In response to:

The "God-Particle" and God

John5840 Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 10:35 AM
Prager once again proves what a doof he is. Philosophers debate meaning: scientists seek out and explain facts. They are neither inherently connected nor mutually exclusive. Prager completely ignores a significant philosophical thread which suggests that in a world absent a fixed point of meaning (the existence of God does not inherently mean anything) we are free to assign meaning for ourselves. In the final analysis, that is what both believers and non-believers do anyway.
Shufflegroove Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 11:01 AM
Ultimately, what we are free to do is to define for ourselves what constitutes a "fixed point of meaning". If your fixed point of meaning is that there is no meaning, you have no moral basis...for anything. You are correct that nearly everything is, from human perspective, subjective. But that also includes science. The simpler things in science (when water freezes, boils, evaporates, etc.) are fairly clear, but the deeper issues in science are often quite open to interpretation and the limitations and proclivities of human perspective. It is easy to appeal to the word "fact", but far more difficult to establish one.
Seventeen76 Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 11:06 AM
If you define for yourself what constitutes a fixed point of meaning, it's not a fixed point at all.
Shufflegroove Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 11:18 AM
John5840 Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 11:30 AM
And exactly wrong to boot. You may be confusing the process of fixing a point of meaning with the content of the process. The extraordinary variety of firmly held religious beliefs should tell you that. For example, some folks believe that their sprituial progress toward the planet Kolob is a fixed reality and provides a fixed meaning. Others believe that spiritual progress is fixed on how they treat cows. If meaning were fixed, then religions would not vary so widely in the meaning they assign to reality. WHat they have in common is the process.
John5840 Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 11:34 AM
Thjis claim is also quite innaccurate: "If your fixed point of meaning is that there is no meaning, you have no moral basis...for anything." If there is no externally fixed point of meaning, we are each free to choose our own, and from that process flows a morality we choose, not one that is imposed on us.
AliveInHim Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 10:56 AM
Yet those meanings as assigned by non-believers often results in the kind of things we've seen in Russia, Cuba, NorKo, etc...

However imperfectly done in this life, it's much more reasonable to believe that God does exist, that you are significant to Him, and that what you do does matter.
John5840 Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 11:04 AM
No AIH, it is not more reasonable. Its more comfortable to you, but most assuredly not more reasonable, as reason dictates the use of logic, evidence, proof, etc.....all the things religion lacks. You are correct in noting htat the 20th century was notable for atrocities committed by non-believers. However, until that time, the primary perpetrators of atrocities were believers.
AliveInHim Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 12:28 PM
John, it isn't a matter of comfort-and God is not irrational, nor is belief in Him.

I'm not sure just how much proof you desire, since there is more proof for the existence and work of Jesus Christ than for any other figure of ancient history.

You are the one of whom He spoke when He said that if 'they won't listen to Moses, how then will they listen to One Who is risen from the dead...?' (sic)

Either Jesus Christ is the Son of God, or He is the biggest fraud in history. Pick one.
AliveInHim Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 12:29 PM
Further, most of those atrocities (usually committed against fellow believers of a different stripe) pale in comparison to the secularists who murdered people (often believers) by the millions in the 20th Century.
Seventeen76 Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 10:48 AM
You have a lot of nerve calling someone else a "doof" and then making such nonsensical comments of your own.
John5840 Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 11:04 AM
Make or point or go back to playing pong
Dreadnaught011 Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 11:55 AM

Prager has written something enlightening and relevant. Relevant to our existence.

You tell us it proves he's a doof. What are we to gain from your opinion? NOTHING of value.

"Philosophers debate meaning: scientists seek out and explain facts."

FACTS? Not much more than a century ago, scientists applied leeches to our grandparents. They believed "ether" filled space's vacuum. Nine tenths of their writing is forgotten today.

Nine tenths of today's scientific speculation will disappear in another hundred years. One verse in the Old Testament relieves us of your nonsense:

"VANITY; all is vanity."




John5840 Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 12:00 PM
funny, coming from a guy writing on a computer.

The argument that science has been wrogn in the past is actually an argument FOR science. Being wrong is a key part of the process, because finding that out helps you determine what is right.
They found the "God-Particle."

That was the headline in many of America's news media. It turns out that the name actually derives from substituting "God-particle" for "goddamn particle," the original name some scientists had given the elusive particle. But the media adopted the former nomenclature.

Why?

Because otherwise, the bulk of humanity would not pay attention. Physicists went nuts. And no one can blame them. For decades, they have searched for the particle that may explain why there is any mass in the universe. And ten billion dollars were spent on the machine that probably proved its existence.

It is therefore not meant in...

Related Tags: Science God physicians