PROVE to Me God Actually Exists [Archive]

napoleon_complex

2005-04-21, 19:13

voodoomagic

2005-04-21, 21:00

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

Only a few hundred years ago people thought the world was flat. They didn't know how to prove that it wasn't. Magelan(sp? damnit) set out to prove the world was round even though there was no proof. A lot of people thought he was being stupid and that it was a suicide mission. But, he turned out to be right.

The point is: humans don't know everything about their world, their existence, their life and death, themselves in general. We don't know everything and we can't prove anything. At a core all our scientific facts and mathematical facts are flawed. There are no facts, just the illusion of fact.

So, believing in something you can't prove doesn't make you stupid. Thinking you can prove anything... now that's stupid.

Cheers,

Lost

um.. the only reason that the sciences and mathematical stuff is flawd is because we havent finished discovering anything. at least we try and find things such as gravitons, or whatever, and try to complete our math. religious people just are like.."oo that was a weird feeling.. must've been god!"

the scientific advancement has been so great over the last century, i can guarentee that physicists will be able to account for everything.

i find that alot of people at my school only believe in god because they dont know how everything could exist. i heard about this thing called zero point energy, where energy can come from what appears to be no where. (anyone else have any further info on this?)

i also think that religion is becoming less and less part of our society. less people follow along with the morning prayer in my school.

one of my thoughts about the existence of god, is that if it was real, then we would know. there would be no doubt whatsoever that god was there. there would be none of this foolish bullshit about finding god, and building some sketchy relationship with him/her/it.

napoleon_complex

2005-04-21, 21:44

Not if god is a mystery...

BTBking

2005-04-21, 22:03

The point of God is not to be proven or have his existance undenyable. That kindof messes up the whole plan for salvation and makes us b eing here useless.

There is evidence of God all over the place. The fact that things exist point to a God. The fact that we are so interested in finding the answers to life that we read this topic is evidence of a God. Proteins, the base of all life, come from ribosomes, which are made up of over 100 proteins that need to be in a very specific order to make a new protein. So how could you get a protein if there weren't any proteins to make it?

Personally, I'ld rather believe in a fake God and hove hope than face the very depressing answers that evolution gives.

voodoomagic

2005-04-21, 22:12

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Not if god is a mystery...

if thats a joke then lol

otherwise, imo that is something to say when you have nothing else to say to counter something that someone like me would say. i know a guy who i talk to about this alot, and when i make a really good point, just sortof mumbles some fruity mystical thing that makes no sense whatsoever, or just counters my question with an opposite question, like me "prove god exists.", him "prove he doesnt", well i cant quite do it, but on the other hand u didnt either..

dex_tree

2005-04-21, 22:14

quote:Originally posted by BTBking:

Personally, I'ld rather believe in a fake God and hove hope than face the very depressing answers that evolution gives.

Even if that hope is false? So you'd rather live in a dream world? To each his own, I guess.

I'd rather try to learn the facts. Knowing what I am and how I got here, and what will happen when I die, will make me live my life better. Knowing that I only have ~80 years on this earth, and NO MORE after that, while it is a despressing thought, it makes me live my life to the fullest every day. If I thought that I'd live forever in some palace in the sky, I wouldn't even bother trying to live. The idea of heaven makes this life into nothing more than a meaningless period of time you spend while waiting to die.

I guess if your an athiest, is even less meaningless. But at least I can give my life it's OWN meaning, and aspire to be what I want to be, and not have the fear of eaternal damnation if it doesn't fit in to some 'plan'.

I'd believe if I could, I've honestly tried. My mind won't let me accept it though, I ask too many questions, and religion just doesn't add up.

AsylumSeaker

2005-04-21, 22:15

Facts are not a good idea, its as large a folly to beleive completley in mathematics or science as it is to trust only in the bible. And some things which are obviously makebeleive are good things to have faith in, things like karma and honor.

I often beleive in something despite full knowledge of its lack of proof, or even its incorrectness. I can hold multiple contradictory beleifs and accept them all equally. And I still don't want to be a Christian.

voodoomagic

2005-04-21, 22:21

quote:Originally posted by dex_tree:

Even if that hope is false? So you'd rather live in a dream world? To each his own, I guess.

I'd rather try to learn the facts. Knowing what I am and how I got here, and what will happen when I die, will make me live my life better. Knowing that I only have ~80 years on this earth, and NO MORE after that, while it is a despressing thought, it makes me live my life to the fullest every day. If I thought that I'd live forever in some palace in the sky, I wouldn't even bother trying to live. The idea of heaven makes this life into nothing more than a meaningless period of time you spend while waiting to die.

I guess if your an athiest, is even less meaningless. But at least I can give my life it's OWN meaning, and aspire to be what I want to be, and not have the fear of eaternal damnation if it doesn't fit in to some 'plan'.

I'd believe if I could, I've honestly tried. My mind won't let me accept it though, I ask too many questions, and religion just doesn't add up.

i agree with this, just because you know that there is nothing after this life (or believe) it doesnt mean that u just have to sit around in a hole and be miserable. you still live your life as full as possible, and have as much fun, or whatever as u can.

once i said that i didnt think there was anything after this life, and someone said why dont u just kill yourself then? and i said, well because my human instincts are no different than yours. im afraid of death. i want to live my life just as much as you, except i dont go thru it behind some illusion of eternal life after.

BTBking

2005-04-21, 22:44

quote:Originally posted by voodoomagic:

once i said that i didnt think there was anything after this life, and someone said why dont u just kill yourself then? and i said, well because my human instincts are no different than yours. im afraid of death. i want to live my life just as much as you, except i dont go thru it behind some illusion of eternal life after.

If I'm wrong about God and life after death, then I just die and stop existing and nobody knows the difference. But if I didn't believe in any of that and it were true, the consequences could be far more disasterous. I guess in terms of fearing death, if feel much safer believing in God.

LostCause

2005-04-21, 23:00

um.. the only reason that the sciences and mathematical stuff is flawd is because we havent finished discovering anything. at least we try and find things such as gravitons, or whatever, and try to complete our math. religious people just are like.."oo that was a weird feeling.. must've been god!"

- That's not true. Most of the flaws, so far, cannot be accounted for and not all religious scholars are like that. Often there's just a much proof of god as there is against it. That's why the question still stands.

the scientific advancement has been so great over the last century, i can guarentee that physicists will be able to account for everything.

- How do you know that? Living in a universe where we have so little knowledge of even ourselves how can you say what the advancements will be, and how much they will tell us about what?

i find that alot of people at my school only believe in god because they dont know how everything could exist. i heard about this thing called zero point energy, where energy can come from what appears to be no where. (anyone else have any further info on this?)

- That's sort of an offshoot of The Big Bang Theory. In quantum physics you learn that even a very small ammount of mass contains an incredibly large ammount of energy. This is initially what inspired the idea for the atomic bomb: a massive ammount of energy coming from a very small ammount of mass. This can also be inverted: energy turning into mass. That's what they think The Big Bang was. That all the universe was just energy that somehow "exploded" and in the explosion the pressure managed to turn the energy into mass. Planets formed, stars formed, etc...

Look up quantum and The Big Bang. It's integral knowledge for anyone who wants to argue the existence of god with someone who knows what they're talking about. But, I'll warn you, The Big Bang still doesn't disprove the existence of god. So, don't think you found any answer. It'll just give you, sort of, a leg to stand on in a debate.

i also think that religion is becoming less and less part of our society. less people follow along with the morning prayer in my school.

- That's not true. Actually there's been a documented religious uprising. Particularily with young people. It happens every time there's a war.

[/b]one of my thoughts about the existence of god, is that if it was real, then we would know. there would be no doubt whatsoever that god was there. there would be none of this foolish bullshit about finding god, and building some sketchy relationship with him/her/it.[/B]

- We don't know every star in the universe either. That doesn't mean there aren't more out there.

Listen, I'm atheist anyways so I'm not really into arguing for the existence of god, but your argument is undeveloped, immature, and unfounded. You need to go back to the drawing board before you start throwing around such definitive statements like "God does not exist" or "people who believe in god are stupid".

Cheers,

Lost

napoleon_complex

2005-04-21, 23:34

quote:Originally posted by voodoomagic:

if thats a joke then lol

otherwise, imo that is something to say when you have nothing else to say to counter something that someone like me would say. i know a guy who i talk to about this alot, and when i make a really good point, just sortof mumbles some fruity mystical thing that makes no sense whatsoever, or just counters my question with an opposite question, like me "prove god exists.", him "prove he doesnt", well i cant quite do it, but on the other hand u didnt either..

Semi-serious/semi-joke.

Most people who are actually involved in religion or in spirituality will tell you that you have to experience god. God will not come to you, you have to come to him. If you go along with this line of thinking, you whole bit about how if god exists, he would make his presence known to us falls apart. You argument especially falls apart if you're talking about the Christian God, because the Christian God is a mystery(literally).

ArgonPlasma2000

2005-04-22, 00:38

quote:I think only a complete moron could believe in something based totally on belief and in no way has "fact" of any kind associated with.

I bet you believe in evolution/big bang dont you? Well neither of them have any more evidence of creation/God so there. Pwned by your own words.

imperfectcircle

2005-04-22, 01:38

quote:Originally posted by craig2005:

A god is an omnipotent (infinitely powerfull) being and therefore can do anything.

Surely that is a contradiction as an all powerfull being must be able to create something that he can't do.

If he cant he isnt all powerfull.

There's actually a serious philosophical argument on this idea, the example being whether god can create a rock too heavy for him to lift. The conclusion is that god can make such a rock and he can lift it too. The argument behind this is that god is supposed to exist beyond our reality, beyond just our universe of space-time. Something like logic, and this attempt to disprove god is nothing but logic, only exists as a property of our material universe, something we came up with based on our experience of causality and whatnot. However as god doesn't exist exclusively within our universe, we can't apply its laws to him and expect them to strictly apply.

quote:Also if he lasted forever he would have no understanding of time on our scales and so a billion years to us would be an infinitely small time to him on his scale. That would make our time equal to 0 from his reference point. And so he created nothing and has nothing otherwhich he has power, hence he has no power whatsoever.

As for the first part, you're forgetting god is supposed to be omniscient. The second part "and so..." doesn't follow from an established point, it's a detached conclusion floating around and doesn't have an argument to support it.

quote:Also if he has all knowledge about everything why bother making us exist, surely he could do a thought experiment as it would be an exact simulation due to the fact he has infinite knowledge.

I'll use that same point against you, how do we know that our whole existence isn't that thought experiment taking place in his mind, occuring in the blink of an eye for him? If we had an advanced enough computer that we could model a whole world, full of intelligent organisms down to the finest molecular detail, would they think they are alive and have discussions like this? Your point here is about consciousness, not god.

quote:Also if he is perfect why did he kill hundreds in the great flood and then say "thou shalt not kill", thats some what hypocritical.

You're talking about a very specific definition of god here, the god of the Old Testament in the Christian Bible. Many of the stories in the Old Testament come from even older pagan myths from Mesopotamian cultures (Christianity is really a large amalgamation of various myths, symbols and religions that previously existed on their own). In particular, that floor referred to in the Old Testament may have been inspired by a genuine flood of some kind that occurred millenia ago, since almost all ancient religions make reference to a flood like this happening.

quote:Maybe he is saying that he can do it but we cant, that would mean that there is no universal right and wrong meaning that from someone elses perspective he could be wrong.

And a god must be perfect. (applicable to many religions not just christianity as natural disasters are caused by god or he could at least stop them)

Your point assumes that man has no free will, and god chooses everything that happens in the universe. If so, then there is no "him and us", and there is no basis for morality, because we are not making the choices ourselves. This is the deterministic approach, favored by Newtonian physics. The alternative is that we have free will, and that whatever we choose has nothing to do with god. This should also apply just as easily to seas or landslides, since it's just atoms one way or the other. This semi-chaotic approach is favored by quantum mechanics, and means we can't blame god for the bad things that happen, because they are a result of our independence from him. We can't have it both ways though.

quote:dictionary (only the section on God as in the heavenly type, rather than godly)

"# God

1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being."

As you can see the above arguments proove that the definition of a god cant be forfilled as to do so would be a logical contradiction.

I think I can tell what you mean, but the way you phrased this it doesn't make any sense (using definitions to support an argument can be a very dodgy thing to do, it blows up in your face sometimes). It would take a whole other post just to get into this last point, so I'm not going to bother.

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 04-22-2005).]

Sarter

2005-04-22, 02:11

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Prove to me one of the things that scientists have faith in, yet have no hard evidence for, such as gravitons for example.

Scientists don't have faith in such theories. They are aware which theories have only indirect evidence and keep a mental note that the theory can be disproven at any time. If the theory is plausible enough then they might use it to play around with other theories such as the Unified Field Theory.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

One other thing: knowledge of the world itself is achieved through the brain, but knowledge of god is very much an emotional thing of the body. If you don't believe in emotional truths, then explain humour to me (not dick and fart type humor, I mean subtler forms of humor).

What is an emotional truth?

MasterMind420

2005-04-22, 02:18

QUOTE]Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

quote:I think only a complete moron could believe in something based totally on belief and in no way has "fact" of any kind associated with.

I bet you believe in evolution/big bang dont you? Well neither of them have any more evidence of creation/God so there. Pwned by your own words.[/QUOTE]

You have just contradicted yourself by assuming I believe in evolution/big bang, without any "fact" or knowledge of my views, thus you are a moron.

ArgonPlasma2000

2005-04-22, 02:32

Yet you dont tell us what you believe in. I dont have to assume otherwise. If you dont believe in God, you either have to believe in the big bang and evolution or you are even more of an idiot and just make up things to believe in.

You sir are a moron. You challenge us to change your point of veiw (which your a moron troll anyway because you wont even if Jesus tapped you on the shoulder) withouttelling us exactly what you do believe in.

So...how exactly did i contradict myself when i predicated my argument on the assumption that you did believe such? No wonder your veiws cant be changed is because your a fool who doesnt know logic.

MasterMind420

2005-04-22, 02:47

NO one has proved that "g"od(notice the lower case) exists.

If you can't prove it without insisting on "believing" in him, then you yourself should not trust that there is a "supreme being"

We can dissect and point out how Christianism is flawed an utter shit. But of coarse people will say it's only one religion.

Sure this is true but in is purest form, how is it different from any other religion.

Religion in effect suppresses us intellectually as humans. How can we progress if we practice beliefs thousands of years old?

god(Supreme Being) was created for a number of reasons:

a) Humans can simply not accept the fact that we live and then we die, this is the extent of our legacy. The idea of an after life is a comfort zone for all of us, and takes our minds of the fact that we will rot in a grave and eventually forgotten about.

b) Human law is not omnipotent, and ones own morals aren't nearly strong enough to keep us away from temptation.

The idea of a supreme being adds the element of fear. Human law cannot stop me from taking i.e. a pack of M&M's, but the supreme element of "god" ads the fear that even if I get away with it and no human sees it, god will.

Lost Cause, you give me the impression that you are religious.

If so let me ask to this. Have you had pre-marital sex?

If so why is it even the religious people will give in to this temptation. If you truly believed deep down inside you wouldn't participate in such an act. But we believe we can manipulate such a thing.

The whole premise of a supreme being is erroneous.

MasterMind420

2005-04-22, 03:14

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Yet you dont tell us what you believe in. I dont have to assume otherwise. If you dont believe in God, you either have to believe in the big bang and evolution or you are even more of an idiot and just make up things to believe in.

You sir are a moron. You challenge us to change your point of veiw (which your a moron troll anyway because you wont even if Jesus tapped you on the shoulder) withouttelling us exactly what you do believe in.

So...how exactly did i contradict myself when i predicated my argument on the assumption that you did believe such? No wonder your veiws cant be changed is because your a fool who doesnt know logic.

LOL. Looks like you got your panties into a bunch. You are pathetic and I laugh at you.

You’re getting worked up over my personal view. On top of that it's over the internet. Again pathetic.

[This message has been edited by MasterMind420 (edited 04-22-2005).]

napoleon_complex

2005-04-22, 03:22

quote:Originally posted by MasterMind420:

The whole premise of a supreme being is erroneous.

The fact that you think you can disprove a supreme being is pretty ludicrous(erroneous is a bad choice of wording) too.....

imperfectcircle

2005-04-22, 03:37

quote:Originally posted by Sarter:

Scientists don't have faith in such theories. They are aware which theories have only indirect evidence and keep a mental note that the theory can be disproven at any time. If the theory is plausible enough then they might use it to play around with other theories such as the Unified Field Theory.

Well for the purpose of discussing this, I think it is only fair to be clear whether we are talking about your "typical" scientifically minded person, or the "ideal" type. This works both ways, because when atheists talk about "believers", they are practially always talking about a stereotypical "average" religious person. The comments and judgements made wouldn't apply to an "ideal" type. For example, Newton is recognised as one of the most amazing scientific minds of all time, yet he was deeply religious, and spent a great deal of time pursuing obscure mystical knowledge. Einstein also held deeply religious views, with two examples of the "most scientific" minds of history, it's clear that the average atheist statement about religious people believing because they want to believe, because they are afraid of death etc etc etc only apply to the stereotype.

There is a double standard in play here though, because when the atheists talk about the scientific view, the imaginary group of "scientists" that they refer to have the characteristics of an idealised scientist, not the average person with scientific views. I have met a number of people who have just as much an irrational faith in science as a religious fundamentalist. This might be because most people don't understand science particularly well, especially the nature of the scientific method, and that science is just a method even though it is viewed by the average person these days very much the way religion used to be. It takes this status precisely because people don't understand it, they don't understand all this talk of special relativity, subatomic particles, genomes and so on. The intricacies of science are presented to the average person just like the mysteries of god were in previous centuries, only understood by a select few (once it was priests, now it is scientists). And most importantly of all, science seems capable of producing real life miracles. The advances made in technology generate a view of science that is again much like how people used to see god.

The end result is that many, many people have a very irrational view of science. The "ideal" scientist would never "disbelieve" something for lack of evidence, he would simply say that he doesn't have a positive belief in it, and in theory wouldn't really try to address the matter one way or the other. However speak to your "average" person with scientific views, and tell them you believe in healing crystals/new ages auras/homeopathic medicine, whatever. Chance are they will jump down your throat and call you an idiot for believing something so "unscientific". "That's impossible" they might say "it goes against science". But this is not a rational position to take, nor is it scientific, because having a firm belief in the lack of somethings existence is just as equal in terms of belief as believing something does exist. The whole point of the scientific method is to only believe things that are supported by the facts, everything else is simply not capable of being addressed.

Being someone who seems to generally accept "scientific beliefs" rather than religious ones does not make you a more rational person. There seems to be a need that comes from within people for having irrational beliefs, and you will find such people among "scientists" like you will with "religious people". Don't get too confused by their labels, people are only human in the end.

quote:What is an emotional truth?

There are two examples of emotional truth I can describe. First, if you have an interest in Buddhism then you'll recognise it as the moment of spiritual understanding sought in Zen Buddhism. A person is meant to focus on a "koan", which is a riddle that doesn't make any logical sense. For example:

Dongshan was asked by a monk, “What is Buddha?” Dongshan said, “Three pounds of flax.” The monk had a realization and bowed

Trying to understand this the way you normally look at things won't be of any use, it's designed precisely not to be like that. Logic, as I said above being based on causality, is derived from our dualistic way of interpreting the world (this post is already getting long enough, so if you want an explanation of dualism just go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism ), using our "head" instead of our "heart". A person trying to understand a koan, or some Zen principle, using his normal logical mind, could try forever and not suceed. They were originally used by monks in the form of questions, which they would ask students. It would only make sense to you when you were able to think about the question while not in a dualistic state of mind (meditation is one method of doing this), and so the only possible way to figure out the answer was to learn how to alter your consciousness properly. When it happens, the moment of realisation comes in a flash of understanding. This is one example of emotional truth.

One that might be easier to relate to is the nature of a joke. Zen and humor have a great deal in common, as does Taoism, unlike Christianity or Islam the language in their ancient texts is often peppered with a sense of humor and appreciation for irony. Anyway, I'm talking here about jokes that don't involve bodily functions, sex, food or survival, because these kinds of jokes cause an autonomic reaction and the laughter has nothing to do with "consciousness". The kind of humor I'm talking about is perhaps very hard to pin down, because humor is a very odd suhject. But what I mean is humor based on incongruity, where the joke starts off telling some kind of story, setting up a cognitive frame and directing your expectations of the outcome, which the punchline confounds, reframing the original message in a way that was unexpected, and somtimes specifically illogical.

Theory aside, you know when someone tells you a joke? If it really cracks you up, you know how you're listening, not sure where it's going, and then suddenly the punchline comes... there is a very slight delay, and then suddenly you get it and burst out laughing? That sudden moment of realisation and understanding is exactly the same as how a Zen Buddhist feels when he understands a koan by "shutting off his mind" for a split second. To make my point more clear, let's say you're telling that same joke to someone you know would find it funny, but for some reason they didn't get it the first time. Ever tried explaining a joke to someone? You break it apart, analysing it with your head to do so, "so then he said this, and she thought he had meant that, so you know, when he said this it was funny...". It's NEVER funny when you explain a joke to someone, you know? It totally drains the humor out of it, at best you'll get a chuckle, but never the kind of reaction you have when you understand the punchline in a spontaneous flash of non mental understanding. This is the second example of an emotional truth.

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 04-22-2005).]

MasterMind420

2005-04-22, 03:47

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

The fact that you think you can disprove a supreme being is pretty ludicrous(erroneous is a bad choice of wording) too.....

Actually based on my philosophy, the idea of a supreme being would have been derived from error, as I have pointed out. The use of the word "erroneous” would be fitting to conclude my argument based on my view.

As for me disproving the existence of a supreme being... I don't have to disprove something that has no proof to exist.

napoleon_complex

2005-04-22, 03:52

Then why is it erroneous to believe in something that you can't disprove?

Also, lack of proof doesn't equate to lack of existence.....

MasterMind420

2005-04-22, 04:11

I feel like I'm repeating myself.

Lack or proof indeed equates inexistence.

How can you honestly think otherwise. Just stop and think about what you're saying.

Arguing your philosphy is like me arguing the earth is flat, which is not only wrong but retarded. Not untill one has proof can it be concluded. Of coarse we know from proof the outcome, and we believe it because of this proof.

[This message has been edited by MasterMind420 (edited 04-22-2005).]

napoleon_complex

2005-04-22, 04:21

Is a scientist believing in evolution retarded? What about the string theory?

Lack of proof on a matter leads to two possible scenarios: 1.)No position on the subject. A person decides that there isn't enough evidence to either believe or not believe in something; 2.) One has faith that the position that they are taking is the right one, even though the proof is sketchy at best.

You are taking the second option in the case of whether or not God exists. By saying that god doesn't exist off of no evidence whatsoever is retarded. You cannot draw a definitive conclusion when it comes to god. It is impossible at this time. There is no evidence other than first hand accounts. The fact that you can draw a conclusion from nothing, then call other people who draw another conclusion from the same nothingness, idiots, is amazing to me, and is hypocritical of you.

MasterMind420

2005-04-22, 04:40

I didn’t mention anything of the "string theory". Besides evolution and quantum physics have science to back them up. Religion has had thousands of years to prove the existence of god. Give science a few more years and we'll see.

You seem fairly intelligent so I'm going to assume your playing the "devils advocate"

Nothing is definitive without proof. Without poof it is simply a theory.

To say god exists is just a theory because it has no proof. It is as simple as that.

[This message has been edited by MasterMind420 (edited 04-22-2005).]

ArgonPlasma2000

2005-04-22, 06:03

quote:Originally posted by MasterMind420:

NO one has proved that "g"od(notice the lower case) exists.

Your apretty pathetic individual if your going to disrespect any religious persons beliefs. Nevermind my offense, but if thats how you go about your challenge you are a truely immature individual and couldnt comprehend religion to begin with.

If you can't prove it without insisting on "believing" in him, then you yourself should not trust that there is a "supreme being"

You cant prove it even if you do believe. Are you retarded? You believe that God does not exist but that doesnt make it so.

We can dissect and point out how Christianism is flawed an utter shit. But of coarse people will say it's only one religion.

Its Christianity dumbshit. And no, youcant point out how its flawed either. I take that back, id like to see your argument on it. That is if you know enough about it to tell me who the entire religion focuses on http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Sure this is true but in is purest form, how is it different from any other religion.

Religion in effect suppresses us intellectually as humans. How can we progress if we practice beliefs thousands of years old?

It doesnt. If you believe in God he will help you do what you need to do. In fact i personally know the man who invented the source code to reconcile graphics and text on the same screen. He will tell you that God sent him dreams of the code. Even if you attribute that to dreams of things he already knew, it doesnt say that God couldnt have sent it to him

god(Supreme Being) was created for a number of reasons:

a) Humans can simply not accept the fact that we live and then we die, this is the extent of our legacy. The idea of an after life is a comfort zone for all of us, and takes our minds of the fact that we will rot in a grave and eventually forgotten about.

True, but you cant say that he was invented can you? History cant tell you when it was invented. If you can tell me the year that God was invented ill hang up my Christian beliefs and follow your heathen ways.

b) Human law is not omnipotent, and ones own morals aren't nearly strong enough to keep us away from temptation.

That goes back to the invention. You cant have Gods laws without God youknow.

The idea of a supreme being adds the element of fear. Human law cannot stop me from taking i.e. a pack of M&M's, but the supreme element of "god" ads the fear that even if I get away with it and no human sees it, god will.

I dont fear God. If you associate God with fear you need to join another religion. I love and respect Him. Anyway even if i did steal them and we all lived like barbarians the manager would cut off my head. So no, laws dont all come from God. Order would exist even on an evolutionary stance.

Lost Cause, you give me the impression that you are religious.

If so let me ask to this. Have you had pre-marital sex?

If so why is it even the religious people will give in to this temptation. If you truly believed deep down inside you wouldn't participate in such an act. But we believe we can manipulate such a thing.

That was quite low. And why do yousay that religiouspeople give in? Look, Catholicism and Christianity are linkedto Christ, but they arent the same thing. Yougotta look at it case by case. You yourself mustadmit that humans are flawed. Being religious doesnt grant immunity from sin.

The whole premise of a supreme being is erroneous.

Yet you still dont provide an argument for such error...

ArgonPlasma2000

2005-04-22, 06:07

quote:Originally posted by MasterMind420:

I didn’t mention anything of the "string theory". Besides evolution and quantum physics have science to back them up. Religion has had thousands of years to prove the existence of god. Give science a few more years and we'll see.

Evolution != quantum physics, and quantum physics isnt a religion. Evolution doesnt have science to back it up. You have speclation and guessing. Pysics says that energy and matter dont come from nothing. In a few more years we are going to be able to prove that man has a soul. Believe it, its coming.

I find it infinitely humerous you saythatreligionhas had thousands of years to prove Gods existance when you fail to recognize the evolution has had billions of years to prove its existence.

You seem fairly intelligent so I'm going to assume your playing the "devils advocate"

Nothing is definitive without proof. Without poof it is simply a theory.

To say god exists is just a theory because it has no proof. It is as simple as that.

Evolution has no "proof" either http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

[/B]

Shadout Mapes

2005-04-22, 06:15

Saying God doesn't exist isn't based on proof either.

I can understand what you're saying when you attack religon for holding mankind back as a race, but the belief in a God does not equate participation in such a religon. The fact is, despite the Big Bang and String Theory and the such, existence still remains a complete mystery. With all the marvels that the universe holds, I don't find it that surprising that people believe in a higher being.

Oh, and Lost Cause said he was athiest, I'm not sure why you missed that.

Clarphimous

2005-04-22, 06:33

Wow, so many posts while I was away... I think I'll answer them all (or all the interesting ones).

imperfectcircle: Prove to me one of the things that scientists have faith in, yet have no hard evidence for, such as gravitons for example. You believe in things that you have no proof for, so do I.

I don't find it wrong at all to make educated guesses, but being stubborn to the point of stupidity (as are Biblical inerrantists) is quite different.

LostCause: Only a few hundred years ago people thought the world was flat. They didn't know how to prove that it wasn't. Magelan(sp? damnit) set out to prove the world was round even though there was no proof. A lot of people thought he was being stupid and that it was a suicide mission. But, he turned out to be right.

No, they've known for a long time that the earth was round. There were a small number of flat earthers in the past couple millenium, but the recent increase of flat earthers in the past century is a relatively new phenomenon inspired by biblical inerrantism. The story about Columbus and his sailors is also false, that was a fictional account that was later taken to be true.

LostCause: The point is: humans don't know everything about their world, their existence, their life and death, themselves in general. We don't know everything and we can't prove anything. At a core all our scientific facts and mathematical facts are flawed. There are no facts, just the illusion of fact.

No, we can't know most things with 100% certainty. And it is very easy to be mislead to believe that we know more than we do. But that doesn't mean that everything we know is false. It's just uncertain.

Also, I don't see how you came up with math as being infactual, as it is based purely on definitions.

LostCause: So, believing in something you can't prove doesn't make you stupid. Thinking you can prove anything... now that's stupid.

Yes, deluding yourself is quite stupid, isn't it?

blutark: The question perhaps should be ....is there a creator?... Gods as said by others were invented by man to rationalise what couldn't be explained by science and exploited by others as a means of control and power.

The universe and all its chaotic splendor couldn't just happen out of nothing in nowhere without a spark of intellegence....could it?

It would seem redundant to have an creator exist in order for a universe to exist. Maybe the universe itself is intelligent on some level...

Hexadecimal: My question is, why does a god have to be an intelligence?

Because then it would be a supernatural force, not a god. Simply a case of the definition of a god.

craig2005: A god is an omnipotent (infinitely powerfull) being and therefore can do anything.

Surely that is a contradiction as an all powerfull being must be able to create something that he can't do.

If he cant he isnt all powerfull.

It would be simpler to strip the argument of the element of god to just become "is it possible for everything to be possible?" Assuming everything is possible, then it would be impossible for something to be impossible. It would seem logically contradictory, but I'm not sure. This is the third time I've posted this paradox, by the way.

---Beany---: If humans were afraid of death why would they invent a creator?

Why couldn't they just settle for an eternal life of happiness after death?

Perhaps because gods were part of their way of understanding the earth. Hey, if they're on the earth they're probably in the afterlife too.

---Beany---: I think through time, people have a profound spiritual experiences with God. A connection with God that is so hard to explain that their explanations are always misunderstood.

Or they're mistaking a natural occurence for an act of a god.

voodoomagic: i find that alot of people at my school only believe in god because they dont know how everything could exist. i heard about this thing called zero point energy, where energy can come from what appears to be no where. (anyone else have any further info on this?)

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

voodoomagic: one of my thoughts about the existence of god, is that if it was real, then we would know. there would be no doubt whatsoever that god was there. there would be none of this foolish bullshit about finding god, and building some sketchy relationship with him/her/it.

It would seem that way, wouldn't it?

BTBking: The point of God is not to be proven or have his existance undenyable. That kindof messes up the whole plan for salvation and makes us b eing here useless.

You mean we're supposed to rely on faith? The only problem with faith is that it can't tell truth from falsehood. It's just assuring yourself that something is right... So what would you say if I told you that I had faith in Satan's superiority over God? You could tell me all you wanted to about what you believed, but I'd appear as stubborn as a rock because I had "faith." Faith is like a game of Russian roulette... choose the wrong belief and you lose.

Even using "faith" along with reason is dangerous, because it causes strong bias towards any opposing beliefs. It inevidably leads to self-delusion.

BTBking: There is evidence of God all over the place. The fact that things exist point to a God. The fact that we are so interested in finding the answers to life that we read this topic is evidence of a God. Proteins, the base of all life, come from ribosomes, which are made up of over 100 proteins that need to be in a very specific order to make a new protein. So how could you get a protein if there weren't any proteins to make it?

In many cases atoms are much more stable in molecular bonds. You won't find a hydrogen atom by itself very often. It's usually in a pair or part of another molecule. Proteins naturally formed when their constituent parts met, especially in the presence of a catalyst (is that the right word?).

BTBking: Personally, I'ld rather believe in a fake God and hove hope than face the very depressing answers that evolution gives.

Evolution doesn't say anything about the afterlife. Personally, I lean in favor of there being an afterlife. I just think it's possible because I've heard some stories about ghosts (from ordinary people) and about reincarnations. I also strongly believe that the mind is more than it seems.

AsylumSeaker: Facts are not a good idea, its as large a folly to beleive completley in mathematics or science as it is to trust only in the bible.

Once again, what's up with dissing math?

BTBking: If I'm wrong about God and life after death, then I just die and stop existing and nobody knows the difference. But if I didn't believe in any of that and it were true, the consequences could be far more disasterous. I guess in terms of fearing death, if feel much safer believing in God.

I don't feel safe in dying even if the Christian faith is wrong.

ArgonPlasma2000:

(quoting MasterMind420)

I think only a complete moron could believe in something based totally on belief and in no way has "fact" of any kind associated with.

I bet you believe in evolution/big bang dont you? Well neither of them have any more evidence of creation/God so there. Pwned by your own words.

Evolution is a theory with a lot of evidence. I wouldn't try to compare it to creation. Even the old earth style creationism is mostly speculation.

imperfectcircle:

(quoting craig2005)

A god is an omnipotent (infinitely powerfull) being and therefore can do anything.

Surely that is a contradiction as an all powerfull being must be able to create something that he can't do.

If he cant he isnt all powerfull.

There's actually a serious philosophical argument on this idea, the example being whether god can create a rock too heavy for him to lift. The conclusion is that god can make such a rock and he can lift it too. The argument behind this is that god is supposed to exist beyond our reality, beyond just our universe of space-time. Something like logic, and this attempt to disprove god is nothing but logic, only exists as a property of our material universe, something we came up with based on our experience of causality and whatnot. However as god doesn't exist exclusively within our universe, we can't apply its laws to him and expect them to strictly apply.

Yes, I believe that a universe without logic would be considered to literally be an "imaginary universe." I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, it's just imaginary.

Now, as I scroll down further to MasterMind's and ArgonPlasma's posts, I see that they are arguing about arguing. Seems rather pointless to me, don't you agree?

And then we come to imperfectcircle again. I agree with the part about how many people who follow science can be dogmatic.

I'm not so sure about the "emotional truth" thing, though. The type of joke you were talking about is a result of finding irony in a situation. You explained that when you have to explain the answer to the joke, it's not as funny. Well, this is because unexpected events cause wilder emotions than expected ones. The same is true with the "Eureka" feeling. You can still understand the joke logically, it's just not as stimulating if you have somebody explain it to you slowly.

There are some times when you need to think in unordinary ways to solve a problem, such as in the koans. Usually, the reason why logic isn't working is because you're looking at it from the completely wrong perspective, or you're just not making the connection.

So, to summarize, what you've been calling an "emotional truth" appears to be a logical truth that has an emotional impact on its discoverer.

*whew* long post, eh? sorry, I guess I'm just bored.

Edit: UBB code

[This message has been edited by Clarphimous (edited 04-22-2005).]

ArgonPlasma2000

2005-04-22, 06:37

quote: Evolution is a theory with a lot of evidence. I wouldn't try to compare it to creation. Even the old earth style creationism is mostly speculation.

Please excuse my ignorance, its been a long night. Why not compare evolution and creation. Because you say creationlacks as much evidence or what?

Also, whats old earth creationism you talk of?

Fai1safe

2005-04-22, 06:55

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Prove to me one of the things that scientists have faith in, yet have no hard evidence for, such as gravitons for example. You believe in things that you have no proof for, so do I.

I'm not religious, but I believe in god (although I don't like using the word "god"). You pity me? I pity you.

It's all good.

Who said that he belives science? Its funny Atheists are supposed to be the predjuidest ones. Who said that an Atheist had to belive science.

Clarphimous

2005-04-22, 07:01

ArgonPlasma2000:

(quoting myself)

Evolution is a theory with a lot of evidence. I wouldn't try to compare it to creation. Even the old earth style creationism is mostly speculation.

Please excuse my ignorance, its been a long night. Why not compare evolution and creation. Because you say creationlacks as much evidence or what?

Also, whats old earth creationism you talk of?

There really isn't any direct evidence of a young earth. I've seen plenty of attempts to find evidence, such as measuring the levels of minerals in the seawater, or the decrease in the heat from the sun, but it's almost always too simplified to be realistic, and assumes some things that aren't true (such as the decrease in the sun's heat being constant over time).

A simple reason that I believe in an old age for the universe is astronomy. Since it would seem that starlight came from stars up to billions of light-years away, I would find it most reasonable that the light has travelled as long amount of time as it has appeared to travel. Sure, it's not impossible that God made the universe appear to be a lot older than it really is, but it's pretty much an untestable idea. I think I'd rather go with the obvious answer.

The old age of the universe is what sets up many of the theories on geology, biology, paleontology, and evolution. It's not just one theory young-earth creationists are arguing against, it's the entire foundation of several areas of science.

And old earth creationism is the idea that the earth/universe is indeed old, which fits in with the idea of evolution and all, but also suggests that God is what started and influenced it all. As I said before, it's really just speculation, but I don't have anything against it other than that.

ArgonPlasma2000

2005-04-22, 07:23

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

There really isn't any direct evidence of a young earth. I've seen plenty of attempts to find evidence, such as measuring the levels of minerals in the seawater, or the decrease in the heat from the sun, but it's almost always too simplified to be realistic, and assumes some things that aren't true (such as the decrease in the sun's heat being constant over time).

Its been said that the earth can sustain its magnetic field for more than 10,000 years. I dont know exaclt where that research is. Perhaps you culd find it for us.

A simple reason that I believe in an old age for the universe is astronomy. Since it would seem that starlight came from stars up to billions of light-years away, I would find it most reasonable that the light has travelled as long amount of time as it has appeared to travel. Sure, it's not impossible that God made the universe appear to be a lot older than it really is, but it's pretty much an untestable idea. I think I'd rather go with the obvious answer.

Well whos to say that Adam and Eve didnt live bilions of years before they sinned? Easy answer. But id also like to point out that if you conform to that belief you also have to recognize that the earth was perfect and more or less a completely closed system so that it didnt lose its magnetic field. Its reminiscent of a machine with finely tuned parts and then you thow something in it and fuck its balance up.

The old age of the universe is what sets up many of the theories on geology, biology, paleontology, and evolution. It's not just one theory young-earth creationists are arguing against, it's the entire foundation of several areas of science.

But those facets of science are predicated on evolution. So in effect we are arguing on one theory.

And old earth creationism is the idea that the earth/universe is indeed old, which fits in with the idea of evolution and all, but also suggests that God is what started and influenced it all. As I said before, it's really just speculation, but I don't have anything against it other than that.

Ahh i see. But the Bible doesnt have any indication of such an event taking place. The catastrophic model of creation perhaps?

I do tip my hat to all of you who keep your prejudice away from your arguments.

Clarphimous

2005-04-22, 08:05

ArgonPlasma2000: Its been said that the earth can sustain its magnetic field for more than 10,000 years. I dont know exaclt where that research is. Perhaps you culd find it for us.

Yeah, I've read about that before. It's like I said about the assumption about the sun's temperature -- it's an over simplification. The young earthers assumed that because the magnetic field has been decreasing the last few thousand years, it always decreases. According to current scientific theory, the magnetic field reverses every once in a while. I remember they had even planned to make a movie off of this.

Here's an article from the talk origins archive:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html

There was also an article on geothermal dynamics in a recent Scientific American, but I haven't read that one yet.

ArgonPlasma2000: Well whos to say that Adam and Eve didnt live bilions of years before they sinned? Easy answer. But id also like to point out that if you conform to that belief you also have to recognize that the earth was perfect and more or less a completely closed system so that it didnt lose its magnetic field. Its reminiscent of a machine with finely tuned parts and then you thow something in it and fuck its balance up.

It doesn't necessarily have to be like that if you don't take the Bible so literally. Some believe that the "days" mentioned in Genesis 1 aren't the same sort of days we speak of nowadays, and really meant long periods of time. My own belief is that those Hebrew creation stories just came from faulty scientific knowledge they got from neighboring nations.

ArgonPlasma2000:

(quoting myself)

The old age of the universe is what sets up many of the theories on geology, biology, paleontology, and evolution. It's not just one theory young-earth creationists are arguing against, it's the entire foundation of several areas of science.

But those facets of science are predicated on evolution. So in effect we are arguing on one theory.

They are several interrelated sciences. It's not just all of them being based on evolution, each has their own evidence for their science, as well as supporting the other areas. Just about all of those I mentioned have evidence pointing to an old earth. Physics is another, with radiometric dating.

Clarphimous:

And old earth creationism is the idea that the earth/universe is indeed old, which fits in with the idea of evolution and all, but also suggests that God is what started and influenced it all. As I said before, it's really just speculation, but I don't have anything against it other than that.

ArgonPlasma2000:

Ahh i see. But the Bible doesnt have any indication of such an event taking place. The catastrophic model of creation perhaps?

Well, I do find the catastrophic model a lot more plausible than the single-flood, 10,000 year-old belief. Still, I wouldn't believe it if I were a Christian. Many of the old-earth creationists are very liberal with their beliefs, and do not take the Bible literally, and some even see it as imperfect revelation. I've often heard the argument that there really isn't a chasm between modern science and religion, it's just that people are foolish and don't want to give up their preconcieved beliefs. But that's just an opinion...

I'm not really interested in getting in any debates right now, but I would recommend just reading any sort of scientific literature on the stuff, if you haven't been already. I have this neat book called "The Natural History of the Universe" that has lots of pictures, although it is a bit outdated. It's really quite interesting what can be explained with those theories.

LostCause

2005-04-22, 09:45

MasterMind:

If you can't prove it without insisting on "believing" in him, then you yourself should not trust that there is a "supreme being"

- I do not debate this for person confliction. I believe what I believe and am comfortable with that. I debate because the question stands. What I believe is irrelevant.

We can dissect and point out how Christianism is flawed an utter shit. But of coarse people will say it's only one religion.

- Fuck Christianity. Christianity isn't the end all of religion and more importantly it's not the end of spirituality and even more importantly it's not the end of philosophy - the end of question - and finally, it's not the end of science. I'm not talking about Christianity. I'm talking about questioning ones existence and I'm not arrogant enough to call anybodies true - heartfelt beliefs wrong or claim I know the truth, because I don't. I know what I believe and that's good enough for me. For all I know what I believe makes no difference for any of you. It could be true for me and no one else. I could be full of shit. You could be full of shit. All laws of science and math could be flawed. All religion could be bullshit. I don't really know. I don't really know and it isn't my place to claim otherwise.

But, I believe something. You don't know what, because you haven't really asked and I don't really care to tell you at the moment. Frankly, I'm drunk and you're ignorance is pissing me off.

"Religion in effect suppresses us intellectually as humans. How can we progress if we practice beliefs thousands of years old?"

- You just explained the existence of Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. They believe in modern day prophets. Also, besides - religion also sets people free.

"god(Supreme Being) was created for a number of reasons:

a) Humans can simply not accept the fact that we live and then we die, this is the extent of our legacy. The idea of an after life is a comfort zone for all of us, and takes our minds of the fact that we will rot in a grave and eventually forgotten about.

- I do not agree. I've had near death experiences and I have never found it very difficult to accept death. Granted, I've grown up in a funeral home, but it's my life - it's my opinion.

"b) Human law is not omnipotent, and ones own morals aren't nearly strong enough to keep us away from temptation.

- Again, that's philosophy and therefore up to debate. I agree mostly. Temptation is temptation. If it wasn't hard to resist, we wouldn't call it temptation.

"The idea of a supreme being adds the element of fear. Human law cannot stop me from taking i.e. a pack of M&M's, but the supreme element of "god" ads the fear that even if I get away with it and no human sees it, god will."

- If you study early religion you'll find that god was supposed for several reasons, including that reason. The main reason, though, encompasses that: there was no way to explain why the clouds moved or the waves, human supposed there was a greater force at work because he had no better way to explain it. And we still don't.

"Lost Cause, you give me the impression that you are religious."

- Well, then I suppose you are mistaken, yet again.

"If so let me ask to this. Have you had pre-marital sex?"

- Less than a week ago and the pregnancy test was negative. He also fingered my asshole. It's still sore... Wait a minute... hmmm... is that none of your business?... Or is it just me?

"If so why is it even the religious people will give in to this temptation. If you truly believed deep down inside you wouldn't participate in such an act. But we believe we can manipulate such a thing.

- I don't know. I say over and over again I'm no advocate for god, but no one seems to notice. Anyways... what I always say is "There are no good decisions to be made in a bad situation. Because if there were, it wouldn't be such a bad situation." Sometimes we are sick, our will is weak. Sometimes we do bad things that we regret. Sometimes we get into bad situations and we do things we think are wrong because we are too weak to get ourselves out any other way. Like a fox will gnaw it's own paw off. We're not perfect and frankly, I think we judge ourselves regaurdless of religion.

"The whole premise of a supreme being is erroneous."

- Along with everything else including yourself.

Cheers,

Lost

napoleon_complex

2005-04-22, 12:25

quote:Originally posted by MasterMind420:

To say god exists is just a theory because it has no proof. It is as simple as that.

That is what I was getting at.

At our current time, agnosticism is the only logical conclusion to god, anything else would be a leap of faith.

imperfectcircle

2005-04-22, 15:18

quote:Originally posted by MasterMind420:

I feel like I'm repeating myself.

Lack or proof indeed equates inexistence.

How can you honestly think otherwise. Just stop and think about what you're saying.

Arguing your philosphy is like me arguing the earth is flat, which is not only wrong but retarded. Not untill one has proof can it be concluded. Of coarse we know from proof the outcome, and we believe it because of this proof.

You clearly don't understand the nature of scientific knowledge. If there is no proof for something, then you can't make statments whether it exists or not. Sorry if this doesn't apply to your intuitive understanding of "science". Lack of proof suggests lack of existence, quite simply it cannot "equate" lack of existence.

And viewing religion as an emotional process rather than a mental one is allowed by science. The dominant philosophy in philosophy of science is currently analytic philosophy (sorry for using the word 3 times heh). What this says about religion is that cognitively it is meaningless, but that it can still have emotional meaning and import. In many ways, science really is like just another branch of religion, without the emotional curiosity about the universe that feeds it, what would be the drive to pursue it?

"The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as of all serious endeavour in art and in science.... He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. The sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is."

-Albert Einstein

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 04-22-2005).]

imperfectcircle

2005-04-22, 15:25

quote:Originally posted by Fai1safe:

Who said that he belives science? Its funny Atheists are supposed to be the predjuidest ones. Who said that an Atheist had to belive science.

If someone doesn't believe what religion says about the world, and they don't believe what science says either, then they have no basis for holding any beliefs about the world whatsoever. I find this supremely unusual, a person needs to have some basis for understanding the world, if it's not religion, and it's not science, the only alternative is that they make up beliefs themselves. Apart from children, I've never met anyone like this.

craig2005

2005-04-22, 18:06

My attempt at a proof that all religion based around a god is flawed.

A religion either worships a spiritual leader, or a supernatural power or creator.

I will deal with the second, as I cant see any flaw in believing a person is worth worship.

If god is a supernatural being or force then by defonition he "goes against natural law". And also this means that the being defies logic of this universe.

If that is true as prooved above as one means the other, then a supernatural being could not influence this universe or the 2 logic systems would produce multiple answers to a single maths equation.

True could no longer be either true or false. This would cause the universe to no longer have any shape or form as it would not exist.

So the universe would have to split into 2 one for each logic system, and as the "god" is based in the logic of his own original universe where infinite power is possible he couldn't appear in our half of the split as it would mean that it would resplit ad-infinitum until he by chance was on the otherside.

The other option which is even worse for the god theory is that one system could cancel the other, for instance by setting all the variables of our universe to 0, which would give 0 output.

This would mean that that there was no universe for the "god" to effect.

Or the other logic might cancel itself when impacting are logic, erasing the logic system and hence god.

As this seems to show the equilibrium of logics shifts to avoid allowing contradiction of logic. No matter what the system of logic it can't contradict our logic.

So the argument that god can do anything so must be able to make something impossible to do must be flawed as that would mean he couldn't do it himself. And he cant use a different universe with different logic to make it.

What you think of my argument? Always like constructive criticism. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Dont mention spelling or grammar tho its irrelevant to my point.

napoleon_complex

2005-04-22, 19:28

quote:Originally posted by craig2005:

If god is a supernatural being or force then by defonition he "goes against natural law". And also this means that the being defies logic of this universe.

Not quite. A supernatural being is just that, supernatural. That being has the ability to go beyond(or supersede) the bounds of nature.

[This message has been edited by napoleon_complex (edited 04-22-2005).]

craig2005

2005-04-22, 23:20

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Not quite. A supernatural being is just that, supernatural. That being has the ability to go beyond(or supersede) the bounds of nature.

"su·per·nat·u·ral Audio pronunciation of "supernatural" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-nchr-l)

adj.

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

3. Of or relating to a deity.

4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.

5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

"

1) if it is outside the natural world it isnt natural and hence it is unnatural, and as it is beyond nature it is in a different base of logic as nature comes from the way the universe acts according to its logic.( ie logic builds to maths builds to physics builds to chemistry and biology and all the other bits and pieces.)

2)violates natural law same point.

3)this cant be used as a definition for god as that would be self reference (ie a god is supernatural, meaning a god is god-like).

4) miraculous, an impossible thing that happens, violates nature.

5)miraculous, an impossible thing that happens, violates nature.

All these show that supernatural means to violate nature, and as nature is logic based, logic as well.

BTW definition from http://www.dictionary.com

[This message has been edited by craig2005 (edited 04-22-2005).]

napoleon_complex

2005-04-23, 01:14

quote:Originally posted by craig2005:

"su·per·nat·u·ral Audio pronunciation of "supernatural" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-nchr-l)

adj.

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

3. Of or relating to a deity.

4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.

5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

"

1) if it is outside the natural world it isnt natural and hence it is unnatural, and as it is beyond nature it is in a different base of logic as nature comes from the way the universe acts according to its logic.( ie logic builds to maths builds to physics builds to chemistry and biology and all the other bits and pieces.)

No it isn't unnatural, it is supernatural, hence it's name.....

Being supernatural implies that it isn't bound by nature, not that it isn't unnatural, just that nature is in a realm outside it's own. I'd venture to guess that a supreme being would fall into this catergory.....

quote:2)violates natural law same point.

It isn't bounded by those laws because the being created those laws(assuming there is a creator).

quote:3)this cant be used as a definition for god as that would be self reference (ie a god is supernatural, meaning a god is god-like).

God(creator) is supernatural. That god is not bound by nature. He lives in, and controls nature, but nature does not control him. His abilities supersede the abilities and laws of nature. No self-reference.

quote:4) miraculous, an impossible thing that happens, violates nature.

See above.

quote:5)miraculous, an impossible thing that happens, violates nature.

See above again.

quote:All these show that supernatural means to violate nature, and as nature is logic based, logic as well.

You're assuming that a supernatural being was created by nature when you say this. The supernatural being(in our case at least) created nature. He created the laws and he created logic(which can be flawed like in this case). If god came second to nature, then you'd have a point, but since god is the creator and the creator isn't bound by his own creations, god isn't bound by the laws of nature.

Clarphimous

2005-04-23, 04:20

Instead of bickering about the definitions of words, why don't you restate what you're trying to say so you're certain the others will understand?

Digital_Savior

2005-04-23, 05:26

quote:Originally posted by Shadout Mapes:

Oh, and Lost Cause said he was athiest, I'm not sure why you missed that.

SHE.

She said she believes in God, but because of the way she believes in science and religion, she is considered both an atheist and an agnostic.

Ask her to clarify.

craig2005

2005-04-23, 07:29

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

Instead of bickering about the definitions of words, why don't you restate what you're trying to say so you're certain the others will understand?

OK that makes sense

Well it doesnt matter that he is supernatural just that he can defy nature if he wishes. That would mean that he cant be based on our logic as it would always require him to be able to make something he cant do, which is logical contradiction.

napoleon_complex

2005-04-23, 07:51

quote:Originally posted by craig2005:

OK that makes sense

Well it doesnt matter that he is supernatural just that he can defy nature if he wishes. That would mean that he cant be based on our logic as it would always require him to be able to make something he cant do, which is logical contradiction.

Huh? http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

MasterMind420

2005-04-23, 17:04

Exactly what I thought. No one hear can prove that god exists. Furthermore if you can't do this why is it you continue to believe?(seriously, I just want to know)

One can't disprove god doesn't exist if no one can prove god(supreme being) does exist.

"PROVE to me God Actually Exist" All anyone has done is dance around the PROVE part, and spew utter bullshit.

You know why there is no proof?... there is no god.

To believe in god was a primitive thought system used thousands of years ago. It's hilarious how some of you haven't evolved.

Also, you’re trusting thousands of year old text, without first hand knowledge. (this gets me mad)This text is no longer relevant and you weren't there at the time.

Are you telling me no one took any liberties with respect to the scriptures along the way? It is just arrogant and ignorant to think what you read or are taught (preached to) is the real information. Maybe it's not your fault and it’s been drilled in your head from an early age.

Also in my personal experience I've noticed that more intelligent people don't believe in god, While the less intelligent (i.e., Argonplasma) believe. GENERALIZATION I know, but it holds some truth, if you don't notice this correlation then you are in denial.

Maybe less intelligent people don't have a grasp of science. When religions were formed we know the people at the time weren't as intelligent, so why do we trust them.

In MY personal experience I have observed this.

I need proof to believe in something not faith.

napoleon_complex

2005-04-23, 17:35

Are you an atheist or an agnostic?

xtreem5150ahm

2005-04-23, 18:20

here is THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=269

i have also posted this link in 'Give me examples of taking the Bible literally. (Page 3)', as i think it was relevant to both threads.

imperfectcircle

2005-04-23, 18:25

quote:Originally posted by MasterMind420:

You know why there is no proof?... there is no god.

You claim that there is no god, and yet you have no proof for that belief. Explain how you can believe the certainty of this proposition without proof, and how this is different from a religious person believing the certainty of another proposition without proof.

quote:Also in my personal experience I've noticed that more intelligent people don't believe in god, While the less intelligent (i.e., Argonplasma) believe. GENERALIZATION I know, but it holds some truth, if you don't notice this correlation then you are in denial.

This is only true if the "god" you refer to is a simplistic explanation of one. Mystical belief is emotional in nature, not rational. If you have no emotional experience of divinity, then you are ignorant in this respect, and you are talking about something you don't understand. Trying to understand god through purely rational means reminds me of Frank Zappa's quote, "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture". I suppose you also think that being in love is purely chemical in nature.

xtreem5150ahm

2005-04-23, 19:25

QUOTE Originally posted by MasterMind420:

Maybe it's not your fault and it’s been drilled in your head from an early age.

much like evolution http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Also in my personal experience I've noticed that more intelligent people don't believe in god, While the less intelligent (i.e., Argonplasma) believe.

From reading Argonplasma's posts, i think he is far from "less intelligent"... but what do i know, i've been compared to a chicken, typing on a japanese typewriter http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Actually, i have read a report that states that intelligence is about equal in reguards to whether one believes or not... the biggest factor that sways belief to non-belief is...

[drumroll] higher income level. I think it was at about $200,000 (US) or more.

Funny, huh?

MasterMind420

2005-04-23, 20:46

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Are you an atheist or an agnostic?

quote:Originally posted by MasterMind420:

I am actually trying to have an open mind towards the possibility of a "God" but yet still cannot fathom the idea.

You disect my posts one by one but don't take into account what I'm saying. Go back and read them. I've had to repeat myself.

to answer your question: agnostic.

speakeroo

2005-04-23, 20:47

quote:Originally posted by MasterMind420:

I think only a complete moron could believe in something based totally on belief and in no way has "fact" of any kind associated with.

MasterMind's philosphy:

"God was invented as a backbone to morality"

Why can't people realize that the idea of "God" is suppositious. Instead they impose their belief to be fact.

Now to be hypocritical, I am actually trying to have an open mind towards the possibility of a "God" but yet still cannot fathom the idea.

PROVE TO ME GOD EXISTS!

Okay... I'm not gonna read through everyones comments, cause this topic has been covered so many time, just reply to the poster.

You state, God was invented, now, usually when something is invented, afterwards it exists. So, by your own statement, God exists, if only in an abstract form.

Your very making of this topic, demonstrates you're not entirely sure, that you are correct, and I ask, why can't you believe the idea of no god, is arrogant, but instead impose you're god damned (couldn't resist the pun) logic on me as fact, quite condescending.

Now, I've already proved God exists one way, because you've stated he was invented, so therefore he must exist post-innovated thought.

But, another way, to argue existence is perception. I perceive this reality, through, My senses. If, I feel hot in my classroom, then the classroom is hot to me. My friend on the other hand, feels cold in the classroom, and to her, the room is cold. We both, are correct, because hotness and coldness are relative, to perception. If, I feel there is a god, because, While I was walking, I felt a small tingle in the small of back, then there is a god. Now you being the logical, would just say that the small tingle, was from a nerve reaction at an estranged thought, and therefore, there is no god, just a small tingle. From that perception, you are correct. So, while there is a god, and no god, existing in a hesitant duality. Both, are correct, and yet not all the way, because our tools of perception are flawed. Now, based on both of these arguments, I feel, as If I have prooved his existance. Also, in my reality, I'm the only one that counts. I win. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) Yet, to try and be fair to you, my mere deranged figment, I also prooved he doesn't exist, so that I can delude myself into being a contemporary christ figure, by showing kindness, and giving the way to salvation.

(I wonder if anyone will get the joke)

Editing...

[This message has been edited by speakeroo (edited 04-23-2005).]

imperfectcircle

2005-04-23, 21:11

OK mastermind, I'll tell you the simple question that was one of the major influences in pushing me from atheism to spirituality (note that I did NOT say religion). I don't want you to try and respond to this with an argument, because there really is no possible argument. The value of the question lies in how it makes you think, not in the answer. So, the question is, and it's oh so simple:

Why does something exist rather than nothing

I don't mean our universe, because there are potential theories suggested by science to explain that, the one I find most convincing myself is the ekpyrotic model of the universe. But if you dig deeper, any theory that explains our model of the universe NEEDS to involve a larger "multiverse". If there was nothing at all in existence whatsoever and suddenly our universe started in the big bang, this is causally impossible on its own, and requires the existence of god to be the first cause. But no matter what might exist beyond our own universe, the furthest you can possibly go in your imagination, why does ANYTHING exist? The question appears deceptively simple, but if you spend enough time thinking about it... well, see for yourself.

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 04-23-2005).]

MasterMind420

2005-04-23, 21:14

You didn't prove anything. What your saying is if "you" BELIEVE there is a god, then there is a god.

But alas you have contradicted yourself in that the same can be said inverted.

I think you believe that the "truth" is what you believe. Or what you interpret for yourself is your truth.

Well I'm sorry but that’s not true.

There is a right and a wrong answer.

When I said god was "invented" I should have used quotations or said it hypothetically. You’re getting in to semantics and interpreting the "invented" out of context. By me saying "invented" I do in no way recognize there is a god. I simply recognize that people believe in a god.

MasterMind420

2005-04-23, 21:24

Imperfectcircle: does something exist rather than nothing

You can't have “nothing” because even “nothing” is something.

We simply at this time are not smart enough to understand the universe. So you for example prove my point and resort back to god as an explanation.

imperfectcircle

2005-04-23, 21:33

To back up what I just said, in case you go I SAID PROVE IT TO ME MOTHERBITCH, read the following link when you have time to spare and a rested mind:

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

Yes, it's long, but you asked for people to prove this to you. The issue of gods existence is one of the most complex in philosophy, so if you want an answer you have to be prepared to spend some time and think about it. Here is a description of the article:

quote:The kalam cosmological argument, by showing that the universe began to exist, demonstrates that the world is not a necessary being and, therefore, not self-explanatory with respect to its existence. Two philosophical arguments and two scientific confirmations are presented in support of the beginning of the universe. Since whatever begins to exist has a cause, there must exist a transcendent cause of the universe.

You know, it's really arrogant what you said about how people who believe in god are so inclined because they are stupid. You really based that broad, sweeping comment on a stereotype of certain people you have met in your own life, hardly representative of humanity as a whole. Wander into the theology section of a library some time and try getting your head around some academic texts by Kierkegaard, Hegel, Descartes, Anselm, Aquinas... take nearly any of the greatest minds in human history (with very few exceptions such as Nietzsche) and you'll find they were preoccupied at some stage by trying to understand or prove gods existence.

I'm as tolerant as possible with other people's beliefs, no matter how much I might despise them personally, because what doesn't affect me directly is none of my business. But when atheists get self-righteous, and high and mighty because they think they don't believe on god because they are smarter than those who do, IT REALLY FUCKING PISSES ME OFF YOU SHOWER OF IGNORANT YEAST INFECTED CUNTFACES.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

imperfectcircle

2005-04-23, 21:35

quote:Originally posted by MasterMind420:

Imperfectcircle: does something exist rather than nothing

You can't have “nothing” because even “nothing” is something.

We simply at this time are not smart enough to understand the universe. So you for example prove my point and resort back to god as an explanation.

You have a closed mind, try opening it some time, you'll get more out of life.

napoleon_complex

2005-04-23, 21:44

quote:Originally posted by MasterMind420:

You disect my posts one by one but don't take into account what I'm saying. Go back and read them. I've had to repeat myself.

to answer your question: agnostic.

So you're an agnostic that believes god doesn't exist?

You seem to be contradicting yourself.....

MasterMind420

2005-04-23, 21:55

NO and wrong.

Do you know what an agnostic means?

MasterMind420

2005-04-23, 21:59

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

You have a closed mind, try opening it some time, you'll get more out of life.

Wouldn't I get more out of life by living it the way I choose to? Instead of following a religion that's views are obsolete.

I know you said you aren't religious, so just how do I get more out of life?

Does contradicting logic and suspending my belief for a supreme being make my life better?

napoleon_complex

2005-04-23, 22:04

agnostic: One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning “without, not,” as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, “knowledge,” which was used by early Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things” hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as “Gnostics” a group of his fellow intellectuals“ists,” as he called themwho had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a “man without a rag of a label to cover himself with,” Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnostic

You said:

quote:You know why there is no proof?... there is no god.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To believe in god was a primitive thought system used thousands of years ago. It's hilarious how some of you haven't evolved.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The whole premise of a supreme being is erroneous.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lack or proof indeed equates inexistence.

These do not strike me as the statements an agnostic would make. These are things that an atheist would say, not a non-committal, unknowing agnostic.

imperfectcircle

2005-04-23, 22:21

quote:Originally posted by MasterMind420:

Wouldn't I get more out of life by living it the way I choose to? Instead of following a religion that's views are obsolete.

I know you said you aren't religious, so just how do I get more out of life?

Does contradicting logic and suspending my belief for a supreme being make my life better?

Frankly I wasn't expecting a response like that http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) I see what you mean, you can't "make" yourself believe by pretending you accept things that you don't truly believe. There are two paths I would suggest, neither one is certain though. The first is to just try and keep your mind open to other possibilities, being close minded is nothing more than refusing to question your own beliefs. If you keep your mind open to new possibilities, the longer you live and the more you experience, eventually it's almost a certainty that you will notice the... I don't like using the words common to religion, because they pull up plenty of associations... but you'll notice the divine/sacred nature of the universe, and this has nothing to do with religion itself, religion is just inspired by it. Unfortunately most religions in the world do a shitty job of it, in my opinion (and certainly the opinion of most atheists). But confusing the spirituality of the universe with religion is like confusing the map for the land itself.

The second path, the one I took, is to spend a year or two reading up on philosophy, in particular those of eastern mysticism, Zen Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism. Once the ideas have sunk in, and if they do it will just be purely intellectual ideas at this stage, then take a heroic dose of magic mushrooms. Your ideas of god will unravel, and the truth will reveal itself that "god" internally is your consciousness, and externally is spacetime, and though you separate the two in your normal experience, they are both one. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

imperfectcircle

2005-04-23, 22:24

If you have an interest in science, two ideal books to start with would be "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert Pirsig and "The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra.

MasterMind420

2005-04-23, 22:42

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

If you have an interest in science, two ideal books to start with would be "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert Pirsig and "The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra.

Well I do love science, taking it at uni.

I have had intentions of reading "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", but busy with well life.

"The Tao of Physics" I'll look into, eventually.

speakeroo

2005-04-24, 01:26

quote:Originally posted by MasterMind420:

You didn't prove anything. What your saying is if "you" BELIEVE there is a god, then there is a god.

But alas you have contradicted yourself in that the same can be said inverted.

I think you believe that the "truth" is what you believe. Or what you interpret for yourself is your truth.

Well I'm sorry but that’s not true.

There is a right and a wrong answer.

When I said god was "invented" I should have used quotations or said it hypothetically. You’re getting in to semantics and interpreting the "invented" out of context. By me saying "invented" I do in no way recognize there is a god. I simply recognize that people believe in a god.

I have not, contradicted myself.

I state, that truth, is relative to perception. If, I say there is a god, then for me, there is a god. It may differ for you, but what counts is that for me, there is. So, with in that loophole, what appears to be contradictions exist, only because you wish to see them. (You're perception http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

In fact, you did proove what I stated. You disagree, and told me it was not true. Now, for you, and from you're perception that is a truth. That I am wrong.

And, my play with semantics is still valid.

in·vent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-vnt)

tr.v. in·vent·ed, in·vent·ing, in·vents

To produce or contrive (something previously unknown) by the use of ingenuity or imagination.

To make up; fabricate: invent a likely excuse.

The verb, means to make or create, and if god doesn't exist, yet people worship him, are you saying that they in fact did not invent him? (This is one of those right or wrongs, because we have a clear agreed definitions. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) (Also, because you seem to like them, and for my stance, I'll use it likewise)

And, you seem not to have picked up by my cosntant use of the verv, "feel." I'm not talking mathematics that 1 = 1, I'm talking about in the abstract, or relative.

And, for something that does not exist, you seem to be kind of hung up on it. You're attention to the mere ideal, gives it existence, so you have prooved god, even if you do not wish to accept it.

One more thing... I did prove his existence. But, only from my perspective/reality/or whatever you want to call it. And, you're clear denial, gives it exisitence, or do you deny nothing? Yet, nothingness, has a form from a lack definition.

Thus, we have the beauty of philosophy. So, relax, and have a doughnut.

imperfectcircle

2005-04-24, 01:43

You're doing science? When I read your post I remembered something I haven't thought of in a long time, this could very well be ideal for you if you have a real interest in exploring spirituality - but don't know how to go about getting started.

This is a book called "IAMAI: A Metaphysics Handbook for Non-mystics", and it was "originally a class structured like a college science class, only with metaphysical subject matter. There was over ten hours of lectures with an equal or more amount of time for lab and questions". I love this book, it's the most down to earth approach to metaphysics I honestly think I have ever come across. The whole point is that you don't have to be a "believer", over time if you follow the instructions and so on, it's designed to make the principles self-evident. And you don't read it like a normal book, you read each section at a time and do the exercises before progressing to the next, at your own pace. A good indicator of whether this book is for you or not will be if you look at the table of contents and skim over the section titles. If you think to yourself "cool", you'll love it like I did. If you think "this sounds like horseshit" then maybe not. Only one way to find out though.

Oh yeah, and I don't think this book is even available to buy, it's all online. Very cool of the guy who put it together to do that, whether you like the subject matter or not. It used to be available at www.i-am-a-i.org (http://www.i-am-a-i.org) but I found to my utter dismay that it's either temporarily or permanently down. Well thank god for the wayback machine:

http://web.archive.org/web/20021222093156/www.i-am-a-i.org/read-only/index.php

So enjoy (I certainly hope you will at least)

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 04-24-2005).]

zorro420

2005-04-24, 04:18

For any argument, evidence, or line of reasoning to support the existence of god, one must first begin with the assumption that god exists. Without operating on this assumption, no evidence or line of reasoning leads in that direction. (This should be a big hint)

When information is analyzed without preconcieved ideas, it does not point to the existence of god. It does, however, indicate that the universe operates in a manner consistent with what the sciences indicate... because the sciences are the result (ongoing and ever-changing though it may be) of objective analysis of the facts.

If god did in fact exist, there would almost certainly be some solid evidence; evidence that would indicate the existence of god under objective analysis, without the preconception that god exists.

In terms of the Christian god, the Bible claims that he did, in fact, take overt actions and declare himself openly. Why, then, if god was supposedly willing to prove his own existence in such a fashion, does he not do so today?

-

Many of the posters here do not seem to be clear on the definition of a "theory".

A theory is not a guess, not speculation, not untested, and not without solid evidence.

A theory is an idea that has been derived from solid evidence, fits all the evidence, and withstands legitemate challenges against it, based on the evidence. Furthermore, in light of new evidence or successful challenges, a theory is changed to fit the new, fuller picture of facts and solid evidence.

An idea that is a guess, speculation, untested or untestable, and/or without solid evidence, is called a hypothesis.

To give some examples of theories, we have the Theory of Gravity, Electrical Theory, and the Theory of Evolution. Every fact we have found indicates these, but more importantly, they do not withstand facts and evidence, they are built on facts and evidence.

Creation is not a theory. It is a hypothesis, and a weak one at that. It is not derived from any sort of facts whatsoever. Rather, it is derived from human emotion, lack of understanding, and faith. None of these things indicate anything about the nature of reality.

Furthermore, the existence of god or divinity in general is not a theory. It is a hypothesis, and a weak one at that. It is not derived from any sort of facts whatsoever. Rather, it is derived from human emotion, lack of understanding, and faith. None of these things indicate anything about the nature of reality.

-

Those who favor the belief in god often seem to use emotion as support for their arguments. This, of course, is utterly ridiculous. Human emotion is unpredictable, erratic, inconsistent, and unreliable. It is created biologically by the human brain, through chemical messengers which stimulate electrical impulses, which are a subjective reaction to outside stimulus, or internal lines of thought.

I find it amusing that the same people who state that human perception is fundamentally unreliable would also use emotion as an argument for the nature of reality. Emotion is less reliable than perception, because it is triggered by perception, so it contains not only whatever flaws are present in the perception, but also whatever flaws are present in the reaction to that perception.

The beauty of science is that it largely circumvents the flaws of perception. Science uses repeatable experiments to examine the nature of reality. The results of these experiments are not perception, but manifestations of reality. Presumably, flaws in perception would be applied equally to all perceived events, so difference or similarity in results occurs independently of perception. Participation by multiple observers of the objective experiments further decreases the possibility of individual errors in perception.

Arson-God

2005-04-24, 04:35

I am God that's all you need to know.

imperfectcircle

2005-04-24, 04:50

quote:Originally posted by Arson-God:

I am God that's all you need to know.

Delete your totse account right now.

zorro420

2005-04-24, 04:55

I am God, too.

napoleon_complex

2005-04-24, 05:04

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

In terms of the Christian god, the Bible claims that he did, in fact, take overt actions and declare himself openly. Why, then, if god was supposedly willing to prove his own existence in such a fashion, does he not do so today?

Most spiritual people I know are spiritual because they feel that they have experienced god in some way or another(devine intervention and prayer usually).

I know plenty of people who claim that god came to them and told them what to do, how to deal with a situation, or what decision to make. I'm pretty sure all those people aren't part of a big conspiracy to get people to believe in god.

Just to play devil's advocate, how do you know God(since you're talking christianity) doesn't make his presence known? In the old testement, God made his will known through prophets and natural disasters. What makes you think that today's natural disasters and the so-called "prophets of God" aren't really God making himself known to us?

imperfectcircle

2005-04-24, 06:25

Zorro, your faith in science is based on the assumption that we can have knowledge of truths based on experiences and observations made of external phenomena. However if you accept the assumption that we can have "pure" knowledge based on experience, then you cannot reject knowledge derived from internal experience. Knowledge derived from scientific experiments cannot prove or disprove metaphysical knowledge.

You said in your post that "For any argument, evidence, or line of reasoning to support the existence of god, one must first begin with the assumption that god exists." However science rests on an assumption of its own. Since all knowledge of any kind ultimately rests in our minds, we can never have knowledge of what we are studying as anything but the representation we have of it in our mind. The assumption here is that such "pure" knowledge can be formed (objective and external to us), without us being able to know any object as it exists outside of our minds.

You also said "The beauty of science is that it largely circumvents the flaws of perception. Science uses repeatable experiments to examine the nature of reality. The results of these experiments are not perception, but manifestations of reality." Again, here lies an assumption, namely that events in the future will occur in the same manner as the past. You can tell me that this is intuitively true, just like I can tell you that the existence of god is intuitively true to me, but neither of us can prove it, even if you kept repeated the same experiment until the end of time. What's important isn't the result of the experiment, but the belief you derive from it. What you are suggesting is that the only "true" form of knowledge comes from experimentation. Perhaps you might tell me about the experiment that proves the existence of the passage of time, one that can prove the existence of the past without making reference to something that exists in the present (which is not the past). You can't prove the existence of the past in the present, and yet you believe it to be true.

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 04-24-2005).]

speakeroo

2005-04-24, 15:42

So, Zorro, God does exist. Only has an abstract hypothesis, to explain our world. Thank you for proving his existence. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

zorro420

2005-04-24, 20:38

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Most spiritual people I know are spiritual because they feel that they have experienced god in some way or another(devine intervention and prayer usually).

And as I said, emotion is entirely irrelevant in terms of objective determination of anything. It just doesn't count, sorry.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I know plenty of people who claim that god came to them and told them what to do, how to deal with a situation, or what decision to make. I'm pretty sure all those people aren't part of a big conspiracy to get people to believe in god.

I never suggested a conspiracy. However, the "god" they spoke with is most likely just an aspect of their mind; basically, they need to give themselves more credit for figuring things out, and stop with this "god said it" business.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Just to play devil's advocate, how do you know God(since you're talking christianity) doesn't make his presence known? In the old testement, God made his will known through prophets and natural disasters. What makes you think that today's natural disasters and the so-called "prophets of God" aren't really God making himself known to us?

Because if God was going to make his presence known, he would do so directly, not in a manner that can much more easily be explained without divine intervention. The killer tsunami, for example, was caused by movement of tectonic plates. We don't need a deity involved to explain it.

God could easily do something like create a gigantic light in the sky that speaks, while simultaneously lifting up all the cars in the world and arranging them into giant letters: GOD SAYS HI. Or, he could do something entirely unfathomable to the human mind, something far more obvious and direct and inarguable than I can imagine. But he doesn't, probably because he doesn't exist.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Zorro, your faith in science is based on the assumption that we can have knowledge of truths based on experiences and observations made of external phenomena. However if you accept the assumption that we can have "pure" knowledge based on experience, then you cannot reject knowledge derived from internal experience. Knowledge derived from scientific experiments cannot prove or disprove metaphysical knowledge.

You said in your post that "For any argument, evidence, or line of reasoning to support the existence of god, one must first begin with the assumption that god exists." However science rests on an assumption of its own. Since all knowledge of any kind ultimately rests in our minds, we can never have knowledge of what we are studying as anything but the representation we have of it in our mind. The assumption here is that such "pure" knowledge can be formed (objective and external to us), without us being able to know any object as it exists outside of our minds.

First of all, you assume that I have faith. I do not. I'm just waiting for something to come along and indicate otherwise. However, in the case of the sciences, I suspect (I do not have faith) that such will not come. If it does, however, I will consider the new information in the same skeptical light as I consider all other.

Internal experiences, as I stated before, are irrelevant. As I said before, not only do they depend on perception, but they also vary widely despite it. As a result, they are entirely unreliable, and ultimately meaningless.

It is entirely possible to set up an experiment to record the results without human involvement. Not all experiments can be set up this way, but many can. You set up a sensor to detect the results of the test. The sensor is connected to a computer, and the results are recorded into an Excel spreadsheet. Only after the results are recorded are humans involved, insofar as reading the spreadsheet. In this scenario, the only way that human perception could flaw the results of the experiment is if that perception distorts or alters the letters and numbers on the computer screen. Even if an individual perceives incorrectly, to assume that everyone reading the spreadsheet will suffer the exact same delusion is... paranoid, to say the least. If we make this assumption, then we cannot trust anything... least of all personal emotional experiences which suggest the existence of god. In this case, we are assuming that humans are completely insane, and at this point all discussion becomes moot.

However, I think it is relatively safe to suppose that most people can read a spreadsheet and actually see symbols that the computer is actually displaying. It is still a supposition, but the probability exceeds 99.9-%.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

You also said "The beauty of science is that it largely circumvents the flaws of perception. Science uses repeatable experiments to examine the nature of reality. The results of these experiments are not perception, but manifestations of reality." Again, here lies an assumption, namely that events in the future will occur in the same manner as the past. You can tell me that this is intuitively true, just like I can tell you that the existence of god is intuitively true to me, but neither of us can prove it, even if you kept repeated the same experiment until the end of time.

Again, I accept that it is impossible to truly prove anything. However, it is possible to indicate things beyond a reasonable doubt. While the possibility exists that things will occur differently given different circumstances, such a possibility is infinitesimally small. All objective experiences indicate beyond a reasonable doubt that, given precisely the same circumstances, the outcome will be precisely the same; a different outcome is the result of some factor being altered, possibly one of which we are not aware.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

What's important isn't the result of the experiment, but the belief you derive from it.

Actually, the opposite is true. What is important is the objective result. Regardless of what beliefs (or in the case of superior minds, not beliefs but suppositions) are made as a result, the hard reality of the experiment is the key.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

What you are suggesting is that the only "true" form of knowledge comes from experimentation. Perhaps you might tell me about the experiment that proves the existence of the passage of time, one that can prove the existence of the past without making reference to something that exists in the present (which is not the past). You can't prove the existence of the past in the present, and yet you believe it to be true.

Again, you assume too much about me. I believe no such things about time. Time may not exist in such a past-present-future sense as we like to define it. Perhaps everything simply exists now, and continues to move, change, interact with the rest of reality on an ongoing basis, and the past does not exist except as a description of a former configuration of reality, a reality which continues from that previous configuration to reach its current one, and will continue to alter its configuration in reaction to itself. In this sense, motion and change themselves are indication of the passage of time, in a sense.

quote:Originally posted by speakeroo:

So, Zorro, God does exist. Only as an abstract hypothesis, to explain our world. Thank you for proving his existence. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Exactly. Unfortunately, it is a supremely weak and utterly flawed hypothesis.

[This message has been edited by zorro420 (edited 04-24-2005).]

napoleon_complex

2005-04-25, 00:53

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

And as I said, emotion is entirely irrelevant in terms of objective determination of anything. It just doesn't count, sorry.

Maybe it is irrelevant to you personally, but in the entire debate, emotions and personal experiences become relevant.

quote:I never suggested a conspiracy. However, the "god" they spoke with is most likely just an aspect of their mind; basically, they need to give themselves more credit for figuring things out, and stop with this "god said it" business.

And what is more logical? A god is just as likely as a random occurrence. Divine creation is just as likely as spurious creation(or whatever you want to call it).

What about the people who did think for themselves and reached the conclusion of God? The great thinkers of our time and of classical times? I guess those great philosophers and scientists should learn to think for themselves too, huh?

quote:Because if God was going to make his presence known, he would do so directly, not in a manner that can much more easily be explained without divine intervention. The killer tsunami, for example, was caused by movement of tectonic plates. We don't need a deity involved to explain it.

Do you know God personally and he told you that if he exists, this is that is the way that he would convey his existence? How the fuck are you so sure that is the way god would show people he exists? Why would god(creator) even have to make his presence known to us? What good would that do it?

quote:God could easily do something like create a gigantic light in the sky that speaks, while simultaneously lifting up all the cars in the world and arranging them into giant letters: GOD SAYS HI. Or, he could do something entirely unfathomable to the human mind, something far more obvious and direct and inarguable than I can imagine. But he doesn't, probably because he doesn't exist.

Read what I said above. A divine being doesn't have to make it's presence known to the undivine. There would be no reason whatsoever for god to actively make it's presence known.

imperfectcircle

2005-04-25, 01:43

quote:It is entirely possible to set up an experiment to record the results without human involvement. Not all experiments can be set up this way, but many can. You set up a sensor to detect the results of the test. The sensor is connected to a computer, and the results are recorded into an Excel spreadsheet. Only after the results are recorded are humans involved, insofar as reading the spreadsheet. In this scenario, the only way that human perception could flaw the results of the experiment is if that perception distorts or alters the letters and numbers on the computer screen. Even if an individual perceives incorrectly, to assume that everyone reading the spreadsheet will suffer the exact same delusion is... paranoid, to say the least. If we make this assumption, then we cannot trust anything... least of all personal emotional experiences which suggest the existence of god. In this case, we are assuming that humans are completely insane, and at this point all discussion becomes moot.

Setting up such equipment is uneccessary, as from the perspective of the human it is our removal from the experience that causes the problem of pure rational knowledge, it is the latter that we contruct in our heads, the physical aspect is in a sense unimportant.

quote:Again, I accept that it is impossible to truly prove anything. However, it is possible to indicate things beyond a reasonable doubt. While the possibility exists that things will occur differently given different circumstances, such a possibility is infinitesimally small. All objective experiences indicate beyond a reasonable doubt that, given precisely the same circumstances, the outcome will be precisely the same; a different outcome is the result of some factor being altered, possibly one of which we are not aware.

If you accept that scientific knowledge deals with probablities rather than certainties, it's impossible to use rationality to disprove the existence of god. Saying you think the existence of god is astronomically improbably based on your experience of divinity is a totally fair statement, but you can't deny that existence with total certainty (though I'm not saying you explicitly said that).

quote:Actually, the opposite is true. What is important is the objective result. Regardless of what beliefs (or in the case of superior minds, not beliefs but suppositions) are made as a result, the hard reality of the experiment is the key.

You rejected the religious position by saying that belief in god is not a theory, which according to your post is primary ("Furthermore, the existence of god or divinity in general is not a theory. It is a hypothesis, and a weak one at that. It is not derived from any sort of facts whatsoever. Rather, it is derived from human emotion, lack of understanding, and faith. None of these things indicate anything about the nature of reality.") The hard reality of the experiment is meaningless without a scientific theory to explain it, you could tell a person the results of a supercollider experiment, but it would mean nothing to him, tell him nothing about reality without a knowledge of the relevent theories involved.

quote:Again, you assume too much about me. I believe no such things about time. Time may not exist in such a past-present-future sense as we like to define it. Perhaps everything simply exists now, and continues to move, change, interact with the rest of reality on an ongoing basis, and the past does not exist except as a description of a former configuration of reality, a reality which continues from that previous configuration to reach its current one, and will continue to alter its configuration in reaction to itself. In this sense, motion and change themselves are indication of the passage of time, in a sense.

You don't believe the past exists? Causality is the foundation on which rational knowledge is built, and it assumes that sequential events are temporally connected.

zorro420

2005-04-25, 03:13

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Maybe it is irrelevant to you personally, but in the entire debate, emotions and personal experiences become relevant.

You're missing the point entirely. Human emotions exist only as a function of the brain. Reality does not depend on how humans feel about it. Furthermore, emotion is hideously unreliable as a way of determining anything, as it depends on the individual, not on external reality.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

And what is more logical? A god is just as likely as a random occurrence. Divine creation is just as likely as spurious creation(or whatever you want to call it).

How do you figure? "Random" occurrence is simply occurrence for which the cause is unknown. Just because some stories insist that a deity exists, that does not make it any more likely that such is true. While a god is technically just as possible as a natural occurrence (since possibility is all or nothing), god is also far less probable. In fact, in light of the utter lack of any sort of real evidence, the probability of a god approaches zero.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

What about the people who did think for themselves and reached the conclusion of God? The great thinkers of our time and of classical times? I guess those great philosophers and scientists should learn to think for themselves too, huh?

The great thinkers of the past possessed far less knowledge than we do today. Take the example of a man from several millennia ago, who looked upon fire and had no idea what it was; after thinking on it, he came to the conclusion that fire was a spirit. His spiritual conclusion is still based not on evidence, but on lack of evidence. It is therefore not surprising that he was completely wrong.

As for the great thinkers of our day, if they choose to reject the idea which has only an infinitesimal and completely unevidenced chance of being wrong, in favor of the idea which has only an infinitesimal and completely unevidenced chance of being right, then they are no great thinker, but a fool.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Do you know God personally and he told you that if he exists, this is that is the way that he would convey his existence? How the fuck are you so sure that is the way god would show people he exists? Why would god(creator) even have to make his presence known to us? What good would that do it?

Read what I said above. A divine being doesn't have to make it's presence known to the undivine. There would be no reason whatsoever for god to actively make it's presence known.

Obviously I do not know god personally, or the argument would be moot. But why would he show us? What good would it do? If god wants followers, wants people to behave as he says, then it would be incredibly effective for these purposes to reveal himself openly.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Setting up such equipment is uneccessary, as from the perspective of the human it is our removal from the experience that causes the problem of pure rational knowledge, it is the latter that we contruct in our heads, the physical aspect is in a sense unimportant.

The physical sense is the only thing that is important, because that is reality. Human perception only matters insofar as we wish to understand reality. If we do wish to understand reality, then the physical sense is the only thing that matters at all.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

If you accept that scientific knowledge deals with probablities rather than certainties, it's impossible to use rationality to disprove the existence of god. Saying you think the existence of god is astronomically improbably based on your experience of divinity is a totally fair statement, but you can't deny that existence with total certainty (though I'm not saying you explicitly said that).

Of course it is impossible to truly disprove the existence of god, because it is impossible to truly prove a negative. However, there is no indication of a positive. One does not assume a positive without indication; however, by its nature, lack of indication suggests (but does not prove) a negative.

If all the evidence points to Answer A, though it is technically impossible to prove, and no evidence points to Answer B, though it is technically impossible to disprove, there is still no reason to believe Answer B, and every reason to believe Answer A.

This is the case with religion. To reject the infinitely probable in favor of the infinitely improbable is utterly insane. Furthermore, to fabricate Answer B and insist that it is just as likely as Answer A is purely asinine, and without merit.

[This message has been edited by zorro420 (edited 04-25-2005).]

speakeroo

2005-04-25, 04:08

I'm just happy, that I've done what was challenged. Proved his existence, the confirmation by Zorro, is all that it takes. As for the silly prick who started it, why so few replies?

LostCause

2005-04-25, 07:00

No one has proved anything, but that's something else all together.

quote:Originally posted by speakeroo:

As for the silly prick who started it, why so few replies?

Don't you think he's said enough?

Cheers,

Lost

Rust

2005-04-25, 07:16

quote:Originally posted by speakeroo:

One more thing... I did prove his existence. But, only from my perspective/reality/or whatever you want to call it. And, you're clear denial, gives it exisitence, or do you deny nothing? Yet, nothingness, has a form from a lack definition.

For proof you must offer evidence. Saying that you "feel he exists", is not evidence, as such you have not proved anything.

To claim that you have is to claim that I have proved you wrong because a "feel like it".

Clarphimous

2005-04-25, 17:12

Here is an article that has Over Three Hundred Proofs of God's Existence. (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm)

imperfectcircle

2005-04-25, 18:29

quote:

ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY

(1) Eric Clapton is God.

(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM META-SMUGNESS

(1) Fuck you.

(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM UPPERCASE ASSERTION

(1) GOD EXISTS! GET USED TO IT!

(2) Therefore, God exists.

Refute that atheists!

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 04-25-2005).]

napoleon_complex

2005-04-25, 19:57

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

You're missing the point entirely. Human emotions exist only as a function of the brain. Reality does not depend on how humans feel about it. Furthermore, emotion is hideously unreliable as a way of determining anything, as it depends on the individual, not on external reality.

So logic and abstract thought(philosophy) should also be discredited? They are functions solely of the brain. They can be unreliable(flawed logic trains; false assumptions in philosophies).

As much as you don't like it, human emotion, thought, morality, and anything else human matters when it comes to God. After all, we are it's creation. You cannot just discredit first hand emotions and experiences, not in the total scheme of things.

quote:How do you figure? "Random" occurrence is simply occurrence for which the cause is unknown. Just because some stories insist that a deity exists, that does not make it any more likely that such is true. While a god is technically just as possible as a natural occurrence (since possibility is all or nothing), god is also far less probable. In fact, in light of the utter lack of any sort of real evidence, the probability of a god approaches zero.

Evidence that you like? There is plenty of evidence for the existence of god if you were to talk to people about it. There are plenty of things were the only logical explanation is god. There is plenty of evidence for god. Considering the lack of scientific explanation for things that should be easily explainable, the existence of god becomes more and more apparent to me at least.

quote:The great thinkers of the past possessed far less knowledge than we do today. Take the example of a man from several millennia ago, who looked upon fire and had no idea what it was; after thinking on it, he came to the conclusion that fire was a spirit. His spiritual conclusion is still based not on evidence, but on lack of evidence. It is therefore not surprising that he was completely wrong.

I guess Einstein was too far in the past then, huh? What about the philosophers who believed in a gad? I guess those abstract individualists were just believing in what they were told?

quote:As for the great thinkers of our day, if they choose to reject the idea which has only an infinitesimal and completely unevidenced chance of being wrong, in favor of the idea which has only an infinitesimal and completely unevidenced chance of being right, then they are no great thinker, but a fool.

So says the learned atheist..... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

speakeroo

2005-04-25, 21:30

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

For proof you must offer evidence. Saying that you "feel he exists", is not evidence, as such you have not proved anything.

To claim that you have is to claim that I have proved you wrong because a "feel like it".

Did you not just prove me wrong, cause you felt like it? Plus, what processes facts, and what processes feelings? http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Plus, never said it had to be concrete, mine is made out of a deck of cards.

MasterMind420

2005-04-25, 21:47

quote:Originally posted by speakeroo:

I'm just happy, that I've done what was challenged. Proved his existence, the confirmation by Zorro, is all that it takes. As for the silly prick who started it, why so few replies?

I'm a silly prick? You’re nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual. You believe you have proved the existence of god based solely on your word play. You are not smart, and you haven’t proved anything.

Why so few replies? Well read the pages you dumb-fuck, I have made quite a few replies. I also have a life to deal with, I can’t waste my time with your bullshit, and no one here has yet to prove the existence of god.

You’re not in the least bit smart. You only make a fool of yourself. Your theories are irrelevant and again nothing more then word play. One can acknowledge that people believe in god, without themselves believing in a god. Are you seriously this retarded?

---Beany---

2005-04-25, 22:16

Now now children. It's only a game.

imperfectcircle

2005-04-25, 23:30

YEAH FOR FUCKS SAKE STOP ACTING PISSED OFF YOU BUNCH OF SHIT ENCRUSTED ANAL DILDOS

I feel much better now

And Mastermind look, if you really wanted to ask someone to prove the existence of god, then you completely wasted your time. There hasn't been a single incontravertible proof of gods existence in the history of human civilisation, do you really think the depraved and deranged members of totse are going to find it? The purpose of this thread is much more productive if we look at it like a discussion about the ability to prove/disprove gods existence.

voodoomagic

2005-04-26, 00:22

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

um.. the only reason that the sciences and mathematical stuff is flawd is because we havent finished discovering anything. at least we try and find things such as gravitons, or whatever, and try to complete our math. religious people just are like.."oo that was a weird feeling.. must've been god!"

- That's not true. Most of the flaws, so far, cannot be accounted for and not all religious scholars are like that. Often there's just a much proof of god as there is against it. That's why the question still stands.

the scientific advancement has been so great over the last century, i can guarentee that physicists will be able to account for everything.

- How do you know that? Living in a universe where we have so little knowledge of even ourselves how can you say what the advancements will be, and how much they will tell us about what?

i find that alot of people at my school only believe in god because they dont know how everything could exist. i heard about this thing called zero point energy, where energy can come from what appears to be no where. (anyone else have any further info on this?)

- That's sort of an offshoot of The Big Bang Theory. In quantum physics you learn that even a very small ammount of mass contains an incredibly large ammount of energy. This is initially what inspired the idea for the atomic bomb: a massive ammount of energy coming from a very small ammount of mass. This can also be inverted: energy turning into mass. That's what they think The Big Bang was. That all the universe was just energy that somehow "exploded" and in the explosion the pressure managed to turn the energy into mass. Planets formed, stars formed, etc...

Look up quantum and The Big Bang. It's integral knowledge for anyone who wants to argue the existence of god with someone who knows what they're talking about. But, I'll warn you, The Big Bang still doesn't disprove the existence of god. So, don't think you found any answer. It'll just give you, sort of, a leg to stand on in a debate.

i also think that religion is becoming less and less part of our society. less people follow along with the morning prayer in my school.

- That's not true. Actually there's been a documented religious uprising. Particularily with young people. It happens every time there's a war.

one of my thoughts about the existence of god, is that if it was real, then we would know. there would be no doubt whatsoever that god was there. there would be none of this foolish bullshit about finding god, and building some sketchy relationship with him/her/it.[/B]

- We don't know every star in the universe either. That doesn't mean there aren't more out there.

Listen, I'm atheist anyways so I'm not really into arguing for the existence of god, but your argument is undeveloped, immature, and unfounded. You need to go back to the drawing board before you start throwing around such definitive statements like "God does not exist" or "people who believe in god are stupid".

Cheers,

Lost[/B]

yo who do u think u are? to me all u said was a shit load of philosophical crap about what i said, and that it could possibly be wrong.

i did not say the advancements will be such and such, im making an analysis about what i have observed.

documented religious uprising because of war, is just great. thats what u call people who are in need of hope.

now, anyone could prove every religion wrong, and that there is no god and blah blah, and i would not be surprised if some fruity religious guy who doesnt understand what has been proven, will still insist that god initiated it all, and gave us souls.

its just a matter of acceptance. some people cannot live without a god. i do not think these people are stupid. if u took away the idea of god from them then they wouldnt beable to live their life. god is whatever u want it to be, and for some people it makes them feel safe.

brriot

2005-04-26, 01:27

God is a theory that has stuck with us through out evolution and has been the best "explantion" for our purpose of life, to keep order, and also for hope.

zorro420

2005-04-26, 04:39

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

So logic and abstract thought(philosophy) should also be discredited? They are functions solely of the brain. They can be unreliable(flawed logic trains; false assumptions in philosophies).

As I have stated before, even these cannot be relied upon to 100%. However, emotions must first pass through these processes, meaning that all emotions are based on whatever flaws exist in the though processes that trigger the emotions.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

As much as you don't like it, human emotion, thought, morality, and anything else human matters when it comes to God. After all, we are it's creation. You cannot just discredit first hand emotions and experiences, not in the total scheme of things.

Only if you assume that god exists. If you start with any assumption, you can probably twist everything to appear to support that assumption.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

There are plenty of things were the only logical explanation is god. There is plenty of evidence for god. Considering the lack of scientific explanation for things that should be easily explainable, the existence of god becomes more and more apparent to me at least.

Again, only if you start with the assumption that god exists. Otherwise, the only logical answer is... "I don't know." That doesn't mean god did it, it just means we can't figure it out right now.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I guess Einstein was too far in the past then, huh? What about the philosophers who believed in a gad? I guess those abstract individualists were just believing in what they were told?

In point of fact, many of the scientific discoveries that are chipping away bigger and bigger pieces of the idea of god have only come in recent years. Science develops at an exponential rate. Even forty years ago we knew but a small fraction of what we know today about such topics as physics and biology.

Thinkers of the past cannot be faulted for what they could not know. However, that does not mean that new knowledge does not change the picture; in fact, it is the only thing that does.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

As for the great thinkers of our day, if they choose to reject the idea which has only an infinitesimal and completely unevidenced chance of being wrong, in favor of the idea which has only an infinitesimal and completely unevidenced chance of being right, then they are no great thinker, but a fool.

So says the learned atheist.....

This has nothing to do with theism or atheism. It is a general statement. It is true for anything.

quote:Originally posted by brriot:

God is a theory that has stuck with us through out evolution and has been the best "explantion" for our purpose of life, to keep order, and also for hope.

None of these have any bearing on whether or not it is true.

Our purpose of life is the same as any organism: to make more of ourselves.

We can keep order through the rule of law, rather than the false fear of eternal punishment.

Hope can be achieved through real hope, whatever that may be in a given situation, rather than false hope based on fiction.

LostCause

2005-04-26, 05:47

[QUOTE]Originally posted by voodoomagic:

yo who do u think u are? to me all u said was a shit load of philosophical crap about what i said, and that it could possibly be wrong.

i did not say the advancements will be such and such, im making an analysis about what i have observed.

I could be wrong, but I don't think I was replying to you. I believe I was replying to MasterMind420. But, anyways, if you think philosophy is crap then okay, it's all philosophical crap. But, what isn't philosophy? *laughs*

documented religious uprising because of war, is just great. thats what u call people who are in need of hope.

I never said it was a great thing. I just made the point that religion isn't dying, it isn't going anywhere. It's even more popular now that there's a war.

now, anyone could prove every religion wrong, and that there is no god and blah blah, and i would not be surprised if some fruity religious guy who doesnt understand what has been proven, will still insist that god initiated it all, and gave us souls.

No. Nothing can be proven either way. If it could then we would still be talking about it, now would we?

its just a matter of acceptance. some people cannot live without a god. i do not think these people are stupid. if u took away the idea of god from them then they wouldnt beable to live their life. god is whatever u want it to be, and for some people it makes them feel safe.

I disagree. I like to think that if god was ever proven either way people would be just fine. And think about it, if god was proven to exist it would be science therefore making faith in god useless. Take the faith out of religion and you've got nothing. So, you can prove god exists or disprove it and it pretty much would bring you to the same place. The point is, it can't be proven yet.

Cheers,

Lost

Baby Doll

2005-04-26, 06:01

I dont believe it can be proven. It is a way of life that begins with "faith in things not seen". You must accept a given, and the rest will fall as it may according to your own understanding. The Given cannot be proven, only accepted as fact before the rest can even be approached or explored.

Baby

zorro420

2005-04-26, 09:51

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

I disagree. I like to think that if god was ever proven either way people would be just fine. And think about it, if god was proven to exist it would be science therefore making faith in god useless. Take the faith out of religion and you've got nothing. So, you can prove god exists or disprove it and it pretty much would bring you to the same place. The point is, it can't be proven yet.

Why does religion require faith? Wouldn't religion be that much more meaningful if you could interact with your religion in a much more tangible way? Everything is more personal when experienced directly; how could this not be especially true for religion?

What exactly is the purpose served by hiding and requiring faith despite a set of rather suspect circumstances, instead of showing oneself and removing all doubt?

Conversely, what could be gained by claiming to be the word of god? Requiring faith, unable to give proof because it is untrue.

napoleon_complex

2005-04-26, 20:53

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

As I have stated before, even these cannot be relied upon to 100%. However, emotions must first pass through these processes, meaning that all emotions are based on whatever flaws exist in the though processes that trigger the emotions.

So you agree that emotions and personal experiences(I think that these are more important than emotions if one were going to begin the question the existence of a creator) are ok in a discussion of whether god exists?

If human thought isn't allowed, then what is? Scientific fact?

quote:Only if you assume that god exists. If you start with any assumption, you can probably twist everything to appear to support that assumption.

If we're starting the subject of disproving god, then it is safe to assume that he exists, even if that isn't your true feelings on the matter. Even if we start from the assumption that god doesn't exist, that still isn't reason for emotions and personal experiences to be discredited.

quote:Again, only if you start with the assumption that god exists. Otherwise, the only logical answer is... "I don't know." That doesn't mean god did it, it just means we can't figure it out right now.

So then why look down on people who make the assumption that god exists? I presume that you also look down on those people who assume that god doesn't exist?

I agree that "I don't know" is the only answer as of now, maybe forever, but the fact that we don't know doesn't give you reason to look down upon those who guess and have faith. If the world was like that, then science would never advance. People have to test the bounds of science and faith and thought and logic to learn.

quote:In point of fact, many of the scientific discoveries that are chipping away bigger and bigger pieces of the idea of god have only come in recent years. Science develops at an exponential rate. Even forty years ago we knew but a small fraction of what we know today about such topics as physics and biology.

What recent discoveries(facts really, anything else would just be assumptions, which are wrong and intolerable) chip away at god?

quote:Thinkers of the past cannot be faulted for what they could not know. However, that does not mean that new knowledge does not change the picture; in fact, it is the only thing that does.

The only piece of information that will ever be able to disprovfe god is when science can explain how/why we are here. How/why the universe started. Where the raw material for the universe to start came from. Until science can explain beyond doubt those questions, nothing can disprove god.

Nothing that we know now does anything to even suggest that there isn't a god. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

voodoomagic

2005-04-26, 22:29

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by voodoomagic:

yo who do u think u are? to me all u said was a shit load of philosophical crap about what i said, and that it could possibly be wrong.

i did not say the advancements will be such and such, im making an analysis about what i have observed.

I could be wrong, but I don't think I was replying to you. I believe I was replying to MasterMind420. But, anyways, if you think philosophy is crap then okay, it's all philosophical crap. But, what isn't philosophy? *laughs*

documented religious uprising because of war, is just great. thats what u call people who are in need of hope.

I never said it was a great thing. I just made the point that religion isn't dying, it isn't going anywhere. It's even more popular now that there's a war.

now, anyone could prove every religion wrong, and that there is no god and blah blah, and i would not be surprised if some fruity religious guy who doesnt understand what has been proven, will still insist that god initiated it all, and gave us souls.

No. Nothing can be proven either way. If it could then we would still be talking about it, now would we?

its just a matter of acceptance. some people cannot live without a god. i do not think these people are stupid. if u took away the idea of god from them then they wouldnt beable to live their life. god is whatever u want it to be, and for some people it makes them feel safe.

I disagree. I like to think that if god was ever proven either way people would be just fine. And think about it, if god was proven to exist it would be science therefore making faith in god useless. Take the faith out of religion and you've got nothing. So, you can prove god exists or disprove it and it pretty much would bring you to the same place. The point is, it can't be proven yet.

Cheers,

Lost

i think u misinterpreted what i was saying, and now i dont know what we are talking about, so ill just leave it at that..

zorro420

2005-04-27, 01:58

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

So you agree that emotions and personal experiences(I think that these are more important than emotions if one were going to begin the question the existence of a creator) are ok in a discussion of whether god exists?

How do you continue to infer this when I repeatedly assert the exact opposite?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

If human thought isn't allowed, then what is? Scientific fact?

Bingo.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

If we're starting the subject of disproving god, then it is safe to assume that he exists, even if that isn't your true feelings on the matter.

In no way does attempting to discredit the idea of god justify the assumption that he exists.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Even if we start from the assumption that god doesn't exist, that still isn't reason for emotions and personal experiences to be discredited.

No, as I stated before, the reason for discrediting emotions and personal experiences is that they are purely subjective, and do not actually indicate anything about the nature of reality.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

So then why look down on people who make the assumption that god exists? I presume that you also look down on those people who assume that god doesn't exist?

I look down on all who cannot understand that we do not know for sure. I also look down on those who willfully ignore the facts.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I agree that "I don't know" is the only answer as of now, maybe forever, but the fact that we don't know doesn't give you reason to look down upon those who guess and have faith. If the world was like that, then science would never advance. People have to test the bounds of science and faith and thought and logic to learn.

I do not look down on those who guess, only those who have faith that their guesses are correct. While I agree that "people have to test the bounds of science, thought, and logic to learn," I absolutely do not agree that faith plays any part. In point of fact, faith is the opposite of learning.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

What recent discoveries(facts really, anything else would just be assumptions, which are wrong and intolerable) chip away at god?

Everything that explains any aspect of the nature of existence runs contrary to preconceived notions of god. Of such things, it used to be said that "god did it." We're learning that none of these things are done by god, but by natural processes. One by one, all of the "god did it" things are giving way to actual understanding.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

The only piece of information that will ever be able to disprovfe god is when science can explain how/why we are here. How/why the universe started. Where the raw material for the universe to start came from. Until science can explain beyond doubt those questions, nothing can disprove god.

It is entirely possible that the universe never did "start", but has always existed, and will always exist. In such a case, no creator is necessary.

Technically, you're right. Nothing can truly disprove god to an absolute 100%. However, there is plenty of evidence to discredit the idea to the point of laughability.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Nothing that we know now does anything to even suggest that there isn't a god. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Nothing, except the deafening silence of any evidence to suggest he does exist. You might as well have faith that the giant purple penis (that you can't actually detect in any way) makes the galaxy spin.

napoleon_complex

2005-04-27, 03:21

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

Technically, you're right. Nothing can truly disprove god to an absolute 100%. However, there is plenty of evidence to discredit the idea to the point of laughability.

Please share then?

Everything else is just meaningless semantics, but this could very well be interesting.

So please, share this scientific, unequivicating truth.

zorro420

2005-04-28, 04:43

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Please share then?

Everything else is just meaningless semantics, but this could very well be interesting.

So please, share this scientific, unequivicating truth.

The steady, inexorable process of science proving that everything that was once said to be the work of god, is actually the work of nature. There are a few things left, but science will get there eventually.

zorro420

2005-04-28, 04:48

Oh, and in regards to all the questions like, "how can we rely on science, then?"

Simple: technology. Science works, and that's why we're all arguing on the internet. That's why we have cars. That's why we have every fucking thing we craft for our use, especially the newest, neatest, most effective gadgets.

Faith, or god, or whatever, never did anything like that.

LostCause

2005-04-28, 07:38

quote:Originally posted by voodoomagic:

i think u misinterpreted what i was saying, and now i dont know what we are talking about, so ill just leave it at that..

Ditto.

Alright. Left at that.

Cheers,

Lost

napoleon_complex

2005-04-28, 16:30

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

Oh, and in regards to all the questions like, "how can we rely on science, then?"

Simple: technology. Science works, and that's why we're all arguing on the internet. That's why we have cars. That's why we have every fucking thing we craft for our use, especially the newest, neatest, most effective gadgets.

Faith, or god, or whatever, never did anything like that.

This and your other post isn't evidence.

I want to see undeniable scientific proof that would "discredit the idea[of god] to the point of laughability" as you so aptly put it.

Come on, show me the goods.

dlmcc

2005-04-28, 17:41

Proof that god exists?

(1+sqrt5)/2= Proof that god exists

It's as good an explanation as any. Once you figure it out, look it up and you'll see.

[This message has been edited by dlmcc (edited 04-28-2005).]

zorro420

2005-04-28, 19:16

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

This and your other post isn't evidence.

I want to see undeniable scientific proof that would "discredit the idea[of god] to the point of laughability" as you so aptly put it.

Come on, show me the goods.

The fact that all the unknowns that gave rise to the idea of god in the first place have been demonstrated to operate on scientific principles? The only unknowns attributed to god these days are questions posed by science itself, and which, given the inexorable progress of science, it is fairly safe to guess that science will answer in time.

Earthquakes? Not god, just tectonic action.

Thunder/lightning? Not god, just electrical discharges.

Stars? Not god or light from heaven, just distant suns.

The sun? Not light from god, just an enormous ball of hydrogen fusing.

Life as we know it? Not god, but the evolution over billions of years of organic compounds into increasingly successful self-replication machines.

Formation of the earth? Not god, but condensation of a nebula.

I could go on and on, but you wouldn't listen anyway.

As for the technology comment, it is proof that science works, because the application of the knowledge derived from science works. Unless we are all imagining our computers and our cars, that is.

napoleon_complex

2005-04-28, 19:36

That's evidence that nature exists, nothing to do with the existence of god.

Still waiting for this evidence......

god is the creator(only logical explanation for our existence).

God initiated all the things you mentioned. He didn't set them off directly, but he set off time, and by association....

Get my point.

The only piece of evidence that can show that god doesn't exist is when science is able to explain, beyond any level of doubt, how the universe started. Any onther "evidence" that you have is nature, not an antithesis to god.

ace86

2005-04-28, 19:50

zorro420

2005-04-28, 20:33

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

That's evidence that nature exists, nothing to do with the existence of god.

Still waiting for this evidence......

god is the creator(only logical explanation for our existence).

God initiated all the things you mentioned. He didn't set them off directly, but he set off time, and by association....

Get my point.

The only piece of evidence that can show that god doesn't exist is when science is able to explain, beyond any level of doubt, how the universe started. Any onther "evidence" that you have is nature, not an antithesis to god.

No, none of it directly refutes god (since there won't be any evidence directly against something that doesn't actually exist), but it does refute all the reasons why god was conceived in the first place.

Also, existence didn't necessarily "start," it may have always existed. We don't know either way, so we don't know that something is required to create existence. Besides, how could god exist before existence, if nothing exists? For him to exist beforehand would require existence beforehand, thereby making it not the beginning of existence anyway.

zorro420

2005-04-28, 21:43

quote:Originally posted by dlmcc:

Proof that god exists?

(1+sqrt5)/2= Proof that god exists

It's as good an explanation as any. Once you figure it out, look it up and you'll see.

(1+sqrt5)/2 = 1.61803398874989484820458683436564

What's your point?

quote:Originally posted by ace86:

prove to me god doesn't exist.

The burden of proof is on the positive, i.e. the argument that god exists. Lack of any such arguement suggests god does not exist.

quote:Originally posted by ace86:

i dont know for sure god is jehovah, but i know i have a soul. im confident god is jehavah

...

but again, i know i have a soul.

How exactly do you know this? Because you are aware? Do you realize that awareness ceases when the brain is starved of oxygen? Perhaps you could call awareness "the soul," but the soul then ceases to exist when the brain stops functioning.

quote:Originally posted by ace86:

and my advice to you, is keep believing what you want, it's a stage in your life you'll grow out of, and realize how childish you used to be.

Severe skepticism about divinity is not a phase, it is an acceptance of rational thinking.

quote:Originally posted by ace86:

EDIT: another bit of advice, 16 and 17 year old athiest jack off alot, your moms right, your going to go blind. get a girlfriend.

Wow, you actually think masturbation causes blindness? You're more of a moron than I thought (and that's saying something). It is a well-known medical fact that masturbation is in no way, shape, or form linked to ocular degeneration, any more so than it is linked to the spontaneous generation of hair follicles on one's palms.

Guys with girlfriends masturbate just as much as guys without. Then again, since you've never had a girlfriend, I suppose you can't compare. I jack off a lot; I also have sex a lot. So far it hasn't affected my eyesight.

Go read a fucking book, and I don't mean the bible.

quote:Originally posted by ace86:

and if i was a poser like you, i'd be elated people believed in god. god is the only thing keeping me from killing faggot ass posers like you for fun.

This just shows that you are too weak or stupid to understand morals without someone shoving them down your throat.

dlmcc

2005-04-28, 22:39

(1+sqrt5)/2 = 1.61803398 8749894848 20458683436564

What's your point?

Look it up

napoleon_complex

2005-04-28, 22:53

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

No, none of it directly refutes god (since there won't be any evidence directly against something that doesn't actually exist), but it does refute all the reasons why god was conceived in the first place.

Also, existence didn't necessarily "start," it may have always existed. We don't know either way, so we don't know that something is required to create existence. Besides, how could god exist before existence, if nothing exists? For him to exist beforehand would require existence beforehand, thereby making it not the beginning of existence anyway.

If there was a god, he would be bound by human limitations and logic. He would be able to do the imposible, because that is his nature. Human nature is to subscribe to laws, god's nature is the opposite. God exists to do the things that nature wouldn't allow under normal circumstances.

What if it is god that has always existed? What if he is the one that is eternal, not time?

Still waiting for that evidence you said you have......

Digital_Savior

2005-04-29, 04:51

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

Here is an article that has Over Three Hundred Proofs of God's Existence. (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm)

HAHAHAH ! I love this one:

ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY

(1) There is a website that successfully argues for the existence of God.

(2) Here is the URL.

(3) Therefore, God exists.

Too funny.

Thanks for the read, Clar.

MasterMind420

2005-04-29, 04:55

Terrible website, meant nothing.

zorro420

2005-04-29, 05:58

quote:Originally posted by dlmcc:

[1+sqrt5)/2 = 1.61803398 8749894848 20458683436564

What's your point?

Look it up

Yeah, I looked it up on my calculator. It's an irrational number. So what?

Now, tell me what your point is, or at least send me a website.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

If there was a god, he would be bound by human limitations and logic. He would be able to do the imposible, because that is his nature. Human nature is to subscribe to laws, god's nature is the opposite. God exists to do the things that nature wouldn't allow under normal circumstances.

So sayeth you. Awfully convenient, neh? Runs contrary to everything we know about the universe, but whatever.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Still waiting for that evidence you said you have......

Go back and read my previous post. We've answered all the questions originally attributed to god (save the ultimate origin of the universe), and none of the answers were "god did it." All we're left with is the cause of the Big Bang, but given the current trend, the answer to that probably isn't "god did it" either.

dlmcc

2005-04-29, 06:01

I can't believe they would deny that eric clapton exists

dlmcc

2005-04-29, 07:54

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

Yeah, I looked it up on my calculator. It's an irrational number. So what?

Now, tell me what your point is, or at least send me a website.

Google it.

"If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day..." and all that.

Clarphimous

2005-04-29, 08:44

(1 + sqr(5))/2 is how to calculate the golden ratio. It's another one of those interesting natural constants, like pi. If you want, you can come up with the number by solving the equations that satisfy what the number does.

For example, if you have two line segments with a certain ratio, when you put the two segments together the ratio of one of the line segments to the total length will be the same as that of one segment to the other. The only way this could work is if

short:long = long:total

And so we assign a variable to one of the line segments. Let's call the long segment 'x', and assume the shorter segment to be one (remember, we're trying to find the ratio not the actual lengths). Now, in order to represent a ratio, we use division. So...

x/1 = (1+x)/x -------------> simplify

x = 1/x + 1

x - 1 - 1/x = 0

(1/x)(x^2 - x - 1) = 0 ----> 1/x can't = 0

x^2 - x - 1 = 0 -----------> find zeros

x^2 - x = 1

x^2 - x + 1/4 = 1 + 1/4

4x^2 - 4x + 1 = 4 + 1

(2x - 1)^2 = 5

2x - 1 = +/-sqr(5)

2x = +/-sqr(5) + 1

x = (sqr(5) + 1)/2 OR x = (1 - sqr(5))/2

So compared to a short length of 1, the long length would have to be 1.618 or -0.618, but in Euclidean space we don't have negative lengths, do we? So the other ratio isn't used.

Anyways, because of its properties the golden ratio is found in nature quite a bit. I don't find it to be an argument for God, though.

dlmcc

2005-04-29, 09:03

I'd argue that it's as good an argument for God as any other, really. Like the debate between free will and determinism, there really is no satisfactory answer. The only people who know if god exists are dead, and not many of them are coming back.

But phi is pretty cool, isn't it?

napoleon_complex

2005-04-29, 19:55

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

Go back and read my previous post. We've answered all the questions originally attributed to god (save the ultimate origin of the universe), and none of the answers were "god did it." All we're left with is the cause of the Big Bang, but given the current trend, the answer to that probably isn't "god did it" either.

Those questions asked and answered by you still do nohing to qualify what you said. You said there is scientific evidence that make the existence of god laughable. You haven't provided anything. You proved that nature exists and is real, but nothing else.

You don't know shit about god. I don't know shit about god. Everyone knows shit about to god. To think otherwise is idiotic and retarded.

quote:So sayeth you. Awfully convenient, neh? Runs contrary to everything we know about the universe, but whatever.

So you think that if od were to exist, he would abide by human nature and wouldn't be able to do anything that we can't do?

The whole point of being supernatural is that you aren't bound by nature. i.e. god isn't bound by logic and law.

MIND

2005-04-29, 20:45

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

The segment "5 flavours of strings" on HOUR 2.

[This message has been edited by MIND (edited 04-29-2005).]

MasterMind420

2005-05-14, 15:33

Because of the reascent events surrounding this forum, I have decided to revive this thread.

[This message has been edited by MasterMind420 (edited 05-14-2005).]

Arrow2brain

2005-05-14, 15:38

quote:Originally posted by MasterMind420:

[B]PROVE TO ME GOD EXISTS!B]

Like I always say, the reason it's called having faith is because you trust in the religions existence without proof. You have FAITH that it exists.

twista

2005-05-14, 15:41

The theories that there are no God are just as invalid as the ones saying there is a God so why argure just believe what you want

twista

2005-05-14, 15:43

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

That is what I was getting at.

At our current time, agnosticism is the only logical conclusion to god, anything else would be a leap of faith.

TO say God does not exist is just a theory as well.

MasterMind420

2005-05-14, 15:45

quote:Originally posted by twista:

The theories that there are no God are just as invalid as the ones saying there is a God so why argure just believe what you want

The current theories explaining our existence are without a doubt more logical than saying god did it.

Science is still in the process of figuring it out. Religion has had a 2000 year head start, lets give science a few more years.

Even in the relatively small amount of time, science has made more sense than religion and has already disproved many religious beliefs.

So you trust people’s science from thousands of years ago instead of ours? You are an idiot.

twista

2005-05-14, 16:08

where did science come from... what is science? How did science come to be?

howtodisappear

2005-05-14, 16:33

Do lots of psychedellics, read eastern philosophy books, and have your mind split open.

Mabye then you'll find god.

prince-of-daylight

2005-05-15, 22:51

why talk math ???? satan´s consepts rool!!!!

imperfectcircle

2005-05-15, 23:57

Why is it people that have 420 in their name tend to be fucking obnoxious retards?

imperfectcircle

2005-05-16, 00:08

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

(1+sqrt5)/2 = 1.61803398 8749894848 20458683436564

What's your point?

I wish I had checked this thread sooner, an interest in sacred geometry (of pi in the case of my nick) is what made me choose this nickname. Anyway, the equation above, which your none too intelligent ass decided to calculate... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) ...is a desctiption of the golden ratio, as someone pointed out. However they just described the technical aspect of it, which doesn't do it service at all, as the golden ratio is one of the more fascinating concepts you're likely to come across. Ever.

Here is a good (brief) description of what it means in sacred geometry, it's a 3 page pdf file from the site I was hyping earlier in this thread - IAMAI (http://www.i-am-a-i.org/Table_of_Contents.html). I'll leave a link to download the pdf at the end of the post, no doubt your "superior" rational mind will find it interesting. I started a thread here not too long ago about how the precisely tuned constants of the universe suggest either divine creation (of initial conditions) or that we are one of an infinite number of parallel universes. Say what you like about the physical constants of the universe, you'll find it less easy to square away the golden ratio - creation itself seeks to approach a constant. And if you consider such things a mere coincidence, I pity you for living a life empty of wonder.

http://www.i-am-a-i.org/Reading/adobe/1-5.pdf

Some more examples of the golden ratio can be found here, where it emerges everywhere from DNA to the beauty of a human face: http://goldennumber.net/

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 05-20-2005).]

The Mad Bomber

2005-05-16, 06:10

"God can only exist if you believe him to exist." -Mathew 6:66

Metaflux

2005-05-16, 06:27

There's only one thing i can say about this, because when i began to think about are existence, god, and reason my head begans to spin in contradictions and ignorence.

And that is... (drum roll) are FREE WILL, not knowing weather a god exists is what gives us free will.

Don't get me wrong i have spent countless hours trying to figure out something i can beleive in, about are existence and are true purpose, but i find no real satisfaction.

But when i really think about it, we are NEVER supposed to know, imagine the day, through technology and spritual growth, we find are true purpose. Will it be the beganning of the end? because to me once the free will is gone, everything unique is lost. weather it be art, humanity, etc...

Digital_Savior

2005-05-18, 06:00

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Why is it people that have 420 in their name tend to be fucking obnoxious retards?

LMAO

Rust

2005-05-18, 13:51

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

I wish I had checked this thread sooner, an interest in sacred geometry (of pi in this case) is what made me choose this nickname. Anyway, the equation above, which your none too intelligent ass decided to calculate... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) ...is a desctiption of the golden ratio, as someone pointed out. However they just described the technical aspect of it, which doesn't do it service at all, as the golden ratio is one of the more fascinating concepts you're likely to come across. Ever.

Here is a good (brief) description of what it means in sacred geometry, it's a 3 page pdf file from the site I was hyping earlier in this thread - IAMAI (http://www.i-am-a-i.org/Table_of_Contents.html). I'll leave a link to download the pdf at the end of the post, no doubt your "superior" rational mind will find it interesting. I started a thread here not too long ago about how the precisely tuned constants of the universe suggest either divine creation (of initial conditions) or that we are one of an infinite number of parallel universes. Say what you like about the physical constants of the universe, you'll find it less easy to square away the golden ratio - creation itself seeks to approach a constant. And if you consider such things a mere coincidence, I pity you for living a life empty of wonder.

A geometrical constant appears... in geometry!

Yes ladies and gentlemen, there you have it: undeniable proof that god exists.

imperfectcircle

2005-05-18, 20:02

Geometrical constants are described in geometry, they appear in nature (in this case).

Rust

2005-05-18, 20:24

In nature... which is described, in the cases where it (the golden ratio) appears in, by geometry.

I don't see how that is any different from what I said.

That is still a weak argument for the existence of god, and begs the question, why even use the golden ratio? The number one appears much more so "in nature". You could have used it, and still gotten the same ridiculous and unreasonable conclusion.

Sarith

2005-05-20, 05:43

you dont quite understand how uncoincidential a geometrical constant in nature is. What do you suppose the chances are that when tossing a die you will get 6000 sixes in a row? pretty darn low yeh? well if everbody in the world has been tossing dies for the last few billion years then someone, no matter how long it takes, will get it (please dont start about how no one will live long enough for this).

Similarly as the universe is infinite to the best of our knowlage, if you look hard enough you'll be able to find BILLIONS of geometrical constands all over the place. Pi is one you brought up which applies to the orbit of every electron. gamma (sqroot(1/(1-v2/c2))) applies for every curve in space time. The pressure constant for every gaseous system of uniform density (P directly proportional to V via K), even the speed of light in vacuum. this all seems more like physics to me than proof of gods existance. Mathematical chances prove squat in this argument.

imperfectcircle

2005-05-20, 07:02

Probablity has nothing to do with this.

And the constants you mentioned are each related to s specific system, one relates only to curves, one relates only to density in gases etc. The golden ratio is unrelated to any system, it is a constant that is found in many entirely different places, something you cannnot say for the kind of physical constants you mentioned.

I suggest you read up more on the golden ratio, no matter how sceptical you will almost certainly find it interesting http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/phi.html

imperfectcircle

2005-05-20, 09:50

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

Pi is one you brought up which applies to the orbit of every electron.

Your words just popped into my head two seconds ago while I was doing something else. I wasn't referring to pi (that's just the component of my nickname), I was referring to the golden ratio.

I gave a fairly brief description of it on a recent thread in Mad Scientists, here have a look (scroll down, it's the last post on that page) http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum25/HTML/002076.html

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 05-20-2005).]

Sarith

2005-05-20, 14:09

so your belief is based on your assumption that the golden ratio is too common to be coincidential? i did read a little about it and it IS quite amazing but i figure that if you look hard enough you'll find others wont you?

Rust

2005-05-20, 15:06

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

And the constants you mentioned are each related to s specific system, one relates only to curves, one relates only to density in gases etc. The golden ratio is unrelated to any system, it is a constant that is found in many entirely different places, something you cannnot say for the kind of physical constants you mentioned.

I suggest you read up more on the golden ratio, no matter how sceptical you will almost certainly find it interesting http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/phi.html

That is quite simply misleading. The golden ration only appears in geometry. When you are saying, "the golden ration appears [for example] in biology" you are simply saying, "when we examine certain aspects of biology, with geometry, [for example DNA], then the golden ratio appears there"... which is exactly the same as saying, "the golden ratio appears in geometry".

This is very misleading as in reality, it only appears in geometry; it is certainly not surprising that this geometric constant can be used when describing other topics of Scientific understanding, in a geometrical fashion, since almost all the Sciences deal with something that is able to be represented with geometry (i.e. something that exists in our space).

Just like this, other constants will "appear in other Sciences". Pi is a good example. The number 1 is an even better one.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-20-2005).]

imperfectcircle

2005-05-20, 16:10

What you're saying is quite self-evident, you might as well say numbers only appear in mathematics. Geometry is naturally in invention of man but it is used to perceive structures that either exist or don't exist in nature. In the case of the golden ratio, this fascinating common structure throughout nature would exist whether we could perceive it and name it or not, that doesn't make it any less special. And Sarith I'm familiar with the idea that if you start looking for a pattern you'll find it everywhere you look (I believe that's something said in the film "Pi" as it happens), and I'll gladly lose interest if you show me a pattern as unusual and widespread as the golden ratio. Among other things I've never heard of a mathematical constant that people find attractive, just one of its many peculiarities. And also, it's not just a simple number:

quote:What makes the golden ratio special is the number of mathematical properties it possesses. The golden ratio is the only number whose square can be produced simply by adding 1 and whose reciprocal by subtracting 1. If you take a golden rectangle - one whose length-to-breadth is in the golden ratio - and snip out a square, what remains is another, smaller golden rectangle. The golden ratio is also difficult to pin down: it's the most difficult to express as any kind of fraction and its digits - 10 million of which were computed in 1996 - never repeat.

Rust

2005-05-20, 16:58

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

What you're saying is quite self-evident, you might as well say numbers only appear in mathematics. Geometry is naturally in invention of man but it is used to perceive structures that either exist or don't exist in nature. In the case of the golden ratio, this fascinating common structure throughout nature would exist whether we could perceive it and name it or not, that doesn't make it any less special.

Then you agree that it is misleading? If it only appears in geometry, (and to find a geometrical constant in geometry is hardly surprising or unusual), then it means that saying "it appears in biology, physics, physical aesthetics..." is misleading.

quote:I'll gladly lose interest if you show me a pattern as unusual and widespread as the golden ratio

YOU define how "unusual" it is.

Again, the number one appears in an even more widespread scope than the golden ration. That you don't see it is unusual is simply your opinion.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-20-2005).]

imperfectcircle

2005-05-20, 19:02

First, it doesn't "only appear in geometry", it can be derived through geometry, algebra, or the Fibonacci sequence.

I'm not redefining "unusual", there is simply nothing else like this in nature. Perhaps you can point me to another mathematical relationship shared by everything from all living creatures to the form of the spiral galaxies in which we exist. Comparing it to the number 1 is misleading, since you are comparing units to constants, apples and oranges my friend.

It is the fact that this ratio suggests an underlying structure that unifies nearly everything in existence that makes it so spectacular. A purely rational acausaul explanation of the universe would suggest that there is no such structure to the universe, that it is simply an arbitrary expansion of events based on initial conditions, which at the very least makes such a uniformly observed phenomenon as this highly improbable. You must, at the very least, concede this point.

Rust

2005-05-20, 20:11

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

First, it doesn't "only appear in geometry", it can be derived through geometry, algebra, or the Fibonacci sequence.

Actually, the ratio is what appears in geometry. The number represented by that constant is what appears in algebra (through the algebraic explaination of the geometry involving the ratio), and the Fibonacci sequence; but this is hardly a surprise since algebra is used to explain geometry.

In any case, this is hardly important as the point still stands.

quote:

I'm not redefining "unusual", there is simply nothing else like this in nature. Perhaps you can point me to another mathematical relationship shared by everything from all living creatures to the form of the spiral galaxies in which we exist. Comparing it to the number 1 is misleading, since you are comparing units to constants, apples and oranges my friend.

Who said redefining? I'm saying that YOU subjectively deem it unusual. You are giving YOUR subjective opinion on how usual or unusual you think it is.

Also, the number one is a constant as well as an unit. Hence, I'm comparing a constant to another constant. Certainly not apples and oranges, my friend.

quote:

It is the fact that this ratio suggests an underlying structure that unifies nearly everything in existence that makes it so spectacular. A purely rational acausaul explanation of the universe would suggest that there is no such structure to the universe, that it is simply an arbitrary expansion of events based on initial conditions, which at the very least makes such a uniformly observed phenomenon as this highly improbable. You must, at the very least, concede this point.

It "unifies" only that in which you describe by geometry. Again, it appears only in geometry.

Furthermore to claim that "A purely rational acausaul explanation of the universe would suggest that there is no such structure to the universe, that it is simply an arbitrary expansion of events based on initial conditions, which at the very least makes such a uniformly observed phenomenon as this highly improbable" is to claim the the property of mathematics could have been different, had the universe been different, which is another argument altogether.

The ratio as you know, originated from the examination of a line segment (A), and two segments within it(a and b). The golden ratio is achieved when the line segment A has a ratio X to the segment a, while a having that same ratio X to the segment b.

Are you claiming that it would be highly improbable for an universe to be created with the existence of such ratio?

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-20-2005).]