started changing .dll files to .bat or .whatever you wanted.

 

[Lambano]

As much as I understand about the human mind, is that there are different area's of the brain that processes and log all the sensory information that we input. Where mental health issues come into the equation, is where we attach a belief to those sensory inputs slowly altering the pure sensory information about the external world. Eventually the mind breaks down as any computer would if you started changing .dll files to .bat or .whatever you wanted.

Can you give me an example of what you mean by "attaching a belief to those sensory inputs"?

What I mean is that we see a person at a distance and we think, "I believe that is Joe". We get closer and get more sensory information and we think, "now I believe that's not Joe, it's Fred". Maybe it becomes a problem if we think, "now I believe that's neither Joe nor Fred but a giant bat". But it sounds like you're talking about something else.

 

[I.O.U]

Can you give me an example of what you mean by "attaching a belief to those sensory inputs"?

What I mean is that we see a person at a distance and we think, "I believe that is Joe". We get closer and get more sensory information and we think, "now I believe that's not Joe, it's Fred". Maybe it becomes a problem if we think, "now I believe that's neither Joe nor Fred but a giant bat". But it sounds like you're talking about something else.

No, that's pretty much the idea. (Forming a conclusion by using your senses takes more than your first guess)

 

[Titus]

Before Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, science and scientists believes in abiogenesis.

Then Lois Pasteur came along and challenged that theory.
At the time folks believed maggots and rats spontaneously generated from non-living matter.

Pasteur's experiments were observable. He took open jars placed meat in the jars, and waited.
Maggots appeared.
He repeated his experiment again. This time he left some jars open and some jars closed.
Only the open jars produced maggots.
He repeated his experiment again.
This time he put porous cloth over some jars and left other jars open.
The jars with the cloth, produced maggots on the cloth but not on the meat.
The open jars always produced maggots on the meat.

He observed flies were the living creatures that were responsible for the creation of the maggots.
As long as the jars were sealed no living maggots were created.
Thus Lois Pasteur disproved abiogenesis ie spontaneous generation.
He proved that in observable science biogenesis ie life begets life.

This fact of science has always been observable.
All living animals produce their own kind. Living plants produce life.
Abiogenesis has never been observed ie dead matter creating living beings.
Since it is not observable science, those who promote that it exists do so by faith.

Biogenesis observable therefore fact
Abiogenesis non-observable therefore believed

It requires more faith to believe living thinking created beings come from unintelligent dead non-living minerals(rocks) atompherpic gases and electrical charges(lightning) and heat(sun)

Than the alternative, An all powerful living being created other living beings, life begets life.

 

[ScottA]

Umm. What do you mean I brought up the subject about fear?

Okay, if you don't even remember what you said--we're done. Not playing that game.

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

)

if it helps, ScottA is one of the those who wanted me removed from the christian sections of the forum, and why i am now in the non-christian sections only. He aint much to talk with.

 

[Titus]

if it helps, ScottA is one of the those who wanted me removed from the christian sections of the forum, and why i am now in the non-christian sections only. He aint much to talk with.

Are you saying you have been banned from Christian section?
If so how? I want to know so it doesn't happen to me.

Off topic: 1John 2:2
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

This verse should make you shout and jump for joy, friend. God is ready and willing to save you.
He loves you so much, He let's you choose Him or reject Him. Free yourself from the shackels of calvinism that have withheld you in torment for so long.

 

[Titus]

Okay, if you don't even remember what you said--we're done. Not playing that game.

Would you be willing to tell me what your book "Walking like Einstein" is about? Thanks

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

Are you saying you have been banned from Christian section?
If so how? I want to know so it doesn't happen to me.

Off topic: 1John 2:2
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

This verse should make you shout and jump for joy, friend. God is ready and willing to save you.
He loves you so much, He let's you choose Him or reject Him. Free yourself from the shackels of calvinism that have withheld you in torment for so long.

no, i wasnt banned. More like excommunicated. You should be careful talking to me, others may see it and not like you talking to me. I’m a leper around these parts now.

shackles of calvinism *laughs as john calvin would have*

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

I was studying some john calvin yesterday, as well as William jenkyn. That would send shivers down your back.

 

[Titus]

I was studying some john calvin yesterday, as well as William jenkyn. That would send shivers down your back.

What got folks so upset with you,
Yes I'm being noisy. If you don't want to tell me, I understand

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

I’ll PM you.

 

[ScottA]

Would you be willing to tell me what your book "Walking like Einstein" is about? Thanks

It is about Einstein--not the church, discovering the illusion of time and what it [should] do to the understanding of God and the scriptures.

 

[Titus]

It is about Einstein--not the church, discovering the illusion of time and what it [should] do to the understanding of God and the scriptures.

Interesting, Einstein was a believer right? I've heard atheist claim he was not.

 

[ScottA]

Interesting, Einstein was a believer right? I've heard atheist claim he was not.

My understanding is that he was a deist. Which perhaps gives credit of the increase of knowledge (as Christ foretold) to God, but not to the church--that none might boast.

 

[Titus]

My understanding is that he was a deist. Which perhaps gives credit of the increase of knowledge (as Christ foretold) to God, but not to the church--that none might boast.

That's what I've also heard about him. So, many people are more than happy to share falsehoods these days over the internet. Especially about Einstein. Catholics claim he was catholic. Atheists claim he was an unbeliever etc, etc. Thanks

 

[I.O.U]

Before Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, science and scientists believes in abiogenesis.

Then Lois Pasteur came along and challenged that theory.
At the time folks believed maggots and rats spontaneously generated from non-living matter.

Pasteur's experiments were observable. He took open jars placed meat in the jars, and waited.
Maggots appeared.
He repeated his experiment again. This time he left some jars open and some jars closed.
Only the open jars produced maggots.
He repeated his experiment again.
This time he put porous cloth over some jars and left other jars open.
The jars with the cloth, produced maggots on the cloth but not on the meat.
The open jars always produced maggots on the meat.

He observed flies were the living creatures that were responsible for the creation of the maggots.
As long as the jars were sealed no living maggots were created.
Thus Lois Pasteur disproved abiogenesis ie spontaneous generation.
He proved that in observable science biogenesis ie life begets life.

This fact of science has always been observable.
All living animals produce their own kind. Living plants produce life.
Abiogenesis has never been observed ie dead matter creating living beings.
Since it is not observable science, those who promote that it exists do so by faith.

Biogenesis observable therefore fact
Abiogenesis non-observable therefore believed

It requires more faith to believe living thinking created beings come from unintelligent dead non-living minerals(rocks) atompherpic gases and electrical charges(lightning) and heat(sun)

Than the alternative, An all powerful living being created other living beings, life begets life.

Yeah, but which or what is that life responsible for creating everything.