Are Demons, Ghosts, or Angels real? - Armor Games Community

239	42459

offline

Faunbard

650 posts

Nomad

Posted November 13, '10 5:54pm UTC

i thoght they were different too. cool

offline

cweb118

77 posts

Nomad

Posted November 14, '10 4:42am UTC

read the bible of the Church of Satan. its all there
[quote]Yeah, as we've pointed out ad infinitum, a book is not proof of anything. To use that logic you would have to accept that Orcs and Ents are real because of The Lord of the Rings series. Find proof that doesn't come from a book, can be observed, tested, and repeated and then we'll talk. Otherwise it's pure speculation based on a personal opinion.

[/quote]

Good sir, have you ever heard of the Oort cloud?
Yes? No? Maybe?

Well for those who havn't I'll explain.

Becasue of the way scientists are today, they say that we have a 14 billion year old universe.
They say that the planetary system we're in has been around for about 4 billion years (I think, correct me if I'm wrong)
Now, there is a type of space object called a comet. Comets are basicly a big ditry chuck of ice, that was left over when the system formed.

But listnen to this. There are two types of comets. Long range, and short range. Short range comets last for 200 years or less. Long range last for 200 years or more.

Thats cool. But oh snap--
We should have run dry out of comets a good couple million years ago. If they only live a little more than 200 years, they should be all gone.

Oh, but no. We still see them, so why are they still around...

Well you see, there is a cloud called the Oort cloud that has been 'discovered' by scientists. Want proof? Ok well--
Oh wait.

There is none.
We only think there's one, because we still see comets. However, the Oort cloud has never been observed, seen, picked up on by some sort of radar, squat.

But why do we still think it's there?

Cause it's in our science books.

Why cant we just say that Allah created the world, and that it's not billions of years old? The Koran says it's so.

We would accept the word of the scientits of today, no matter how 'out there' it is, before we accept the word of holy teachings.

You want proof for Angels? Give us proof for the Oort cloud.

P.S. And don't say comets either. My evidence for deity creating the universe is that it just so happens that we havn't been blown up by some random force, or tilted too close to the sun, too far away, etc. I could go on and on. There are a bunch of reasons I could give that shows intellegent design, and all there is for the Oort cloud is...

Dirty balls of ice.

[quote]read the bible of the Church of Satan. its all there\r\n[quote]Yeah, as we've pointed out ad infinitum, a book is not proof of anything. To use that logic you would have to accept that Orcs and Ents are real because of The Lord of the Rings series. Find proof that doesn't come from a book, can be observed, tested, and repeated and then we'll talk. Otherwise it's pure speculation based on a personal opinion.[/quote][/quote]\r\n\r\nGood sir, have you ever heard of the Oort cloud?\r\nYes? No? Maybe?\r\n\r\nWell for those who havn't I'll explain.\r\n\r\nBecasue of the way scientists are today, they say that we have a 14 billion year old universe.\r\nThey say that the planetary system we're in has been around for about 4 billion years (I think, correct me if I'm wrong)\r\nNow, there is a type of space object called a comet. Comets are basicly a big ditry chuck of ice, that was left over when the system formed.\r\n\r\nBut listnen to this. There are two types of comets. Long range, and short range. Short range comets last for 200 years or less. Long range last for 200 years or more.\r\n\r\nThats cool. But oh snap--\r\nWe should have run dry out of comets a good couple million years ago. If they only live a little more than 200 years, they should be all gone.\r\n\r\nOh, but no. We still see them, so why are they still around...\r\n\r\nWell you see, there is a cloud called the Oort cloud that has been 'discovered' by scientists. Want proof? Ok well--\r\nOh wait.\r\n\r\nThere is none.\r\nWe only think there's one, because we still see comets. However, the Oort cloud has never been observed, seen, picked up on by some sort of radar, squat.\r\n\r\nBut why do we still think it's there?\r\n\r\nCause it's in our science books.\r\n\r\nWhy cant we just say that Allah created the world, and that it's not billions of years old? The Koran says it's so.\r\n\r\nWe would accept the word of the scientits of today, no matter how 'out there' it is, before we accept the word of holy teachings.\r\n\r\nYou want proof for Angels? Give us proof for the Oort cloud.\r\n\r\nP.S. And don't say comets either. My evidence for deity creating the universe is that it just so happens that we havn't been blown up by some random force, or tilted too close to the sun, too far away, etc. I could go on and on. There are a bunch of reasons I could give that shows intellegent design, and all there is for the Oort cloud is...\r\n\r\nDirty balls of ice.

offline

314d1

3,817 posts

Nomad

Posted November 14, '10 4:51am UTC

But why do we still think it's there?

Cause it's in our science books.

We don't. We say "Hey, you know, maybe its out there...Well there is a possibility. We will chalk it down as "Hypothesis"

Lets look at the first page of the wiki...

The Oort cloud (pronounced /ËÉ"rt/ ort, alternatively the Ã-pik-Oort cloud IPA: [ËÃ&cedilik]) is a hypothesized spherical cloud of comets which may lie...

You see that word "hypothesized" It means "Well it might be there. We don't actually know."

So comparing "THIS IS TEH ULTIMATE TRUTH, SPEAK AGAINST IT AND DIE HEATHEN!" to "Well, there might possibly maybe kind off short off might be..."

offline

cweb118

77 posts

Nomad

Posted November 14, '10 4:56am UTC

Yeah, but it's widely accepted among scientist. They don't give it a second thought.
Kinda reminds me of another Theory they have...

offline

CommanderDude7

4,689 posts

Nomad

Posted November 14, '10 5:01am UTC

Shhh! Dont question science's use of the word "theory"! It may be called a theory but it really is a fact. But if its wrong then scientists can say "Oh well we said it was a theory jeez calm down."

offline

314d1

3,817 posts

Nomad

Posted November 14, '10 5:04am UTC

Yeah, but it's widely accepted among scientist. They don't give it a second thought.
Kinda reminds me of another Theory they have...

"Widely accepted" does not mean we think it is the only truth. In fact, look at the language used...

"is thought", "Some estimates", &quotossible", and more in one paragraph. And if you even read the wiki, even if it did exist we are only guessing what it would be like based observations. Feel free to make a separate hypothesis, or show mathematically or logically why this theory is impossible and it will simply be disproven, let go off. Your religion as well as every other has been disproven many times, and you claim absolute knowledge. In fact, there is a man on death row for criticizing the Muslim religion at this moment! That will not happen with the Oort cloud, in fact in science it is considered a good thing...

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted November 14, '10 6:52am UTC

Why cant we just say that Allah created the world, and that it's not billions of years old?

We have to start with the simplest possibility first. What's more likely sounding that there are a mass of small objects we haven't yet been able to fully detect or some magical being made everything 6-10 thousand years ago and just made it look like it was much older.

But since you want to use stellar observation, then tell me how are we able to detect light from other galaxies? Even the closest galaxy is around 75,000 light years away.

Yeah, but it's widely accepted among scientist. They don't give it a second thought.
Kinda reminds me of another Theory they have...

A hypothesis is not a theory. A theory is a verified hypothesis. Giving them second thoughts is a scientists job.

Shhh! Dont question science's use of the word "theory"! It may be called a theory but it really is a fact. But if its wrong then scientists can say "Oh well we said it was a theory jeez calm down."

Considering how long you have been around and how many times this has been explained you really should know better then this by now.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.

Also admitting when your wrong is honest, something I can't say for religion. Science is not like religion it doesn't deal in absolutes, it gives room for falsifiability. This allows it to stay honest. Religion just tries to hold on to a claim as long as it can even after it's been debunked.

[quote]Why cant we just say that Allah created the world, and that it's not billions of years old?[/quote]\r\n\r\nWe have to start with the simplest possibility first. What's more likely sounding that there are a mass of small objects we haven't yet been able to fully detect or some magical being made everything 6-10 thousand years ago and just made it look like it was much older.\r\n\r\nBut since you want to use stellar observation, then tell me how are we able to detect light from other galaxies? Even the closest galaxy is around 75,000 light years away.\r\n\r\n[quote]Yeah, but it's widely accepted among scientist. They don't give it a second thought.\r\nKinda reminds me of another Theory they have...[/quote]\r\n\r\nA hypothesis is not a theory. A theory is a verified hypothesis. Giving them second thoughts is a scientists job.\r\n\r\n[quote]Shhh! Dont question  science's use of the word "theory"! It may be called a theory but it really is a fact. But if its wrong then scientists can say "Oh well we said it was a theory jeez calm down."[/quote]\r\n\r\nConsidering how long you have been around and how many times this has been explained you really should know better then this by now.\r\n\r\n[url=http://wilstar.com/theories.htm]http://wilstar.com/theories.htm[/url]\r\n[quote][b]Hypothesis[/b]: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.\r\n\r\n[b]Theory[/b]: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public. [/quote]\r\n\r\nAlso admitting when your wrong is honest, something I can't say for religion. Science is not like religion it doesn't deal in absolutes, it gives room for falsifiability. This allows it to stay honest. Religion just tries to hold on to a claim as long as it can even after it's been debunked.

offline

HahiHa

8,256 posts

Regent

Posted November 14, '10 12:36pm UTC

You want proof for Angels? Give us proof for the Oort cloud.

P.S. And don't say comets either. My evidence for deity creating the universe is that it just so happens that we havn't been blown up by some random force, or tilted too close to the sun, too far away, etc. I could go on and on. There are a bunch of reasons I could give that shows intellegent design, and all there is for the Oort cloud is...

Dirty balls of ice.

I think the difference is that you assert that something is right. The Oort cloud, as far as I understood from what you guys said, is an attempt to explain something we don't know, attempt that may be the best up to date but will fade when confrontated with new observations.
And I laugh at the face of ID, because if there really was a designer he was everything but intelligent. I prefer calling it unintelligent design, UD. Only by looking at the human anatomy we can see why.
First the eye; why is it that this structure that every creationist uses to demonstrate ID has a retina with light receptors facing away from the light source? The light has to go through bundles of nerves first. Intelligent? No. Evolutionary explainable? Yes.
Then, the heart, respectively it's blood supply. In our body, blood vessels have anastomoses, connections between different vessels, that assure a continuing blood supply should one of the vessel be blocked, therefore avoiding tissue necrosis. The heart hasn't anastomoses, it's coronary vessels are functionally blind ending; if one is blocked, heart muscles that were supplied by the vessel die and you get a myocardial infarction. Tell me if this is so supremely intelligent.
Third, the spermatic duct, vas deferens. Doesn't lead directly into the urethra like an intelligent designer would have made it, no. First it goes up around the pubic bone, then around the bladder, follows the exit of the seminal vesicle and then finally leads into the urethra. This is due to the position of the testicles in the embryo; their downward migration leads to the adult position. And this position doesn't fulfill any function, it's just a cause of the embryonic development.

[quote]You want proof for Angels? Give us proof for the Oort cloud.\r\n\r\nP.S. And don't say comets either. My evidence for deity creating the universe is that it just so happens that we havn't been blown up by some random force, or tilted too close to the sun, too far away, etc. I could go on and on. There are a bunch of reasons I could give that shows intellegent design, and all there is for the Oort cloud is...\r\n\r\nDirty balls of ice.[/quote]\r\nI think the difference is that you assert that something is right. The Oort cloud, as far as I understood from what you guys said, is an attempt to explain something we don't know, attempt that may be the best up to date but will fade when confrontated with new observations.\r\nAnd I laugh at the face of ID, because if there really was a designer he was everything but intelligent. I prefer calling it unintelligent design, UD. Only by looking at the human anatomy we can see why. \r\nFirst the eye; why is it that this structure that every creationist uses to demonstrate ID has a retina with light receptors facing away from the light source? The light has to go through bundles of nerves first. Intelligent? No. Evolutionary explainable? Yes. \r\nThen, the heart, respectively it's blood supply. In our body, blood vessels have anastomoses, connections between different vessels, that assure a continuing blood supply should one of the vessel be blocked, therefore avoiding tissue necrosis. The heart hasn't anastomoses, it's coronary vessels are functionally blind ending; if one is blocked, heart muscles that were supplied by the vessel die and you get a myocardial infarction. Tell me if this is so supremely intelligent. \r\nThird, the spermatic duct, vas deferens. Doesn't lead directly into the urethra like an intelligent designer would have made it, no. First it goes up around the pubic bone, then around the bladder, follows the exit of the seminal vesicle and then finally leads into the urethra. This is due to the position of the testicles in the embryo; their downward migration leads to the adult position. And this position doesn't fulfill any function, it's just a cause of the embryonic development.

offline

Gamer_Cale

1,370 posts

Nomad

Posted November 14, '10 3:52pm UTC

dont believe in demons and angels because im atheist the bible is just away of telling people how to live so basically its just some guy who wants people to live by his rules so he makes up a god

offline

zonic98

547 posts

Nomad

Posted November 14, '10 4:15pm UTC

i dont believe them

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted November 14, '10 5:52pm UTC

dont believe in demons and angels because im atheist the bible is just away of telling people how to live so basically its just some guy who wants people to live by his rules so he makes up a god

Actually the dynamics of it are a bit more complex then that. For instance the Bible wasn't written by one guy, but is a collection of books and other writings from various sources.

offline

cweb118

77 posts

Nomad

Posted November 14, '10 5:59pm UTC

The Oort cloud, as far as I understood from what you guys said, is an attempt to explain something we don't know,

Well can we agree on that part, that the Oort cloud and really science for the most part is trying to explain things we don't really know.

offline

HahiHa

8,256 posts

Regent

Posted November 14, '10 6:09pm UTC

Well can we agree on that part, that the Oort cloud and really science for the most part is trying to explain things we don't really know.

No. The cloud itself, sure, as long as we have no proof. But science in general bases on observations and facts. So, no, we can't really agree.

offline

cweb118

77 posts

Nomad

Posted November 14, '10 6:12pm UTC

Really? Huh.
Science has never seen stars form the way they say they do... There really has never been a full point A to point B example of star formation viewed by humans.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted November 14, '10 6:14pm UTC

Well can we agree on that part, that the Oort cloud and really science for the most part is trying to explain things we don't really know.

Yes, but they are claiming the cloud exists. They are putting forth an idea to be tested. It's an educated guess based on what we do know.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Are Demons, Ghosts, or Angels real?