本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/9 16:47 編輯

回復 94# liberale

Notice that I do not assume that we know the truth.

Before we know the shape of th earth, we can use agnosticism on the shape of the earth.

But either way we do agree the earth is either one shape or the other (including no shape)

Therefore, I do not know is only an escape from the question instead of an answer

----------
Suppose, using your example, on dark matter.

Maybe it exist, maybe it does not.  However, it is never in a state of "I do not know".  I do not know is neither saying that it exists, or it does not.

I do not know is only avoiding the question instead of answering the question.   
-----------
Ofcourse there are question a person can avoid answering.  For example, if you earn more than 2 million US a year.  However, can a person truly avoid 'question with consequences'?  

Typically in monothesim, if there is a God, saying 'I do not know' would send you to hell.  Suppose there is no God, the way Christian act in this world will have consequences (Like crusade?)
本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/9 16:50 編輯

回復 94# liberale

What is the scientific view if you do not have evidence to show something exist?

It is famously discuss by Betrand Russell's celestial teapots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an in

tolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."


----------
Besies, I think you miss the way to 'disprove a god'.  

If a God is obeservable (it leaves any material mark), for example the wind turning the windmill, for example the love that cause the mother to protect her offspring, or the supposive flood, genesis, genocides of the bible, it can be observe by science.  

If it is define as not observable (It leaves no material mark), for example the Invisible Pink Unicorn, it is out of the scope of science.  However, if it is not observable and leave no material mark, who cares whether it exist or not?

If it is only difficult to observe, it is still in th realm of science (like you example of dark matter).  However, before you can observe any effect from it, is it not prudence to reserve from placing a bet on it existing?  (Atheist does not require you to put any bet on the table.  It is only an ABSENCE of religious belief)

Other than science, you can also prove a negative by showing the concept of the object as illogical, for example, a 4-sided triangle, or trinity.

Here is a good article on proving a negative:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html
本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/9 17:18 編輯

If you are still in doubt, consider the following scenario

Suppose a TV salesman comes to your door and ask you to buy his latest TV set.  He claims that with latest technology, he has hired little green man from other dimension in the set to provide you with high definition TV experience.

You are in a little doubt and ask the salesman for evidence.  He provides a manual of the TV.  You called the number on it but no one answer.  Instead, he asks you to prove that there is no little green man from other dimension in the TV.  Being in a good saleman, he allows you to examine the TV set.

At first, you turn on the TV set and there is no effect.  You are baffled but the saleman claims that the TV will not work because you have not paid him yet.  Once you have paid him, the little green man inside will start working.

So you use a screwdriver and dismantled the TV set.  It is an empty shell.  The saleman explains that the little green man is already there in ANOTHER DIMENSION, not visble to you.

So now you have no evidence for or against the quality of the TV set (really?).

------------------------
So here comes your decison.  Do you buy the TV set and becomes a believer?  Or do you refuse to buy the TV set and become an atheist?  

Or would you just say 'I do not know'?  But If you say you do not know, you still need to decide to pay the saleman and act like a de facto believer, or refuse to pay and act like an de facto atheist.

The salesman smiles and tells you, "Remember, if you refuse, I will not come back and sell you again.  If you do not buy it today, you will never enjoy high definition TV experience forever!"
Maybe it exist, maybe it does not.  However, it is never in a state of "I do not know".  I do not know is neither saying that it exists, or it does not.

I do not know is only avoiding the question instead of answering the question.
===================================

你可以用很多例子去講..無論你知唔知.呢度都會有一個事實係度就係神.. 一係存在..一係唔存在...

但.我想講你知. 真理.. 係包含事實的兩個對立面的..   實物..可以係實的.. 有界的.  但亦有很多非實物存在的..  如果唔係實物..咁你點睇? 點聽.?點知?  我話感覺到神... 而你又感覺唔到..咁即係存在定唔存在?  真理就係對我黎講有..對你黎講無...

頭腦總係覺得問問題係一定有答案的.. but i want't to ask.. who said that whatever question will get an answer ??    God is something cannot be defined. if it cannot be defined.. how can you say it is exist or it doesn't not exist ???  use logic to prove or disapprove is useless.

minds and logics can server either side, either approve or disapprove.. so it actually doesn't tell you anything.

you simply going a wrong way to find god.  use a scientific simply cannot find god.

god is simply the whole of existence , is everything you see and not see.. it just include everything existence.  
if you can feel you are part of the existence, then you can feel god. you can feel 神性.

if you try to prove in a scientific way , sorry, you can't do that. because scientific thinking, the thinking of analysis and disbelieve is just one small part of existence.
本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/9 23:28 編輯

If you feel something exist, and yet there is no way you can demonstrate to anyone that it does, is it not an delusion?  Or rather, how do YOU differetiate your experience from a delusion?

How do you differentiate wishful thinking from reality?  How do you differentiate the TV set with little green man and the TV set that the engineer designed?

How do you decide if you buy the TV set or not?  
-------------------

If you "feel" you have a million dollars in your account, and yet there is no money in your account.  Truth, as 'normal' people would understand, your still do not have the million you "feel" you have.   You can re-define money as the whole of existence, but than the word 'money' will lose its meaning quickly.  You can define that your money exist and non-exist at the same time, again, the word 'money' will have no meaning.

---------------------------
I never said what kind of existence it has to take.  However, in order to be detectable in science, it has to be observable.  It is the only criteria.  It does not have to be "solid".  For example, wind and heat are observable, electron and neutrino are observable, love, friendship even hatrad are observable.

If you cannot define God, how is it different from ADFR, or grable?

If God is define as the whole of existence, I am part of existence, and so are you.  So is the the parasites that kills million and the rock that sat in outer space for billion of years in outer space.  If it is how it is defined, I can feel myself, I can certainly feel god.  Under this definitaion, you CAN scientifically shown that I feel god by poking me and watch for a reaction (it is that simple).

Science is observation combined with thinking.  Without the two, under what criteria do you prove, or show something that is different from a superstition?
--------------
Ofcourse, if you "define" away science and logic, you can always have invisible pink unicorn.  Any talk will be futile and I bet you do not live your live by your words.
Observe where we will be heading if we escape reason...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4720837385783230047#
本帖最後由 kwongyauleung 於 2010/7/10 19:50 編輯

Very nice video but it is about health and scientific medicine. people feel alternative medicine might be useful and can solve their problem and pain. 有d人覺得某d方法有效.但係有無科學根據的.

==
If you feel something exist, and yet there is no way you can demonstrate to anyone that it does, is it not an delusion?  Or rather, how do YOU differetiate your experience from a delusion?
How do you differentiate wishful thinking from reality?  How do you differentiate the TV set with little green man and the TV set that the engineer designed?
How do you decide if you buy the TV set or not?

--> 其實係唔可以的. 我認為宗教性/神性,係好個人既體驗. 所以其實我唔可以話你知的. 因為我唔係傳教. 你有就有,無就無.  


If you cannot define God, how is it different from ADFR, or grable --> 對. 你可以咁講的.. 你無體驗,就係無.  某人信主,因為上次佢求主俾佢合格,最後佢合格左, 咁佢就信了. 呢個係佢既體驗,佢覺得好神奇, 但其他人說無根據.  但他信了. 因為佢太想合格了.. 佢之前一晚有祈禱. 佢覺得係神聽了佢的話. ..  你如何講科學也沒有用.   

我唔係話佢既經驗係假, 亦唔係話神係真係聽到佢講.  

因為神本身係無定義的.. 應該話無統一定義, 例如"即食面"呢樣野有統一定義 但神就有很多... 例如...   有求必應, 全能萬能,造物者,.. 審判者..  

你看..只是各取所需吧...   


my definition of god is "whole of existence". 對於我就係. 但係對於你可能唔係的.

你要看清有兩個方向... 其中一個,就係分辨, 用懷疑做論點做起點.  呢個就係科學.   以唔信開始先.
而另一個,就係合一,整合. 就係宗教性/神性既方向.

在科學既方向,你所有野都要先懷疑. 有論據,再求證找真相.

但另一方向. 係信任.  所以宗教都係要你信左先.  咩教你都係要信左先.就會知道佢地所講既野係唔係真.  arm 唔 arm 你.  
有很多野無一定解釋的.. 都很個人需要的.. 宗教如是, 找伴侶如事.  用科學係解釋唔到的.
Ofcourse, if you "define" away science and logic, you can always have invisible pink unicorn.  Any talk will be futile and I bet you do not live your live by your words.
================
如果你堅持要用 logic and scientific way to talk.. 咁就會變成無了期既哲學推論.  

哲學左幾十年..都係...

無結論
本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/11 01:08 編輯

Science and logic is NOT just a philosophy.  It is an observation.  

As you see from the program, when under observation, this alternative medicine has no observable benefit.  What is more, by diverting resources from medicine that is proven to be effective, people die.  (The reason of the program is because a epidemic has spread because of it.)

In the end, delusion is delusion.  The harm is REAL.  No matter how good it feels, if you take poison, you die.  It is not a philosophical problem (not for some atheists at least, because they know there is no take two, they cherish life).

In your example, if the student begin praying instead of studying, REAL harm will be done.  In a fitting analogy, when the disaster stricken people decided to pray instead of rescue, the death that result is real.

Observe how believes and wishful thinking like below KILLS..
http://www.simonchau.hk/Chinese_B5/health/vacine.htm

-------------
The focus of science is not exactly skepticism but observation.

-------------
Do not link religion with love.  Least you know, there is social science, there is economic, there is psychology, there is even evolution biology.

Finding partner can be scientific.  In the same way, you observe a potential partner BEFORE joining.  There IS an explanation!  The capacity of a person to accept an explanation, is another issue.  There is always folk that insist the world is flat.
--------------
In the end, do you buy every TV the saleman sell you with hard earn money?  If you feel good about sitting in front of an empty box, is there no different from watching a normal TV?
那為甚麼這班貪生怕死的謂門徒, 在幾十日後卻變得膽粗粗, 唔怕死, 公然在聖殿講耶穌呢?


想詢問一下, 聖經中的那幾段提到你所述的情況?
還有, 除了聖經中的單一論述, 有沒有其他文獻記載(例如羅馬歷史.猷太教史....)?
問得好丫
那為甚麼這班貪生怕死的謂門徒, 在幾十日後卻變得膽粗粗, 唔怕死, 公然在聖殿講耶穌呢?
跟之前 ...
beebeechan 發表於 2010/7/5 16:05


http://www.liangyou.net/files/me ... /be/jesus_table.pdf
9.后來的顯現
主向11 使徒顯現
主在加利利顯現
主在提比哩亞海邊顯現
在橄欖山主升天前講論神國
升天
--------------------------------------------------
你說的那段 "那為甚麼這班貪生怕死的謂門徒, 在幾十日後卻變得膽粗粗, 唔怕死, 公然在聖殿講耶穌呢?" 在那章那節?
想詢問一下, 聖經中的那幾段提到你所述的情況?
還有, 除了聖經中的單一論述, 有沒有其他文獻記載(例如羅 ...
E72 發表於 2010/7/12 17:56


似乎你仍未清聖經不是一本書這概念。
聖經是73本書來的.
你說的那段 "那為甚麼這班貪生怕死的謂門徒, 在幾十日後卻變得膽粗粗, 唔怕死, 公然在聖殿講耶穌呢?" 在那章那節?

E72 發表於 2010/7/17 16:13


可以看宗徒大事錄前幾章
可以看宗徒大事錄前幾章
beebeechan 發表於 2010/7/17 21:02



謝謝資料.
http://www.catholic.org.tw/katal ... /bible2/nt/Acts.htm
是這段嗎?  
19.但在夜裡,上主的一位天使打開牢門,帶他們出去說:20.「你們去站在聖殿裡,向百姓宣講有關獲得生命的訊息。」21.他們聽了這話,一大清早就進入聖殿講道。

請問, 有第二方面的相關歷史資料嗎?
如果有....會方便考證歷史....
如果沒有 ....也沒有甚麼特別, 當作參考資料
高級模式 | 發新話題
B Color Image Link Quote Code Smilies
換一個