Are angels real?

[continuity]

Angels are not real.

Ghosts are not real.

Santa is not real.

Tooth Fairy is not real.

You can't just make something up and then say it is real until I can prove otherwise.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-05/#feature

Lockness Monster - I don't know - that may be or have been real - at least it is possible within our world as we know it.

Final... absolutely last comment...

Your post puts me in mind of what a prepubescent teenager might think is smugly "kewl". Absolute statements on s--t you have no more real understanding of, than some moppish crap repeated out of a pseudo-intellectual, candy licking comfort zone, that believes no mere pleban can argue with. Not sure if it's the financial security, philosophical introversion, or just a simple need to troll that drove such a post.

In reality, taking such a posted position is tantamount to expressing the fact that one views the world in a singularly planar mode. Such a sad condition. So much more is awaiting anyone not recoiling from the endless possibilities of this thing we call life, allowing a release from the mental cage they find themselves captured in, to explore...

Your absoluteness is saddening.

[JacksonBrowne]

He is correct that the odds these entities are human creations far outweigh the odds they exist as advertised. History, reason, and an amazingly vast amount of research support this.

We make important choices every day based on overwhelmingly slanted odds - don't run a two way stop, playing the lottery is not a wise long term investment, "I probably won't get hit by a meteorite so I can go outside". Why does religion get a free pass? Probably because death is such a looming, unavoidable, and uncomfortable certainty that it is where people are most willing to suspend critical thinking.

So much more is awaiting anyone not recoiling from the endless possibilities of this thing we call life, allowing a release from the mental cage they find themselves captured in, to explore...

A friend of mine recently gave an endorsement for heavy recreational LSD use and this is almost verbatim.

[doubloon]

For some it's not looming death but the more about unattainable answers.

In general people like to have explanations for things, they're afraid of things the don't understand or can't explain or can't have explained to them.

My wife has no idea how a car works but she's comfortable with it because there is someone who can explain it to her ... as long as it's not me.

The big bang can't be proven and doesn't explain where the stuff came from to make the big bang so it's no more ridiculous for someone to believe in god than it is for someone else to believe in a big bang.

[silencertalk]

They can both be true - God could have created the big bang.

That being said, there is plenty of evidence to support the Big Bang, so it is not correct to equate it to faith in religious concepts. The definition of faith is to believe in something that has no evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

[JacksonBrowne]

Well, sort of. Edwin Hubble's cosmological constant, supercomputer repeatable do-overs, and another vast body of evidence (~100 years of supporting observational astronomy) pretty much make an un-arguable case that the big bang happened.

Now why it did and what caused it are up for grabs, but I doubt many people with even a basic comprehension of physics and astronomical precedent think that God created the earth in 7 days or that he torn down a tower and created language because people were getting too close to heaven.

The difference between the two (and why only one is ridiculous) is that only one is backed up by repeatable, observable, undeniable empirical evidence. All credible physicists and cosmologists (the smartest people in the world) agree it is the best answer - and they all test and try to discredit each others' theories all the time.

It is just as likely that the Judeo Christian god exists and operates as he does in the bible as it is that L. Ron Hubbard, The ancient Greeks, Muhammad, and Jo Smith were right (i.e., highly unlikely).

[silencertalk]

My wife was unhappy that I told my kids that Santa was not real. I did not feel right about lying to them. We give them gifts from Santa though, as it is fun to pretend.

[doubloon]

I didn't say either was inherently ridiculous in and of itself. I said it's ridiculous to believe in something that can't be proven and therein lies the parallel.

@ST So now you're in the Maser zone.

[Bone16]

So how do you "prove" love, or any feeling that you have for another person?

Point being, humans deal in intangibles all day long with themselves and others, and those become part of their beliefs. Those, along with their experiences, make up their opinions on what is and is not "real" in this world.

And yes, like assholes, everybody's got an opinion!

[JacksonBrowne]

I think most people consider emotions/feelings as their own seperate, individually distict category. - Totally subjective to the person and, though real, certainly not useful as evidence for anything but personal convictions.

You won't ever see someone make a case to a corporate investment group based on the fact that they just know in their heart-of-hearts that it is a good idea. They build their case on investigation, demonstrable evidence, etc, and then get feelings afterward. Deductive reasoning is one of the defining characteristics of logical thought. Love/feelings are inherently illogical.

[JacksonBrowne]

Science= start with an idea and try to discredit it with all factual evidence. If it survives this, it is most likely reality.

Religion = start with a premise and look only at/for supporting evidence. (Repeatable tests or observation optional). Religion subjected to the same tests and standards as above is almost always discredited.

[doubloon]

So how do you "prove" love, or any feeling that you have for another person?
...

Can I prove you love someone or that they love you? No. The two of you may believe you love each other and I can choose to accept, deny or ignore that belief. I choose ignore and you can believe what you want. If you want me to believe then the burden of proof is on you.

Same with god, angels and any number of scientific theorems. You can make a claim, you can say you believe but before I believe I may require proof.

I accept that you can't prove to me god or angels exist and without that proof I can choose to accept, deny or ignore that belief. Currently I choose ignore. Believe what you want just don't get your panties in a wad if I don't choose to accept that belief.

Similar to the Santa debate. Santa could be proven at one point in time but now he's dust so the only proof available is documentation similar to the bible. So maybe we can say god and angels used to exist but don't any longer, like dinosaurs. But at least with dinosaurs we still have bones. The problem that arises with dinosaurs is when all the experts start theorizing how smart dinosaurs were or how they lived, it's mostly unprovable theory.

[Munk]

I want to begin by saying that I am agnostic, i.e. "don't know, don't pretend to know". With that being said, I want to play devil's advocate for a moment (ironic pun absolutely intended).

I believe that, at some point, there is simply a limit to the phenomena that the human brain can understand. Take a cat, for example. Is a cat capable of understanding what a black hole is? Does a cat's brain even have the capacity to process something like that, or is there a "glass ceiling" to how sophisticated of a notion a cat can comprehend? How about a dog? A gorilla? Of the billions of different creatures on Earth, how many have some sort of a mental "cap" they just can't escape? And humans would be different, why?

The universe is a big place. I think it's entirely plausible that there are at least some phenomena out there that our human brains simply cannot process, much like how a cat has no hope of understanding something like quantum physics. I guess my point is that it's easy to lose our humility as a species when you are the most intelligent organism on a given planet...but saying that we are big fish in a small pond is an overstatement of epic proportions.

Take a moment and let the insignificance of the human species wash over you. Ultimately speaking, we're probably so limited in our mental faculties that we can't even appreciate just how limited we truly are (i.e. like every other organism on Earth). It's like we're ants pondering the nature of mountain; what it is and where it came from, all the meanwhile thinking it's the ultimate question. Little did we know (or could we know as mere ants) that the mountain is just a big rock on a small planet, one of several in our solar system, which itself is just one of hundreds-of-billions of solar systems in our galaxy, which itself is just one of hundreds-of-billions of galaxies floating around in space.

IMO, it's absolutely ridiculous to believe that we, these little things called humans, are the true measure of what is and isn't real in the infinitely expansive, and yet infinitely intricate, universe. And that's not even getting into the Problem of Qualia, nor the difference between firsthand and secondhand knowledge.

[silencertalk]

And humans would be different, why?

There may be a cap, but the thing is, humans are different.

Obviously there is a ton of stuff that we don't yet know, but I think if it was explained to us, we could understand it.

Just think how cool it would be if someone from 500 years from now gave us a list of 100 amazing facts about things we don't know yet.

[doubloon]

The rate of invention and innovation seems to have been linear or better for quite a few centuries. I don't think we need to wait 500 years to be amazed. Some people old enough to read this board will probably be amazed within their lifetime.

[bakerjw]

It is true that there are a lot of things that we don't know and even more that we can never comprehend. The distances in our universe are so staggering that we can't handle the scale. Take the Voyager probes. They are the fastest traveling objects that mankind has ever produced yet they are barely outside of our solar system.

Then there is the big bang. There used to be a steady state theory, but it has been observed that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

If there is a God, did he come into existence after the big bang? If so, does God believe in a greater power? Did God create the big bang? If so, where was he when he created it? My mom never thought about such things. She had very strong faith. Me, I wonder about these things and hope to someday understand it all.

[Munk]

And humans would be different, why?

There may be a cap, but the thing is, humans are different.

Obviously there is a ton of stuff that we don't yet know, but I think if it was explained to us, we could understand it.

Just think how cool it would be if someone from 500 years from now gave us a list of 100 amazing facts about things we don't know yet.

Absolutely. I'm sure there will be plenty of things we can learn and accomplish as time and technology allows, things we wouldn't imagine would be possible. But with that being said, it's only reasonable to assume that the human brain has some sort of inherent limitations, just like every other brain-like organ found on this planet. We are different in the sense that our limit is clearly leaps and bounds above anything else on Earth, but I'm betting it's still there nonetheless. There is probably phenomena out there that makes quantum physics look like this:



...and probably yet other phenomena that makes that level phenomena seem just as elementary. At some point its just going to be beyond what the brain can physically process as a biological piece of hardware, and all hardware has its limits.

My point is that people should be leaving room for the unknown. Our history as a species has been one long string of instances where we have done what was thought impossible, where we have discovered things that humans were previously oblivious to, and where we have completely flipped our presumed truths on their head. And yet, despite how many times we have done this, we always seem to think that our current level of understanding is finally "there".

I sort of doubt we're "there" yet, or even close for that matter. In time, people will look back on what we know now and laugh their asses off at how foolish we were. And I believe at some point, we will come across something that we simply cannot explain no matter how hard and how long we try...and that will only be the tip of a very large iceberg of things we don't (and cannot) understand.

[Syntax360]

At some point its just going to be beyond what the brain can physically process as a biological piece of hardware, and all hardware has its limits.

We are the first creatures [that we know of] that may possibly be able to shape its own evolution. We're only beginning to unlock some groundbreaking advances in genetics and biology; we're fast approaching the day when we might employ nano-technology to affect untold change on these corporeal forms. We have no idea what the future will look like - I think it is a mistake to assume mankind will always be hindered by the biological limitations you cite.

That's not to say I am certain we will ever be able to unlock all the secrets of the universe. I just think it's counterproductive to hang it all on God or angels or whatever and discourage one another from seeking answers to 'the unknowable' because only the Almighty has the capacity to know these things.

No, I do not believe angels are real.

[doubloon]

...
We are the first creatures [that we know of] [who are aware of the fact] that may possibly be able to shape its own evolution.
...

Species in the animal kingdom select mates based on all types of criteria including physical appearance and athletic ability. Whether they know it or not they shape their own evolution.

[Munk]

At some point its just going to be beyond what the brain can physically process as a biological piece of hardware, and all hardware has its limits.

We are the first creatures [that we know of] that may possibly be able to shape its own evolution. We're only beginning to unlock some groundbreaking advances in genetics and biology; we're fast approaching the day when we might employ nano-technology to affect untold change on these corporeal forms. We have no idea what the future will look like - I think it is a mistake to assume mankind will always be hindered by the biological limitations you cite.

Possibly, but if anything that just further illustrates the need to leave room for the unknown, which was my overall point. We already know that we don't know many things...that in itself should be enough to keep a reasonable person from being certain about these fundamental conclusions about the universe. And when you factor in that there are things we don't even know that we don't know, then who can honestly say that they are certain Grand Conclusion X or Grand Conclusion Y is true? Not me, nor anyone who is truly honest with themselves, IMO. But that starts to get into the issue of Firsthand Knowledge vs. Secondhand Knowledge, and frankly I don't know if I have the energy to delve into that right now.

That's not to say I am certain we will ever be able to unlock all the secrets of the universe. I just think it's counterproductive to hang it all on God or angels or whatever and discourage one another from seeking answers to 'the unknowable' because only the Almighty has the capacity to know these things.

Just to clarify, I was not discouraging the advancement of knowledge (nor have I said anything about God/angels/etc). I simply asserted that, given all other creatures on Earth seem to have an inherent limit to what they can understand, and given that we are also creatures on Earth (who have evolved from these limited creatures) its very likely that our species has some sort of inherent mental limitations as well. It has nothing to do with Theology.

[silencertalk]

Logic fail (are there people really this stupid?)

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... 042&type=1

How does the author know that the people in the car would have survived had they made room for God? Does this mean that the people who make room for God never die in car crashes?

Why would God protect unfertilized chicken eggs? They get eaten every day. Why does he not protect them from being eaten?

How come the average life expectancy of churchgoers is not longer than non churchgoers?

[Molon labe]

Science= start with an idea and try to discredit it with all factual evidence. If it survives this, it is most likely reality.

Religion = start with a premise and look only at/for supporting evidence. (Repeatable tests or observation optional). Religion subjected to the same tests and standards as above is almost always discredited.

name one thing in the bible that has ever been discredited

[silencertalk]

Science= start with an idea and try to discredit it with all factual evidence. If it survives this, it is most likely reality.

Religion = start with a premise and look only at/for supporting evidence. (Repeatable tests or observation optional). Religion subjected to the same tests and standards as above is almost always discredited.

name one thing in the bible that has ever been discredited

Mathew 7:7 - Ask, and it will be given.

We know that prayer has no effect on the outcome of events.

[JacksonBrowne]

name one thing in the bible that has ever been discredited

I have a hard time believing that is a legitimate question.

[See tower of Babel quote above, formation of the earth, evolution (not contemporaneous creation of all creatures), non-existence of an ark atop Mt. Ararat, etc. Pretty much all the important stuff.]

[silencertalk]

Why would God knock down a 700 foot tower but leave any mountain over 700 feet tall standing?

[doubloon]

genesis 1:25-1:27 - god creates all the animals before creates man, creates man because animals where such a success

genesis 2:18-2:22 - god creates all the animals after he creates man to keep him company and lets him name them

The bible itself discredits one of these stories. When and how woman gets created varies between these two accounts as well.