• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Acts of god

SMTA said:
Stupid post. It is a figurative not literal term.

Don't like the term, then don't make a claim.
Click to expand...

Contracts should not be dependant upon "figurative" clauses. Imaginary beings have no business in law.
 
Realitywins said:
Contracts should not be dependant upon "figurative" clauses. Imaginary beings have no business in law.
Click to expand...

Better tell all corporations that they can no longer be entities.

Oopsie.
 
Believing with faith is how humans get to a truth of any kind. That's why among 100% humans who know for a fact that black holes exist, 99.99% of them don't have the evidence. It by no means says that all claims such as existence of 'red hole', or 'yellow hole' exist. To us only the existence of black holes can stand a truth without evidence being shown to us. This is so because we rely on something else than evidence to determine a truth.

Basically, we treat the existence of black holes as a truth by putting faith in the scientists acting as the direct eyewitnesses. We rely on putting faith in those small group of humans, who we believe that they are maintaining a more direct contact with the truth itself, to reach a truth of any kind. Science is just one of the many kinds of truth.

We commonly referring to something outside of knowledge as 'fairy tales'. However humans are not omnipotent to know everything. There are always something we don't know. And the start point for us to get to know something is by believing in credible accounts of human witnessing. True fairy tales or myths are about things not lying inside our knowledge base and lack valid witnessing at the same time. It is the credibility of the info source which are actually examine instead of the evidence itself. That's how we treat black holes. We don't examine black holes ourselves, we trust our scientists instead.

We don't examine the evidence of what broadcast in our daily news, we trust our media made up of reports/journalists. Daily news are yet another kind of truth about what currently happening around our world. History is about what happened in the past around our world. Again, we trust what have been written down by historians instead of examining into the evidence. Most history don't have evidence anyway. That is, not all kinds of truth can have evidence left behind for us to examine. Science can be examined efficiently simply because science is all about something repeatable for us to examine repeatedly in infinitive number of times. Other kinds of truth may only be reached by putting faith in human accounts of witnessing.

In a nutshell, we examine the credibility of info sources instead of evidence to reach a truth. And in ancient days, you can't make it more creditable when the eyewitnesses are willing to die to testify what they said. That's basically what Christianity is!
 
Last edited:
Hawkins said:
Believing with faith is how humans get to a truth of any kind. That's why among 100% humans who know for a fact that black holes exist, 99.99% of them don't have the evidence. It by no means says that all claims such as existence of 'red hole', or 'yellow hole' exist. To us only the existence of black holes can stand a truth without evidence being shown to us. This is so because we rely on something else than evidence to determine a truth.

Basically, we treat the existence of black holes as a truth by putting faith in the scientists acting as the direct eyewitnesses. We rely on putting faith in those small group of humans, who we believe that they are maintaining a more direct contact with the truth itself, to reach a truth of any kind. Science is just one of the many kinds of truth.

We commonly referring to something outside of knowledge as 'fairy tales'. However humans are not omnipotent to know everything. There are always something we don't know. And the start point for us to get to know something is by believing in credible accounts of human witnessing. True fairy tales or myths are about things not lying inside our knowledge base and lack valid witnessing at the same time. It is the credibility of the info source which are actually examine instead of the evidence itself. That's how we treat black holes. We don't examine black holes ourselves, we trust our scientists instead.

We don't examine the evidence of what broadcast in our daily news, we trust our media made up of reports/journalists. Daily news are yet another kind of truth about what currently happening around our world. History is about what happened in the past around our world. Again, we trust what have been written down by historians instead of examining into the evidence. Most history don't have evidence anyway. That is, not all kinds of truth can have evidence left behind for us to examine. Science can be examined efficiently simply because science is all about something repeatable for us to examine repeatedly in infinitive number of times. Other kinds of truth may only be reached by putting faith in human accounts of witnessing.

In a nutshell, we examine the credibility of info sources instead of evidence to reach a truth. And in ancient days, you can't make it more creditable when the eyewitnesses are willing to die to testify what they said. That's basically what Christianity is!
Click to expand...

Were I differ with you is that in principle any one of us can repeat a scientific experiment or observation.

An axiom of science is that if "it" happened it will have left traces upon the fabric of existence which change the environment for ever and ever. We need only discover that evidence and interpret it's meaning and ramifications in the context of what we already know. No one has ever done this in the case of religious beliefs. One must really just have faith in the credibility of human sources of information and since the context of religion involves the supernatural there is no knowledge and evidence which supports the notion of gods, spirits, demons, souls etc...just blind interpretations.

What evidence we do have would indicated that the credibility of religious testimony is dubious at best. Those who in "ancient days" interpreted something a certain way may have believed their interpretation with all their heart, and be willing to die for it, but that does nothing to support their interpretation. It just means they very strongly believed it.

Today, when people report near death experiences as a vision of heaven, god or what have you, they are interpreting the vision through the lens of a predetermined bias. The evidence does not correlate with any known theoretical construct, it's just an interpretation lacking any rational basis.
 
Russell797 said:
Were I differ with you is that in principle any one of us can repeat a scientific experiment or observation.

An axiom of science is that if "it" happened it will have left traces upon the fabric of existence which change the environment for ever and ever. We need only discover that evidence and interpret it's meaning and ramifications in the context of what we already know. No one has ever done this in the case of religious beliefs. One must really just have faith in the credibility of human sources of information and since the context of religion involves the supernatural there is no knowledge and evidence which supports the notion of gods, spirits, demons, souls etc...just blind interpretations.

What evidence we do have would indicated that the credibility of religious testimony is dubious at best. Those who in "ancient days" interpreted something a certain way may have believed their interpretation with all their heart, and be willing to die for it, but that does nothing to support their interpretation. It just means they very strongly believed it.

Today, when people report near death experiences as a vision of heaven, god or what have you, they are interpreting the vision through the lens of a predetermined bias. The evidence does not correlate with any known theoretical construct, it's just an interpretation lacking any rational basis.
Click to expand...

They died for as witnesses of what they saw what Jesus did, not what they believe what Jesus did. That's the difference.

What you yourself did on Jul 12, 2012? Nothing can be evidenced. If someone wrote about what you did that day, we can thus choose to believe, especially when the one wrote (eye-witnessed) what you did on that day chooses to die to back up what was written. That's the analogy.

You can't evidence what you yourself did in a specific date simply because not every kind of truth is a science. Science is about phenomena which can repeat infinitive number of times for us to speculate infinitive number of times to get the evidence. While history (such as what you yourself just did a year ago), isn't that kind of repeatable scientific truth.
 
Last edited:
Hawkins said:
They died for as witnesses of what they saw what Jesus did, not what they believe what Jesus did. That's the difference.

What you yourself did on Jul 12, 2012? Nothing can be evidenced. If someone wrote about what you did that day, we can thus choose to believe, especially when the one wrote (eye-witnessed) what you did on that day chooses to die to back up what was written. That's the analogy.

You can't evidence what you yourself did in a specific date simply because not every kind of truth is a science. Science is about phenomena which can repeat infinitive number of times for us to speculate infinitive number of times to get the evidence. While history (such as what you yourself just did a year ago), isn't that kind of repeatable scientific truth.
Click to expand...

The bold is the key phrase....choose to believe. It is a matter of faith. It's your faith and yours alone...Other's may share that same faith, but each of them formed it for themselves. In science we have no choice but to accept the observed as a fact, although we may interpret the observation differently from each other.

So, history is not a fact...it's an interpretation since we can not observe it directly. An interpretation or hypothesis requires supporting evidence. If there is plenty the interpretation becomes a working theory. If there is little to none, the interpretation is stagnant and remains unsupported. That's where the question of god resides. That's where the basis for your faith resides....but faith does not require any further validation....so we can be fine with it as is....just don't try to label faith as something more than what it is.

You base that faith on the credibility of supposed witnesses you believe were present at the time.

Anecdotal evidence is the least credible form of evidence to begin with. It's not to be trusted. Show 20 people the same event and ask them to describe what they experienced and you will inevitability receive several interpretations.

What I did on Jul 12, 2012 had an impact on the environment which in principle can be pieced back together. In fact every single breath I took that day had it's own separate and distinct impact. That information may be scrambled and hopelessly irretrievable in practice, but in principle it's still there all around us. We changed the world forever that day with every move we made and every calorie we burned. That information can not be destroyed IS a scientific truth. I did something that day, did Christ's supposed resurrection leave an impact on the physical landscape of the world? Is there an artefact such as the Shroud of Turin which would demonstrate there is?
 
Realitywins said:
Since there are demonstrably no gods, it is past time a class-action suite by people denied insurance coverage for "acts of god", took the matter to court. This would best be done in Canada where the courts are not stacked in favour of primitive superstitious beliefs.

Insurance companies then would be forced to prove the existence of gods or pay up.
Click to expand...

You want them to replace the word god with the word nature. Who cares besides you?
 
Don't really know what the beef is here, seeing how Acts of God are understood thruout the English speaking legal world as natural disasters outside of human control anyway.

Of course one could have fun with suing the divinity him(it)self but such a case (if not several) has already found dismissal on account of the impossibility of serving the defendant with proper and due notification.

There being no listed address of dwelling.:lol:
 
Chagos said:
Don't really know what the beef is here, seeing how Acts of God are understood thruout the English speaking legal world as natural disasters outside of human control anyway.

Of course one could have fun with suing the divinity him(it)self but such a case (if not several) has already found dismissal on account of the impossibility of serving the defendant with proper and due notification.

There being no listed address of dwelling.:lol:
Click to expand...

Any church could serve as an address.
 
Chagos said:
That would equate to serving you notice under

Realitywins
US of A
Click to expand...

Not at all. Every church claims to be the house of god. Furthermore, god is purported to be everywhere so one could, in effect, perfect service by simply throwing the writ in the air.
 
Realitywins said:
Not at all. Every church claims to be the house of god. Furthermore, god is purported to be everywhere so one could, in effect, perfect service by simply throwing the writ in the air.
Click to expand...
Yeah, okay.
 
Realitywins said:
Since there are demonstrably no gods....
Click to expand...

I want YOU to demonstrate that for us. Not the insurance companies, not the government or anyone else. YOU. Either demonstrate it or you've got nothing but the usual hot air when it comes to the divine.
 
Logicman said:
I want YOU to demonstrate that for us. Not the insurance companies, not the government or anyone else. YOU. Either demonstrate it or you've got nothing but the usual hot air when it comes to the divine.
Click to expand...

Is Logicman your Bizarro world name?
 
Logicman said:
I want YOU to demonstrate that for us. Not the insurance companies, not the government or anyone else. YOU. Either demonstrate it or you've got nothing but the usual hot air when it comes to the divine.
Click to expand...

There is no divine. One need not disprove that which does not exist, does not exist. You are unable to prove jesus existed let alone your imaginary god.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom