24 May 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerIf reality can be different for each individual person, then there is nothing real.
As I see it "reality" can be different for each individual person. Reality in my life is different from e.g. the Atheist. God is a reality in my life. For the atheist, God is not a reality. I would say that reality is related to personal experience, which would be different for each individual person. If the "reality" of one person does not contain God, is it reasonable for the person to claim that God is not real?
Any thoughts?
I'm afraid that to carry out this idea you have to make each person a god; a creator of truth. No friend, we must instead face the facts as we find them whether we like it or not. Pretending that we have the power to simply decide what reality is, and then maybe change it later on when we're rested or angry or after we've eaten too much pizza is a childish notion. Like the guy who told me once that when he was little, he thought if he was staring someone in the eye, then they couldn't see him pick his nose!
Who would even want a god who couldn't manage to be real if someone decided not to believe in him? Not me. And if I could make him disappear when I wanted to goof off, then I would be the god! (and none of us wants that!)
Let me encourage us all with this statement: God is real, and, God is good!
25 May 05
Originally posted by Moldy CrowReminds me of the question "is light a particle or a wave?"
Reality is that which refuses to go away when you stop believing in it .
In the famous double-slit experiment, if both slits are open, light acts as a wave; if one slit is covered, like a particle. It seems that if one looks for a particle (experimentally) one gets a particle and vice-versa.
Question is, what is light when we aren't looking?
25 May 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightLight.
Reminds me of the question "is light a particle or a wave?"
In the famous double-slit experiment, if both slits are open, light acts as a wave; if one slit is covered, like a particle. It seems that if one looks for a particle (experimentally) one gets a particle and vice-versa.
Question is, what is light when we aren't looking?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
25 May 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloMy point is that surely there are a lot of things that you believe that cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. My question then is this, why do you expect me to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that my belief is correct?
no. i already said that i don't think you can prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that your faith-based religion is correct (for example).
i could be wrong...why don't you just present your proof?
25 May 05
as in the "Is God the creator of reality?" forum
Reality is just point of view... as every one sees "reality" from a different perspective... none of us share the same "reality"... as some one gets "messed up" there point of view changes... so there "reality does... so does that mean the little penguin that walked out of my tellivision in to my living room and wanted to kill me was real... or the little green gremlins my friend cory is allways chasing...
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
25 May 05
Originally posted by chinking58If reality can be different for each individual person, then there is nothing real.
If reality can be different for each individual person, then there is nothing real.
I'm afraid that to carry out this idea you have to make each person a god; a creator of truth. No friend, we must instead face the facts as we find them whether we like it or not. Pretending that we have the power to simply decide what reality is, and then maybe ch ...[text shortened]... us wants that!)
Let me encourage us all with this statement: God is real, and, God is good!
I mean each person's view of reality is different. I believe that there is only one reality: God and His creation. But obviously there will be many people that would disagree with me, due to the fact that each person has a different view of reality. A person's life view determines his interpretation of reality.
25 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KneverKnightI do think they settled on "wavicle" though.
Bingo
Arguing science with the thumpers is a waste of time. they haven't the slightest idea that starting with a premise of the existence of a creator isn't science, but religion.
The strange thing is, the same stumbling block that keeps them from understanding science keeps them from understanding their own religion.
25 May 05
Originally posted by frogstompVerry good point.. but i believe in both.. science and religion... its easier than it seems.. and makes sence.. at least to me...
I do think they settled on "wavicle" though.
Arguing science with the thumpers is a waste of time. they haven't the slightest idea that starting with a premise of the existence of a creator isn't science, but religion.
The strange thing is, the same stumbling block that keeps them from understanding science keeps them from understanding their own religion.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
25 May 05
Originally posted by xxxenophobeI am afraid carbon dating is as flawed as the theory of evolution. You are right, most of them are guessing methods. The only problem is that the guesses are a few hundred million years out.
called scientific methods. like carbon dating and the evre popular method of guessing... duhhh...
25 May 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerAgreed. People do disagree with each other. (I've noticed that somewhere!)
[b]If reality can be different for each individual person, then there is nothing real.
I mean each person's view of reality is different. I believe that there is only one reality: God and His creation. But obviously there will be many people that would disagree with me, due to the fact that each person has a different view of reality. A person's life view determines his interpretation of reality.
[/b]
I think our goal has to be to agree with the truth, but so many, when they don't like the truth, veer off toward these silly ideas about having the right to decide their own truths etc. etc.
25 May 05
Originally posted by xxxenophobeDuhhh indeed.
called scientific methods. like carbon dating and the evre popular method of guessing... duhhh...
Any method of aging based on radioactive decay of isotopes will be based on several assumptions:
1. That each isotope will have a constant half-life (equivalent to assuming an exponential rate of decay)
2. That the total rate of creation of radioactive isotopes on Earth has remained constant between the time the fossil was formed and the present day
etc.
Some of these are laws constructed from empirical observations, some others are purely theoretical assumptions verified (to some extent) by experiments and some others are just assumptions. So, it would not be correct to say that we know a particular fossil is 100M years old to the same degree of certainty as, for instance, I know I am typing right now.
Oh, and btw, it's very difficult to use carbon dating for objects that are older than 50k-60k years.
LH