Okay with some religious topics around here I thought I'd make an other one so the point of this is, the point is:
1. Determine if there is/are a god(s)
If we succeed at determing if there is a god we go on to:
2. Determine wich religion is right wishfull thinking
So post the evidence that there is a god right here: 
Rules: we are currently at step 1 attacking people that they are going to hell does not belong here, post things that are relevant.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Wed May 28, 2008 7:21 am; edited 1 time in total This has got to be the most pointless topic ever. You can't prove there is a God, that would defeat the whole purpose of having faith. How old are you seriously? Do you know anything about God?
| coolclay wrote: |
| This has got to be the most pointless topic ever. You can't prove there is a God, that would defeat the whole purpose of having faith. How old are you seriously? Do you know anything about God? |
There is no point in attacking me, look a bith further than your nose long is, How old are you? Seriously.
The point is to show why I don't believe in god, some other people just don't seem to understand that I don't because that there is no evidence. That's the point, if no evidence is posted then this topic has made it's point, don't make sucha fuss.....
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:42 am; edited 1 time in total | coolclay wrote: |
| This has got to be the most pointless topic ever. You can't prove there is a God, that would defeat the whole purpose of having faith. How old are you seriously? Do you know anything about God? |
FYI, not everyone believes that you can't prove a god exists. Many people believe there is already proof of a god, and faith is not necessary. They are called non-agnostics (people who believe you can't prove a god exists - like you, apparently - are called agnostics).
You should really get out and read more before insulting people. Klaw 2 knows what he or she is talking about. i'm agnostic, so i don't believe he can accomplish 1 (or 2), but i'm curious to see if any non-agnostics can do it. | Indi wrote: |
| Many people believe there is already proof of a god, and faith is not necessary. They are called non-agnostics |
I honestly did not know that. Thanks, Indi. I'd always assumed that the antonym of "agnostic" could be applied to anyone who believes in a god.
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
I honestly did not know that. Thanks, Indi. I'd always assumed that the antonym of "agnostic" could be applied to anyone who believes in a god.
Respectfully,
M |
Yes, this comes up fairly frequently in different guises - largely because of lazy usage in the media (including the web).
It's probably worth repeating the definitions that I (and Indi) occasionally put out to clarify.
Theist - One who believes in God(s).
Deist - one who believes in a creator God but doesn't believe that God takes an active part in the universe (ie no miracles etc).
Atheist (Nontheist) - One who does not believe in God(s). Often taken incorrectly to mean one who asserts that there is no God (strong atheist or non-agnostic atheist)
Agnostic - One who holds that the existence of God(s) cannot be proven
You can be an agnostic theist, deist, or atheist.
(Many people, including me, would argue that a large proportion of the Church of England congregation and clergy are agnostics and a suprisingly high number of those are atheists 
) | Bikerman wrote: |
| Atheist (Nontheist) - One who does not believe in God(s). Often taken incorrectly to mean one who asserts that there is no God (strong atheist or non-agnostic atheist) |
(Technically just strong atheist. You can be an agnostic strong atheist - "i believe that no god(s) exist(s), but i don't believe that can be proven" - or a non-agnostic strong atheist - "i believe that no god(s) exist(s), and i believe that can be proven".
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Agnostic - One who holds that the existence of God(s) cannot be proven |
Well, to cover all of your bases you should say "existence or non-existence".
And let's not be unfair to the many different flavours of agnosticism. ^_^
Strong agnostic: "i don't believe it will ever be possible to prove a god does or does not exist."
Weak agnostic: "i don't believe it is possible to prove a god does or does not exist today, but it may be possible someday."
Non-agnostic: "i believe it is possible to prove a god does or does not exist."
Collect them all and mix and match. ^_^Yep - correction accepted
(Still won't mean that anyone uses the terms correctly, but, hell, we tried ) http://doesgodexist.com
Some interesting reading from a former atheist's point of view...he is also a physicist.
I find it interesting to think about the beginning of the universe, it would be easy to hold the notion that matter has always existed, however through time we can see that galaxies are moving away from each other, and therefore had to start from a single point to expand from. The atheist's notion that the universe has just always existed is blown apart by this type of study because the universe is expanding and from what we know of the Laws of Physics, when something is in motion it is because it has been set in motion..it can't always have been in motion. Theoretically if the universe had always existed and was never created then all of our knowledge of Physics is wrong.
It's an interesting website for anybody who is interested, it definitely made me stop and think...though trying to think about things this vast in size and scope is mind-boggling to say the least because there is no way, with our current grasp of time-space, we could even think for a second that we actually know what is going on.
I personally believe other dimensions exist in the time-space continuum and it is possible that matter was created from that dimension, though I have a very hard time grasping the idea that an omnipotent being sits around and judges us all day and night, I can't totally rule it out because of our lack of knowledge as humans. | jsk02a wrote: |
| Some interesting reading from a former atheist's point of view...he is also a physicist. |
He's no physicist - he did an undergrad course101 in Astronomy. Big Deal.
The articles are full of nonsense, pseudo-science and misrepresentations of proper scientists and real science. It's a crock.Who is John Clayton?
| Quote: |
| A devout atheist until his early twenties, Clayton was part of the same organized atheist group that made Madeline Murray O'Hair famous. He decided to write a book called All the Stupidity of the Bible, but instead found himself slowly becoming convinced about Christianity. Today, he travels the U.S. giving some 40 lectures per year on the subject "Does God Exist?" He is a teacher and geologist by profession. He holds a B.S. degree from Indiana University in education with a concentration in physics and mathematics. He holds a M.S. degree from Indiana University in education with a concentration in chemistry and psychometry. He also holds a M.S. degree from the University of Notre Dame in geology and earth science. His most recent honors include: Distinguished Physics Teacher for the State of Indiana--1985 by the American Association of Physics Teachers; S.T.A.R Instructor for Indiana Department of Public Instruction--1990; South Bend Community School Corporation High School Teacher of the Year and School Corporation Teacher of the Year--1991. |
So I was wrong, he is a teacher and geolgist by profession but by no means "took an Astronomy 101" class in college.
...and if you could provide a more valid argument over why his articles are a "crock" as you say, I would be glad to read it. OK, no problem. Let's start with his 'proof of God'.
Firstly his stated aims: | Quote: |
| The purpose of this brief study is to offer a logical, practical, pragmatic proof of the existence of God from a purely scientific perspective |
OK - so a scientific proof of God then? Should be interesting....
Here we go... | Quote: |
| Most atheists maintain that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to form, but it has always been. |
Complete lie. Most atheists I know accept the BB theory which states that the observable universe came into being about 13.7 billion years ago. We don't know what happened before the BB (yet). | Quote: |
| Throughout the cosmos there are 25 quintillion stars, each converting hydrogen into helium, thereby reducing the total amount of hydrogen in the cosmos. Just think about it! If everywhere in the cosmos hydrogen is being consumed and if the process has been going on forever, how much hydrogen should be left? |
Who says the process has being going on forever? Nobody, that's who. Stars did not 'fire up' until millions of years after BB. Even if hydrogen is being consumed at an enourmous rate there is a LOT of it, but in fact it is not being 'consumed' it is being fused into helium atoms with photons given off (ie no energy/matter is being destroyed).
Next he quotes Sagan out of context | Quote: |
| If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan was so fond of saying |
(Implying that Sagan was saying that the universe had no beginning, which, being a qualified physicist he obviously wasn't).
Next we get the same theme (he actually only has one idea - the idea of eternal mass/energy - and keeps repeating it ad nauseum). | Quote: |
| The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct. |
There are several scientific theories about the origin of the BB singularity. Virtual Particles from the vacuum, a quantum fluctuation in 'nothingness' and so on. There is also the emerging Brane theory which seeks to explain our universe as one of a number of membranes which collide to form new universes. This is well beyond this joker, though.
He totally neglects to mention that not only does the bible say there was a beginning - it gives a specific timescale and a specific order of creation, which is so unscientific and mickey-mouse it isn't worth spending time on here.He says that matter/energy is not eternal and I suppose that means that God created it all, out of nothing. Ermm...is that supposed to be more logical or more scientific as he claims? LOL
Next he repeats (yet again) the same stuff | Quote: |
| From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem. In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry |
For someone who claims to have taught physics he appears to know bugger-all physics. He obviously hasn't come across virtual particles, vacuum energy, quantum fluctuations etc. Presumably he doesn't count 'God' as 'some strange new process' and thinks that God is a more scientific explanation?
Guess what's next...yup | Quote: |
| The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. |
So how is matter/energy destroyed then? He just told us in the last para that matter and energy cannot come out of nothing and is conserved. Now he's saying the opposite.
Next he tells a downright lie | Quote: |
| The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. |
Completely untrue. The anthropic principle basically states that since we are alive then we observe a universe that can support life. If the universe could not support life then we wouldn't be here to see it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
In short he's a dishonest idiot. Excellent rebuttal. I'm not claiming that he is right, never did. I just said it was interesting...I majored in English Lit & Politics, therefore I lack the technical knowledge to find his flaws...I just find that he has an interesting theory to offer...and he is an educated man.
The point is, there is no sound proof on either side of the coin.
Thank you for the dissection, though. | jsk02a wrote: |
| Excellent rebuttal. I'm not claiming that he is right, never did. I just said it was interesting...I majored in English Lit & Politics, therefore I lack the technical knowledge to find his flaws...I just find that he has an interesting theory to offer...and he is an educated man. |
One does not need a scientific background to pick up the stink in that essay. Bikerman already mentioned the contradiction about conservation of matter and "eternal" matter. You don't need to know the math to know that when someone says "matter cannot be created or destroyed" in one breath and "matter is not eternal" in the other something is fishy.
And of course, good critical practice - science or not - involves checking the sources. Well, he only gives like three references, and they're all books with no pages sourced or anything. Not the most honest way to reference a work, but let's let that slide for the moment... because one of those sources is available online: the Humanist Manifesto.
So, how does he reference the Humanist Manifesto? Like this: "The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of the atheist's belief." The only problem is... that is not what the Humanist Manifesto says. It says: "FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created." [Emphasis added by me.] (Note that he also snipped the bit that says, "Religious humanists regard... as", and tries to pass off the (false) quote as being held by all humanists, and - bizarrely and even more dishonestly - all atheists (atheist ≠ humanist).)
In other words, our friend here has dishonestly revised his sources. He is, in short, a liar.
(And to put his blatant dishonesty in perspective, he has quoted exactly two non-Biblical sources. The Humanist Manifesto quote i deconstructed - quoted twice - and the Sagan quote Bikerman has already explained is out of context. (And bizarrely interpreted... how does the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be" lead to the cosmos is perfect ("nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it")? That's just a bizarre leap in logic.) That means that two for two - 100% - of non-Biblical quotes are easily demonstrated as falsified (or at least misinterpreted). That's just... horrible. ^_^; )
| jsk02a wrote: |
| The point is, there is no sound proof on either side of the coin. |
A dishonest claim.
The side that claims there is no god cannot now or ever provide proof of that claim. They can provide evidence - and they have provided libraries full of that (evidence that the universe works fine without a god, and that there is no sign of one). But they can never prove a god does not exist. (This has nothing to do with them, or with the properties of a god. The plain fact is you can never prove a negative claim. Try to prove Bugs Bunny does not exist. You'll find that you can't. The best you can do is provide strong evidence. Never proof.)
The side that claims there is a god can provide proof... but has not. They haven't even done very well with evidence so far - almost all of their evidence is the same logical fallacy: the god-of-the-gaps fallacy (we don't know how - for example - matter was created, therefore God did it (and yes, i know we do know how matter was created, i was just using a relevant example, because that guy makes that same fallacy in his essay)).
So what we have here is an asymmetric problem. One side cannot provide proof (it is an impossible request). The other side can, but has not, and thus claims both sides are on equal footing. That is dishonest.
Of course, as far as evidence goes, there are billions of quality data of evidence that there are no gods, and few quality data (if any, because i can't think of any) that there are gods. There's no symmetry there at all. | Indi wrote: |
| Of course, as far as evidence goes, there are billions of quality data of evidence that there are no gods, and few quality data (if any, because i can't think of any) that there are gods. There's no symmetry there at all. |
Thank you, you made my point for me. There is no proof on either side, I didn't say there had to be proof. Quality data of evidence? I'm sure the Grecians thought they had quality data too...now we laugh at all their explanations for how the world worked when attributed to gods.
I'm sure when people thought the earth was flat and was the center of the universe, they had quality data of evidence about that too, until somebody showed the PROOF they were wrong.
Who are we to think we know anything about anything, especially anything about the future capabilities of mankind?
My belief is that "God" is a tool developed by primitive man to explain the things that were happening around him, and it evolved into a tool (a very dull but effective tool) to be used to control ignorant people. I never claimed to be a "believer", I merely said that I do believe other dimensions exist other than our own. | jsk02a wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Of course, as far as evidence goes, there are billions of quality data of evidence that there are no gods, and few quality data (if any, because i can't think of any) that there are gods. There's no symmetry there at all. |
Thank you, you made my point for me. There is no proof on either side, I didn't say there had to be proof. Quality data of evidence? I'm sure the Grecians thought they had quality data too...now we laugh at all their explanations for how the world worked when attributed to gods. |
I presume you mean the ancient Greeks? They didn't really do science - more philosophy. The point is that there is no way to demonstrate that God does not exist but there are plenty of ways to demonstrate that he/she/it DOES exist. As Indy said, you can't prove that Bugs Bunny does not exist but I doubt you would go from there to saying there is an equal chance he does or does not exist. In fact it is quite likely that the men in white coats would pay a visit if you kept insisting that not only did Bugs exist but he had instructed you to sanctify the carrot, resist the temptations of the evil Elmer Fudd, and look forward to eternity in a cartoon carrot-patch. | Quote: |
| I'm sure when people thought the earth was flat and was the center of the universe, they had quality data of evidence about that too, until somebody showed the PROOF they were wrong. |
Most educated people knew the world was not flat (since the time of the Greeks). The Greeks also knew that the earth was not the centre of the 'universe' - that notion is largely a religious one.
The point is that modern scientific theory is not normally shown to be significantly wrong, since it is based on experimental or observational data. What tends to happen is that a new paradigm arises which includes the results of previous work and expands to cover more cases or a wider range of observation/experimental data. Think of Einstein superceding Newton - Newton's laws of motion still work perfectly well - unless you start travelling really fast - then you need Relativity.
Thus it is with theory such as evolutionary theory, Big Bang theory and the like. The theories are always work in progress - they are constantly being refined and added to by new generations of scientists - but it is very unlikely that the basic theory is fundamentally wrong. | Quote: |
| Who are we to think we know anything about anything, especially anything about the future capabilities of mankind? |
We know quite a lot about quite a lot. There is (and probably always will be) more to know, which is a good reason to keep looking for answers and not just simply say 'God did it'. | jsk02a wrote: |
| Thank you, you made my point for me. There is no proof on either side, I didn't say there had to be proof. |
Oh, but there does.
You see, there is a concept in science and philosophy called parsimony - commonly referred to as "Ockham's Razor" (although, most people don't really understand what Ockham's Razor really is, and they generally get it wrong, so i avoid using the term). Parsimony states that you should not make unnecessary assumptions. This is a fundamental component of all science and philosophy, and pretty much all thought in general - nothing would make sense without it. You can read up on parsimony to find out why it's so fundamental and so important.
Now, according to parsimony, we should not assume that a god might exist unless we have some reason for making that assumption. Once upon a time - let's say up to around half a millenium ago - that was a somewhat reasonable assumption to make because there was simply too much that seemed to be going on that couldn't be explained using any knowledge available at the time, or even any reasoning available at the time. It was quite literally so far beyond any conception they were capable of at the time, that assuming a god made sense, more or less. Nowadays, we are a far more mature civilization. We know a lot, but more importantly, we understand the limitations of what we know - in other words, we know what we don't yet know. We know enough about the universe to know that there simply isn't a rational reason to presume a god any more. That doesn't mean we've figured everything out, it just means we've come to a point that we don't need that crutch any more. (Think of it this way: A beginning bike rider needs training wheels just to stay upright. After enough familiarity with the bike he or she doesn't need those training wheels any more. Does that mean they are now master bike riders, ready for stunt competitions or to take on the Tour de France? Hardly. They're still intermediate riders, but they've moved beyond training wheels at least.)
In order to justify an assumption that gods exist at this point in time, you actually need a reason for that assumption. No longer is it acceptable by default because we understood far too little to get by without it. But no one, anywhere, any time in the modern age, has come up with a valid reason to assume gods exist. The best they have done is repeat a very old fallacy called the "god-of-the-gaps" fallacy. The irony is that you mock that very fallacy while attempting to undermine science... then turn around and make it yourself - and you are not alone in doing this, not by a long-shot. Everyone that says "science is lame because they once thought the stars were points of light put there by the gods (for example, or the Earth was flat, or whatever)", then turns around says "that's why i believe in a god, because science does not have all the answers" is really making a peculiarly bizarre logical hiccup ("they were wrong to do X, so i'm going to do X").
| jsk02a wrote: |
| Quality data of evidence? I'm sure the Grecians thought they had quality data too...now we laugh at all their explanations for how the world worked when attributed to gods. |
For starters, as Bikerman has already mentioned, the Ancient Greeks did not do science. No one did science until Newton, more or less - Isaac Newton pretty much invented the scientific method (at the very least, he really laid the foundation we still build on today).
Furthermore, what little data the Ancient Greeks did collect was quality data. But you are misrepresenting their claims, and actually doing them a disservice. They never, ever, claimed to have evidence for the intervention of their gods in the world. That's what they believed, yes, but they never claimed they had evidence for it (and quite a few philosophers would have strongly disagreed with the claim). What they did claim to have was evidence of the existence of their gods - several philosophical arguments, in fact, that are still used today be supporters of gods. We now know those philosophical arguments are flawed - but as i said they are still used today... that's how good they are. And, at the same time, they also had data against the existence of gods (that still stands as valid today!), and what little "scientific" evidence they did bother to collect (they didn't believe in the scientific method, by and large, by dint of their philosophy) was all correct (and we still use huge chunks of it today). Don't try to play the Ancient Greeks as fools. Those guys were no intellectual slouches, and many could stand toe-to-toe with the best thinkers today, with only a very short primer to catch them up on the last two or three thousand years.
| jsk02a wrote: |
| I'm sure when people thought the earth was flat and was the center of the universe, they had quality data of evidence about that too, until somebody showed the PROOF they were wrong. |
That is also a misrepresentation. No one - going back to the time of the Ancient Greeks - believed the Earth was flat (except during the Dark Ages, when the population was raised only on religious nonsense and had no scientific education at all - but even then, the educated members of society, including the church leaders, did not believe the Earth was flat).
And, on top of that, your claim is simply false. They did not have quality data that the Earth was flat. They had quality data that the Earth was not flat. In fact, they even knew exactly how big it was, to an astonishing degree of accuracy, estimated at around 5 to 10 percent max.
You will find that if you put serious effort into the task that it is exceptionally hard to find legitimate examples of quality evidence collected throughout history that has turned out to be simply flat out wrong. When evidence is properly collected, it is very hard to screw up completely. Every example you presented is not a case of bad evidence being collected or even of good evidence being used improperly - they are all cases where no evidence was collected at all, and answers were assumed based on other factors (for example, religious belief).
| jsk02a wrote: |
| Who are we to think we know anything about anything, especially anything about the future capabilities of mankind? |
We are a species that has gone from throwing our own feces around to sending probes to other planets in our solar system and taking the first steps to leaving our Earthly cradle; to formulating theories about the very nature of time and space and what might have happened before our universe existed; to reaching out to other civilizations that might exist out in the cosmos and listening for their replies; to attempting to construct societies and cultures based on enlightened, abstract principles of liberty and justice; and much, much, much more. To put things in perspective... we - as in us, us here on Frihost - are not the elite thinkers of our time. We're just a bunch of dudes brought together by the promise of free Internet hosting (!), and we are discussing concepts of the nature of our existence, and our relationship with the universe around us.
How can you seriously disparage that? ^_^; We're not perfect, sure, and as civilizations go you may argue that we're still adolescent... but i think it's pretty damn safe to say we're not children any longer. We are learning about our place in the cosmos, and starting to take responsibility for the impact we have on it. We are moving past our egocentric view of the universe and reaching out to other species and for knowledge and experiences that humble the hell out of us.
That's who we are.
| jsk02a wrote: |
| My belief is that "God" is a tool developed by primitive man to explain the things that were happening around him, and it evolved into a tool (a very dull but effective tool) to be used to control ignorant people. |
But here's the thing. Your belief is completely and totally arbitrary. Seriously, what research have you done to come to that conclusion? Have you studied comparative religions? The anthropology of the religion? The psychology of the religious mind? You'd really need to cover all of that and more to come that conclusion properly.
You're welcome to your belief, but if you want more than a belief - if you want quality data (which actually involves going out and seeking evidence, not just saying "well, this feels right to believe", which is how people come to believe things like flat Earth and so on), it's out there. This is a fairly new field of research, true, but so far the evidence is pretty strong that what you say is not true. This is why your examples of bad "quality data" fall flat - there is no data there. Real data, and real quality data, requires actually going out to verify a belief.Is there a God and if so what is the best religion?
Let’s do it in reverse. The right religion is the one you choose for you.
The word religion is ok but I feel a word more properly in line for this discussion is the word religiously. Religion is defined often as a belief in God. I do see how the two connect. Religions are often assumed to mean organizations or collections of people with a title that believe in something.
However for one moment, please, consider the word religiously. The word implies to have a belief, yes true but do something religiously is more appropriate here in order to understand this point. The point is even to think about a topic is an active journey that we are committed to. In plain words we do something religiously because we are drawn to it like we would be to a scientific question.
So regardless of a persons belief, anyone that has any kind of belief is practicing some kind of religious pursuit. Science is a journey religiously desired.
Ok, I hope that makes sense. Now let us both look at the question. Is there a God and can we prove it.
God by name is called creator. So lets look at the creation and scientifically examine it.
How are you with the big bang theory? Whether we look at the complete universe or into the realm of atom structure or anywhere in the scientific realm we will find one commonality. It is of the same design. You really have to be scientifically minded to appreciate that. Even in scientific circles however you will find people arguing and disputing theories and truths. This is normal and sometimes healthy but lets remember also there is always something that people can agree on.
To prove the existence of God one could say simply - "The universe and everything that exists has the same design qualities."
It also has an origin therefore at some point in time was created. Even the element of time itself would have a starting point. Since ever creation including ideas, theories, even pure thought has an owner and we can also conclude a beginning. A creator exists.
Now, the question is who, what, where, why and how? It is unending. That is what makes it so interesting, fun and is why I love science so much. I love sciences creator.
I love God!
I have roughly the same "beliefs" as Indi and Bikerman.
Nobody has proven god exists. So there is no reason why he would exist. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist, just that the chance that he does exist - out of pure coincidence - is infinitely small. So there is absolutely no reason to believe in something, every religion has an infinitely small chance of being correct.
Some comments for Bluedoll:
| Code: |
| So regardless of a persons belief, anyone that has any kind of belief is practicing some kind of religious pursuit. Science is a journey religiously desired. |
I don't understand how you reach this conclusion. I'm practising science, learning about it, so I can get a good job. I don't see how that is a religiously desired journey.
| Code: |
| How are you with the big bang theory? Whether we look at the complete universe or into the realm of atom structure or anywhere in the scientific realm we will find one commonality. It is of the same design. You really have to be scientifically minded to appreciate that. |
Could you explain where that same design is? I don't really see it. @ Indi I am a "he".
| Bluedoll wrote: |
Is there a God and if so what is the best religion?
Let’s do it in reverse. The right religion is the one you choose for you. |
I meant if we where able to conclude by evidence that one god is the reel one. If the back side of the moon said: Made by ALLAH inc. then we could safely conclude that Allah is the real god.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| The word religion is ok but I feel a word more properly in line for this discussion is the word religiously. Religion is defined often as a belief in God. I do see how the two connect. Religions are often assumed to mean organizations or collections of people with a title that believe in something. |
Religions ARE organizations of some sort.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| However for one moment, please, consider the word religiously. The word implies to have a belief, yes true but do something religiously is more appropriate here in order to understand this point. The point is even to think about a topic is an active journey that we are committed to. In plain words we do something religiously because we are drawn to it like we would be to a scientific question. |
and religiously is a mere adverb. Care to look it up? More about this ahead!
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| So regardless of a persons belief, anyone that has any kind of belief is practicing some kind of religious pursuit. Science is a journey religiously desired. |
... no. I don't BELIEVE in science, I ACCEPT it, since science presents FACTS that means that what I learn is no Religion. Where Gods have no evidence for their existance so gods NEED belief, while proof doesn't.
and i agree with:
| Stubru Freak wrote: |
| I don't understand how you reach this conclusion. I'm practising science, learning about it, so I can get a good job. I don't see how that is a religiously desired journey. |
Agreed...
It is not by religion that I seek the truth, it is by curiosity.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| Ok, I hope that makes sense. Now let us both look at the question. Is there a God and can we prove it. |
No it did not but now we are on-topic.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| God by name is called creator. So lets look at the creation and scientifically examine it. |
very well...
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| How are you with the big bang theory? Whether we look at the complete universe or into the realm of atom structure or anywhere in the scientific realm we will find one commonality. It is of the same design. |
| Stubru Freak wrote: |
| Could you explain where that same design is? I don't really see it. |
Agreed, here it goes wrong. How do you know it is by design? What design?
Your argument has a shaky foundation.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| You really have to be scientifically minded to appreciate that. Even in scientific circles however you will find people arguing and disputing theories and truths. This is normal and sometimes healthy but lets remember also there is always something that people can agree on. |
Well... yes... of course this is a bit of a generalization. In the scientific "areana" if one is presenting a new theory. This theory is then attacked by dozens of scientists. Most scientific time is dedicated to disproving theorys rather then proving them.
However it is rather silly to dispute gravity or evolution in the arena while not presenting any evidence. And most disputes are about changing theorys like adding mutation to darwins theory. Not that half the scientists are for and the other half is against. It's more like a small group (1 team of 10) against a large one (the rest). Who wants to add something. Of course there are new theorys like cold-fusion. Wich was wrong in the end.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| To prove the existence of God one could say simply - "The universe and everything that exists has the same design qualities." |
This is of course wrong. Lets look at the sun. It has no real design it's a mere big bal of stuff that has a fision/fusion (can't remember wich one at the moment). That goes for everything else, one could say that everything that exists is designed however this is mere speculation, according to the big bang theory, theorys about how solar-systems come to be etc., it is wrong. What is build by us is designed in some way. The rest is not, this is just ID.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| It also has an origin therefore at some point in time was created. Even the element of time itself would have a starting point. Since ever creation including ideas, theories, even pure thought has an owner and we can also conclude a beginning. A creator exists. |
Yes everything has an origin from the big bang. We know what happened 10^34 second after the big bang before that we don't know. We don't know if time existed before that. Maybe there's a big bang a big cruch after that and then again a big bang. And has always been like that. This is more plausible than some being somewhere that is good, and omnipotent. Created us 6000 years ago. Also if there is a beginning that does not mean there is a creator. It can be caused by something, like an explosion.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
Now, the question is who, what, where, why and how? It is unending. That is what makes it so interesting, fun and is why I love science so much. I love sciences creator.
I love God!
|
I don't love god
and if I said something wrong please correct me!
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Sat May 31, 2008 9:37 pm; edited 2 times in total | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| If the back side of the moon said: Made by ALLAH inc. then we could safely conclude that Allah is the real god. |
You're the ignorant one, fool. "Allah" is Arabic for "God", its referring to the same entity that Christians and Jews worship. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | If the back side of the moon said: Made by ALLAH inc. then we could safely conclude that Allah is the real god. |
You're the ignorant one, fool. "Allah" is Arabic for "God", its referring to the same entity that Christians and Jews worship. |
Sorry, but not knowing every language in the world doesn't make him a fool, and doesn't make his argument less valid. Attacking him on one word isn't intellectually fair at all.It's not about language; it's about facts. Maybe he should get his ass off websites like islamsucks.com (made up) and actually research some solid information. It's a bit like me saying, "atheists are all wrong, if I came from a monkey I would have a tail!"
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
It's not about language; it's about facts. Maybe he should get his ass off websites like islamsucks.com (made up) and actually research some solid information. It's a bit like me saying, "atheists are all wrong, if I came from a monkey I would have a tail!"
|
It doesn't matter. In a religious debate, you don't have to know the Arabic meaning of Allah. The English Allah refers to the Islamic god, and that's what he meant. Now reread his post and respond to his arguments, instead of one single, maybe misused, word. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | If the back side of the moon said: Made by ALLAH inc. then we could safely conclude that Allah is the real god. |
You're the ignorant one, fool. "Allah" is Arabic for "God", its referring to the same entity that Christians and Jews worship. |
You're the ignorant one, fool. It is not about the meaning of the word. You know very wel what I mean. If I said made by "God" the same I would have to look up some name of a god that has no is not for 2 different gods. And if I said thor maybe someone doesn't know him, if someone says Allah, in the western world it is a specific for the islamic god 99.9% of the time. If i were to say:
the islamic god that's abit long while:
allah is short.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
It's not about language; it's about facts. Maybe he should get his ass off websites like islamsucks.com (made up) and actually research some solid information. It's a bit like me saying, "atheists are all wrong, if I came from a monkey I would have a tail!"
|
I never have is specific dislike for islam or anything. I do research but I tend to make discussions as less complicated as possible. Besides that shows that you are a fool. I could now start bitching by saying: Not all Atheists believe in evolution theory don't only visit atheismsucks.com and actually research some so...
I understand what you are saying really. I think you are merely distracting people from the original topic, really.
I detect 2 often used creationist "points" in this debate:
Ad hominum Argument; is attacking the opponent and not responding to his/her evidence.
Red herring; a point that is to distract the opponent, it has nothing to do with the argument.
(I also pasted a list of more in Indi's philosphy post, if (s)he is ever going to say something about discussions)
Nuff said. Say something on-topic. Send me in a message what other things I have said "wrong".
And say something about the arguments I gave.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 9:55 pm; edited 1 time in total | Bluedoll wrote: |
| Let’s do it in reverse. The right religion is the one you choose for you. |
That depends on what you mean by "right". If you mean factually correct, then what you say makes no sense. If you mean best suited for the purposes of improving your self-confidence and/or sense of inner peace, then maybe.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
The word religion is ok but I feel a word more properly in line for this discussion is the word religiously. Religion is defined often as a belief in God. I do see how the two connect. Religions are often assumed to mean organizations or collections of people with a title that believe in something.
However for one moment, please, consider the word religiously. The word implies to have a belief, yes true but do something religiously is more appropriate here in order to understand this point. The point is even to think about a topic is an active journey that we are committed to. In plain words we do something religiously because we are drawn to it like we would be to a scientific question.
So regardless of a persons belief, anyone that has any kind of belief is practicing some kind of religious pursuit. Science is a journey religiously desired. |
No.
The word "religiously" is (almost) always applied metaphorically, not literally. When you say a person pursues some goal religiously, or attends to some task religiously, you (almost) never mean that their dedication to the goal or task has anything whatsoever to do with religion. A person who religiously checks the sports scores every morning before leaving the house is not involved in some sports score checking religion. What you are doing when you say someone does something religiously is saying that they perform the task routinely despite the inconvenience it causes them (the metaphorical comparison is to religious rituals that must be observed regardless of the great inconvenience they cause to observe them).
So just because someone pursues science religiously does not make science their religion. Science is not a religion because it does not fit any of the reasonable definitions of religion. (Incidentally, sometimes "religion" is also applied metaphorically, but not very often, and it is always clear from the context whether the "religion" being talked about is actually a religion, or just a metaphor.)
So no, the word "religiously" has no business in this discussion.
(Technically the word "religion" does not belong either, but only in part 1. In part 2 it becomes important. The question of whether a god(s) exists or not has nothing to do with religion. It is a simple yes/no question that can be determined factually by evidence or reason. Yes, a lot of religions claim to have that answer already, but they are all wrong - because if they actually did have any evidence or logic, we wouldn't need to have this discussion asking for some.)
| Bluedoll wrote: |
Ok, I hope that makes sense. Now let us both look at the question. Is there a God and can we prove it.
God by name is called creator. So lets look at the creation and scientifically examine it.
How are you with the big bang theory? Whether we look at the complete universe or into the realm of atom structure or anywhere in the scientific realm we will find one commonality. It is of the same design. You really have to be scientifically minded to appreciate that. Even in scientific circles however you will find people arguing and disputing theories and truths. This is normal and sometimes healthy but lets remember also there is always something that people can agree on.
To prove the existence of God one could say simply - "The universe and everything that exists has the same design qualities." |
i can't make heads nor tails of this. i am very scientifically minded - maybe even to a fault - and i understand the structure of the atom better than most (and i'm not exactly clueless about the structure of the universe as a whole), and i haven't a clue what commonality you are talking about.
Furthermore, if a god exists, and if the universe as a whole is designed, then any appeal to "design qualities" is a circular argument. You can't say "this looks designed" unless you know what makes something that designed look different from something that is not designed. If we assume the universe was not designed, then we can pick anything natural and compare it to something designed by man... no problems there. But if we assume the universe is designed, then even "natural" things are designed, too, so if you try to compare something natural to something designed by man, you're just comparing two designed things, not one designed and one non-designed thing.
Furthermore, you've jumped the gun. Even if you could somehow prove the universe is designed, that does not follow that a god designed it. What if i invented a time machine, went back "before" the Big Bang, and set up everything - in other words, what if i designed the universe. It's not theoretically impossible, and we know i exist, so we're already one step ahead of a god. Some people would argue, "well then that makes you a god," but that's patent nonsense - the old Texas sharpshooter fallacy. If you prove the universe is designed, you have proved that a designer exists. You haven't yet proved a god does.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| It also has an origin therefore at some point in time was created. Even the element of time itself would have a starting point. Since ever creation including ideas, theories, even pure thought has an owner and we can also conclude a beginning. A creator exists. |
This is a circular argument. "The universe was created by something. Therefore, something created it." There are a large number of problems with it, starting with the fact that just because something has an origin, that does not mean that it was created (and finishing off with the fact that even if a creator existed, that does not imply the creator exists).
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| (I also pasted a list of more in Indi's philosphy post, if (s)he is ever going to say something about discussions) |
(Oh yes, i liked your suggestion. What has been holding me up is that i can't figure out how to change the poll.)
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| I meant if we where able to conclude by evidence that one god is the reel one. If the back side of the moon said: Made by ALLAH inc. then we could safely conclude that Allah is the real god. |
Indeed, most atheists really aren't asking for all that much. A god that created the universe should have little to no trouble giving us a pretty convincing sign that it exists - and no, a bizarre mystical text written over a thousand years ago is hardly a convincing sign. The arguments believers give for why this god won't or can't give us this sign are all depressingly weak.lol why try to believe the existence of a god, religion = believing in things that can 't be explained... if u can explain it then it would not exist any more.
for example = u can't proof that there arent any lepricorns, because if u can proof it it would mean that u would search everywhere at the same time and find one, but then why believe in them, then they just become a fact... science...
I don't like the idea that ppl try to determine what god is, read the bible / koran / tora... God is love, god is good that should be enough :p
| Poetsunited wrote: |
| if u can explain it then it would not exist any more. |
Err...what? I have a can of Coke in front of me. I explain this is a mixture of aluminum and other materials filled with a liquid beverage called Coca Cola.
I'm pretty sure my coke still exists =]My coke just disappeared!
I see what you mean but I don't see why we want to believe that something is true rather than knowing it.
I doubt anybody can prove there is a god
nor I doubt anybody can prove his or a relegion is true
but I have to say, that I think christianity (wich I'm part of by birth not choice) is a cult .....
like people donate money, and the leaders get richer ....
So I believe that christianity is a cult, but not only christianity, like islam ....
well tbh I don't believe in a god, nor do I believe in heaven or hell
I woul say if I have to choose to believe in something it will be reincarnation, but I don't know :s
| Poetsunited wrote: |
lol why try to believe the existence of a god, religion = believing in things that can 't be explained... if u can explain it then it would not exist any more.
for example = u can't proof that there arent any lepricorns, because if u can proof it it would mean that u would search everywhere at the same time and find one, but then why believe in them, then they just become a fact... science...
I don't like the idea that ppl try to determine what god is, read the bible / koran / tora... God is love, god is good that should be enough :p |
hmm well I take that you believe in a god.
And your point is true that when you don't find a lepricorn or you have no proof of it. It is still possible that it exists.
However if you go by that logic you will have to believe in everything, from the invisible pink unicorn and the fsm.
I someone try's to make me believe something like that I usually need proof.
For some people (according to the bible) there was proof that he existed because they could do awesome things.
However why don't we have any proof anymore? I don't need to find out that I can walk on water, "push" water aside so that I can walk on the ocean floor or anything. Something small, I mean how hard is that for an all knowing, omnipotent god?
as for the other point hbp made that clear for me:
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Poetsunited wrote: | | if u can explain it then it would not exist any more. |
Err...what? I have a can of Coke in front of me. I explain this is a mixture of aluminum and other materials filled with a liquid beverage called Coca Cola.
I'm pretty sure my coke still exists =] |
We can walk on water-like fluids! =D Maybe all Jesus did was adding corn starch to the lake!
| catscratches wrote: |
| We can walk on water-like fluids! =D Maybe all Jesus did was adding corn starch to the lake! |
In that case he had to run, because you have to run acros it if you walk you will still sink :p. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| catscratches wrote: | | We can walk on water-like fluids! =D Maybe all Jesus did was adding corn starch to the lake! |
In that case he had to run, because you have to run acros it if you walk you will still sink :p. |
He would have to get a lot of corn starch too. =P | catscratches wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | catscratches wrote: | | We can walk on water-like fluids! =D Maybe all Jesus did was adding corn starch to the lake! |
In that case he had to run, because you have to run acros it if you walk you will still sink :p. |
He would have to get a lot of corn starch too. =P |
What lake was it again? Maybe we can calculate it.After some research: Sea of Galilee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Galilee
Water volume: 4 km³
EDIT: You need around as much corn starch as water, so around 4 km³ corn starch =)
It would explain why Petrus sunk! He stayed still! | catscratches wrote: |
After some research: Sea of Galilee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Galilee
Water volume: 4 km³
EDIT: You need around as much corn starch as water, so around 4 km³ corn starch =)
It would explain why Petrus sunk! He stayed still! |
Well I found something different.
| mythbusters wrote: |
| By mixing 200 gallons of water with 1000 pounds of corn starch... |
1 gallon of water with 5 pounds of corn starch
3.785411784 litres = 3.785411784 dM³ = 3.785411784 *10^-3 M³ = 3.785411784 *10^-12 kM³
4kM³/3.785411784 *10^-12 kM³ = 1.05 * 10^12
aprox 1.05 * 10^12*5
So you need 5.28 * 10^12 Pounds of starch
wich is about 2.4 10^12 kilograms of starch. Thats 2.4 PETAgram. Really couldn't he just NOT do this fancy trick and feed the poor?
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 11:00 pm; edited 1 time in totalThat was the reason he had just two breads and a fish to feed the 5000 men who visited him on the mountain a bit earlier! =O
This is all making sense now!
Wel catscratch we should publish our findings, really it makes the bible better to understand,
But now seriuosly, no one has anything to add? Well really? I made my point then.
Of course if someone else has to post anything then i would be happy to reply.
lmao... i didn't know ur coke was a dogma, something u had to believe in in order to keep it alive... as soon as u can prove a dogma, its no longer a dogma, its science...
ur coke on the other hand, is already science :p so no it won't dissapear next time if u respond read better...
God can only exists in your mind if you believe. However, God is not so popular in China.
For several centuries before the 18th century, the existence of God posed no problem until the modern atheist with his NIetzsche and Feuerbach came around. As far as I know, it is the atheist who should show that God does not exist. Those pioneers of atheism did nothing but to kill God. Now they are deat but God still lives! The one who says there is no God should back it up, not just announce to everyone that he has killed God as Nietzsche did.
| mgeek wrote: |
| For several centuries before the 18th century, the existence of God posed no problem until the modern atheist with his NIetzsche and Feuerbach came around. As far as I know, it is the atheist who should show that God does not exist. Those pioneers of atheism did nothing but to kill God. Now they are deat but God still lives! The one who says there is no God should back it up, not just announce to everyone that he has killed God as Nietzsche did. |
That's where you're wrong. It's not because people were trained by the church to believe something for several centuries, that it's true. People believed so many things that science has already disproved, like that the earth is flat, that it's the centre of the universe, and that god has created the universe.
All that's left of your "god" is some really vague notion that's just not specific enough to disprove. You're saying that things exists that can't be seen, heard, felt, or by any means detected, except by "believing." Of course such a thing can't be disproved: not detecting it doesn't disprove it, as it's one of its properties. But as it's undetectable, you can't know it exists, so claiming it does, only because people told you so, is quite naive.
If you really think historical indoctrination makes something true, you could just as well worship Hitler or Stalin. | mgeek wrote: |
| For several centuries before the 18th century, the existence of God posed no problem until the modern atheist with his NIetzsche and Feuerbach came around. As far as I know, it is the atheist who should show that God does not exist. Those pioneers of atheism did nothing but to kill God. Now they are deat but God still lives! The one who says there is no God should back it up, not just announce to everyone that he has killed God as Nietzsche did. |
It is almost impossible to disprove the (un)existence of anything. If you don´t see it it still can be there, a theapot orbiting the sun won´t be seen by any of our fancy telescopes. However there is no evidence that that thea pot exists so I won´t claim there is one orbiting the sun until it is proven.
Religious people who believe in god and claim that he exists should bring evidence. Turning it around is unlogically and logically unfair. I could claim lord of the rings really happened and leave the disproving to other people. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
Religious people who believe in god and claim that he exists should bring evidence. Turning it around is unlogically and logically unfair. I could claim lord of the rings really happened and leave the disproving to other people. |
Oh cmon, you can't prove it can you? I rest my case. | mgeek wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
Religious people who believe in god and claim that he exists should bring evidence. Turning it around is unlogically and logically unfair. I could claim lord of the rings really happened and leave the disproving to other people. |
Oh cmon, you can't prove it can you? I rest my case. |
A very bad case.
YOU have to prove the existence of god because YOU claim it.
Claiming that people who don´t believe in god have to prove he exists is...
Turning it around is unlogically and logically unfair | mgeek wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
Religious people who believe in god and claim that he exists should bring evidence. Turning it around is unlogically and logically unfair. I could claim lord of the rings really happened and leave the disproving to other people. |
Oh cmon, you can't prove it can you? I rest my case. |
As I said before, you're saying that things exists that can't be seen, heard, felt, or by any means detected, except by "believing." Of course such a thing can't be disproved: not detecting it doesn't disprove it, as it's one of its properties.
It's like if I asked you to prove there are no invisible leprechauns. It's completely impossible, as even if you had camera's filming every part of the world and you didn't see them, that's logical as they are invisible. The same goes for god.
So if you do have any reason to believe it exists, it is up to you to say what that reason is. For example, if your reason is that you can see him with a telescope, you can tell us that and we can prove it's something else you're seeing.
But all reasons to believe in god have already been disproved.
You only believe in god because you are indoctrinated. | mgeek wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
Religious people who believe in god and claim that he exists should bring evidence. Turning it around is unlogically and logically unfair. I could claim lord of the rings really happened and leave the disproving to other people. |
Oh cmon, you can't prove it can you? I rest my case. |
Are you trying to be overly stubborn and silly?One thing striking me from the first page of this topic. | Bikerman wrote: |
Even if hydrogen is being consumed at an enourmous rate there is a LOT of it, but in fact it is not being 'consumed' it is being fused into helium atoms with photons given off (ie no energy/matter is being destroyed).
.....
In short he's a dishonest idiot. |
The word "consume" would be wrong? That seems a rather long shot at finding something to accuse him of just for the sake of accusing. Even though you found plenty other things
The hydrogen is consumed in the nuclear reaction because the H atoms no longer exist after having fused. It's the subatomary particles that are conserved. I don't mind the occasional strike at false statements (as you probably know by now) but this is ridiculous. | Arnie wrote: |
One thing striking me from the first page of this topic. | Bikerman wrote: | Even if hydrogen is being consumed at an enourmous rate there is a LOT of it, but in fact it is not being 'consumed' it is being fused into helium atoms with photons given off (ie no energy/matter is being destroyed).
.....
In short he's a dishonest idiot. |
The word "consume" would be wrong? That seems a rather long shot at finding something to accuse him of just for the sake of accusing. Even though you found plenty other things
The hydrogen is consumed in the nuclear reaction because the H atoms no longer exist after having fused. It's the subatomary particles that are conserved. I don't mind the occasional strike at false statements (as you probably know by now) but this is ridiculous. |
I don't think it is ridiculous. The clear implication in the article was that hydrogen is simply 'vanishing'. If you read on you will see that this is used as 'evidence' that the Sun must therefore be shrinking because of the mass lost.
OK, you can say that hydrogen is being destroyed and reformed into helium plus photons, I agree, and I should have made the point in more detail. | mgeek wrote: |
| For several centuries before the 18th century, the existence of God posed no problem until the modern atheist with his NIetzsche and Feuerbach came around. As far as I know, it is the atheist who should show that God does not exist. Those pioneers of atheism did nothing but to kill God. Now they are deat but God still lives! The one who says there is no God should back it up, not just announce to everyone that he has killed God as Nietzsche did. |
Are you serious? People who don't believe in God often back up that claim with serious evidence. It's just that Creationists come up with a new, ridiculous theory every other week and by the time scientists get around to debunking it, a new radical theory has come out. There are hundreds of papers, books, videos, etc. out there with loads of evidence against the existence of God. How are you going to claim that no one has backed up this claim? Besides, why should we have to back it up just for you? Klaw 2 made a nice point. Would it be reasonable for me to claim that a teapot orbits the sun and then expect you to spend your time debunking that? Why should I spend my precious time trying to debunk the existence of something that I don't even believe in and that has absolutely no effect in my life? That sounds pointless to me.
Also, by making that point, you are sounding like a hypocrite. I claim that God doesn't exist so I should have to come up with evidence for that? Do you believe that any of the following don't exist?
- Zeus
- Apollo
- Invisible Pink Unicorn
- Centaurs
- Dragons
- Tea pots orbiting the sun
- The Monster in the closet
Well what if I told you that I believe in every one of those? If you told me that you didn't believe in them, then by your logic, you'd have to spend your time debunking every single one of those. Have fun. | mgeek wrote: |
| For several centuries before the 18th century, the existence of God posed no problem until the modern atheist with his NIetzsche and Feuerbach came around. As far as I know, it is the atheist who should show that God does not exist. Those pioneers of atheism did nothing but to kill God. Now they are deat but God still lives! The one who says there is no God should back it up, not just announce to everyone that he has killed God as Nietzsche did. |
Everyone is born an atheist, no one is born religious. God is dead until he is introduced into a person's life. Therefore, it is the job of those who introduce God to back up their claims. Otherwise, don't introduce it.The funny bit of this discussion as always is the proof. Proofing God exists or that God does not exist. How would one do that? Is there a recipe of proving anything? I mean, we assume gravity exist and the proof? Well, throw an apple in the air and it will fall down. Sorry, but what did that really proof? What is basically proofs is that we need proof so hard that we would believe anything as long as it sounds remotely possible and the latter is really very personal I'd say. What this really should be about is to respect what people believe to think is true or not true. You can't judge over religion - whether it is a traditional God based religion or whether it is the modern religion: science.
| patmay wrote: |
| The funny bit of this discussion as always is the proof. Proofing God exists or that God does not exist. How would one do that? Is there a recipe of proving anything? I mean, we assume gravity exist and the proof? Well, throw an apple in the air and it will fall down. Sorry, but what did that really proof? What is basically proofs is that we need proof so hard that we would believe anything as long as it sounds remotely possible and the latter is really very personal I'd say. What this really should be about is to respect what people believe to think is true or not true. You can't judge over religion - whether it is a traditional God based religion or whether it is the modern religion: science. |
Boring argument =) | patmay wrote: |
| The funny bit of this discussion as always is the proof. Proofing God exists or that God does not exist. How would one do that? Is there a recipe of proving anything? I mean, we assume gravity exist and the proof? Well, throw an apple in the air and it will fall down. Sorry, but what did that really proof? What is basically proofs is that we need proof so hard that we would believe anything as long as it sounds remotely possible and the latter is really very personal I'd say. What this really should be about is to respect what people believe to think is true or not true. You can't judge over religion - whether it is a traditional God based religion or whether it is the modern religion: science. |
Nice speech but the point of this topic was to show why some people don't believe in god.
And science is not religion by default it is not.I posted about this in the Sticky. I could just paste the whole thing but idk if I should, it's pretty long. =p
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-815479.html#815479 I will post it here, cause i think it is more ontopic than in the other topic;
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| I don't understand the arguement that people give when they say "There's no scientific proof of the existence of God." |
Cause there isn't not for creationism not for ghosts etc. etc.
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| DO you even know what the Scientific Method is? |
Yes
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-76771.html
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
1.State a Problem
2.Develop a hypothesis
3.Test the hypothesis
4.Analyze the test data
5.Form a conclusion based on the analysis |
I will stay with this one;
| Bikerman wrote: |
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. |
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| ...This form of proof/disproof doesn't fit nearly all circumstances, therefore you can't use science to prove or disprove everything, and the results from scientific study are not always conclusive. |
Yes but if you don't have evidence of something you shouldn't blindly conclude that something exists.
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
For example: When I was born, scientific studies suggested that laying an infant baby on it's stomach when they sleep was prefereable so the baby can't choke on itself if it spits up in the night... now, studies suggest that laying a baby on it's back is better so that it doesn't choke and smother itself on it's sheets... Science can't make up it's mind. Just add more data and the results might change again.
Eating raw eggs used to be deemed healthy as a good source of protein, then deemed unheathy because of salmanella, then deemed healthy again because salmanella from eggs is so rare and uncommon. Science can't make up it's mind. Just add more data and the results might change again. |
Yes adding more data a couple of decades ago there used to be no salmonella it apearred later that's why it changed. As for babys I don't have a clue.
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| Also, we all know about the Theory of Gravity, and how it can be proved that objects with mass are attracted to other objects with mass, and the more mass an object has, the greater the pull it has on other objects around it. Now, can science tell us why? Why does gravity exist? Science can't explain that. |
We don't know what makes gravity work but they are working on that problem too.
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-97621.html
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
Also, the Third Law of Thermodynamics describes that in all the universe there is entropy (or chaos), and that entropy of any object or system increases over time. By this scientific theory, the universe and everything in it should destroy itself given enough time. On the other hand, the development and existence of life itself in any form, much less in intelligent form, contradicts this law. If there was no direction in the universe to create things as they are, how can life exist at all? How can stable matter exist at all instead of a universe of random particles? Again, science can't decide what is true or why.
|
... :/
don't know what you have been reading;
| wikipedia wrote: |
Third law of thermodynamics
As a system approaches absolute zero, all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value |
I don't see life/chaos or anything like that in it.
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| ...My point is that science can't be the one and only method used to determine if there is a God, however I've heard it said that Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time" nearly confirms the existence of God, however unintentionally on Hawking's part, up until the final chapter of the book, where he hastely develops reasons why there couldn't be, as though he doesn't agree with his own research. |
The scientist: We don't how it works well be looking into it.
The religious guy: We don't how it works so god must have done it, see i got proof.
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| As a popular author named Josh McDowell once wrote, you can't merely use some standard of scientific proof, you have to use legal evidence... evidence as one would use in a court proceding to prove or disprove a case. With this in mind, given all the eye-witness testimony thoughout the ages and the numerous written documents that complement each other on both the existence of God and the existence of Jesus Christ, there is more legally binding evidence to support that God exists and that Jesus Christ is God's Son (meaning a human incarnation of God Himself) than there is legal evidence to support that Socrates ever lived. |
Too bad it hasn't to be legal evidence, you pretend to understand the scientific method but you don't some far off eye-witness is not e realiable source.
Other scientists have to reproduce the experiment or able to see the same evidence. There is no expreiment or something like that, so it's a dead end.
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| Now, back to the Intelligent Design theory that I was alluding to earlier... There has been evidence shown by scientists on the Discovery channel to support that if our planet Earth was not exactly as far away from the sun as it is, or didn't have exactly the orbit it does, or have exactly the size moon that it does (which by the way is huge for a planet our size, the moon is itself a quarter the size of Earth, where Jupiters moons are all tiny)... if all the things about the location, size, rotation, axis, and relative size to our moon didn't exist as they do, life on Earth would either be entirely different, and yet may not exist at all. |
Yes and Discovery Channal is part of some scientific preer-review magazine, o whait! It's not.
The universe is pretty big there are a lot of places and moments where "earth" could have been created, (although the chance that a planet like this one with all these surcomstances (getting here through all the process of stellar formation etc.) is not very big there is a chance and when there is one there is a possibility) and well a pretty big number times a pretty small one makes about 1.
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| So, given that life itself contradicts known science |
no it doesn't
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| , and that our planet is incredibly lucky to support life at all, given the remote circumstance that it could exist just how it does, under Occam's Razor, "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best one." The simplest solution here is that the universe was created by a being with an intelligent design in mind. |
You don't understand occam's Razor, it's not the point that the easiest thing that comes to mind be the explanation but you also have to take in all the evidence and assuming god exists is a pretty BIG assumption.
| wikipedia wrote: |
| The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. |
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| Further, if a human being were to put alot of time and effort into creating something, or caring for it or making some sort of significant investment into something, then you can bet that person would be interested in how things turn out for that something they're invested in. By the same logic, if God were to create this universe, this planet and even us, you would bet that he ought to be interested in what happens, rather than just creating it all and never having any interest in whatever happens. |
Well yes he would to bad he lets all those people duying, really caring huh? And well we are assuming that he exists now. Occam anyone?
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| So, God does exist because the universe has order and the planet has order and life itself is epitomy of order. |
You see order? And that is NOT proof.
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| Futher, I submit that I believe God is perfect and holy in every way. Given that he is perfect and holy in every way and that we are, both individually and collectively, far from perfect... wouldn't that sort of disqualify us from being able to be near Him? If He is absoluetly pure and perfect, wouldn't our impure presence near to a being such as Him, by association lessen His apparent glory? |
Assuming he does exist and is perfect and all powerfull why does he let die horrific deaths? Why is there so much "evil" as you describe it?
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| From that I would have to pose that when someone, such as ourselves, falls away from following Him and His perfect nature by sinning in some fashion... with God being so indescribably and unfathomably pure, perfect, holy and glorious, that whomever sins again him ought to be destroyed. It just would make sense. If you were incomprehensibly pure and perfect, would you want corruption surrounding you either? Probably not. So, someone who is corrupted by sin, no matter how small, ought to die. |
I stole an apple so i should die and burn in hell forver, nice god really he is perfect...
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| Over 2,000 years ago, people used to sacrifice, or kill and burn on an altar, animals in place of themselves to pay for their sin. Then, a man was born... a perfect man. A man without sin. He never sinned. Not once. He, himself, was pure and perfect yet humble and modest. Yet, He was in effect sacrificed by being tortured and killed on a cross to pay for the sin of all mankind. That man is Jesus Christ. Not only did He die for our sin, but the Holy Spirit of God raised Him back to life and He left this world to be with God before He would ever die again. I know, I know... you're saying "how can you prove any of this Jesus stuff?" Well, using legal evidence of written documents and scrolls kept through the ages, we can show that there was more than a significant amount of eye-witness testimony to support that He did exist. Not only did He live on Earth, but He claimed to be God Himself on more than one occasion. |
Yes befoore the year 0 all humans were savages and the jesus came and nothing changed. People still behaved like savages. As for proof jesus existed well you have the bible and further well no other record you have some records but they could also talk about someone who wasn't jesus. You "LEGAL" evidence is not really proof, and presenting it as it is just useless.
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
If He was not God, as He clamied to be, then He either was lying or was insane. Wouldn't dying as a sacrifice for our sin then not make any difference? How can he even be a good man or a respectable prophet if He says that He's God if He isn't? He is God. When people refer to Jesus Christ as God's Son, they mean that He is a man who was born born to a human, concieved by the Holy Spirit of God Himself, and is both man and God in one form. The Trinity of God is just the ways in which God has been known to make Himself apparent to us, in the persons of God the Father, creator of the universe itself, God the Son, Jesus Christ who walked on Earth and is alive today, and the Holy Spirit of God who lives within the very lives and hearts of those who follow Him. These are seperate manifestations of God, yet all the same one being, just as ice, water and steam are all the same one chemical compound.
So, God does exist. He is pure, holy and perfect and we are not. Jesus Christ, the one perfect, sinless man died on a cross as a sacrifice for our sin against God, and He rose to life again, leaving this world before he would die again, which means He is still alive today in Heaven with God. All we really need to do to allow His sacrifice to apply to our individual lives is to acknowledge that it happened, ask Him to forgive us for our wrongdoing, and ask Him to send His Spirit, the same Holy Spirit of God that raised Christ from the dead, to come and live in our hearts. This doesn't mean we won't screw up again and again, but it does mean that when we repent of our screw ups (which means to turn away from them and endeavor to stop repeating them), and pray and ask for forgiveness, then we will truly be forgiven, and when we die and are then judged by God for our wrongdoing, He doesn't see our wrongs, but instead He sees the sacrifice that has already been paid in the person of Jesus Christ. |
And of course the bible is the only source wich gives any proof for the existence of god or jesus. And well all religions claim they are right so wich one is it. The fact that something is written in the bible isn't proof for anything people also could have made it up.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:19 pm; edited 2 times in total | chyron_8472 wrote: |
I don't understand the arguement that people give when they say "There's no scientific proof of the existence of God."
DO you even know what the Scientific Method is?
1.State a Problem
2.Develop a hypothesis
3.Test the hypothesis
4.Analyze the test data
5.Form a conclusion based on the analysis
...This form of proof/disproof doesn't fit nearly all circumstances, therefore you can't use science to prove or disprove everything, and the results from scientific study are not always conclusive.
For example: When I was born, scientific studies suggested that laying an infant baby on it's stomach when they sleep was prefereable so the baby can't choke on itself if it spits up in the night... now, studies suggest that laying a baby on it's back is better so that it doesn't choke and smother itself on it's sheets... Science can't make up it's mind. Just add more data and the results might change again.
Eating raw eggs used to be deemed healthy as a good source of protein, then deemed unheathy because of salmanella, then deemed healthy again because salmanella from eggs is so rare and uncommon. Science can't make up it's mind. Just add more data and the results might change again. |
And that's where science differs from religion. When something is proven wrong, it dares to admit that, and change its theories. That way, when theories aren't proven wrong for a long time, we can safely assume them to be true. Of course some of the very complex science, like the two cases of biology you just gave, is still not at that stage.
What religion does is just not admitting that it's wrong, trying to hide it from the public (think Galilei), until they're so obviously wrong they have to admit it. Now they're still trying to do the same with evolution, and the problem is that this is a hard one for science to show to the people, as it can't be witnessed with the naked eye. (Either things evolve too slowly, like we do, or they're too small to see, like viruses.)
| Quote: |
| Also, we all know about the Theory of Gravity, and how it can be proved that objects with mass are attracted to other objects with mass, and the more mass an object has, the greater the pull it has on other objects around it. Now, can science tell us why? Why does gravity exist? Science can't explain that. |
Science can explain that, look at Quantum gravity. Of course they haven't proven it yet, so they're not sure, but your theory that gravity is created by god also hasn't been proved yet as far as I know. It's not because you believe your theory more than they believe theirs, that yours is more true.
Also, scientists admit there are things they don't know. The good thing is that that doesn't mean their proven theories are incorrect, exactly because they're proven. Also, they described gravity, and proved a lot of its properties, and that gives us the answers we need in our life, unlike the Bible.
It's not because science can't exactly explain something, that god did it. That's what people thought in Medieval times, and now we have explained almost all of those things.
| Quote: |
| Also, the Third Law of Thermodynamics describes that in all the universe there is entropy (or chaos), and that entropy of any object or system increases over time. By this scientific theory, the universe and everything in it should destroy itself given enough time. On the other hand, the development and existence of life itself in any form, much less in intelligent form, contradicts this law. If there was no direction in the universe to create things as they are, how can life exist at all? How can stable matter exist at all instead of a universe of random particles? Again, science can't decide what is true or why. |
That is the dumbest theory ever, it has been disproved so many times. Also, I suppose you mean the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as the Third Law says something completely different.
The universe will of course destroy itself, but not before trillions of years from now. The development of life doesn't at all contradict this law. When you eat, you break down the big molecules into smaller ones, and even burn some of them, which increases entropy. When you breath, O2 is converted to CO2, which has more entropy.
Plants change CO2 back to O2, but for that they use a lot of sunlight, and by taking it they increase entropy.
Seen that way, life is a direct manifestation of the Second Law.
| Quote: |
| ...My point is that science can't be the one and only method used to determine if there is a God, however I've heard it said that Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time" nearly confirms the existence of God, however unintentionally on Hawking's part, up until the final chapter of the book, where he hastely develops reasons why there couldn't be, as though he doesn't agree with his own research. |
I haven't heard that said, sources please.
| Quote: |
| As a popular author named Josh McDowell once wrote, you can't merely use some standard of scientific proof, you have to use legal evidence... evidence as one would use in a court proceding to prove or disprove a case. With this in mind, given all the eye-witness testimony thoughout the ages and the numerous written documents that complement each other on both the existence of God and the existence of Jesus Christ, there is more legally binding evidence to support that God exists and that Jesus Christ is God's Son (meaning a human incarnation of God Himself) than there is legal evidence to support that Socrates ever lived. |
More than 100 year old texts by people about whom little is known, isn't good legal evidence. Give me some of your supposed evidence and, for each one of them, I can tell you exactly where the problems are.
| Quote: |
| Now, back to the Intelligent Design theory that I was alluding to earlier... There has been evidence shown by scientists on the Discovery channel to support that if our planet Earth was not exactly as far away from the sun as it is, or didn't have exactly the orbit it does, or have exactly the size moon that it does (which by the way is huge for a planet our size, the moon is itself a quarter the size of Earth, where Jupiters moons are all tiny)... if all the things about the location, size, rotation, axis, and relative size to our moon didn't exist as they do, life on Earth would either be entirely different, and yet may not exist at all. |
Yes, so if the earth was a little different, life would be a little different too. That's called coincidence. It's like falling off your bike after hitting a large rock, and saying: if I hit that rock a few centimetres to the right, my tire would have slipped the other way and I would have fallen to the left! This must be god's work! It isn't. It's coincidence.
Also, there are about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy. It's almost sure several of them have planets that support life. And, coincidentally, the sun happens to be one of them.
| Quote: |
| So, given that life itself contradicts known science, and that our planet is incredibly lucky to support life at all, given the remote circumstance that it could exist just how it does, ... |
Life doesn't contradict known science, so the rest of your post is valueless (and just indoctrination anyway). And if you lived on any other planet in the universe, you would still think your planet is oh so lucky to support life. It isn't. Some planets support life, and Earth just happens to be one of those.[MOD - Cross-posting going on. The references in this posting can be read in the 'God' sticky at the top of the forum.]
In my opinion, there is no God.
God is sommething that will help you discipline your self.
If you do not believe me, try it out.
Believe in God.
Follow the broad guidelines created in different religion.
By broad guidelines I mean, do not micro analyze the text, but go for the macro meaning.
See how your life transforms.
I believe in God. It tells me what is right and what is not.
| profbis wrote: |
In my opinion, there is no God.
God is sommething that will help you discipline your self.
If you do not believe me, try it out.
Believe in God.
Follow the broad guidelines created in different religion.
By broad guidelines I mean, do not micro analyze the text, but go for the macro meaning.
See how your life transforms.
I believe in God. It tells me what is right and what is not. |
Yeah! Sure! After all, it worked great for this guy.
Pardon my scepticism, but i don't trust anyone who tells me "don't think too hard about what you're told to do, just do it."Honestly I think that we need to take the topic into consideration. You want us to prove that there is/are god(s) in existence. Think about this fact first: science has never proven anything, therefore making your first task unfinished and furthermore your second task as well. You can only pursuade one that god exists or does not exist through certain evidence(non existence) or pursuasion of faith(existence). Plus it's much harder to prove a fantasy then to judge scientific fact.
| fpwebs wrote: |
| Honestly I think that we need to take the topic into consideration. You want us to prove that there is/are god(s) in existence. Think about this fact first: science has never proven anything, therefore making your first task unfinished and furthermore your second task as well. You can only pursuade one that god exists or does not exist through certain evidence(non existence) or pursuasion of faith(existence). Plus it's much harder to prove a fantasy then to judge scientific fact. |
i don't recall seeing the word "science" or any form of it in the topic title, or the first post. And given that this is a philosophy forum, and that philosophy has proven things... i don't really see a problem.
Besides, i also don't see any indication that the original thread poster is asking for absolute proof. He doesn't even use the word prove or proof in the first post. He just says "determine", and then he asks for evidence (presumably he would consider logical arguments (reason) as evidence, too. Science has never even proven (absolutely) that the universe exists... but i think it's reasonable to assume that it does, given the overwhelming evidence. In other words, you're asking for a ridiculous level of proof - a completely absurd level - while i don't see that anyone else is. i certainly don't require absolute proof of any gods' existence or non-existence. A reasonable enough case for either side would do the trick for me. i can't speak for Klaw 2, but i'd imagine the same is true for him.
So basically, your objections to this discussion are based on two things that aren't even necessarily part of it: science and absolute proof. i mean, you can include them if you want... but it's not necessary, and it wasn't asked for.
The other problem with your objection is here: "You can only pursuade one that god exists or does not exist through certain evidence(non existence) or pursuasion of faith(existence)." This is completely wrong. There is no amount of evidence that can rationally persuade anyone of non-existence (unless there's something about the definition of a god that makes it impossible to exist). The only thing evidence can be evidence of is existence. The lack of evidence for existence is a good case for non-existence, but hardly evidence (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). As for faith, that doesn't even belong in an intelligent conversation. So all we need here to determine if gods exist is a reasonable argument for why they do... or evidence of one. If neither of those can be provided, then the logical assumption is that no gods exist.
There is nothing unreasonable about that. Using modern technologies and methods we can come to reasonable beliefs about the existence of many crazy things. Particles that exist in several places at the same time, events that defy causality... all kinds of crazy things. You'd think that an intelligent being that created the entire universe wouldn't be that much harder to find evidence of than quarks, geez. | fpwebs wrote: |
| Honestly I think that we need to take the topic into consideration. You want us to prove that there is/are god(s) in existence. Think about this fact first: science has never proven anything, therefore making your first task unfinished and furthermore your second task as well. You can only pursuade one that god exists or does not exist through certain evidence(non existence) or pursuasion of faith(existence). Plus it's much harder to prove a fantasy then to judge scientific fact. |
I never stated anything about science, I asked for proof not that the existence is 100% proven, and frankly Indi wrote my thoughts, well put!i am 100% sure that if we proof that god exists - >
No religion are adequate!!!!!
Do you have to proof yourself???
you want proof that "god" exists? or not - which in the end is the same argument.
first.
"god" is an abstract. it means different things to different people.
so first YOU have to define what it means to YOU.
it's like asking: describe "red" to me.
"red" - the color - is different to different people. we all see roughly the same thing but how do I know what YOU exactly see?
there are some things NOBODY can describe to ANYBODY in exact terms.
we can "circumscribe" them but anything that is experienced subjectively is non-describable to other people.
does that help you?
maybe not. look into yourself. if you look long and honest enough i'm sure you will find YOUR answer.
I said god or gods, proof for the existence for any. I asked for proof of A god, using the standart definition of god.
| wikipedia wrote: |
A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings.
|
Not my god because I don't have any. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
I said god or gods, proof for the existence for any. I asked for proof of A god, using the standart definition of god.
| wikipedia wrote: |
A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings.
|
Not my god because I don't have any. |
That is hardly a standard definition of God. Besides, what is defined is "deity" and covers even mythical entities. Why not try a classical definition like one taken from [url=http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-proslogium.html#CHAPTER II]the Proslogion[/url]:
| Quote: |
God cannot be conceived not to exist. --God is that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. --That which can be conceived not to exist is not God. |
| mgeek wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | I said god or gods, proof for the existence for any. I asked for proof of A god, using the standart definition of god.
| wikipedia wrote: |
A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings.
|
Not my god because I don't have any. |
That is hardly a standard definition of God. Besides, what is defined is "deity" and covers even mythical entities. Why not try a classical definition like one taken from [url=http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-proslogium.html#CHAPTER II]the Proslogion[/url]:
| Quote: |
God cannot be conceived not to exist. --God is that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. --That which can be conceived not to exist is not God. |
|
Of course that's a standard definition. And of course mythical entities are just as much of a god as your god. Why do you think your faith is the only valid one?
And those definitions are way too vague to prove or disprove, but that's not important. You should say what influence god has on our life (that is, how we perceive god), and prove that influence. Because if god doesn't have an influence on our life, its existence isn't important. | Stubru Freak wrote: |
| And of course mythical entities are just as much of a god as your god. Why do you think your faith is the only valid one? |
Owww, cmon! Just because you can't understand the definition makes that definition vague. And mythical gods are not the topic in this board, right? | mgeek wrote: |
| Stubru Freak wrote: | | And of course mythical entities are just as much of a god as your god. Why do you think your faith is the only valid one? |
Owww, cmon! Just because you can't understand the definition makes that definition vague. And mythical gods are not the topic in this board, right? |
Yes they are. The topic was titled "Proof God exists," and by definition, all Gods are mythical because their existence cannot be proven. | mgeek wrote: |
| Stubru Freak wrote: | | And of course mythical entities are just as much of a god as your god. Why do you think your faith is the only valid one? |
Owww, cmon! Just because you can't understand the definition makes that definition vague. And mythical gods are not the topic in this board, right? |
As Afaceinthematrix said, mythical gods are also part of the topic. But feel free to just prove your own god.
And that definition is vague. Not because I don't understand it, but for the reason I gave you in my last post: "You should say what influence god has on our life (that is, how we perceive god), and prove that influence." Being "that, than which nothing greater can be conceived" doesn't tell me how one perceives god, so it is a vague definition. | mgeek wrote: |
That is hardly a standard definition of God. Besides, what is defined is "deity" and covers even mythical entities. Why not try a classical definition like one taken from [url=http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-proslogium.html#CHAPTER II]the Proslogion[/url] :
| Quote: |
God cannot be conceived not to exist. --God is that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. --That which can be conceived not to exist is not God. |
|
Eeh that's more ore less the christian definition, the muslims and jewish believers can use it too but that's not accurate there were gods throughout human history that don't fit in with that, I think mine is better. But this topic is not about the definition of god, post some proof or something.there is many gods but only one God.
look around you and you see the proof in many things. the bible is coming to its revelation in these times and the many prophecies that have been forfilled are a proof God exists. that the world can not heal itself and needs God like the bible proclaims is also a proof God exists.
to find God for yourself try this: pray to God in name of Jesus Christ and ask for him to help you find him. Do this for a week, or maybe two. Do it every night and be serious. God will find ways to proof that he exists to you for sure. As long as you are open to his love, he will give it to you.
Read any bible and find that the context is still the same in any translation. Then again, many people will tell you completly different.
| joomla wrote: |
there is many gods but only one God.
look around you and you see the proof in many things. the bible is coming to its revelation in these times and the many prophecies that have been forfilled are a proof God exists. |
Eeh those prophecies don't really work, cause that book is so old and a lot could have been added and some WAS added and edited to make jesus look more sonn of god like.
| joomla wrote: |
| that the world can not heal itself and needs God like the bible proclaims is also a proof God exists. |
Too bad god does not heal the world. And how is that proof, the world can't heal itself cause it's not alive. And the eco system CAN "heal" itself if we don't crap it up to mutch.
| joomla wrote: |
to find God for yourself try this: pray to God in name of Jesus Christ and ask for him to help you find him. Do this for a week, or maybe two. Do it every night and be serious. God will find ways to proof that he exists to you for sure. As long as you are open to his love, he will give it to you.
Read any bible and find that the context is still the same in any translation. Then again, many people will tell you completly different. |
Still no proof, as for praying and stuff not going to do that for me it's going to be a waste of time I 'don't think i can pray sincerely... And reading the bible will take faaaar tooooo loooong | icecool wrote: |
it's like asking: describe "red" to me.
|
Red is light with the wavelength ~625-740 nm and the frequency ~480-405 THz.
He didn't ask for you to describe what god is but to prove that this... higher power or something... exists. We can see that red exists by studying the wavelength of the light but we can not understand how a certain individual sees it. That's two completely different things.
Edit: | Quote: |
| Read any bible and find that the context is still the same in any translation. Then again, many people will tell you completly different. |
It isn't... There are many things that have been changed in the translation. For example: the word "read" could mean both past and present tense in English (depending on how you pronounce it), but in Swedish the corresponding word has different forms for different tenses. Therefore we will translate it into the version we find most probable by looking at the surrounding text (eg. by "I read a book yesterday." we know it's past tense), but the ambigiousity of the original text is lost and the meaning has changed slightly.
In the Bible, there are differencies a lot bigger than that, though. This was just an example on that it is impossible to translate a long text into meaning exactly the same thing.Wow people here are rrreeaaallllyyyyy off topic, or as far as i read.. got bored.The main piece of evidence is the Bible, which talks about the story of Gods time and important things that happend to him and his people.So if you don't believe in god i suppose you believe in the big bang, which does have major mis conseptions.So there would be not point explaining the world is a piece of evidence.And i honestly have no clue what this kid with the moving eye avatar is talking about...some argonist crap. | Code: |
| I beleive you will burn in hell bacause u aren't save Klaw, or if u dotn believe in God you probably aren't.Sorry, had to say that even though u said not too. |
And by the way you ask people for there opinion and time yet you deny them and iscolate them.How gay dude, get a life
| Kyohtee wrote: |
| And by the way you ask people for there opinion and time yet you deny them and iscolate them.How gay dude, get a life |
You are stretching the bounds of grammar and spelling to breaking point. For someone who has criticised others for their failing in this regard, this strikes me as a tad problematic. You are, to be frank, semi-literate (at best). You are also insulting and I will not put up with insults to other members - you have been warned.
Let us pretend, however, that you have something meaningful to say and that it is actually comprehensible (ie, let us imagine that my interpretation of your rambling is correct).
1) Asking someone for an opinion and rebutting or refuting that opinion is how debate normally occurs.
2) There is nothing exclusively homosexual about indulging in debate - heterosexual and bisexual people do it all the time.
3) I think we can assume, a priori, that anyone posting on these forums has a life (unless we grant the possibility that some of the postings are robotic). | Kyohtee wrote: |
| Wow people here are rrreeaaallllyyyyy off topic, or as far as i read.. got bored. |
I don't care if you get bored.
after post 7 orso it get's on topic.
| Kyohtee wrote: |
| The main piece of evidence is the Bible, which talks about the story of Gods time and important things that happend to him and his people. |
Of course the bible isn't proof (in any way) that god exists.
| Kyohtee wrote: |
| So if you don't believe in god i suppose you believe in the big bang, which does have major mis conseptions. |
Wich ones? I have read those "misconseptions" of yours but actually its full of crap.
And i don't believe in the big bang but i accept the theory, I don't have the time and knowledge to examine every bit of evidence so I trust science.
| Kyohtee wrote: |
| So there would be not point explaining the world is a piece of evidence. |
Indeed you don't have to because it's absolutely not ^_^
| Kyohtee wrote: |
| And i honestly have no clue what this kid with the moving eye avatar is talking about...some argonist crap. |
If you mean indi? Thats not argonist crap whatever that is, indi's posts are better than yours.
| Kyohtee wrote: |
| Code: | | I beleive you will burn in hell bacause u aren't save Klaw, or if u dotn believe in God you probably aren't.Sorry, had to say that even though u said not too. |
|
You are not sorry otherwise you would take it off, and wel that's just the classic beleive what I do or my invisible friend in the sky will send you to eternal torment is just so old. And check your own grammer/sentence structure/spelling it kinda sucks, I don't get half of that sentence.
-
-
| Kyohtee wrote: |
| And by the way you ask people for there opinion and time yet you deny them and iscolate them. |
What I do is the point of a discussion.
| Kyohtee wrote: |
| How gay dude, get a life |
Well i don't see why it is gay in any way, nor why it has anything to do with my life, I don't spend my whole life sitting behind a pc I got plenty of stuff to do, if it is that what you mean. And you joined this discussion so shouldn't that extend to you to?This thread is attached to Klaw's signature. I found it interesting reading so thanks for attaching it Klaw. But was wondering, why worry so much about that which we cannot prove? Why not rather focus on that which is within our reach? I.e. theoretical physics, math, real stuff we can work with? Can't the latter be some sort of bridge between that which is real, and that which is still to be discovered, which is an enormous and almost limitless Universe out there? Why waste time with going round and round on the same stuff which obviously cannot be proven, only believed in?
| deanhills wrote: |
| This thread is attached to Klaw's signature. I found it interesting reading so thanks for attaching it Klaw. But was wondering, why worry so much about that which we cannot prove? Why not rather focus on that which is within our reach? I.e. theoretical physics, math, real stuff we can work with? Can't the latter be some sort of bridge between that which is real, and that which is still to be discovered, which is an enormous and almost limitless Universe out there? Why waste time with going round and round on the same stuff which obviously cannot be proven, only believed in? |
The point is to show why I don't believe in god, some other people just don't seem to understand that I don't believe in god because that there is no evidence. That's the point, if no evidence is posted then this topic has made it's point.
^_^ | Klaw 2 wrote: |
The point is to show why I don't believe in god, some other people just don't seem to understand that I don't believe in god because that there is no evidence. That's the point, if no evidence is posted then this topic has made it's point.
^_^ |
I'm in the process of learning Klaw so value your comment and how you reason things out for yourself. Last night I was just wondering about "believe", i.e. when someone says they believe in God? Let's take God away or any other religion as maybe that could be like a red flag type of argument and rather make it someone believes in love. So of course love cannot be proven of course? Right? You cannot see it, you cannot measure or calculate it? At least Richard Dawkins (Indi pointed us in that direction under the heading of evolutionary psychology) has provided me with "memes" to explain some of it, i.e. viruses about love or religion being passed on from one brain to the other. But back to the debate about not believing in God because there is no evidence, it of course also means not believing in love, as there is no evidence. So why worry about it, and rather focus on positive statements about that for which there is evidence? Perhaps the positive energy in pursuing those things for which there is evidence, such as building Hubble telescopes, discovering new planets, teaching new theories in physics, discovering new dimensions, would help much more to get people to understand their belief systems, than to agree with you that there is no God because there is no evidence. They are going to continue to believe in God anyway as they have that virus in their brain and will continue to pass it on. To tell them there is no God, will reinforce that virus, as somewhere someone has made a theory that the brain takes all messages as positive (like a small child). If you tell it the opposite, i.e. there is no God, then that brain which believes in God, will go out and reinforce that virus. So now if you come with enormous scientific discoveries, get totally gung-ho, enthusiastic, have exciting conferences about it, collect funds for more schools for gifted science and math children, the viruses that they will be accumulating in their brains, out of passion for science and math will have a much better chance for sorting out solid belief systems?The point of this topic was to show why I and of course also other people don't believe. I started it because of some other topics that were started at about the same time, in every topic someone said something like:
How can you not believe in god? Look at the trees outside!
I never said that every one musn't believe in god.
Everyone is free to believe or not to believe in god and forcing other people to believe or not believe in god(s) is wrong. I would prefer a world where everyone was atheist, but if people want to believe something they can.
Of course hurting/killing/discriminating other people on basis what your religion/belied is wrong. Also if you want to get creationist ideas into schools is also wrong, unless they are proven. If you think in a certain way not everyone should follow those rules. Nor is it an excuse for complete ignnorance and stupidity, there have been people who were so blindly religious they did stupid things to themselves family, and other people.
Wherer you believe in god or not can have pretty big consequences on your life. And I choose not to, it may get me into hell but since I don't believe in it i have no worries.
Now you say something about love well yes it's hard to prove if it actually exists I had given it some thought before but this is my conclusion, (btw scientifically it will probalbly be some kind of chemical, wich "creates" love.)
Someone claims to love you. This can have big consequences on your life. So if someone loves you their actions will show (prove) this to you, its very simple.
I have never intended to make people not to believe in god anymore. I'm just showing that the arguments like:
How can you not believe in god? Look at the trees outside!
Big bang didn't happen because: etc. etc. etc. etc.
Evolution is wrong etc. etc. etc. etc.
Are total crap.
And I hope that some people will listen and understand why those arguments are crap, some people will indeed firmly grip whatever they believe and turn everything around or just put in some "earplugs and close thair eyes" when reading rebuttals to their arguments and just keep repeating the same thing.
Some others actually learn some things and learn to think for themselves more and look at stuff a bit more skeptical, altough I think most people will never change their beliefs. They might think more about what they say. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
I never said that every one musn't believe in god.
Everyone is free to believe or not to believe in god and forcing other people to believe or not believe in god(s) is wrong. I would prefer a world where everyone was atheist, but if people want to believe something they can. |
That is vey true. Thanks for explaining. If someone makes statements that are contrary to your own, to the extent that they want to discount what you believe in, or nix your belief, then yes, you have a good point to have this thread. You have to take a position.If there's no solid proof that god exists, doesn't that prove he doesn't exist?
| Zombie wrote: |
| If there's no solid proof that god exists, doesn't that prove he doesn't exist? |
No, absolutely not. You cannot disprove the existence of God. Can you disprove the existence of an invisible half-leprechaun, half-unicorn? No, you cannot. Furthermore, Christians believe that you must believe in God based off of faith, therefore, any evidence supporting the existence of their God is unnecessary. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Zombie wrote: | | If there's no solid proof that god exists, doesn't that prove he doesn't exist? |
No, absolutely not. You cannot disprove the existence of God. Can you disprove the existence of an invisible half-leprechaun, half-unicorn? No, you cannot. Furthermore, Christians believe that you must believe in God based off of faith, therefore, any evidence supporting the existence of their God is unnecessary. |
Thanks Afaceinthematrix. Learned something more. | Zombie wrote: |
| If there's no solid proof that god exists, doesn't that prove he doesn't exist? |
Nah, in my opinion it just means that it's safe to assume that he/she/it doesn't exist.
As for the Christian God described in the bible; I do think his modern day absence alongside the biblical stories that contradict observation make it obvious that he is nonexistent.OK....
I have a bit of evidence that there is a God... I'm sure it will be unacceptable to many, but perhaps it will spark some interesting dialogue.
A brief overview:
Something that has been called God can be observed and experienced, and has been by many people all over the world throughout recorded history. The similarity in characters and lives of people who described God as if he/she has witnessed it and the commonality of their methodologies for doing so is further evidence that they were observing something real and constant.
Back-up coming in a sec!
Some evidence to back my last post up:
A "Superior Being," whether anthropomorphized or not, has been described in remarkably similar ways in almost all advanced societies.
Europe, Mid-east, India and Africa had their Yaweh, God, Allah, Brahman, Bhagwan etc...
North and South American all had their versions of the "Great Spirit" or "Creator".
China had "Tao" (Roughly equivalent to Sakti or brahman in India).
Many of these testimonies bear a striking similarity, I don't feel like digging up examples right now, but there's lots of good stuff on the net.
And another interesting similarity is in the people who describe God/tao etc as "perfect, indescribable, immortal, unfathomable, omnipresent, omniscient etc", or I should say, who spoke with that kind of original authority, as "eye-witnesses" of what they called God. They had a lot in common: peaceful, simple, faithful, humble and devoted to an ideal. They acted and thought in a certain common way. Again, look it up. You'll see what I mean.
Modern examples are available: take the words of Thomas a Khempis or Meister Eckhart, both respected Christian mystics and writers from about 500 years ago... compare their teachings with Buddhist and other yogic/Upanisadic teachings... quite similar. Yet they did not exhibit much indication that they'd studied any Asian texts (other than the bible)... they seem to just be really advanced christian mystics. Advanced mystics in any culture, be they yogis, taoists, christian contemplatives/hermits, Islamic Pirs, Darveshs and Fakirs, all exhibit certain distinct qualities... "piousness", "holiness", "selflessness" are some appropriate adjectives.
And their methodologies are also very similar: mantras or repeated chants, meditation, fasts, solitude, good works/charity, living an impeccable moral/religious life etc.
So they all practiced in similar ways and the great ones in all cultures come to very similar conclusions.
Some thoughts, and my hypothesis: Science based on material methods can never "prove God". How can a limitless, formless, omnipresent being; a creator of all, a source of all things; be found within our limited scope of human-sense information, even if embellished with neat particle accelerators and stuff?
But study the various scriptures/texts, practice meditation, keep an impeccable spiritual discipline/lifestyle under the guidance of an accomplished mystic, and maybe you too will start coming to the same conclusions that Eckhart or Khempis or Buddha or Jesus or Lao Tzu or Mahavira or Rumi or Ramakrishna or the Rishis or Nanak or Kabir or so many others reached and proclaimed.
I posit that spirituality is a science that can be practiced. Spiritual experiments are done using the instrument of the soul. The results are subjective, by nature, but verifiable and regular. And the information gathered gives many insights into the nature of life, death, destiny and other mysteries.
When a person observes these higher realities, all the contradictions, false teachings, and philosophical and logical argumentation become unimportant and hollow. Material attractions, anger, fear and hatred will cease to exist in the spiritually evolved person. If indeed "God is Love", the people most connected with God will exhibit love towards all.
My Status: Seen enough to be thoroughly convinced this line of reasoning is on the right track; Not yet seen enough to prove my hypothesis fully correct. Workin' on it, and interested in introducing others to "spiritual science." In my experience, it is a fascinating and rewarding field.
| peaceupnorth wrote: |
| Many of these testimonies bear a striking similarity, I don't feel like digging up examples right now, but there's lots of good stuff on the net. |
LOL, you are just making this up as you go along. There are HUGE and crucial differences, even between Yaweh and Jesus - never mind the differences between Buddha and Yaweh. They are not even close.
| Quote: |
| And another interesting similarity is in the people who describe God/tao etc as "perfect, indescribable, immortal, unfathomable, omnipresent, omniscient etc", or I should say, who spoke with that kind of original authority, as "eye-witnesses" of what they called God. They had a lot in common: peaceful, simple, faithful, humble and devoted to an ideal. They acted and thought in a certain common way. Again, look it up. You'll see what I mean. |
Err...the only thing they have in common is that they were humans searching for a transcendent explanation for life. Thus, of course, their various explanations include concepts of infinity, omniscience and omnipotence (though the latter two are certainly NOT features of all the major religions).
| Quote: |
| Science based on material methods can never "prove God". How can a limitless, formless, omnipresent being; a creator of all, a source of all things; be found within our limited scope of human-sense information, even if embellished with neat particle accelerators and stuff? |
If God intervenes in the material world then of course science can 'spot' him. If he doesn't then why bother?
| Quote: |
| I posit that spirituality is a science that can be practiced. Spiritual experiments are done using the instrument of the soul. The results are subjective, by nature, but verifiable and regular. And the information gathered gives many insights into the nature of life, death, destiny and other mysteries. |
Complete nonsense. Spiritual investigations do not reveal repeatable, verifiable results - by definition. It is therefore not even close to 'science'.
The argument that, because various civilisations have invented a concept of God over history, there must be something 'in it', is flawed. One could equally well make the argument that this means there is some genetic or social predisposition in humans to seek a 'wider explanation' for life (see Dennett and Dawkins for much more on this).* When one actually examines the various faith systems one finds a huge variety - from animist systems such as Sun worship, through non-theist systems such as Buddhism, through Pantheism, Deism and Theism (both poly and mono).
These faith systems have very little in common. They don't agree on a single creator, they don't agree on how the creation occurred, they don't agree on how one should live a 'good life', they don't agree on what the potential rewards and punishments are. In short, they agree on almost nothing. Comparing the Tao to the Christian notion of a creator-god is to completely miss the point.
If you want examples of ridiculous faith systems (apart from the traditional faiths which, in my opinion, are quite ridiculous enough) then look at the 'modern' bunch - everything from neo-paganism through star-trekism, crystal healing and so on. To say that there is a common theme of an all-powerful creator divinity is simply untrue. Even if it were true, then why is that surprising? Any transcendental system of faith must seek to explain how we got here. If you disregard scientific explanations then you are left with some supernatural explanation. Religions therefore have such an explanation. That is not surprising - it is inevitable.
* Daniel Dennett - Darwin's Dangerous Idea
Richard Dawkins - The God DelusionThanks Bikerman for taking the time to make a detailed response. Your response was what I expected it to be actually. I never expected to convince or prove god to you. I'm not that dumb '
'. At least you're treating my humble argument with a little respect... Thanks, I respect that...
To return to my point: the existence of spiritual people who make first hand-like testimony of the existence of God throughout recorded history, and the similarity of their descriptions, is for me at least a very interesting bit of information.
| peaceupnorth wrote: |
| Many of these testimonies bear a striking similarity, I don't feel like digging up examples right now, but there's lots of good stuff on the net. |
| Bikerman wrote: |
| LOL, you are just making this up as you go along. There are HUGE and crucial differences, even between Yaweh and Jesus - never mind the differences between Buddha and Yaweh. They are not even close. |
Oh yeah? Compare these descriptions:
Gnostic Christian (chapter "The Inexpressible One")
Taoism (Part 1, chapter 1)
Sikhism (opening line, and line 4)
All these have very similar concepts...
Re Yaweh-Buddah-Christ differences... mythologies differ a lot... no argument there... I was referring to "first-hand" descriptions of an omnipotent and infinite creative power by saintly types, not mythology.
| Quote: |
| And another interesting similarity is in the people who describe God/tao etc as "perfect, indescribable, immortal, unfathomable, omnipresent, omniscient etc", or I should say, who spoke with that kind of original authority, as "eye-witnesses" of what they called God. They had a lot in common: peaceful, simple, faithful, humble and devoted to an ideal. They acted and thought in a certain common way. Again, look it up. You'll see what I mean. |
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Err...the only thing they have in common is that they were humans searching for a transcendent explanation for life. Thus, of course, their various explanations include concepts of infinity, omniscience and omnipotence (though the latter two are certainly NOT features of all the major religions). |
No, sorry. There are tremendous similarities between Buddha, Jesus and Nanak, for example. Their lifestyles, their teachings etc. And other saintly people (famous Tibetan teachers, christian mystics like Thomas a khempis and Meister Eckhart, Ramakrishna, Paramahansa Yogananda) are all quite comparable in outlook, attitude and teachings, despite coming from wildly different backgrounds.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | Science based on material methods can never "prove God". How can a limitless, formless, omnipresent being; a creator of all, a source of all things; be found within our limited scope of human-sense information, even if embellished with neat particle accelerators and stuff? |
If God intervenes in the material world then of course science can 'spot' him. If he doesn't then why bother? |
The point was that there is no way for the limitless to be confined by a limited perspective.
"By thinking, He cannot be reduced to thought, even by thinking hundreds of thousands of times."
"The Tao that can be experienced is not true;
The Tao that can be constructed is not real."
The material world is described to be something God created out of itself. Thus EVERYTHING that occurs in the material world is the will of god. The question of God intervening in this world is somewhat meaningless.
| Quote: |
| I posit that spirituality is a science that can be practiced. Spiritual experiments are done using the instrument of the soul. The results are subjective, by nature, but verifiable and regular. And the information gathered gives many insights into the nature of life, death, destiny and other mysteries. |
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Complete nonsense. Spiritual investigations do not reveal repeatable, verifiable results - by definition. It is therefore not even close to 'science'. |
See you are wrong there, bikerman. Spiritual investigations, done properly (by following the instructions of a competent practitioner who has mastered the method) are verifiable and regular in their results. I don't know where you got the "by definition" bit.
I've given you some examples already of how people with similar methods in different places and times came to the same results... and left them for posterity. It is science. A very old, and much maligned and misunderstood science. Most religions don't teach these methods anymore. And competent masters are pretty rare too.
Regarding Dawkins' and Dennet's genetic theories, they are only familiar with the manifold outer faiths, traditions, myths and customs of the religions. Faced with that load of crusty ancient rigid and illogical thinking, they can be forgiven for considering it all a crock and discarding spirituality wholesale. They probably never explored the subject as a something to be practiced and proven for oneself, since it is almost never taught that way by the religious institutions. So they take what is real to them (ie genetics or social theory) and weave up a quick theory to explain why people around the world keep coming up with this spirituality nonsense.
I used to think like them. But I can no longer be convinced by a few smug academics who have never practised disciplined meditation or met with genuine spiritual adepts. They have no personal experience of what is called "soul or spirit", and so don't believe. But to see one's own first-hand results of genuine spiritual investigations, and to see the same truths recorded around the world, is enough to make the ignorance of those theories apparent.
Everyone can experience this "higher nature" for themselves. Noone needs to rely on "revealed information", helpful though it may be at times.
Spirit is a very real thing man, sorry, you probably won't accept it, and just go on with your way of life. But please just remember that sometime somebody told you that spirit can be seen and tested scientifically. Maybe one day you or someone you know may wish to explore this themselves.
Enough for now... have a great day! ^^Your argument is seriously flawed. One could argue, as you are doing, that there are some similarities between deities. But there is a simple counter-argument to that: there are many differences between deities. One can just look at the huge amount of deities that have been invented over history and realize that similarities are bound to come up. Similarities are even more likely when you consider that people are people, and many people have all tried to explain many of the same things, along with wanting many of the same things, fearing many of the same things (like floods), and developing similar morale structures. You can't just choose a couple of gods and show how they're similar and then ignore all of the gods that are completely different - it sort of kills your argument.
| peaceupnorth wrote: |
| No, sorry. There are tremendous similarities between Buddha, Jesus and Nanak, for example. Their lifestyles, their teachings etc. And other saintly people (famous Tibetan teachers, christian mystics like Thomas a khempis and Meister Eckhart, Ramakrishna, Paramahansa Yogananda) are all quite comparable in outlook, attitude and teachings, despite coming from wildly different backgrounds. |
There are similarities between ANY human beings - so what? Did Buddha claim to be the son of God? Did Jesus preach the cycle of suffering and rebirth. Absolutely not. You do what so many religious people do - cherry pick. You ignore huge and crucial holes in your own argument and concentrate on those scraps which support your viewpoint. The FUNDAMENTAL MESSAGE of the Buddha and Jesus is completely different. Any similarities are secondary.
| Quote: |
The point was that there is no way for the limitless to be confined by a limited perspective.
"By thinking, He cannot be reduced to thought, even by thinking hundreds of thousands of times."
"The Tao that can be experienced is not true;
The Tao that can be constructed is not real."
The material world is described to be something God created out of itself. Thus EVERYTHING that occurs in the material world is the will of god. The question of God intervening in this world is somewhat meaningless. |
No it is entirely meaningful. If everything that happens is the will of God, and we can measure and account for everything that happens, then God reduces to the laws of physics. I personally am not interested in worshipping a set of physical laws, beautiful though they are. | Quote: |
| See you are wrong there, bikerman. Spiritual investigations, done properly (by following the instructions of a competent practitioner who has mastered the method) are verifiable and regular in their results. I don't know where you got the "by definition" bit. |
And I say you are wrong. Provide some empirical evidence. What do you mean by 'results'? The important 'result' for most Christians is the attainment of life after death in heaven. Can you 'verify' this? Every properly conducted scientific experiment into 'spirits' that I have seen either produces no meaningful results or shows that the claims investigated are bogus.
| Quote: |
| Regarding Dawkins' and Dennet's genetic theories, they are only familiar with the manifold outer faiths, traditions, myths and customs of the religions. |
I doubt you have read Dennet or Dawkins. Most religious people that I know have read neither. I may be wrong, of course, and you may well have read both. | Quote: |
| I used to think like them. But I can no longer be convinced by a few smug academics who have never practised disciplined meditation or met with genuine spiritual adepts. |
No, I doubt that you used to think like them. They are not 'smug' - they simply present a rational case and leave the reader to decide.
| Quote: |
| Spirit is a very real thing man, sorry, you probably won't accept it, and just go on with your way of life. But please just remember that sometime somebody told you that spirit can be seen and tested scientifically. Maybe one day you or someone you know may wish to explore this themselves. |
Spirit - supernatural transcendent being, metaphysical entity. You cannot scientifically test a transcendent metaphysical 'being' and anyone who claims to have done so is a woo-woo merchant. Show me one single piece of proper science that demonstrates that spirits exist. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Show me one single piece of proper science that demonstrates that spirits exist. |
Or proper philosophy.
