Can you prove that God exists? [Archive]

Strawberry_Fields_Fo

05-31-2004, 06:08 AM

God- A supreme being (one only), to whom we ordinary beings owe our existence, but whose own existence depends upon nothing else. Supreme in goodness, knowledge (omniscience), and power (omnipotent).

Can anyone offer proof that God, as described above, exists?
I am not asking for someone's belief in God, I am asking for an arguement or example that proves his/her existence.
If you were truly secure in your beliefs (whatever they may be) why on earth would you be asking us this question? It seems to me that you need to prove others wrong in order to boost your own security in your beliefs. Of course no one can prove that god exists, and consequently, no one (including you my dear friend) can prove that god doesn't exist.

And if you do eventually find scientific, logical proof that the god you describe doesn't exist...so what? Why is it so vitally important to you to prove to an impoverished woman with 8 kids and nothing to live for except a faith in a supreme being that her one lifeline of support now doesn't exist? Would you really get an ego-boost from being able to prove to a widower that there is no such thing as heaven and he in fact will never see his late wife again?

As I personally do not believe in the god you discribed, I cannot answer your cliche question. But I can only tell you this: For me, a strong benevolent force underlies everything in our universe. The proof that I have is LOVE. Throughout mankind's bloody history, love has always won. Love won against legalized slavery in the US. Love won against Hitler. Love won against the Berlin Wall. Yes, there are still "battles" that love is fighting, but humankind isn't through yet. Just the fact that love still exists after everything our race has been through is proof enough for me that we are indeed not alone, except in our personal illusions of abandondment.

-Kate

SvgGrdnBeauty

05-31-2004, 06:28 AM

As I personally do not believe in the god you discribed, I cannot answer your cliche question. But I can only tell you this: For me, a strong benevolent force underlies everything in our universe. The proof that I have is LOVE. Throughout mankind's bloody history, love has always won. Love won against legalized slavery in the US. Love won against Hitler. Love won against the Berlin Wall. Yes, there are still "battles" that love is fighting, but humankind isn't through yet. Just the fact that love still exists after everything our race has been through is proof enough for me that we are indeed not alone, except in our personal illusions of abandondment.

-Kate
That is truly beautiful. I really like the way you put that...

Sorry all...I easily get drunk on beautiful language/words...don't mind me..:)

Strawberry_Fields_Fo

05-31-2004, 06:30 AM

That is truly beautiful. I really like the way you put that...

Sorry all...I easily get drunk on beautiful language/words...don't mind me..:)
Aww..thanks :)

Meagain

05-31-2004, 05:29 PM

Strawberry_Fields_Forever,

"If you were truly secure in your beliefs (whatever they may be) why on earth would you be asking us this question? It seems to me that you need to prove others wrong in order to boost your own security in your beliefs. Of course no one can prove that god exists, and consequently, no one (including you my dear friend) can prove that god doesn't exist."

Well, excuse me, Strawberry. I thought this was the philosophy forum. I had assumed that this would be an appropiate place to discuss one of the greatest philosophical issues that has ever faced mankind. One of the issues that millions of people have died for and againest for thousands of years. I am sorry I am asking people to show me just cause for the beliefs they have, the same people who would not hesitate to tell me that I am condemed to an eternal hell if I don't follow their line of thought. The same people that fight againest each other because ther God is the only true god.
Excuse my overinflated ego for asking for proof of a being, that I am told, is the all seeing, all knowing, all caring, embodyment of the love you profess.

"And if you do eventually find scientific, logical proof that the god you describe doesn't exist...so what? Why is it so vitally important to you to prove to an impoverished woman with 8 kids and nothing to live for except a faith in a supreme being that her one lifeline of support now doesn't exist?"

Excuse me again. I am not addressing myself to an impoverished women with 8 kids, I am addressing myself to logical, thinking, individuals who choose to participate in a forum dedicated to philosophy. I posted this in the general section instead of the christian or other sections so that I would not be seen to be criticizing one particular religion.
No one told you to click on my post. If you don't like it, don't read it.

"As I personally do not believe in the god you discribed, I cannot answer your cliche question. "

cli·ché also cliche (klhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif-shhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif)
n.

A trite or overused expression or idea: “Even while the phrase was degenerating to cliché in ordinary public use... scholars were giving it increasing attention” (Anthony Brandt).
A person or character whose behavior is predictable or superficial: “There is a young explorer... who turns out not to be quite the cliche expected” (John Crowley).
Excuse me again. I seem to be reading the wrong books on philosophy:

"Philosphy is the collection of fundamental intellectual questions."- Philosophical Problems and Arguments, 4th edition, Cornman, Lehrer, Pappas

Let's see, they devote 79 of 353 pages to this one cliche! In addition they offer 22 books and 4 journals for further reading on the subject. Shows what they know.
Maybe I should ask hard hitting questions like why people like the color red more than yellow. That's real philosphy!

I could go on, but I'll stop. My ego has already expanded enough for one day.

I apoligize, I'll stop asking "cliche" questions.

NightOwl1331,

I'd comment on your 1st cause thoughts, but I'd have to get into cliches like those Aquinas, Russell, and Copleston dudes used when they were running around insulting widowers who lost their pensions. (Notive how I dropped a few names to build my ego up somemore.)

P.S.
Peace and love all, groovy and far out, I apologize again if I asked any one to think. (cliche)

Sebbi

05-31-2004, 06:03 PM

MeAgain - Saying that God only acts in the correct manner is still abit too abstract for me. When talking about correctness and incorrectness it needs to be talked about in relation to something.

Are you talking about right action, in relation to happiness? Do you mean that every action is the one that will result in the greatest ammount of happiness (I consider this to include learning/getting closer to enlightenment)?

Blessings

Sebbi

Strawberry_Fields_Fo

05-31-2004, 07:21 PM

Meagain--I meant cliche in the sense that I have heard countless atheists pose the exact same question you did. Trying to prove or disprove the existance of god is one of the oldest debates on earth, and since niether side can prove anything, I don't see how it helps anything.

I don't understand your reasoning for trying to prove god doesn't exist. You say all these wars have been fought in the name of religion...so what? Man would have had just as many wars if religion didn't exist, he would have just found another excuse for it. In fact, more battles have been fought in the name of politics and/or land control than in the name of religion. Even if the whole world went athiest, there would still be war. What does it matter in whose name the war is fought for if the results are the same?

You also claim to be the victim of preachy christians who shove their beliefs down your throat. Well, believe it or not, there are things you can do to prevent this. First, you don't bring up the subject of religion with anyone you don't know very well, especially if you know their very religious. Then, in the event that they bring up the subject of religion, you simply tell them: "I don't discuss my religious beliefs with people that I don't know very well." If they persist, you can always try and change the subject or even walk away. In this way, you do not deny your own beliefs and you do not offend someone who is religious. The bottom line is that you cannot enter a debate against your will. There are always alternatives.

I have already heard all your arguments against god, just like I've already heard all the arguments from Christians in favor of god. It is nothing new to me. I do not believe in the god you discribed, nor do I feel threatened by the people who do. I am still curious as to how our world would be a better place if people didn't believe in god.

-Kate

Meagain

06-01-2004, 01:11 AM

Strawberry,

Sorry if I came down on you so hard but, I fail to understand why you are engaged in a post that you don't see any value in. In addition you made some rtemarks about my character that you have no way of supporting. But, enough.

"I don't understand your reasoning for trying to prove god doesn't exist."

You misunderstand. I am asking others to prove that he/she does. I am not trying to prove anything. Millions of people believe in a supreme being. I am asking if anyone can prove this supreme being's existence. I am not offering proof that he/she does not exist, I am looking for holes in their arguments of proof.

The point is to get people to think, to think myself, and to debate the subject. In order to have a debate you must have two sides to an issue. My side is, I have observed that many people believe in a supreme being. I see no reason to believe this. Can anyone show me proof?

"Even if the whole world went athiest, there would still be war. What does it matter in whose name the war is fought for if the results are the same?"

Well, let's see...wars fought for politics, I don't know, you must tell me what you mean by politics. War fought for land. I can at least see why the war is being fought. The land has some value. It exists. It is a source of food, a sea route, trading route, minerals abound, oil is present, etc. Wars are terrible, but some do have reasons. Wars over gods are pointless.

"You also claim to be the victim of preachy christians who shove their beliefs down your throat. Well, believe it or not, there are things you can do to prevent this. First, you don't bring up the subject of religion with anyone you don't know very well, especially if you know their very religious."

Really? I never discuss religion or philosophy with anyone, not even my wife.
Except in this forum, as that is what it is for.

"I have already heard all your arguments against god, just like I've already heard all the arguments from Christians in favor of god."

No you haven't. I can post pages of arguments for and againest all sorts of religious junk.
If you choose to dismiss me so casually, so be it.

"It is nothing new to me. I do not believe in the god you discribed, nor do I feel threatened by the people who do."

Me either on both accounts. Do I have to feel threatened to debate a subject?

"I am still curious as to how our world would be a better place if people didn't believe in god."

Do you really want me to get into this? Have you ever heard of the Spanish inquisition, the holocaust, the extermination of the pagans, Templars and Cathars, the dark ages, 21st century Moslem terrorism, the Israeli conflict...shall I go on?

BTW, I never said I was an atheist, I'm not.

Sebbi,

"Saying that God only acts in the correct manner is still abit too abstract for me. When talking about correctness and incorrectness it needs to be talked about in relation to something."

I believe I said something like, If God does something it is the right thing to do. There is no need to relate it to anything. God can do no wrong. Remember I am using a set definition as to what God is and what his actions would be in relation to right and wrong. I am not debateing what right or wrong means, or if there is such a thing as right or wrong. So good is what God does, God can do no wrong.
Happiness does not enter the equation.

Woog

06-01-2004, 09:18 AM

Let's say I can produce God. I bring him/her/heesh into your parlor
showing ID confirming that you have met the one and only GOD.
What would that do for you? If God has already created the universe
that surrounds you and you are pretty much in control of your life
at thisa point how would it even help. Perhaps it would be interesting.
And of course God could then confirm if YOU will continue to exsist
after you are dead here which is the real question isn't it? God can
be God forever but if we blink out of exsistence at some point, what
does it matter?
So, personally, I'd like directions to the afterlife. I'll visit with God when
I get there.

geckopelli

06-01-2004, 07:08 PM

geckopelli,
The Good (in relation to God)- all motives, wills, acts, and commands of God are, as a matter of fact, the right things to do. It is not possible for God to do wrong things.

An excellent description of the fundemental "laws" that govern the universe!

the dauer

06-01-2004, 07:17 PM

The fact remains that we cannot touch God. We cannot define God in any way because that simply limits the infinite. If there is no beginning or end, no side, and thus no middle -- in the sense that there are no two finite points with which to define God and then define a third point in between -- and if this God does not, as you say, rely in any way on anything else, then how on earth do we find proof of said God?

We can say existence is proof of God, but in reality all we can ascertain is that either everything has always been, or that something in some way caused everything to be.

For something that is without form, what can we touch? Even 1 + 1 = 2 can be represented in form.

This is why this question becomes so difficult. Any definition of God that provides an adequate subject of debate is too defined.

So I'm not not saying there is a God or there isn't. But the search for concrete evidence of something that cannot be represented spatially is silly. The most complicated mathematical concept can still be represented with symbols based off of other concepts represented by symbols. Defining God limits God. The word He is just a concession to convenience. Dealing with God, say what God is not instead of what God is, although even that logic can get out of hand. Inevitably one must admit that there is no physical evidence of God.

Ben

tikoo

06-01-2004, 08:31 PM

i have known god
to be quite
small
and simple minded
with just
enough
power
to move the wind
around a bit

so when the wind
blows your mind
you can
make a new dream

of some feathers
and feathers between
yo toes
go
go on

Dizzy Man

06-07-2004, 12:57 AM

I don't think you can prove or disprove God for certain.

I believe in God for many reasons, perhaps the most scientific being the coincidence of the sun and the moon appearing exactly the same size from Earth. If God was going to show us a sign of his existence, putting it up in the sky where everyone can see it is probably the best place.

geckopelli

06-08-2004, 02:31 AM

No one has ever defined god clearly enough for a prove/disprove situation.

tikoo

06-08-2004, 09:33 PM

We don't know all of existence . For that matter , it's common enough
to deny something of what we do know , committing it to that black hole of the
sub-concious . My truth is the symbolic model of existence , and if i put anything down the hole , i might vaguely feel that part of existence yet my
truth isn't fully enabled .

Assume 'if God' , then all have experienced God .
or
'if no God' , then no one has experienced God .

Do you possess a complete , open , engaged conciousness ?
And have experienced no God ? Seen no feetprints in the sky?

Dizzy Man

06-08-2004, 10:59 PM

No one has ever defined god clearly enough for a prove/disprove situation.
I have a definition:

An almighty intelligent being that designed and created our universe. The highest authority of everything that is, with ultimate (if not infinite) power, knowledge and wisdom.

We humans obvioulsy cannot 'imagine' God since our minds are limited to the confines of our own universe (three dimensions, time etc.) and could not comprehend anything beyond it. Therefore, this kind of definition is all we could ever have. We cannot imagine God any better than a calculator could imagine us.

geckopelli

06-09-2004, 03:26 AM

I have a definition:

An almighty intelligent being..."
Your definition of god is a Super man. It explains nothing.

What is your definition of intelligence? A man, a horse or a dog is intelligent. Or are they? Might not behaviour be controled by factors so complex as to push the border of Chaos Theory for explanation and only appear to us as "intelligence" and "freewill" when in fact they are instictive products of genetics/evironment? They're are many indications that this may be so.

And what does "almighty" mean? Universal gravitation is "almighty", if you mean omnipotent and omnipresent. But that's about it.

Is there ONE consistency in ANY definition of god that can be tested?

Terrapin Flyer

06-09-2004, 03:42 AM

I dont look at god as being some being in the sky who controls everything and the devil as a being who lives in the ground in fire and what not. to me GOD is exactly what it says. Good Orderly Direction. i believe there are two types of energys. one being positive and full of light and love, the other as being negitive and full of hate and wrong. grab onto the right energies and spread those energies and im sure you will end up where ever it is you wanna be. lovin ya'll.

~shine on in love and light~
Sundance

Dizzy Man

06-09-2004, 11:14 PM

Your definition of god is a Super man. It explains nothing.God is obviously not a man. He is a being quite unlike us.

What is your definition of intelligence?Something capable of thought, and emotion.

A man, a horse or a dog is intelligent. Or are they? Might not behaviour be controled by factors so complex as to push the border of Chaos Theory for explanation and only appear to us as "intelligence" and "freewill" when in fact they are instictive products of genetics/evironment? They're are many indications that this may be so.
Didn't quite understand your question, and I know very little about chaos theory. Don't get me started on the free will argument again! We do not have the same kind of intelligence as God (as I said before, humans to God are like calculators to humans). It could be said that we have a lot less intelligence than God, but the point is that God has at least as much intelligence as us, and therefore, by human standards, he is intelligent (as opposed to a calculator, which is not).

And what does "almighty" mean? Universal gravitation is "almighty", if you mean omnipotent and omnipresent. But that's about itBy almighty I meant omnipotent. He can do anything he wants. If the universe is a book, then God is the author. I don't think God is omnipresent, since that implies he exists at points in space inside our universe, which is a ludicrous notion. He created our universe — he is not a part of it.

Is there ONE consistency in ANY definition of god that can be tested?You can't test to see if the universe was externally created. That is impossible. Just like you cannot prove how an author set about writing a work of fiction just by reading the fiction itself.

geckopelli

06-10-2004, 06:03 AM

God is obviously not a man. He is a being quite unlike us.

[Obviously? What's obvious is that it doesn't exist- no proof.]

Something capable of thought, and emotion.

[A fish thinks about eating and feels pain. Is it intelligent?]

Didn't quite understand your question, and I know very little about chaos theory. Don't get me started on the free will argument again! We do not have the same kind of intelligence as God (as I said before, humans to God are like calculators to humans). It could be said that we have a lot less intelligence than God, but the point is that God has at least as much intelligence as us, and therefore, by human standards, he is intelligent (as opposed to a calculator, which is not).

[what is this based on? A drug trip? If you don't get chaos theory than perhaps you would be wise to bow to it's complications.]

By almighty I meant omnipotent. He can do anything he wants. If the universe is a book, then God is the author. I don't think God is omnipresent, since that implies he exists at points in space inside our universe, which is a ludicrous notion. He created our universe — he is not a part of it.

[What if god wants to never have existed? Would we still exist?]

You can't test to see if the universe was externally created. That is impossible. Just like you cannot prove how an author set about writing a work of fiction just by reading the fiction itself.
["Impossible?" The cry of the uneducated! You disappoint me, Dizzyman.
I seem to be the only one trying. Note I'll not toleratre unqualified reputiations of the possibility of god.
We cannot say what god is- let's say what he isn't.
But that's another] thread!

POPthree13

06-10-2004, 06:06 PM

Just because something is a process that can be attributed to genetics and environement does not mean it is not intelligent. I would define intelligence very loosely as the ability to receive input from a variety of sources, categorize that input and act upon it. In that definition trees are intelligent. Do they think like you or me? No... but they do adapt the their environments in amazing ways. Lifefroms all over this planet adapt and change in 'miraculous' ways all the time and many do not have the complex nervous systems capable of intelligence. Where then does this 'knowledge' come from?

I like to think of wasps as an interesting example. Wasps live only one season. They build complex, celled paper nests where they deposit eggs and enough food to bring the offspring thorugh the pupal stage. When the new wasps emerge in the spring they have had no training whatsoever, yet they instinctively know what food to pursue. When they find a catepillar they know exactly how to sting it between each pair of legs to disable it and carry it away. Where does this 'instinct' come from?

Evolution itself also seems to follow pretty directed paths that from a distance look intelligent. You mention chaos theory Gecko, but life's evolution from the simplest of forms to the complex systems of modern creatures is anything but chaotic. Of all the arguments for some 'Other' force I personally think this one is the most convincing.

Instead of an intelligent force directing all of the affairs of life I tend to think that life is based on an intelligent system. That there is an intelligent framework of creation upon which all systems exist. That life itself is built upon this system - not a creation of it or separate thing at all. Life is just the physical manifestation of an energy force which permeates the universe entirely. Life is like the tiny mushroom on the surface of a fungal matrix which may extend for more than a mile out of sight.

angel_delight47

06-10-2004, 10:43 PM

I can give u scripture after scripture that God does exist,,,,, but u have to be willing to search the word of god as well.

Dizzy Man

06-10-2004, 11:15 PM

Gecko,
Did I say 'impossible'? Okay, I should just clear that up. Of course, it is not theoretically impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that God exists. If an abundance of evidence turned up that strongly suggested that God created the universe, then scientists could declare God real and take an early night.

My 'impossible' comment was more about disproving God. Let's look at a word:

Evob.

Now, did I just type that by stroking random keys, or did I specifically set out to write the word 'Evob' because it means something to me?

By studying the word Evob for a long time, it may be possible to tell if I wrote it deliberately. But if there is no evidence to suggest any meaning behind it, that doesn't mean you can ever prove that the word was random. How could you ever know for sure?

It is impossible for anyone in our universe to disprove God. I stand by that assertion, and I am an intelligent person!

Pop,
Some interesting points.

As for you "where does instinct come from?" question, instict is just qualities passed down from generation to generation. If America became infested with killed rabbits that looked cute but killed you, the only people who survived would be the people who had strange phobias of rabbits, and their genes would be passed onto their children, so their children would instinctively fear rabbits. Instinct and evolution are pretty much the same thing, only instinct refers to psychological traits passed down.

TheHammerSpeaks

06-11-2004, 08:39 AM

ericf:

"The question [Prove God does not exist (which is not even a question, as ericf seems to believe)] is not equal when turned around... it is not even logically valid."

Yes, the burden of proof can be shifted to the unbeliever. If you are unconviced by all proofs of God's existence, then you cannot conclude that God does not exist. You must make a convincing argument proving that He does not exist or else no conclusion, one way or the other, can be drawn. That is good logic. You should also not use terms of which you do not know the meaning, such as "logically valid." In a philosophical context, you used the term completely inappropriately.

gecko:

"'Impossible?' The cry of the uneducated!"

Quite the contrary. Rather, "Impossible!" is the battle cry of those who possess the education and intellectual self-restraint to realise that nothing can be known with certainty. It is only one step further to realise that, paradoxically, the impossibility of knowledge makes all things possible. I cannot prove with absolutely certainty that you exist (by existence, in this case, I mean in an objective world outside of my own subjective experience). I could even go to the lengths of Humean skepticism and show that there is no concrete evidence of my existence. This is why one must presuppose existence if one wants to conclusively know anything about a being. We use these leaps of faith in our everyday thinking without giving them a second thought. Yet, for some reason which I find to be most inexplicable, some people have a very hard time making the leap to God. I find this to be the most convincing argument for God's existence.

However, doubtless, many, I dare say the majority (not that I care much for them), will be unconvcinced by this argument. I then offer two additional proofs: 1) the cosmological argument, which I have been fond of since I began to study philosophy, and 2) the teleological argument, which has persistently grown on me in recent years. If the combined weight of these three arguments fail to convince an unbeliever, then I say that this person cannot be convinced; but I also must urge this person, in the name of philosophical consistency, to deny his own existence as well.

geckopelli

06-11-2004, 06:26 PM

Dizzyman,

No doubt you are correct. However, I shan't give-up trying.

And I go eithier way. Evidence for the existence of god would make me estatic.

But that's not going to happen until someone can find a good definition of "God".

"self-aware" is the best I've got so far.

Popthree13,

I have to disagree. Evolution is as chaotic an event as can be pointed at. There are trillions of randomly generated failures for every success. Everything possible is tried with a statistically insignificant amount of success.

And part of "intelligent" (working definition) must "sel-aware". A "Hive Intelligence" may be possible, but I would suggest that such a thing is so alien to human intelligence as to rate a lable of it's own.

geckopelli

06-11-2004, 08:31 PM

TheHammerSpeaks,

"Quite the contrary. Rather, "Impossible!" is the battle cry of those who possess the education and intellectual self-restraint to realise that nothing can be known with certainty."

I disagree. The properties of Uncertainty Itself may be understoood.

"It is only one step further to realise that, paradoxically, the impossibility of knowledge makes all things possible."

All events are possible that occurr within the confines of the Rules of Reality. Other events are NOT possible. The trick is knowing the difference. And the rules.

"I cannot prove with absolutely certainty that you exist (by existence, in this case, I mean in an objective world outside of my own subjective experience)."

I can! But it's an old argument- Reasonable logic versus Pragmatic Logic. Just like the Main Debate.

"I could even go to the lengths of Humean skepticism and show that there is no concrete evidence of my existence."

No, you can't. But that's another thread.

"This is why one must presuppose existence if one wants to conclusively know anything about a being."

Besides obtuse, what is this statement?

"We use these leaps of faith in our everyday thinking without giving them a second thought."

Again. sir, I disagree, and do not live my life on "leaps of Faith".

"Yet, for some reason which I find to be most inexplicable, some people have a very hard time making the leap to God."

I find it quite explicable. As someone purported to have more wisdom than I once pointed out, among us are the believers and the seekers. The problem lies in the need of the believers to substantiate thier faith as science.

It's Faith, no evidence needed. This I understand.
It's the no evidence wanted attitude that is beyond me. And it's antithesis- pretending to evidence that is not.

You claim the power of your Faith, and I ask "what and where is your god?" I don't see him. So I look for evidence- objective evidence. REAL evidence.

But- what is real? Fundementals first.

"Componets of Reality influence one another in an observable manner"

So, by this definition is your god real?

Not quite. Religion, however, is a real force.

So I look elsewhere.

A hint among the religious, maybe?
No go, for they quickly take offense when I don't convert.

So some of us look in the obvious place- the Universe all around us. It may or may not be a god construct, but it's all we've got. So we work with it.

So far, there's simply no evidence for an human-type-intelligence behind a supremebeing who functions as the Great Architect. Probability seems to be the way.

But some of us will countinue to seek to understand, to use the tools of curiosity and intelligence (be they god given or random occurances) that we possess to learn a little bit more of the truth of what IS.

You'll have to use your Christian forgivness when I tell you I find this the much more noble path than that taken by the believers.

Dizzy Man

06-11-2004, 09:30 PM

ericf:

"'Impossible?' The cry of the uneducated!"

Quite the contrary. Rather, "Impossible!" is the battle cry of those who possess the education and intellectual self-restraint to realise that nothing can be known with certainty. It is only one step further to realise that, paradoxically, the impossibility of knowledge makes all things possible. I cannot prove with absolutely certainty that you exist (by existence, in this case, I mean in an objective world outside of my own subjective experience). I could even go to the lengths of Humean skepticism and show that there is no concrete evidence of my existence. This is why one must presuppose existence if one wants to conclusively know anything about a being. We use these leaps of faith in our everyday thinking without giving them a second thought. Yet, for some reason which I find to be most inexplicable, some people have a very hard time making the leap to God. I find this to be the most convincing argument for God's existence.

However, doubtless, many, I dare say the majority (not that I care much for them), will be unconvcinced by this argument. I then offer two additional proofs: 1) the cosmological argument, which I have been fond of since I began to study philosophy, and 2) the teleological argument, which has persistently grown on me in recent years. If the combined weight of these three arguments fail to convince an unbeliever, then I say that this person cannot be convinced; but I also must urge this person, in the name of philosophical consistency, to deny his own existence as well.Hammer, that was very well-written and very entertaining :)

Gecko,
I wonder: have you ever prayed? I think (and I may be wrong) that faith is more valuable to God from someone more intelligent and sceptical. God obviously appreciates all these stupid gullable people who sign up to the first religion they hear about and become fanatics, but I would imagine if a very open minded person like you (or me) opens their mind to the possibility of God existing, then it would be more rewarding to him. (Just my opinion, anyway,)

So, why not talk to him, under the hypothesis that he is real, and ask him to show himself to you. The worst that could happen is absolutely nothing.

I may be wrong, but I have this feeling you've never prayed and would never even try. I'm probably totally wrong, though. Maybe you used to be a priest and you were fed up of all the lies and packed it in years ago!

TheHammerSpeaks

06-11-2004, 09:40 PM

"All events are possible that occurr within the confines of the Rules of Reality. Other events are NOT possible. The trick is knowing the difference. And the rules."

And what Rules are these? The laws of physics, perhaps? I can easily imagine the laws of physics defied in my mind. So my questions to you are, "What makes my own subjective experience any less real than the objective world (assuming that there is one to begin with). Why should the subjective world be subordinate to the objective; what is the origin (history) of this hierarchy? Can the objective world be known with certainty?

"I can! But it's an old argument- Reasonable logic versus Pragmatic Logic. Just like the Main Debate."

Then please, by all means, take me through this argument! Take me through the reasonable/pragmatic distinction! Take me through the Main Debate!

"No, you can't [doubt the existence of the self]. But that's another thread."

I do not think that another thread will be necessary. Hume's argument is easily summarised. Presupposing empiricist epistemology, there is no sense impression of the self. Therefore, the idea of the self is one based on consistency and coherence, and does not constitute true knowledge.

"Besides obtuse, what is this statement [the necessity of presupposing existence for knowledge]?"

Besides obtuse, it is Kierkegaard's argument for the existence of God. Allow me to use a more concrete example. Revisionist historians, holocaust deniers, do not presuppose the existence of the holocaust. Upon failing to presuppose its existence, one can easily arrive at their conclusions (e.g. doctored photographs, an international Zionist conspiracy, etc.). Likewise, since the existence of the holocaust is not presupposed, nothing can be known about it (because it never happened). This is really the heart of the argument.

"Again. sir, I disagree, and do not live my life on "leaps of Faith"."

Then I am impressed that you have managed to live to the age that you have, and I strongly urge you to live by such leaps out of concern for your health and well being!

By another of Hume's arguments, one cannot know with certainty that drinking arsenic will kill a man. It is only through consistency and coherence that we presuppose the existence of causality.

"As someone purported to have more wisdom than I once pointed out, among us are the believers and the seekers. The problem lies in the need of the believers to substantiate thier faith as science."

I do no such thing. I have little faith in the natural sciences.

"You claim the power of your Faith, and I ask 'what and where is your god?' I don't see him. So I look for evidence- objective evidence. REAL evidence."

If I may answer this question with another question, I would ask, "What are where is your self?" I don't see him.

"Componets of Reality influence one another in an observable manner"

I disagree with this statement, but let us presuppose it for now.

"So, by this definition is your god real?

Not quite. Religion, however, is a real force."

It appears that you are mimicing Feuerbach's argument, so I will continue in that vein. Let us presuppose that a subject can only be known through its predicates. If God is absolute subject, then He is an 'empty' subject, meaning that He is unknowable, a void. If God is an empty subject, then from where does religious experience originate? Feuerbach would answer, "From within ourselves! It is our essence! Man is God!" I would respond that if religious feeling is merely my essence, if it is a part of me, then what is this fear that overcomes me when I contemplate the divine? Why would I fear... myself?

"So some of us look in the obvious place- the Universe all around us. It may or may not be a god construct, but it's all we've got. So we work with it."

You are leaving our yourself as an object of contemplation. I find that answers come more readily through introspection, and that the universe outside of myself cannot be understood until I understand myself first.

"But some of us will countinue to seek to understand, to use the tools of curiosity and intelligence (be they god given or random occurances) that we possess to learn a little bit more of the truth of what IS.

You'll have to use your Christian forgivness when I tell you I find this the much more noble path than that taken by the believers."

And I am sure that you, atheist, will be baffled at my belief in the virtue of the absurd and irrational.

Dizzy Man

06-11-2004, 09:58 PM

Ooh, don't call Gecko an atheist. He doesn't like that! :)

POPthree13

06-11-2004, 10:39 PM

Dizzy - Your phobia case is a good example because phobias are rarely transferred via genetics or environment. A phobia is a personal psychological state which is usually based on an event in a persons life. It is rarely passed on (at least in the true sense of a phobia - maybe more of a reservation). Instinct seems to be real 'knowledge' that is passed down through generations without any need for communication in the common sense of the word. Although DNA can contain lots and lots of information can we really suggest that is hold enough information to 'hard-wire' an organism with the vast array and quantity of instincts with which they are born?

Gecko - I disagree. Evolution is anything but random. Sure, life tries everything, goes in all directions, is wrought with failures, but the fact that some things succeed while other do not is evidence in itself of the un-chaotic nature of the process. If global temperatures continue to rise we can project how creatures may adapt, what creatures may go extinct, and what creature may thrive and spread. Although the picture is very large, this indicates an intelligent system. If it were completely random then there would be no progression. Chaos does not build complexity. Systems build complexity out of chaos. Gravity builds galaxies, stars, planets and solar systems out of what would otherwise be random distributions of atoms. Likewise, I think, the Other force builds complex life out of what would otherwise be a bunch of amino acids.

In short their has to be some advantage to evolving the traits we do or otherwise we wouldn't evolve them. If there is advantage, then it isn't random. It isn't chaos... it's weighted and directional.
Gecko - you do live your life based on leaps of faith. You just take them so much for granted (as we all do) that it seems like reality. In reality we KNOW nothing and NOTHING is really able to be labeled as truth. Everyhting we know is based on our experience and the experience on the monkeys that have lived since the time we were able to start recording our thoughts. As a species we are like infants who have defined and categorize a bunch of crap into a bunch of buckets that gives us some basis upon which to talk, think and live. Is any of it truth? Not really... but we can come up with some good representations. Math, logic, physical laws... they are all good guidelines but they are all still OUR systems of understanding. They may be true to us, but that doesn't make them truth. Is that car red? Depends on who you ask... Can 'red' be truly defined seperately from human experience? Not really... otherwise it's just a frequency which means little... and even then the boundaries of the color are up for debate.

geckopelli

06-11-2004, 11:34 PM

Hammer,

All your arguments depend on presupption and assumption.

Eliminate them and what is left?

All the historical-phiolsophical clap-trap in the last 4000 years has failed to accomplish anything at all.

Your arguments allow for no progrees: they are usless. The Universe is not stagnate.

Can we test your pre-suppositoins? They are subject to neither failure nor verifacation. They are rationalization; nothing more.

You argue that human subjectivity is equivalent to objective reality. You say something can be real and have no effect on other elements of reality. This is self-serving fanatical nonesense. By this reasoning, everything anyone says is real, IS real.

Your arguments are homocentric and cannot be addressed by a student of all creation. According to you, that would be God's Creation.

I would be happy to discuss any Philosophy you wish to expound on- in another thread.

But I warn you, Pragmatism is my philosophy and I can debate insubstatial ideas from any point you desire.

Dizzyman,
I've prayed sincerly like any man who has faced death and violence. Each of those incidences convinced me I was on the right track.

I've disscussed vision with you.

"If I am to accept this god", I used to ask, "why dosen't he simply present proof of his existence. They say he wants my attention. Well, then, let him speak up."

And then I'd laugh and make cracks about all the homocentric idiots with ther magic books.

Then I made a quatum leap of my own and understood that, indeed, atheist are theist (as recently pointed out so eloquently by JJ), and they too, were blind to the reality all around them.

I dropped all presupposition and took a look.

Maybe this god IS speaking up. But not through the homocentric nonsense of prophets, messiah's, and magic books. But through Reality itself. So I began to re-double my studies of reality.

I don't deny the possible existence of the "God Concept".
But if you're going to give me details of God, then I'll continue too pick them apart if they don't come wrapped in a more comprehensive explanation.

Without being sure of any result, I seek god through understanding, not Faith and whorship.
-----
When I was in the 8th grade we stole the key to our algebra final. It was multiple choice. A,C,D...

It was a set-up. Every answer was wrong. We got in big trouble.

So you'll have to forgive me, and others like me, who like to work out the answers for ourselves.

And know, I'm not an atheist- I'm an Equist.

geckopelli

06-11-2004, 11:51 PM

Gecko - I disagree. Evolution is anything but random. Sure, life tries everything, goes in all directions, is wrought with failures, but the fact that some things succeed while other do not is evidence in itself of the un-chaotic nature of the process.

[The mathematical tools nesacary to handle the evolution of life do not yet exist. This leaves the subject within the realm of Mathematical Chaos. That's what I mean.
There is no doubt that the theroetical possibility of prediction may exist. But for now, it remains a valid state-of-the-art analogy.]

If global temperatures continue to rise we can project how creatures may adapt, what creatures may go extinct, and what creature may thrive and spread.

[Project, yes. But on what level, and with what probability? Eventually-perhaps. But not now. Not accurately.]

Although the picture is very large, this indicates an intelligent system. If it were completely random then there would be no progression. Chaos does not build complexity. Systems build complexity out of chaos. Gravity builds galaxies, stars, planets and solar systems out of what would otherwise be random distributions of atoms. Likewise, I think, the Other force builds complex life out of what would otherwise be a bunch of amino acids.

[All this is true... except the first sentence. Pure unqualified opinion. Intelligence is not required.
The evident existence of this Other Force gave birth to the Equiotic view of existence.]

In short their has to be some advantage to evolving the traits we do or otherwise we wouldn't evolve them. If there is advantage, then it isn't random. It isn't chaos... it's weighted and directional.

[The advantage of evironment that a particular change may impart is only temporary, for the environment itself is subjet to evolution on another level.]

Gecko - you do live your life based on leaps of faith. You just take them so much for granted (as we all do) that it seems like reality.

[Please give me an example.]

In reality we KNOW nothing and NOTHING is really able to be labeled as truth.

[Philosophical nonesense. The computer works, dosen't it?]

Everyhting we know is based on our experience and the experience on the monkeys that have lived since the time we were able to start recording our thoughts. As a species we are like infants who have defined and categorize a bunch of crap into a bunch of buckets that gives us some basis upon which to talk, think and live. Is any of it truth? Not really... but we can come up with some good representations. Math, logic, physical laws... they are all good guidelines but they are all still OUR systems of understanding. They may be true to us, but that doesn't make them truth. Is that car red? Depends on who you ask... Can 'red' be truly defined seperately from human experience? Not really... otherwise it's just a frequency which means little... and even then the boundaries of the color are up for debate.
[Your confusing the subjective for the objective. That's a Homocentrici no-no.]

POPthree13

06-11-2004, 11:59 PM

"Maybe this god IS speaking up. But not through the homocentric nonsense of prophets, messiah's, and magic books. But through Reality itself. So I began to re-double my studies of reality."

I agree with this... I see religions as nothing more than practices which help to: see beyond our reality, come to terms with our own psychological issues, and find peace in system greater than ourselves. Using religion for anything else, is in my opinion, misguided, and many an intelligent person should find practices which work to these ends on their own instead of having them handed to them.
If someone find a religion which meets these needs without the need to compromise their search and understanding then by all means, practice it. If you don't find a religion which can do this, find the answers for yourself and don't for one second think that an organized religion is any more spiritual just because it has a book, a history, a savior and a bunch of followers.

The only true goal of a religion should be (IMO) to foster a personal relationship and understanding of the Other force which works for the individual. Obviously you do not NEED a religion to do this... many of us seek this out without any religious pressure.

geckopelli

06-12-2004, 12:19 AM

You know, my problem is that I think organized religion has come to be an anti-progress (and I mean Understanding, not technology) obstacle.

The Bible and it's ilk had many uses. But Had is the operative word.

The world of Lavosier and Madame Curie is not the stagnat wolrld of the past.

Time for something new.

POPthree13

06-12-2004, 12:29 AM

Gecko -
Reagrdless of our ability to predict or measure the path of evolution it follows a specific path. It has direction. We can not predict with any amount of accuracy where raindrops will fall and how they will make it to the ocean, again it would appear as mathmatical chaos, but again we see repetition and direction which we can attribute to the basic rules of gravity and evaporation. It isn't true chaos because a raindrop that falls on a particular soil type with a particual saturation level with a particular slope will direct that drop of rain in a (somewhat) predictable manner. Yes, chaos plays a part, but since there are tendencies it is not chaos.

I don't think saying that the systems of evolution include an 'intelligent component' is pure unqualified opinion. Why did the fish climb from the sea? Did they just randomly plop out there? No. They consciously tried to take advantage of an untapped food source and slowly but surely evolved into creatures which could stay out of the water longer and longer. I am not saying these fish were rocket scientists, but they were able to pick up on the advantages of pursuing this terrestrial food and force adaptation to these conditions. Evolution fills niches. How can something fill a niche without any understanding that the opportunity exists? Therefore I propose that intelligence must be used (in it's most basic form) to pursue new food sources, new environments and new practices which force evolution into a path that will provide adaptation.
As in my example... if the globe continues to warm birds will migrate further and further north. They use (basic) intelligence to decide how far to go. Evolution will follow their lead and the species will adapt to these new conditions. Evolution based on conscious decisions.

Gecko... leaps of faith...
We do not have one shred of evidence that the earth will be here tomorrow. History suggest that it might, but going to bed with the assumption that the earth will be here is blind faith. You take a step with faith that the earth's gravity will hold you to it, but do we even REALLY know what gravity is? You go to the ATM and assume you know how much money your going to have, but that too is just faith.
I don't know.. is your computer working? I work in computers and I can tell you they don't always work, and often I can't tell you why they aren't. What is a computer? What do you mean by saying it 'works'? My computer is different from your computer... Computer is a very broad category and every single thing we can classify as a computer is different - even ones from the same company from the same assembly line. Sameness is an illusion. Your computer's contents are changing all the time. So is your term for computer just an instant snapshot of your machine at this indvisible moment? Then it's not very appl;icable to my computer. Therefore anything you say about a computer applies only to that computer at that indivisible moment in time. There are tendencires for computers to work, but that doesn't make a statement like 'computers work' true. What makes a computer a computer? Where does the computer stop and the desk start - subatomically? Why is that material that makes up this computer stable on this planet... couldn't that change in a fraction of a second provided the physical laws governing this planet changed? A statement like 'the comuter is working' is not truth unless you can COMPETELY define what a computer is, and COMPETELY define what working is. I suggest that you can not, and therefore it is just an abstract representation of an idea upon which we can agree. Not truth.

I am not confusing subjective and objective at all. I simply don't beleive there is a such thing as objective reality.

POPthree13

06-12-2004, 12:36 AM

I agree religion has often held back discovery and understanding... but that is because the institutions from which we receive religion are often focused on control and greed. Any attempt to control, cut-off, and complete the religious picture is pure nonsense. If there is a God, it is a living God, that probably mirrors the life we see. It changes all the time, it grows, it moves... Anythign that can't grow and move with it is obsolete the second it is written.
Jesus didn't write much did he? I think he was pretty clever. If only those who followed him were as wise...

TheHammerSpeaks

06-12-2004, 01:26 AM

"All your arguments depend on presupption and assumption."

No, I am arguing that all of your arguments depend upon the presupposition that science is superior to art, object to subject, epistemology to metaphysics.

"[What is left is a]ll the historical-phiolsophical clap-trap in the last 4000 years has failed to accomplish anything at all.

Your arguments allow for no progrees: they are usless. The Universe is not stagnate."

My philosophy is certainly based upon an understanding of the history of philosophy. That I will not deny; I am rather proud of this, actually. I feel that all great philosophers built upon the work of their predesessors, and why not do so? These men go down in the annals of philosophy precisely because they were great, so why not build upon their insights? But to suggest that a historically-minded philosophy can be stagnant seems to me a contradiction in terms.

When did I ever suggest that the universe is stagnant? On the contrary, I see your philosophy as stagnant with your faith in grammar, in your essential 'I', in your clear-cut division between subject and object. It does not make room for multiplicity in the world. A philosophy which does not pay proper attention to will and idea cannot account for change.

My aruments, useless? How can something that uncovers the nature of God, the self, and knowledge be considered useless? This is the philosophy and religion forum; these are the kinds of questions philosophers and theologians answer. You write things that make me think you feel more at home in the science and technology forum.

"Can we test your pre-suppositoins? They are subject to neither failure nor verifacation. They are rationalization; nothing more."

I make no presuppositions. I ask you if we can test yours. The most ironic thing about induction is that it cannot be verified by process of induction.

"You argue that human subjectivity is equivalent to objective reality."

Not exactly, more that the relationship between the two can never be known.

"You say something can be real and have no effect on other elements of reality."

No, I say that the interaction between God and the physical world can never be understood.

"This is self-serving fanatical nonesense. By this reasoning, everything anyone says is real, IS real."

No, since thought is limitted by language, knowledge cannot transcend those same limits. To summarize, there are some problems which one cannot think through; one must feel it; one must live it.

"Your arguments are homocentric and cannot be addressed by a student of all creation. According to you, that would be God's Creation."

Quite the contrary, I am no humanist. I do not believe that man is the measure of all things (e.g. morality. This belief is an unavoidable consequence of atheism, that or nihilism). I do not believe that all the secrets of the universe can be unlocked by reason, a man-made device.

"I would be happy to discuss any Philosophy you wish to expound on- in another thread."

I do not feel that we are off topic. This thread is titled, "Can you prove that God exists." Since no sufficient argument, in your eyes, has been presented, it seems natural to inquire as to why such an argument is not forthcoming, and whether the conclusion of this inquiry supports or depreciates the case for the existence of God.

"But I warn you, Pragmatism is my philosophy and I can debate insubstatial ideas from any point you desire."

What luck! One of my old professors was a pragmatist! But if we were to discuss Pragmatism at this stage in the debate, that would be grounds to create a new thread.

geckopelli

06-12-2004, 01:35 AM

Gecko -
Reagrdless of our ability to predict or measure the path of evolution it follows a specific path. It has direction. We can not predict with any amount of accuracy where raindrops will fall and how they will make it to the ocean, again it would appear as mathmatical chaos, but again we see repetition and direction which we can attribute to the basic rules of gravity and evaporation. It isn't true chaos because a raindrop that falls on a particular soil type with a particual saturation level with a particular slope will direct that drop of rain in a (somewhat) predictable manner. Yes, chaos plays a part, but since there are tendencies it is not chaos.

[It IS the type of thing that Chaos Theory is meant to deal with. Again, I was refering to Chaos theory- not the paradox of Chaos.]

I don't think saying that the systems of evolution include an 'intelligent component' is pure unqualified opinion. Why did the fish climb from the sea? Did they just randomly plop out there? No. They consciously tried to take advantage of an untapped food source and slowly but surely evolved into creatures which could stay out of the water longer and longer. I am not saying these fish were rocket scientists, but they were able to pick up on the advantages of pursuing this terrestrial food and force adaptation to these conditions. Evolution fills niches. How can something fill a niche without any understanding that the opportunity exists? Therefore I propose that intelligence must be used (in it's most basic form) to pursue new food sources, new environments and new practices which force evolution into a path that will provide adaptation.

[random is just as valid an explanation, but it dosen't require "I...Think". To say it is the product of intelligent guidenace is to beg the question. The super-intelligence is an awful complexed assumption.

occam's razor.]

As in my example... if the globe continues to warm birds will migrate further and further north. They use (basic) intelligence to decide how far to go. Evolution will follow their lead and the species will adapt to these new conditions. Evolution based on conscious decisions.

[Insticnt- no intelligence required. Are the birds self-aware?]

Gecko... leaps of faith...
We do not have one shred of evidence that the earth will be here tomorrow.

[We have tons of evidence. There is no convievably possible way in which it will NOT be here tommarow. Study physics.]

History suggest that it might, but going to bed with the assumption that the earth will be here is blind faith. You take a step with faith that the earth's gravity will hold you to it, but do we even REALLY know what gravity is? You go to the ATM and assume you know how much money your going to have, but that too is just faith.

[Too easy. I don't assume that when I go to bed. I'm not sure I'll wake-up. I don't know what gravity is- but It can be described so intimentely that I can make an equation. How does that compare to your assumption of intelligent guidance?]

I don't know.. is your computer working? I work in computers and I can tell you they don't always work, and often I can't tell you why they aren't. What is a computer? What do you mean by saying it 'works'? My computer is different from your computer... Computer is a very broad category and every single thing we can classify as a computer is different - even ones from the same company from the same assembly line. Sameness is an illusion. Your computer's contents are changing all the time. So is your term for computer just an instant snapshot of your machine at this indvisible moment? Then it's not very appl;icable to my computer. Therefore anything you say about a computer applies only to that computer at that indivisible moment in time. There are tendencires for computers to work, but that doesn't make a statement like 'computers work' true. What makes a computer a computer? Where does the computer stop and the desk start - subatomically? Why is that material that makes up this computer stable on this planet... couldn't that change in a fraction of a second provided the physical laws governing this planet changed? A statement like 'the comuter is working' is not truth unless you can COMPETELY define what a computer is, and COMPETELY define what working is. I suggest that you can not, and therefore it is just an abstract representation of an idea upon which we can agree. Not truth.

[Hypocrisy? You ask for a Complet definition of "working", yet demand Faith in non-tagibles?

Working: applying energy and obtaining a result.
Pretty definitive definition.]

I am not confusing subjective and objective at all. I simply don't beleive there is a such thing as objective reality.

[your belief is not to be confused with reality.

"Reality is as reality does"- opinions and belifes not with standing.]

Message too short? what the hell?

FreakyJoeMan

06-12-2004, 01:44 AM

We can neither prove, or disprove the existance of god. So, just formulat yer own damn opinion, and stop relyin on other people to do it for ya. And just think, could evidence of a creator be surmized by humans? What if, on the inside of quarks, it was written, in red ball point pen, "Dave was Here"?

geckopelli

06-12-2004, 02:05 AM

"All your arguments depend on presupption and assumption."

No, I am arguing that all of your arguments depend upon the presupposition that science is superior to art, object to subject, epistemology to metaphysics.

[Argue what you may, but Science is not an art- unless you consider it the "art of observing reality". An religion is not a science.]

"[What is left is a]ll the historical-phiolsophical clap-trap in the last 4000 years has failed to accomplish anything at all.

Your arguments allow for no progrees: they are usless. The Universe is not stagnate."

My philosophy is certainly based upon an understanding of the history of philosophy. That I will not deny; I am rather proud of this, actually. I feel that all great philosophers built upon the work of their predesessors, and why not do so? These men go down in the annals of philosophy precisely because they were great, so why not build upon their insights? But to suggest that a historically-minded philosophy can be stagnant seems to me a contradiction in terms.

[The same on going and never changing debate is useless. It has proven of little value to humanity and nothing leads me to expect a sudden philosophical break through in the same old spiel.

Time for something New.]

When did I ever suggest that the universe is stagnant? On the contrary, I see your philosophy as stagnant with your faith in grammar, in your essential 'I', in your clear-cut division between subject and object. It does not make room for multiplicity in the world. A philosophy which does not pay proper attention to will and idea cannot account for change.

[Again, your opinon against reality.

I am a semi-professional writer. I watch my form and I simplfy my speech for understanding- nothing personal, but who knows who may find interest in this exchange?

To write is a tool of the many, too be understood a gift of the few.

My philosophy pays attention to all things substantial. I have posted it many times- and will do so now if you are not familiar with it. ( hear that groan!)]

My aruments, useless? How can something that uncovers the nature of God, the self, and knowledge be considered useless? This is the philosophy and religion forum; CYou write things that make me think you feel more at home in the science and technology forum.

[theologians and the like ASK, but DO NOT answer questions. They uncover nothing but one anothers opinions. ZERO evidence. If all men die tonight- what value your philosophy?

Let me tell you- when standing on death's door, philosophy is of little value.]

"Can we test your pre-suppositoins? They are subject to neither failure nor verifacation. They are rationalization; nothing more."

I make no presuppositions. I ask you if we can test yours. The most ironic thing about induction is that it cannot be verified by process of induction.

[You can test my basic theories.
you pre-suppoose the existence of god with zero evidence. You can't even test his existence. Pure Assumption.

Word games won't work. I am well versed in semantics.]

"You argue that human subjectivity is equivalent to objective reality."

Not exactly, more that the relationship between the two can never be known.

[I know it. So do many others.

Subjective- your love is the stongest ever.

Objective- she cheated on you and stole your DVD.]

"You say something can be real and have no effect on other elements of reality."

No, I say that the interaction between God and the physical world can never be understood.

[Explanation: no god.

occam's razor.]

"This is self-serving fanatical nonesense. By this reasoning, everything anyone says is real, IS real."

No, since thought is limitted by language, knowledge cannot transcend those same limits. To summarize, there are some problems which one cannot think through; one must feel it; one must live it.

[More word games. The tooth fairy is real, because I believe it.]

"Your arguments are homocentric and cannot be addressed by a student of all creation. According to you, that would be God's Creation."

Quite the contrary, I am no humanist. I do not believe that man is the measure of all things (e.g. morality. This belief is an unavoidable consequence of atheism, that or nihilism). I do not believe that all the secrets of the universe can be unlocked by reason, a man-made device.

[You require HUMAN opinion to validate reality- the very definition of homocentric!]

"I would be happy to discuss any Philosophy you wish to expound on- in another thread."

I do not feel that we are off topic. This thread is titled, "Can you prove that God exists." Since no sufficient argument, in your eyes, has been presented, it seems natural to inquire as to why such an argument is not forthcoming, and whether the conclusion of this inquiry supports or depreciates the case for the existence of God.

[For reasons not relavant now (read: long and boring), it would be better for all concerned if we not hijack this thread to too great a degree.

I've been looking for that "sufficient arguement" for a long time.]

"But I warn you, Pragmatism is my philosophy and I can debate insubstatial ideas from any point you desire."

What luck! One of my old professors was a pragmatist! But if we were to discuss Pragmatism at this stage in the debate, that would be grounds to create a new thread.
Don't misunderstand me- I don't mean I follow anothers philosophy.

I mean I AM a completely pragmatic individual. It's the nature of the life I've led. I don't make unqualified assumptions.

geckopelli

06-12-2004, 02:08 AM

TheHammerSpeaks

06-12-2004, 03:25 AM

"Argue what you may, but Science is not an art- unless you consider it the 'art of observing reality'. And religion is not a science.

And neither is philosophy. That is the point I was driving.

"The same on going and never changing debate is useless. It has proven of little value to humanity and nothing leads me to expect a sudden philosophical break through in the same old spiel."

New breakthroughs are being made all the time. Popper must have developed his falsificationism in the fifties, and I do not believe that deconstruction gained any serious recognition until the early seventies. Derrida is still alive, even.

"Time for something New."

The scientific method is hardly new, let alone New.

"I am a semi-professional writer. I watch my form and I simplfy my speech for understanding- nothing personal, but who knows who may find interest in this exchange?"

"Faith in grammar" was a reference to Nietzsche; it had nothing to do with form or technique. However, while writing clearly is of great importance, it is often necessary to assume that the reader is familiar, to a certain degree, with the works of popular philosophers for the sake of brevity. I think it was Nietzsche himself who proved that great works of philosophy can be written in fifty pages.

"My philosophy pays attention to all things substantial. I have posted it many times- and will do so now if you are not familiar with it. ( hear that groan!)"

By all means! I would reciprocate, but I have no system.

"[T]heologians and the like ASK, but DO NOT answer questions. They uncover nothing but one anothers opinions. ZERO evidence."

Francis Bacon was a philosopher before a scientist. If philosophers do not uncover knowledge, then all the gains of the scientific method do not constitute knowledge.

"If all men die tonight- what value your philosophy?"

I imagine that if all men died tonight there would be very little value in anything.

"Let me tell you- when standing on death's door, philosophy is of little value."

Perhaps, but faith is everything; and if philosophy can lead one to faith, then why not take that road?

"Can we test your pre-suppositoins? They are subject to neither failure nor verifacation. They are rationalization; nothing more."

I make no presuppositions. I ask you if we can test yours. The most ironic thing about induction is that it cannot be verified by process of induction.

"You can test my basic theories.
you pre-suppoose the existence of god with zero evidence. You can't even test his existence. Pure Assumption."

Not only did I offer the cosmological and teleological arguments as proof in the first post I made on this thread, but I made it clear that nothing can be known about a being unless the existence of the being is presupposed.

"Word games won't work. I am well versed in semantics."

There are no word games here, just brutal honesty.

"I know it. So do many others."

And so did Kant, and so did Hegel, and so did Schopenhauer, and holes were found in all of their arguments.

"Explanation: no god."

No, to make that conclusion I would have to find an explaination for the subject/object distinction elsewhere. There is no logical explaination to be found, so the only explaination left is a Being who can transcend the limits of logic.

No, since thought is limitted by language, knowledge cannot transcend those same limits. To summarize, there are some problems which one cannot think through; one must feel it; one must live it.

"More word games. The tooth fairy is real, because I believe it."

This is not about knowledge vs. belief; it is about the limits of rationality.

"Your arguments are homocentric and cannot be addressed by a student of all creation. According to you, that would be God's Creation."

Quite the contrary, I am no humanist. I do not believe that man is the measure of all things (e.g. morality. This belief is an unavoidable consequence of atheism, that or nihilism). I do not believe that all the secrets of the universe can be unlocked by reason, a man-made device.

"You require HUMAN opinion to validate reality- the very definition of homocentric!"

No, you need subjective experience to validate reality, I never said it has to be a human subject. An animal is a subject, so is God, even a rock is a subject (though I do not believe it can experience).

"For reasons not relavant now (read: long and boring), it would be better for all concerned if we not hijack this thread to too great a degree."

If you post your response to this in another thread, I will post all subsequent replies there, as well.

geckopelli

06-12-2004, 05:41 AM

Again, all you say is opinon. None of it has any real world implications. No insight may be gained. No basis for prediction is offered.

You talk of god- but it's just talk. It get's you know where. Your whorship of past icons dose nothing to progress your knowledge.

If humanity ceased now, it would be of little consequence to the Universe.
------------------------
EQUIOTICS

C / U à O + E + U à e + t + U à C + U

Chaosßà Uncertainty

PRIMARY REACTION

Chaos / Uncertainty à Order + Entropy + Uncertainty

SECONDARY REACTIONS

I. Order + Uncertainty àExpressions of Energy + Uncertainty

II. Entropy + Uncertainty àExpressions of Entropy + Uncertainty

TERTIARY REACTION

Expressions of Energy + Expressions of Entropy + Uncertaintyà Chaos + Uncertainty

The Axioms of Equiotics

I. Uncertainty Permeates

II. Order is the basis of Existence

III. Existence is subjugated to Entropy

The Precepts

I. Existence remains consistent within it’s self

II. Components of Existence influence one another in an observable manner.

III. The universe can be perceived at multiple levels

Life + Energy x Environment --> Increasing Complexity of available life-forms.

geckopelli

06-12-2004, 06:06 AM

Ps
reality requires no validation. It simply IS- Human opinon not withstanding.

TheHammerSpeaks

06-12-2004, 06:24 AM

"Again, all you say is opinon. None of it has any real world implications."

Faith is a real world implication; making one's life into a work of art is a real world implication.

"No insight may be gained."

Insight into the nature of God, the self, and knowledge may be gained. I already said this, and you have not composed any response to this other than "that's just your opinion," which is not at all convincing.

"No basis for prediction is offered."

So what? The truth is that nothing can be predicted with certainty. You have not formulated a response to this either.

"You talk of god- but it's just talk."

No, faith is a process of becoming; I have written this before too.

"It get's you know where."

A Freudian slip, perhaps.

"Your whorship of past icons dose nothing to progress your knowledge."

How egocentric can you be to dismiss the greatest minds the world has ever produced and put yourself, a completely unknown pseudo-philosopher, on a pedestal so far above them? I do not mindlessly agree with agree with my "icons," rather I point out their flaws and expand upon their merits. This is what every philosopher worth reading does. I have not heard enough of your thought to formulate a definate analysis yet. However, I greatly suspect that at least one of your problems is that you dehistoricize everything.

"If humanity ceased now, it would be of little consequence to the Universe."

I do not think that philosophy in general would be of any consequence to anything if humanity ceased to be, yours included.

EQUIOTICS

C / U à O + E + U à e + t + U à C + U

Chaosßà Uncertainty

PRIMARY REACTION

Chaos / Uncertainty à Order + Entropy + Uncertainty

SECONDARY REACTIONS

I. Order + Uncertainty àExpressions of Energy + Uncertainty

II. Entropy + Uncertainty àExpressions of Entropy + Uncertainty

TERTIARY REACTION

Expressions of Energy + Expressions of Entropy + Uncertaintyà Chaos + Uncertainty

The Axioms of Equiotics

I. Uncertainty Permeates

II. Order is the basis of Existence

III. Existence is subjugated to Entropy

The Precepts

I. Existence remains consistent within it’s self

II. Components of Existence influence one another in an observable manner.

III. The universe can be perceived at multiple levels

Life + Energy x Environment --> Increasing Complexity of available life-forms.What is this supposed to be? Please do not tell me that is your philosophy! I guess you should probably take me through it step by step; I have already come this far. But this is going to be easy.

"reality requires no validation. It simply IS- Human opinon not withstanding."

If by validation, you mean verification, then that is a presupposition very similar to Kierkegaard's argument for the existence of God, which you rejected. In your philosophy, which appartently prides itself on being free of presupposition, this presents a problem. You offer no argument supporting the existence of an objective world other than, "It simply is." You accept a leap of faith only when it suits your purposes.

geckopelli

06-12-2004, 06:47 AM

Reality is my philosophy.

Your list of great minds lacks a single man of non-homocentric genius. Great minds? They answered no questions. The questions they asked were completley homocentric, in any case.

I Tend to John Lokce and Albert Einstien for my philosophical bent, I'm afraid- practical men, ultimately.
----------
Your opinion is what is unconvincing. You state the existence of god and than back it up with empty rhetoric. "It's true because I say it's true and that means it's true. And other people thought it was true back when the earth was the center of thje solar system." Same tired bible defence disguised.
-----------
Equiotics is probably outside your ken, because it allows for no assumptions. It does, however, allow for a possible god and the human conciet known as philosophy. As well as Quatum Physics and Uncertainty.

I defy you to do better or to tear holes in it.

I warn you it's been subject to much debate among so-called theologan and bona-fide physcist.
------
But please- merely insisting I'm wrong without offering evidence of right has never succeded in these forums, and it won't succeed now.

"There is a god"- offer one shred of real evidence.

You can't.

TheHammerSpeaks

06-12-2004, 07:06 AM

"Reality is my philosophy."

That sounds very nice, but you still need to run through your arguments step by step if I am to critique them.

"Your list of great minds lacks a single man of non-homocentric genius. Great minds? They answered no questions. The questions they asked were completley homocentric, in any case."

What is it with you and homocentricity? First of all, homocentricity is not a fallacy; and second, I am not homocentric, as I have already demonstrated.

"I Tend to John Lokce and Albert Einstien for my philosophical bent, I'm afraid- practical men, ultimately."

Firstly, both of those men believed in God. Secondly, Einstein was not a philosopher and never said anything of any philosophical importance (not that this subtracts from his ability as a physicist, a subject of which I know nothing) of which I am aware. And finally, John Locke's philosophy is full of holes (e.g. the primary/secondary quality distinction) and presuppositions (e.g. universal human rights).

"Your opinion is what is unconvincing. You state the existence of god and than back it up with empty rhetoric. "It's true because I say it's true and that means it's true. And other people thought it was true back when the earth was the center of thje solar system." Same tired bible defence disguised."

Have you been paying the slightest bit of attention to my arguments?

"Equiotics is probably outside your ken, because it allows for no assumptions. It does, however, allow for a possible god and the human conciet known as philosophy. As well as Quatum Physics and Uncertainty."

Equiotics? What is the etymology of that? The navigation of horses? And I just pointed out an assumption of "equiotics" in my last post which you never responded to. In a debate, you cannot just ignore questions you cannot answer.

"I defy you to do better or to tear holes in it."

How can a tear holes in it if you want explain it to me?

"But please- merely insisting I'm wrong without offering evidence of right has never succeded in these forums, and it won't succeed now."

That never succeeds anywhere, and that is precisely why you have not convinced me of anything so far.

"'There is a god'- offer one shred of real evidence."

How many times do I have to do this: the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, existence must be presupposed to have any kind of knowledge of anything. I have offered these three arguments for the third time now, and you have not criticized them once, apart from saying, "That's your opinion." That's not going to cut it.

geckopelli

06-12-2004, 07:15 AM

Your arguments are useless.

Just because you state them does not give validation to them. they fall flat in the face of reality.

Non sequitor is non sequitor.

I am a student of reality. Your words describe nothing but other words. They're valueless.

You've offered no proof of god. You've stated that conciousness is required for existence. Unqualified statements are well and good; but who cares?

TheHammerSpeaks

06-12-2004, 07:29 AM

Jesus Christ. I am going to make this as clear as I possibly can: POST YOUR PHILOSOPHY SO THAT I MAY CRITIQUE IT! I hope that sinks in this time.

"Your arguments are useless.

Just because you state them does not give validation to them. they fall flat in the face of reality."

So you've said again... and again... and again; but that's not a critique, that's
a statement and has absolutely no value unless you present arguments to back it up. I presented the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and Kierkegaard's argument. Now, you have to tell me what's wrong with those arguments. That's how a debate works. Keep in mind that you cannot just say, "That has no bearing on reality!" or anything else along those lines. You must present an argument with premises and a conclusion. Now, could you please do that so that this thread becomes productive again and so that I can stop repeating myself.

"I am a student of reality. Your words describe nothing but other words. They're valueless."

So you've said, but, you see, that's not an argument. Saying that something is valueless does not make it so, it does not even make it false.

"You've offered no proof of god."

Do I really have to write them again? You should have them memorised by now! Please, critique them!

"You've stated that conciousness is required for existence. Unqualified statements are well and good; but who cares?"

No, I didn't. I stated that consciousness is required to know existence, in your own words, to "verify" it.

geckopelli

06-12-2004, 07:40 AM

Your words offer litte self-justifacation, in spite of what you think.

A thing is not so becuase you say it is. Words are a human construct; not to be mistaken for the concepts they try to describe.
-----
An explanation:
"Since beginnings begin endings and endings end beginnings, than naturally the end of the ending is the beginning of the beginning."

Before the beginning, there was chaos.

Something Uncertain happened, and the beginning began.

Chaos split in half; on one side was energy, and on the other entropy.

Energy shattered into the forces known to science, an possibly inexplicable others.

Entropy began “gathering toward Chaos” in the form of time/space/gravity and all its attributes.

Thusly was the Universe born.

And though it all, Uncertainty remained supreme.
-----
And these basic priciples stand.

There is a tendency to seek Chaos. There is a weaker tendency to seek order.

This can be seen in all things.

Even homocentricity.

geckopelli

06-12-2004, 07:42 AM

Now state your philosophy- a magician on a cloud rules all?

geckopelli

06-12-2004, 07:45 AM

Give it up, juicy. I'm tired of this.

your assumption of god remains an assumption.

TheHammerSpeaks

06-12-2004, 08:13 AM

You've got to be kidding me. I wasted an hour of my night trying to coax that out of you? Sleeping would have been more productive! It shouldn't take long to formulate a critique.

First of all, your "philosophy" is not a complete system. There is no serious discussion of metaphysics, no epistemology, no ethics, and no aesthetics. I'm not sure if it could even be considered a philosophy to begin with. All you have is a creation story.

"Before the beginning, there was chaos."

Problem #1: You assume that there was a beginning in the first place. How are you so certain that matter has not always existed?

Problem #2: What did chaos consist of? I'm really just curious as to why you chose the word "chaos" over, say, "void."

"Something Uncertain happened, and the beginning began."

Problem #3: If you don't know exactly what happened, then how do you know it happened at all?

"Chaos split in half; on one side was energy, and on the other entropy."

Problem #4: What, exactly, are you basing this upon? What about matter, or idea, or will? How did those things come out of energy and entropy?

Problem #5: What, exactly, is entropy? Can I see it?

"Energy shattered into the forces known to science, and possibly inexplicable others."

Problem #6: What caused energy to shatter?

Problem #7: How can a concrete thing such as energy become an abstract concept such as science? Through what process?

Problem #8: How is science a force?

"Entropy began 'gathering toward Chaos' in the form of time/space/gravity and all its attributes."

Problem #9: I'm no physicist, but isn't gravity a form of energy?

Problem #10: Why are space and time necessarily chaotic?

Problem #11: What force pulled entropy towards chaos if not energy?

"Thusly was the Universe born.

And though it all, Uncertainty remained supreme."

Hallelujah!

"And these basic priciples stand.

There is a tendency to seek Chaos. There is a weaker tendency to seek order.

This can be seen in all things.

Even homocentricity."

Problem #12: How do you know? Have you seen all things?

Problem #13: What is the nature of these tendencies?

Problem #14: Then why don't all things eventually gravitate towards chaos?

Well, that was one of the stupidest things I have ever read and a complete waste of time. All this time I thought you were a strict adherent to the scientific method, but really you just spout some mystical order/chaos distinction. You know absolutely nothing about philosophy.

"Now state your philosophy"

I already told you, I have not developed a system. Do you know why? Because it take years to do such a thing. It took Kant 12 and in the end he still couldn't make it air tight. Some philosophers even intentionally choose not to create a system, such as Nietzsche. Any idiot can just throw a bunch of vague, ill-defined terms together without explaining the relation of those terms and invent a creation story, as you have done. I'll post what I do have so far tomorrow in summary, or maybe the day after (big day tomorrow). I'm too exhausted right now, and I'd hate to make any slip-ups due to fatigue.

Good night.

Dizzy Man

06-12-2004, 05:53 PM

As far as I'm aware, scientists currently believe the universe is infinite, and had no beginning. Not that this really makes any difference to the argument of God's existence. God could just have easily made the universe infinite than to make it finite.

TheHammerSpeaks

06-12-2004, 06:25 PM

On second thought, I am not going to post my philosophy. Hopefully doing philosophy will some day be my sole source of income, so I'm not going to just give it all away for free. I don't mind posting little snippets of it here and there, but I'm not going to post the whole thing.

I will, however, summarize the basic project: To shift postmodernism away from the sociological and political, and towards the introspection of Kierkegaard and St. Augustine.

I will also list my main influences: St. Augustine, the Victorines, John Duns Scotus, Hamann, (latter) Schelling, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Marcel, and Derrida.

Anyone who reads these philosophers, keeping in mind my project, will have a good understanding about where my thought is going.

TheHammerSpeaks

06-12-2004, 06:37 PM

Problem #16: If time and space are really just manifestations of entropy, and entropy is, by definition, in a constant state of deterioration, how is it possible to consistently measure time and space? Why don't the measurements fluctuate over time as time and space deteriorate?

tikoo

06-12-2004, 09:21 PM

Hmmm .. I suspect once we can get beyond the solar system and then do some yardsticking , well , things is gonna change . Voyager's almost there . Last I heard it was beyond Pluto and encountering some kind of edge wave . Maybe from just beyond the wave it's really no time at all to get to anywhere except back home again . Are you ready for anything ? Do you have a good enough philosophy
to get you through ? I mean , too , a good philosophy can save you
from going blind should you ever encounter a shiny polished God , or at
least keep one from going to sleep from too much at you too fast too
shiny . Don't even blink .

FreakyJoeMan

06-12-2004, 11:09 PM

Assinine!

You can't diprove santa- and how do you know what may come to pass?
Okey, asanine has one "s", or was that 2'nd "s" deliberate? No, I can't totally and utterly dissprove santa, nore can I prove his existance, so, really,all evidence gathering ever done is moot, not that it shouldn't be done, science makes life more interesting. And I don't know what shall happen in the future, nor can anyone, except Ben Afflek and Gandalph.

Meagain

06-13-2004, 01:33 AM

The Cosmological Argument (or temporally first cause)

1. Something exists.
2. If something exists it does so contingent upon something else. That is, it must be caused by something.
3. All something are caused by other somethings.
4. If we follow these somethings back far enough, we must arrive at a "first something" that is not caused by anything else.
5. If anything exists an absolutely necessary being must exist.
6. Something exists, therefore an absolutely necessary first being must exist.

Close enough?

So, this argument is saying that something is happening in nature, but we can not explain it, so we must resort to something super-natural, i.e. God.

Assumptions:

1. Every event must have a cause. This is different than saying that every event has a cause. We can say that an event occurs by chance. We may be wrong, but we are not being self-contradictory, so this is a logical statement.
2. The series of causes must have a beginning. There is no contradiction in saying that something does not have beginning. Consider the series…-5,-4,-3,-2,-1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Each term is preceded (caused) by another, yet there is no first or last term.
3. The first cause has no cause. Why is this stated? Why does the first cause have no cause? We cannot say that there must be a first cause, which has no cause only because we can know nothing about it. We have already claimed to know something about it, it is different from nature.
4. The first cause still exists. Even if there was a first cause, what proof is there that it (God) still exists?

This is a very old argument going back to St. Thomas, I believe, in the 1200’s. We can discuss this more but I don’t see it as being very logical at all.

The Teleological Argument (or order in nature)

This argument equates the universe with a manmade design

1. Nature is an orderly affair. It conforms to pattern and is governed by law.
2. Nature cannot have ordered itself.
3. Order cannot happen by chance.
4. Therefore, the presence of order requires a designer or architect.
Also:

1. Everything has a purpose.
2. Things do not assign themselves purposes (as they have no intelligence).
3. Therefore, the presence of purpose requires a designer or architect.

Have I stated it correctly?

Assumptions:
1. Nature is an orderly affair. We cannot say that nature is necessarily orderly. If we say that the seasons follow one another, we may also say that each day is different. We say that the planets follow orderly orbits, but the dispersion of the stars is random. We cannot prove an orderly universe.
2. Order must come from intelligence. Crystals and salts are not intelligent, yet have order. They may have a guiding force, they may not. The guiding force, if present, does not need to be intelligent, it could be mechanical, instinctual, natural, or any combination of various forces. If we state that the order of crystals, etc. comes form God we are back to the first cause argument.
3. Like effects have like causes. The analogy is based on experience. Even if we grant that an intelligent being is the cause of the universe, we are basing this on the similarity of the universe to some human artifact, such as a house. A house has order and purpose and was constructed by an intelligent being, a man, it did not arrange itself by itself.

A. What leads us to believe that the house was built by an intelligent being? A person who lacks the knowledge required to design the house could have built it. He could copy another house that had been previously built.
B. Why one God? Many different people can build the same house. Why not several Gods to build the universe?
C. Why an immortal God? Couldn’t this God begin and cease to exist at some point.
D. Why not a perfect anthropomorhite? Why can’t the God have corporeal eyes, etc?
E. Why assume this world has a purpose, as a house does? It could be an imperfect world, with no purpose.

I see no reason to assume that this world must be the creation of an intelligent being.

Please summerize the appropiate proof of Kierkegaard.

(Sorry can't get rid of the italics!)

geckopelli

06-13-2004, 02:58 AM

There are so many problems with this, I'll give someone else a chance.

Dizzy Man

06-13-2004, 04:05 AM

There is no question as to whether God 'still' exists.

God does not share our time, so all points in time in our universe are equal to God. I doubt God exists in any kind of time, but if he does, and he ceases to exist at some point in his future, he will still always exist at every point in time in our own future, since all points in time in our universe were created at one point in time in God's life, when he existed.

To put it another way: you can read a book written by a dead person and at no point in that book will the author cease to exist. He existed while he wrote the book, so within the universe of that book, the author is eternal.

A lot of people confuse God's 'time' (if there is such a thing) with Earth time, which are two completely different things. God did not create the universe in the past!

queenannie

06-13-2004, 11:55 AM

God exists because I believe he does.

TheHammerSpeaks

06-13-2004, 09:58 PM

Meagain:

The Cosmological Argument (or temporally first cause)

1. Something exists.
2. If something exists it does so contingent upon something else. That is, it must be caused by something.
3. All something are caused by other somethings.
4. If we follow these somethings back far enough, we must arrive at a "first something" that is not caused by anything else.
5. If anything exists an absolutely necessary being must exist.
6. Something exists, therefore an absolutely necessary first being must exist.

Close enough?

Yes, close enough. The cosmological argument as well as many of the other proofs for God's existence (including the teleological) cannot be attributed to one, single philosopher. They have been expressed in many different ways by many different philosophers, but your summary is accurate, on the whole.

So, this argument is saying that something is happening in nature, but we can not explain it, so we must resort to something super-natural, i.e. God.

Well, it could be viewed that way, but really the argument presupposes that God is a natural phenomenon in the same way that, say, gravity is. I think that this is its biggest flaw.

Assumptions:

1. Every event must have a cause. This is different than saying that every event has a cause. We can say that an event occurs by chance. We may be wrong, but we are not being self-contradictory, so this is a logical statement.

I do not see any difference between saying, "Every event has a cause," and, "Every event must have a cause." The veb "must" is the English modal verb which signifies necessity. It is grouped into the same category as "should" or "ought" or "may"; all of these are modal verbs. However, "must" is the only one of them which signifies necessity. Compare the following sentences:

1) "I go to the store."

2) "I should go to the store."

3) "I may go to the store."

4) "I must go to the store."

Sentence 1 is in the present tense. It is the equivalent of saying, "I am going to the store," meaning that I am, at this moment, going to the store. Sentenses 2 and 3 use modal verbs. Sentence 2 signifies a value judgement, and Sentence 3 signifies possibility. The united factor between the two, however, is that neither of them signify necessity; I do not have to go to the store. Only Sentence 4 signifies necessity.

Necessity, by its very nature, suggests that the event has not yet taken place. If someone says, "I must go to the store," then that person has obviously not left for the store yet. In this way, a modal verb implies the future tense (e.g. "I will go to the store"), meaning that Sentence 4 speaks of a future trip to the store, while Sentence 1, as mentioned before, speaks of the present trip to the store.

Why is this important? If the sentence in question used a definate article ("The event must have a cause"), then it wouldn't be. But your sentence uses a quantifier ("Every event must have a cause"). The quantifier "every" implies that all events, past, present, and future, have a cause. To add the modal verb "must" to the sentence is only redundant, since the future tense is already implied. Therefore, there is no difference whatsoever between the sentences, "Every event has a cause," and, "Every event must have a cause."

As for your argument that chance is not a cause, a cause is simply something that causes something else to happen. If something happens by chance, then chance is, of course, the cause. The real question is, "What is the nature of chance?" Chance is an inexplicable cause. It is a cause without reason. It is spontaineity. But it is still a presupposition to assume that chance itself is without cause.

I seriously question whether chance can cause chance. Isn't that simply redundant? Can one distinguish where chance, the cause, ended and where chance, the effect, began?

2. The series of causes must have a beginning. There is no contradiction in saying that something does not have beginning. Consider the series…-5,-4,-3,-2,-1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Each term is preceded (caused) by another, yet there is no first or last term.

I normally don't like using numbers in philosophy since they do not always relate directly to the real world (e.g. Mill's four that does not equal four). Sorites paradox, I believe, is a better example. However, you point still stands. I never suggested that the cosmological argument was air tight. In fact, I even suggested to unbelievers that the "combined weight" of the three arguments may be necessary to be convincing to some.

3. The first cause has no cause. Why is this stated? Why does the first cause have no cause? We cannot say that there must be a first cause, which has no cause only because we can know nothing about it. We have already claimed to know something about it, it is different from nature.

That is the very nature of the unconditioned; it is self-caused. Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel developed this idea thoroughly.

4. The first cause still exists. Even if there was a first cause, what proof is there that it (God) still exists?

This too was explained by the triad of German Idealism. The unconditioned is an end unto itself.

This is a very old argument going back to St. Thomas, I believe, in the 1200’s. We can discuss this more but I don’t see it as being very logical at all.

It's actually probably older. But don't simply write it off for that reason. Some of the greatest philosophy comes out of the Dark Ages.

TheHammerSpeaks

06-13-2004, 09:58 PM

The Teleological Argument (or order in nature)

This argument equates the universe with a manmade design

1. Nature is an orderly affair. It conforms to pattern and is governed by law.
2. Nature cannot have ordered itself.
3. Order cannot happen by chance.
4. Therefore, the presence of order requires a designer or architect.
Also:

1. Everything has a purpose.
2. Things do not assign themselves purposes (as they have no intelligence).
3. Therefore, the presence of purpose requires a designer or architect.

Have I stated it correctly?
I had the second argument in mind. The first is known as the argument by design, which, when you get right down to it, is very similar to the cosmological argument.

Since all of your arguments deal with the argument by design, I cannot respond to them. It is of great importance to differentiate between order and purpose. While "order" implies a necessary teleological aim, "purpose" leaves room for either/or choices, not just necessary causes.

A. What leads us to believe that the house was built by an intelligent being? A person who lacks the knowledge required to design the house could have built it. He could copy another house that had been previously built.

First of all, the universe is not a house, and I am not aware of the existence of another one which could be used as an original for this copy. Second, surely some degree of intelligence is needed to make a copy. Third, the idea that this universe is a copy (who or what is doing the copying, you fail to explain) of another seems even more unlikely than the idea of it being the original. Lastly, can you show me a house that isn't built by an intelligent being, let alone a universe?
B. Why one God? Many different people can build the same house. Why not several Gods to build the universe?

It all goes back to Hegel equating the unconditioned with the Absolute. You have a keen mind and I am beginning to think you would like Hegel.

C. Why an immortal God? Couldn’t this God begin and cease to exist at some point.

See response above.

D. Why not a perfect anthropomorhite? Why can’t the God have corporeal eyes, etc?

See response above.
E. Why assume this world has a purpose, as a house does? It could be an imperfect world, with no purpose.

Well, if a house has purpose, and a hammer has purpose, and one runs through the list of everything of which the world consists and finds purpose in all of it, then the entire world, the sum total of its contents, must have purpose. I know for certain that houses and hammers have purpose, and you even said so yourself. So why don't you tell me what does not, with certainty, have purpose? You seem even more critical of induction than I am.

Please summerize the appropiate proof of Kierkegaard.
It is simply that existence must be presupposed if we want to know anything about a being - that existence must be the starting point. That goes for everything: God, the self, Napoleon, dreams, etc.

(Sorry can't get rid of the italics!)
No problem.

Meagain

06-14-2004, 06:28 PM

Hammer1,

The quantifier "every" implies that all events, past, present, and future, have a cause. To add the modal verb "must" to the sentence is only redundant, since the future tense is already implied. Therefore, there is no difference whatsoever between the sentences, "Every event has a cause," and, "Every event must have a cause."

Must is not redundant. Just because every event has a cause does not mean that every event must have a cause. Even if we grant that all future events have a cause, which we have no way of knowing, they still do no have to have a cause. We are looking at two different possibilities here. It may be physically true that all events do have a cause, but logically untrue that they have to have a cause. In other words it is not a contradiction to say that something can happen by chance, even if it never does in our world.

Further if we agree with your statement that ‘every’ implies all events past, present, and future, then we have nullified the first cause argument, as it would have to be included, as an event, as having a cause. So the first cause is an event, and all events have a cause. We now have a first event minus one. Now, if you jump out of time and say that God operates in some timeless realm I can also jump out of time and say that an event can happen by chance which means it does not follow the temporal cause/effect relationship. If it has occurred due to chance, it has no cause and thus ‘appears’ without being predicated upon a previous event. So, saying that God is the first cause, by your definition of ‘every’ is the same as saying something happened by chance.

As for your argument that chance is not a cause, a cause is simply something that causes something else to happen. If something happens by chance, then chance is, of course, the cause. The real question is, "What is the nature of chance?" Chance is an inexplicable cause. It is a cause without reason. It is spontaneity. But it is still a presupposition to assume that chance itself is without cause.

You are redefining chance. Chance, as I used it, means without cause. You cannot change the meaning of words by giving them a contradictory meaning to counter an argument. You are saying that anything that happens without cause has a cause, which is that it has no cause.

That was not my usage of the word chance.

Then you go on to say that I cannot presuppose that chance has no cause yet you can presuppose that God has no cause. We can’t have it both ways.

That is the very nature of the unconditioned; it is self-caused. Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel developed this idea thoroughly.

I’m sorry; you must explain this to me. How can something be self-caused? To have a cause and effect we must have two different things. (I am not arguing that cause and effect are even valid, but assuming that they are.)

This too was explained by the triad of German Idealism. The unconditioned is an end unto itself.

This too you must explain to me, as I am not familiar with it. (That God is out of time.) We seem to be jumping in and out of time. The first cause is based on the whole idea of temporal time, but all of a sudden we introduce God, who is out of the boundary of time.

How can we presuppose this?

Meagain

06-14-2004, 06:32 PM

Hammer2,

First of all, the universe is not a house, and I am not aware of the existence of another one, which could be used as an original for this copy. Second, surely some degree of intelligence is needed to make a copy

Yes, the universe is not a house but this argument is based upon the analogy that the universe has a purpose, as a house has a purpose.

All things that have a purpose, like a house, must be designed by intelligence.

The universe has a purpose.

The universe must have an intelligent design.

My objection is that, using the house analogy, a house can exist having been built by someone who does not have the intelligence needed to design the house. Yes, we need some intelligence to build a house but more intelligence is needed to design a house. A house is a complicated structure, as is the universe, I can direct a mentally deficient person to build a house that they would be unable to design.

Third, the idea that this universe is a copy (who or what is doing the copying, you fail to explain) of another seems even more unlikely than the idea of it being the original.

Why is that? I postulate that a guy named Beejob copied the 4th universe from the left to create this one. Why is that harder to conceive than a single God created it out of nothing?

Lastly, can you show me a house that isn't built by an intelligent being, let alone a universe?

Well, we could get into manufactured housing and program a factory to built a 1,00 houses with no intelligent direction after the thing got going. Why can’t we imagine a cosmic universe factory chugging along producing many universes of which this is one? By the way Beejob ceased to exist after he programmed the factory.

It all goes back to Hegel equating the unconditioned with the Absolute. You have a keen mind and I am beginning to think you would like Hegel.

Are we talking about the God that I defined at the beginning of this thread? You must tell me Hegel’s definition of God. There are many definitions.

Why assume this world has a purpose, as a house does? It could be an imperfect world, with no purpose.

Well, if a house has purpose, and a hammer has purpose, and one runs through the list of everything of which the world consists and finds purpose in all of it, then the entire world, the sum total of its contents, must have purpose. I know for certain that houses and hammers have purpose, and you even said so yourself. So why don't you tell me what does not, with certainty, have purpose? You seem even more critical of induction than I am.

These are human purposes imputed to human devices. Just because a hammer has a purpose we cannot make the leap to the universe having a purpose, as it is not of human origin.

Does the purr of a cat have a purpose? Or is it the result of some physiology of catness?

Do we assign a purpose to the cat’s purr or is it just the purring of a cat?

Now that I think of it does a hammer have an innate purpose? Is the purpose of a hammer to hammer? Disregarding the fact that we are labeling it by its purpose. Let’s call the hammer a ‘glip’. We can assign the use of this ‘glip’ to hammering and say that is its purpose. Or we can be ignorant of what it is meant to be used for, we are a South American aborigine who has never seen a hammer (I mean ‘glip’) and decide it has no purpose and toss it in the river.

Purpose is a human label.

The cat will decide the hammer has no purpose.

Please summarize the appropriate proof of Kierkegaard.

It is simply that existence must be presupposed if we want to know anything about a being - that existence must be the starting point. That goes for everything: God, the self, Napoleon, dreams, etc.

I checked this out. I have trouble seeing how this applies. Why can’t I imagine something that doesn’t exist? Just because I can image God doesn’t mean he exists.

Saying that I must presuppose the existence of Napoleon to find Napoleon amongst a number of other men is not the same as saying a presupposition of God proves there is a being called God.

Napoleon exists (or did at one time), if not I will not find him no matter how hard I presuppose him.

I presupposed a being called Beejob above, what does that prove? What can I factually know about him?

Meagain

06-14-2004, 06:34 PM

Dizzy,

God does not share our time, so all points in time in our universe are equal to God. I doubt God exists in any kind of time, but if he does, and he ceases to exist at some point in his future, he will still always exist at every point in time in our own future, since all points in time in our universe were created at one point in time in God's life, when he existed.

Numbers 4 and 5:

5. If anything exists an absolutely necessary being must exist.
6. Something exists; therefore an absolutely necessary first being must exist.

Assuming God to be the first cause has to place him beyond time, as time would only exist after time/space have been ‘caused’.

Now you are telling me that God has no relation to time as time was ‘invented’ by him.

But, causes and effects can only relate to time as one follows the other.

This makes the whole argument implausible as God cannot be a first cause if he is not first, which implies time. So how is he beyond time yet the first cause?

To put it another way: you can read a book written by a dead person and at no point in that book will the author cease to exist. He existed while he wrote the book, so within the universe of that book, the author is eternal.

Or are you saying that God creates the universe, which would include a copy of God that would continue to exist even if the original God ceases which can’t happen as he is beyond time?

A lot of people confuse God's 'time' (if there is such a thing) with Earth time, which are two completely different things. God did not create the universe in the past!

You are basing the existence of God on the existence of the universe. I thought it was the other way around. The universe exists therefore, it is created by an existing God.

Gecky,

I have to tell you people that I am getting most of this stuff from standard philosophy texts. Very little is my own thought. I disagree with much of both sides of these arguments, as I believe the whole issue to be highly trivial. But it passes the time. I much prefer eastern philosophy to western. Western seems to run in circles to me. The main purpose of following western philosophy, to me, seems to be finding the underlining assumptions and basic flaws in what it is attempting to ‘prove’. I’m just presenting counter arguments here by trying to restrict myself to the ‘standard’ thoughts of western philo.

Queeny,

God exists because I believe he does.

Has the same validity as saying:

The Easter Bunny exists because I believe he does.

queenannie

06-14-2004, 08:28 PM

The reason I say He exists because I believe is this:

When the subject comes about about God, all humans alive today are at a disadvantage. We depend on our 5 senses for material proof he exists. Even if we debate the point from a philosophical or intellectual stance, our understanding in based in materiality. We look for the basis of our proof to be evidenced in what we can perceive with our senses.

The problems with that approach is, #1, God is not, in any way, manifested individually materially in this plane. Sure, everything we see is His creation, but nothing can be identified as being Him. #2, we have more than 5 senses. Our 5 senses are materially perceptible in this 3 dimensional world. Souls and spirits are of higher dimensions, and they are not subject to the rules of the 3d world, but they do have laws they are subject to in higher dimensions.

ESP, telepathy, and all the things we label "paranormal" are of that distinction. "Normal" is a label humans have either ignorantly or arrogantly attached to the limits of our perception in this plane. So the people that have paranormal abilities and perceptions are actually using senses made for the higher dimensions. Most cannot perceive what they do, but obviously it is still just as "real", otherwise we would not be as fascinated with the "paranormal" as we are. And to the ones who can perceive those things, they are just as "real" as something you can see or touch. They leave no room for doubt. But they are not explainable to someone who cannot perceive in the same manner.

So when it comes to things of that nature, that is, things that are not tangible by the 5 senses, objective data is invalid. So then we are left with subjective data, usually understood as being someone's opinion or belief. If you ask me how I know God exists, my belief says "He just does." When it comes to things from a higher dimensional plane, "belief" is the "proof."

There's no other way around it. God is of the highest dimension. There will never be any proof you will find on any dimension which can be perceived within the limits of that dimension. That is where the "faith" part comes in. You either believe or you don't. He will not endeavor to find a way to prove it to you, but will reward you if you take a chance and believe. Actually, chance is the wrong word. There are no chances that God will do as He promised, only 100% guarantees.

That is also the explanation about the "first cause". That terminology is the best a human mind can do, given the circumstances. God is not of temporal time, therefore the word cause becomes null and void. But we cannot understand events without causes, therefore we deal with the explanation of Him as the "first cause".

geckopelli

06-14-2004, 09:45 PM

POPthree13

06-14-2004, 10:41 PM

Gecko... some thoughts on objectivity I wanted to share:

All my experiences are metaphysically subjective (i.e., no one else has my unique experiences; all my experiences are from my unique point of view).

If my experiences are metaphysically subjective, any statements I make about my experiences must be epistemologically subjective — they are "merely" my beliefs, or my opinions.

Whoever you are you have access only to your experiences ("your reality") and no one else's, and whatever you say, it's just your opinion ("your truth"). We simply can't be objective. There is no Objective Reality or Objective Truth. Reality and truth differ for everyone, and always will.

[We have tons of evidence. There is no convievably possible way in which it will NOT be here tommarow. Study physics.]

I have studied physics and find that our entire physical reality is based on some very complex and almost completely unknown forces. We can ram particles together and determine their composition but we really don't know what's holding all this together. We can measure it, we can name it, but we don't know what it is. For all we know it could disappear, however unlikely. 5 billion years of stability doesn't insure tomorrow will be the same. We really don't know and if you are claiming you do then you should be locked in a tower somewhere doing research.

[Hypocrisy? You ask for a Complet definition of "working", yet demand Faith in non-tagibles?

Working: applying energy and obtaining a result.
Pretty definitive definition.]

I think you are confusing me with someone else... I am not trying to convince you of intangibles. I am not a religious man. I was a physics major in college and hold a deep interest in religion and philosophy. I beleive only what I see in the world around me. However, with my understanding of chaos and the world we know today I think your explainations seem FAR more faith-based than mine. However if that is your deffinition of a 'working' computer I have a whole closet of working computers I would love to sell you! Plug them in - you will get a result. Are they working though... I'll let you decide.

Truth, objectivity, sameness, solidity... all illusions. It is far less opinion than you suggest. Unless of course, you are beyond human experience, and then, again, you need to be locked up and studied.

geckopelli

06-14-2004, 11:11 PM

How can you not Know the basic definition of "work" and be a physics major?

Where does it say that the work obtained must be that which is desired?
---
The fallacy in the "no objective reality" is clear- It presupposes the need for concious observation. Homocentricity. Spiecies Solipisim.

I propose that somewhere in the galaxy an event is occuring which we can not observe. At some time in the future, observation will be possible.

By your definition the event did not occur until the obsevation is conciously made.

And the universe revoles around the sun. Do you have a time tunnel to school? There's been a few breakthroughs since '98. That's 1898.

My knowledge, derived from observations, tells me that the event occured sometime in the past. It might even allow me to approximate that time.
------
The fact that we can't (yet) explain the forces does not negate our ability to learn and utilize thier properties.
-----
Statements like"for all we know..." presuppose the existence of an unobserved, indescibable force, taylored to fit a fantastic statement.
I cannot address another man's fantasy.

But I'll bet you a penny, double or nothing everyday, that old Sol peeks out on time for the next month.
----
My statements aren't faith based.
They're based on extensive study and observation. I pretend at no Truth.

Just truth- what IS.

Always subject to new evidence, of course.
----------------

Your beliefs seems to be based on the existence of Ego.
There is no reason to believe humans are needed for existence.

I suggest you stop thinking so highly of yourself.
And perhaps change majors- How can a physics student not know the definition of "work"?

Clown College majors don't count.

POPthree13

06-14-2004, 11:27 PM

I am aware of the definition of work. You said 'the computers working isn't it?' I say 'working' in that statement is undefinable. It relies on a subjective observation measured over an indivisble moment of time. A moment later it may not be working.

I am not saying REAL things aren't happening. I am not at all saying real things are dependent on our observation of them. I am saying that ANY attempt at a description of that event as TRUTH is impossible because truth then is based only on an understanding WE share. I NEVER suggested our experience is needed for reality. Only that any attempt at explaining reality seperate from human existence (as a human) is simply impossible.

I would concur that the sun probably will be in it's predicted location for the next month. There is considerable evidence that it will. Does that make it truth. Really?

"My statements aren't faith based.
They're based on extensive study and observation. I pretend at no Truth.
Just truth- what IS.
Always subject to new evidence, of course."

Truth is subject to new evidence? Now here is the root of our disagreement. If it is TRUTH then it is truth. If it is subject to new evidence then it is just subjective observation.

I appreciate the insights your insults bring to this discussion.

geckopelli

06-14-2004, 11:59 PM

You started the insults, compadre.

Bait me at your own risk.

Newton spoke "truth".

But later evidence modified that truth.

But of course you don't understand the transitory nature of time.

"Only that any attempt at explaining reality seperate from human existence (as a human) is simply impossible."

Your projecting. All mankind is not limited to your understanding. I can easily explain fission without a human needed.

Your mistaking your opinion for the reality of the universe all around us.

Your opinions are yours, but they are NOT factual. They are just opinions. Homocentricity.

POPthree13

06-15-2004, 12:19 AM

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not recall insulting you.

We obviously disagree on our terms. When I use the word truth, I mean something which is true. Not modifiable. Newton gave us a basic understanding upon which to build a framework of scientific understanding. I think he would not have called it truth.

Again with the insults... I most certainly understand the transitory nature of time. Truth, by my definition, does not change over time. Our understanding of truth may change over time, but that is why I say our understadning is not truth. It is at best an apporxiamtion of truth. Subjective by necessity.

YOU can explain fission without a human needed. WHO exactly is doing this explaination again? Oh YOU... are you suggesting you are not human.
I am not mistaking my opinion for the reality around us. I am fully aware that it is only my opinion here. I think YOU, my friend are mistaking your opinion for reality. I submit to you again that no matter what you attempt to explain will only be your opinion. Just as anything I try to explain will only be my opinion. That is all their is. To have truth you MUST be able to describe something entirely.

Take you fission for example. There are MANY, MANY things that are unknown about fission. We have learned much. Still any attempt at a TRUTHful respresentation of it will be necassarily incomplete... subject to correction. Not tuth. Opinion. We get closer to the truth perhaps, but it is an impossiblity so long as we are required to put our ideas into humanly communicable forms. Language is by no means perfect, so perfection can not be acheived with language.

Do you really not agree or are you just enjoying the argument?

POPthree13

06-15-2004, 12:24 AM

You keep using that homecentricity word. I think you are flat out wrong here. I have never asserted that any of this is based on, requires or cares if humans exist.

I think it is VERY homecentric to suggest that based on our few thousand years of observation you are able to lay out for me objective truths.

TheHammerSpeaks

06-15-2004, 09:23 AM

Meagain:

"Must is not redundant."

No, I didn't say it was. I said that using the word "must" with a quantifier is redundant.

"Even if we grant that all future events have a cause, which we have no way of knowing, they still do no have to have a cause."

The quantifiers "all" and "every" do imply the future tense. It doesn't matter if we can know it or not. That's just the function of a quantifier. The matter at hand is not whether or not it is possible to have an effect without a cause. I was only pointing out that the sentences, "Every effect has a cause" and, "Every effect must have a cause" are synonymous. It doesn't even seriously effect your argument in any way, as long as you are willing to doubt the existence of causality, which you apparently are.

"It may be physically true that all events do have a cause, but logically untrue that they have to have a cause."

So, logic does not necessarily reflect the physical world? I'm not disagreeing with you, I just find it curious that you distinguish so sharply between physicality and logic when logic is a set of rules specifically designed to reflect the real world.

"In other words it is not a contradiction to say that something can happen by chance, even if it never does in our world."

I never said it was. In fact, I explicitly wrote that chance can be a cause.

"Further if we agree with your statement that ‘every’ implies all events past, present, and future, then we have nullified the first cause argument, as it would have to be included, as an event, as having a cause. So the first cause is an event, and all events have a cause. We now have a first event minus one. Now, if you jump out of time and say that God operates in some timeless realm I can also jump out of time and say that an event can happen by chance which means it does not follow the temporal cause/effect relationship. If it has occurred due to chance, it has no cause and thus ‘appears’ without being predicated upon a previous event. So, saying that God is the first cause, by your definition of ‘every’ is the same as saying something happened by chance."

I don't know where you got the idea that I didn't believe chance could be a cause, but, now that I have cleared that up, your argument in the above paragraph is no longer sustainable.

"You are redefining chance. Chance, as I used it, means without cause. You cannot change the meaning of words by giving them a contradictory meaning to counter an argument. You are saying that anything that happens without cause has a cause, which is that it has no cause."

Wait. Now you're confusing me. You wrote, "Every event must have a cause [is an assumption]. This is different than saying that every event has a cause. We can say that an event occurs by chance. We may be wrong, but we are not being self-contradictory, so this is a logical statement."

So why can't chance be a cause? If an event happens by chance, then chance is the cause, even if chance itself is without cause.

"Then you go on to say that I cannot presuppose that chance has no cause yet you can presuppose that God has no cause. We can’t have it both ways."

You're right; we can't. But I didn't say that God is without cause, I said that God is self-caused.

"I’m sorry; you must explain this to me. How can something be self-caused? To have a cause and effect we must have two different things. (I am not arguing that cause and effect are even valid, but assuming that they are.)"

Well, this could turn into a bit of a history lesson, so I'll just give you the short version. German Idealism began with Kant, though Kant's idealism is not what we normally think of as German Idealism. Kant's idealism is Transcendental Idealism. Kant used Hume as his starting point and responded to him by saying that our subjective thought posessed certain "categories" for making sense of the objective world (such as causality). But Kant still kept an objective world (a world outside of Idea), specifically, the thing-in-itself. The thing-in-itself exists is completely unknowable and exists outside the categories of thought, in effect, causing our mental categories to kick into gear. But there was a problem, which Fichte pointed out. If causality is a category of thought, then how can the thing-in-itself cause our empirical experiences? To solve the problem, Fichte dropped the thing-in-itself and said that universe is nothing but the categories, nothing but Idea (not my idea, your idea, but Absolute Idea). Thus, the categories become universal laws and not just things inside our heads. Now we get what we normally think of as German Idealism, Absolute Idealism. Basically, the Absolute is reality, mind, spirit, truth, totality, and many other inadequate terms the philosophers used to describe it. But at the heart of it, is unconditioned self-awareness. The Absolute becomes conscious of itself through itself. And since the Absolute's consciousness is the universe, the Absolute itself is self-caused.

I do not expect you to be satisfied with that summary, but I do strongly urge you to research German Idealism yourself. If you view it as an extension of Hume's and Kant's thought, it really makes a lot of sense.

TheHammerSpeaks

06-15-2004, 09:24 AM

"Yes, the universe is not a house but this argument is based upon the analogy that the universe has a purpose, as a house has a purpose."

If the universe as a whole is without purpose, then how can a house, which is a part of the universe, have purpose?

"Why is that? I postulate that a guy named Beejob copied the 4th universe from the left to create this one. Why is that harder to conceive than a single God created it out of nothing?"

Because there is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of the 4th universe from the left, whereas there is much evidence supporting the existence of this universe.

"Well, we could get into manufactured housing and program a factory to built a 1,00 houses with no intelligent direction after the thing got going. Why can’t we imagine a cosmic universe factory chugging along producing many universes of which this is one? By the way Beejob ceased to exist after he programmed the factory."

Well, Beejob must have copied himself a brain to be able to program the factory. The factory still needed an intelligent designer, even if that designer no longer exists. But do you really think that these scenarios, which are, I suppose, possible, are really as equally probable as the existence of God?

"Are we talking about the God that I defined at the beginning of this thread? You must tell me Hegel’s definition of God. There are many definitions."

God- A supreme being (one only), to whom we ordinary beings owe our existence, but whose own existence depends upon nothing else. Supreme in goodness, knowledge (omniscience), and power (omnipotent).

Yes, that's Him.

"Now that I think of it does a hammer have an innate purpose? Is the purpose of a hammer to hammer? Disregarding the fact that we are labeling it by its purpose. Let’s call the hammer a ‘glip’. We can assign the use of this ‘glip’ to hammering and say that is its purpose. Or we can be ignorant of what it is meant to be used for, we are a South American aborigine who has never seen a hammer (I mean ‘glip’) and decide it has no purpose and toss it in the river."

Well now the question has really become, "Can the presence of purpose ever be detected?"

To be honest, I'm not sure. What do you think?

"I checked this out. I have trouble seeing how this applies. Why can’t I imagine something that doesn’t exist? Just because I can image God doesn’t mean he exists."

You can imagine something that doesn't exist. But to know anything about a being, you must presuppose its existence.

"Napoleon exists (or did at one time), if not I will not find him no matter how hard I presuppose him."

You won't find him anyway. He's dead. But if you went to Paris and opened up his coffin, you still wouldn't find him unless you presupposed his existence. You could argue that that's not Napoleon in that coffic, that's Fred, or that the skeleton of Napoleon is an optical illusion.

But you really have to look at Kierkegaard's argument in the context of Kierkegaard's system (or lack thereof) of thought. Always keep in mind Kierkegaard's premise that "Truth is subjectivity."

TheHammerSpeaks

06-15-2004, 09:29 AM

"You got it all wrong, juice-as usual; the words were written in whimsy for the religious minded. I guess the joke went over your head. It's been amply demonstrated in these forums that the religous will only give real consideration to statements crouched in psuedo religious wording."

Then write it in not whimsy.

"And I got news for you- before Entropy began to increase, the universe was "chaos" by definition. Time is a measure of entropy, so "before" the universe began there was no time as we know it."

Is that so?

POPthree13

06-15-2004, 06:30 PM

Hammer

I too am unsure if time did not exist as we know it at the begining of our universe. However I also am not convinced the begining of our universe was the begining of all.
You suggest that no matter how many universes there may be there still must be a creator. This premise is based on an assumption that there is a beginning. In my searching I have found beginning and ending to be human terms invented to categorize things. Matter and energy are thought to have no beginning and no end, only transformation. Why then can this not be true for a universe, for time itself?
When we look at the sun we see an orb of (primarily) hydrogen and helium joining in fusion and splitting in fission over and over again until the energy is spent. Why can't we look at the entirety of existence as universes which contract and expand infinitum? I do realize of course that there is no evidence that any universe outside of ours exists, but there is also absolutely no way we could know. Being on the edge of an expanding bubble of observable reality makes us necessarily cut off from observing other bubbles.

Man has always thought he is at the center of the universe. There was a time he thought that the sky was more or less a facade which passed over us like a veil and we rode on the back of a great tortoise.
When we found this was untrue, that those lights in the sky were real things, we decided the Earth MUST be the center of the universe... but it was not.
Well, we thought, then it must be the Sun at the center of the universe, but it was not.
Well then, we thought, it must be the center of the milky way which is the cetner of our universe, but it is not.
Well then, we think, it must be the big bang which is the center of the universe, but... (fill in the blank)

Do we learn nothing from our past?

I have come to assume (without a shred of proof) that our universe is just one bubble in a sea of bubbles. Expanding, contracting, changing, and moving just like all of the other forces I witness in the physical word. Not an isolated terrarium of existence, but a sphere of observable reality on and endless, timeless, and infinite stage.

POPthree13

06-15-2004, 06:40 PM

Addendum:

I do beleive in a force I might call God. I am not sure if it exactly fits the definition being thrown around in here. I do not think that force is beyond, above, before or seperated from physical reality. If it exists it too, in my opinion, plays by the rules of phyiscal existence. It is dependent on them, just as we are. Maybe it has existed forever... maybe the universe has too (not just our bubble though). We assume everything has a cause, it is true, but that model doesn't disclude the possibility that this causality chain extends infinetly. There doesn't HAVE to be a beginning. It is entirely possible that we can follow a chain of cause and effect quite literally forever and not find a start.

The only piece of evidence I have to base a quite undefinable beleif in God on is that of life and its progression into complexity. A sort of force or framework which passively encourages life to progress. I simply do not beleive God is responsible for matter.

TheHammerSpeaks

06-15-2004, 06:50 PM

Pop:

I'm really just leading Gecky on, hoping that he'll share some more of his "wisdom" with us. I find it entertaining - not really interesting - just amusing. You can never really tell what he's going to say next but chances are it'll have something to do with entropy and homocentrism.

POPthree13

06-15-2004, 07:23 PM

Well that's not nice. ;)

geckopelli

06-15-2004, 07:37 PM

Jucieman,

I'm tired of defeating you. State your case or fuck-off.
You already hold the record for being banned.
Congradulations.
--------------
Popthree13,

I submit that a difference which makes no difference, is no difference.

Existence before existence is a non-sequitor.

By definition, there can be no "before" the universe began, anymore than thier can be "supernatural" occurances.

This is not to say that ALL could not have been in an entirely un-recognizable state. An embroyonic Universe is still the universe.

I submit that "The Begining" is the "point" (I have no better word) in (at?) which time began to flow in the direction it is flowing now; that is to say in the direction of increasing Entropy.

I've encountered no better definition.

You can call this the big-bang (a very simplified term that misleads the masses and is exploited by the unscrupulous) or creation- it doesn't matter.

"In the begining, Time began to Flow and events began to occur..."

POPthree13

06-15-2004, 07:51 PM

I agree with those terms. But I would submit perhaps time was beginning for OUR universe alone at that moment. Maybe it was ending for another universe, mid road for another, etc. etc. etc. I think our view that the WHOLE of existence is all wrapped up in this one big bang is, as you would so rightly put it, homocentric.
Maybe big bangs are as countless as stars and big collapses as common as black holes. We just don't know and there is no reason to assume it isn't the case. Precedent doesn't support it, but precedent is isolated. Learning over and over again that the universe is one step beyond our imagination suggests to me that it always will be.

geckopelli

06-15-2004, 08:19 PM

Yet if bangs go in cycles, then, IF and End is reached i.e., Total Entropy, all differences cease, and although the Original Energy remains it would logically contian no internal (eternal?) discrepencies. It would, in effect, be a Single Quanta Of Universal Energy.

Nothing would remain of the "previous" universe- a difference which makes no difference.
----
On the other hand, if "begining" is assumed to contain an element of "before", it is, logicaly, NOT the "begining".

However, allowing the concept validity leads to this:

As long as a single quanta of ANYTHING from the "last" incarnation exist, then additional spontaneous decreases in Entropy merely destabalize the the approach to Chaos and the Universe continues. The Universe may, in this case, continue indefinitely.

This implies a "creation" as opposed to a "begining".
It also assumes the concept of "Infinity", which has no real-world validation.

The hypothesis of a closed cycle is, far more logical as well as in tune with the known beat of the universe.

Overall, Entropy increases. Time ends.
What happens "after" that is non-sequiter.

geckopelli

06-15-2004, 08:34 PM

Had to run.

Within the cycle spontaneous destabalizations occurr. Life is created constantly on a small scale.

Perhaps new galaxies are "born" as well.

But the evidence would seem to indicate that the tendency toward Entropy is, overall, statistically supreme and will eventually lead to an "end".

Dizzy Man

06-15-2004, 10:20 PM

Assuming God to be the first cause has to place him beyond time, as time would only exist after time/space have been ‘caused’.
Right.

Now you are telling me that God has no relation to time as time was ‘invented’ by him.

But, causes and effects can only relate to time as one follows the other.
This makes the whole argument implausible as God cannot be a first cause if he is not first, which implies time. So how is he beyond time yet the first cause?Because there are two types of time involved. God's time and our time. If God exists in any kind of time, then his time has nothing to do with our own time. For example, if I decide to make a universe, then I design one, bring it into existence, maybe change it a little — this has all happened in my own time, not the time of the universe. Time within the universe is irrelevant to me since I don't live inside it. If I spend a day designing a universe, the whole of time throughout that universe is just one day in my life. Everything I do after that day has nothing to do with that universe.

To put it another way: you can read a book written by a dead person and at no point in that book will the author cease to exist. He existed while he wrote the book, so within the universe of that book, the author is eternal.Or are you saying that God creates the universe, which would include a copy of God that would continue to exist even if the original God ceases which can’t happen as he is beyond time?Copy of God? :) No, God does not exist inside this universe. But God will always 'exist' from our perspective, since he made our universe. You can't make something and not be there to oversee it. God will exist as long as the universe exists (which is likely to be forever), however, God, in his own time, may cease to exist (which I doubt but it's theoretically possible) however this will have no impact upon us and our time, since our universe has already been made, so we'll never lose God.

To put it another way, if God ceases to exist in the future, he will no longer exist in his own time, but we are not in God's time, we are in a seperate time created by God. No duplicate Gods are necessary — when we interact with God, we're interacting with God when he designed and created the universe.

I can write a book, talk to the characters in the book, and die, and the characters in the book will never know I've died because I've already written the book and talked to all the characters I will ever talk to.

A lot of people confuse God's 'time' (if there is such a thing) with Earth time, which are two completely different things. God did not create the universe in the past!You are basing the existence of God on the existence of the universe. I thought it was the other way around. The universe exists therefore, it is created by an existing God.I'm not basing the existence of God on the existence of the universe. God didn't have to make the universe. But he did.

You just need to stop thinking of God's time as having anything to do with our own time. If you do that, it will all become quite clear. (Hopefully.)

POPthree13

06-15-2004, 10:34 PM

Gecko,

I would like for you to explain (and I am not being a smart-ass) how entropy and gravity or electric charge relate. I do remember a bit of my thermodynamics - I recall entropy definition requires a closed system and is contigent upon no action by outside forces and it can be seen in heat tranfer and other simple examples. In this definition is gravity or charge an outside force? Bodies which have mass exert gravity and therefore attract more mass which will increase gravity, etc. etc. Does this conform to rules on entropy? How can mass-attraction and building be related to a system's innate tendency to spread it's energy?
Here are two definitons on the web:
1) entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity
2) Systems tend to go from a state of order (low entropy) to a state of
maximum disorder (high entropy).

How can inert uniformity = maximum disorder.

If high entropy is inert unifomity then... by theory at the singularity directly before the bing bang all know energy and matter were one. Isn't this perfect entropy? Complete uniformity... How do we measure 'inert'? How can a system based on entropy proceed from that? If we are to beleive the thoughts on the big bang the first trillions of a second (or whatever) was pure energy spreading perfectly (pure entropy, right?) Since that time energy has slowed cycles have become longer, mass has collected, systems have spiraled into existence and the whole universe seems coiled into countless circular collection of increasingly complex atoms, molecules, compounds, and now life forms. If this is occurring, then where is the entropy counter-balance?

How can entropy supercede the other forces at work when it appears it clearly isn't winning the battle to randomize, disperse and unify the universe we know?

That's why the definiton of increasing disorder appeals to me more. Disorder does not mean 'as spread apart as possible.. it means as many parts as possible. A glass of distilled water has little disorder it has lower entropy (randomness). A glass of pond water is full of disorder from particulates, pollen, and millions upon millions of life froms and therefore has more randomness or higher entropy.

I would say that entropy tells us that ENERGY disperses. As energy is 'lost' (or diluted over space) the cyclicle nature of the universe increases. Energy cycles create subatomic particles and more cycles create atoms and more cycles create planets and star systems and galaxies and the like. So then what is ultimate entropy. No energy? If entropy tells us that thing will get more random... more complex... then what is of ultimate complexity? Is it the same as ultimate disorder? It certainly isn't the same as inert uniformity.

Please clear any or all of this up if you can...

geckopelli

06-16-2004, 02:24 AM

"I would like for you to explain (and I am not being a smart-ass) how entropy and gravity or electric charge relate. I do remember a bit of my thermodynamics - I recall entropy definition requires a closed system and is contigent upon no action by outside forces and it can be seen in heat tranfer and other simple examples."

Quite correct. The Universe is a closed system- the only one there is. Even if it is opened ended, it is nevertheless a closed system, as it carries it's "boundry" with it.

So on a complete scale, Entropy reigns, although local anamolies are relatively common. Look! Someone just concieved a baby!

Physical "laws" are actually net statistical propositions; like a slot machine with a 99% payout, that 1% loss eventually takes all the money

"In this definition is gravity or charge an outside force?"

What gravity is- to put it simply, Entropy or Energy, I cannot theorise at this point. I await the discovery or dis-proving of the graviton.

Lacking unified field theory, I sometimes wonder if gravity is indeed a more basic force then EM. The EM force itself is clearly a part of our Universe- by definition.

In any case, the existence of Gravity is the, perhaps, overall "Entropic sponge" that keeps the Universe from being over run with energy. All movement against a gravatic background requires energy and increases Entropy.

"Bodies which have mass exert gravity and therefore attract more mass which will increase gravity, etc. etc. Does this conform to rules on entropy? How can mass-attraction and building be related to a system's innate tendency to spread it's energy?
Here are two definitons on the web:
1) entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity
2) Systems tend to go from a state of order (low entropy) to a state of
maximum disorder (high entropy).

How can inert uniformity = maximum disorder."

I think I addressed the gravity issue.

The Paradox of Chaos:
At the point of Total Chaos, an all pervasive disorientation (confusion) prevails.

Differences are not and distinctions are moot. All aspects are Precisely Equal

(Perfect Symmetry).

"If high entropy is inert unifomity then... by theory at the singularity directly before the bing bang all know energy and matter were one. Isn't this perfect entropy? Complete uniformity... How do we measure 'inert'? How can a system based on entropy proceed from that? If we are to beleive the thoughts on the big bang the first trillions of a second (or whatever) was pure energy spreading perfectly (pure entropy, right?) Since that time energy has slowed cycles have become longer, mass has collected, systems have spiraled into existence and the whole universe seems coiled into countless circular collection of increasingly complex atoms, molecules, compounds, and now life forms. If this is occurring, then where is the entropy counter-balance?"

From the moment of the BB, the universe has been moving and cooling off. The "energy density" of the universe has decreased as the expansion proceeds, and Entropy naturally increases as the "work" of movement against the gravatic bakground continues.

This entails that the rate of entropy increase is slowing as the Universe expands. This is exactly in line with BB theory.

Equiotics requires that "eddys" be formed in the general flow toward entropy. These eddys are the formation of life (probably among other things)- which immediately requires a constant input of energy (increasing Enthropy).

Someone on this forum once said "The Universe is organized toward chaos" and I believe that to be an accurate statement.

"How can entropy supercede the other forces at work when it appears it clearly isn't winning the battle to randomize, disperse and unify the universe we know?"

Ah, but it is winning.

Matter collects and fusses, dispersing itself as energy, warming-up the Universe.

Matter moves against gravitation, using energy. The Gravity tides which slow our orbit.

Gathering matter to fuse and fussion itself contribute to the overall increaes in entropy.

"That's why the definiton of increasing disorder appeals to me more. Disorder does not mean 'as spread apart as possible.. it means as many parts as possible. A glass of distilled water has little disorder it has lower entropy (randomness). A glass of pond water is full of disorder from particulates, pollen, and millions upon millions of life froms and therefore has more randomness or higher entropy."

Hence the Paradox.

" would say that entropy tells us that ENERGY disperses. As energy is 'lost' (or diluted over space) the cyclicle nature of the universe increases. Energy cycles create subatomic particles and more cycles create atoms and more cycles create planets and star systems and galaxies and the like. So then what is ultimate entropy. No energy? If entropy tells us that thing will get more random... more complex... then what is of ultimate complexity? Is it the same as ultimate disorder? It certainly isn't the same as inert uniformity."

Thought leads to the Paradox.

E=MC2 so uniform energy dispertion means no matter.

I hypothesize it means the existence of a truly Unified Energy Field- a Single Quanta of Existence.

All this leads to the question why? Why did that primordial nothing/everything destabilize?

For that, I turn to the Uncertainty Principle.

POPthree13

06-16-2004, 05:34 PM

Ok, ok.. I think I am understanding it correctly. The paradox is what I keep ramming my head against.

However, if this isn't the only universe this paradox is less troublesome. I still assert that we do not know if this is a closed system. We could have a million big bangs screaming towards us from all directions, outside of our scope of perception. Besides, this possibility also gives us a scenario for how the big bang occured... (and an interesting theory on gravity which I will share at a later date.)

If all the matter/energy in the universe was concentrated into one point it is very hard to understand what could trigger this type of event. However, I propose that there is a magic mass number beyond which a big bang necessarily occurs. Like a mass number on a star, past which supernova is inevitable.

As you imagine the mass from our 'measurable universe' being slowly but surely combined into one place you can logically see the formation of a super-super-super black hole. The more the thing attracts, the more its mass. The more its mass, the more it gravitational pull and the more it attracts. This can not go on forever... Big bang theorists (on the great retraction side of the debate) want us to beleive it will continue until all known matter is collected in one spot. But then what is the incentive for self-anhilation? Instead, lets say, this super balck hole attracts everything within 200 billion light years (far bigger than our current expanding sphere). At some point the mass that this thing is grabbing is so far away that it has a 200 billion light year runway to accelerate on and the gravity to reach that far. Imagine grabbing a star and giving it this distance to accelerate as it approaches our new universal center. I don't know what this magic distance is, or the magic densisty of our super black hole is, but imagine ramming a star into a nearly completely solid brick of matter at nearly the speed of light.

I can imagine the biggest pool-break in history provided the balls are stacked close enough together and the speed of the cue ball is sufficient.

I kinda got this vision stepping into the shower while I was in college, and although I have no math to prove it, I also have had no luck finding anything to disprove it. Whatcha think?

Immediately after this event any and all remnants of previous mass would be destroyed within the sphere of influence and we would be left with nothing but what we see in our expanding bubble. It doesn't mean there aren't more bubbles, this is just the only one we can see.

geckopelli

06-16-2004, 07:30 PM

I don't see the nessicity for all to end up in a super black hole the BB enthusist see
I'm still leaning toward the idea that blakholes evaporate. This fits in better with the concept of total entropy.

I have an unsubstantiated feeling that black holes may indeed open into whiteholes in the past. If so, this would greatly prolong the life of the Universe, but still conform to an Entropic demise.
---
If other universes are indeed speeding at us, at this point in time, they are a difference which makes no difference.

Perhaps thier distance exceeds the life span of the Universe.
------
The inherent theoretical instability in every thing from uranium atoms to the proton itself to my marriage can be attributed to the Uncertainty Principle. Uncertainty permeates.

Why not the "primordial egg" (a terrible name!) too?

That instability dictates change. From nothing to something, from non-life to life, from simplicity to complexity. From then to now.

Might not that all pervasive Uncertainty, (which applys to sub-atomic particle position and the rest of your day), Be the finger of God that writes our reality?

queenannie

06-16-2004, 07:46 PM

Lately it has occurred to me that black holes could possibly be "off ramps" leading to other universes. Is that crazy or plausible? I'm not a physicist.

POPthree13

06-16-2004, 09:16 PM

I don't see the nessicity for all to end up in a super black hole the BB enthusist see
I'm still leaning toward the idea that blakholes evaporate. This fits in better with the concept of total entropy.
I think that super black holes are a necessity just before a big bang. Besides I can not imagine how they evaporate. I know about the radiation the emit, but even a weak gravitational force like Earth takes on more energy than it radiates and increases in mass daily. Imagine a gravitational source that sucked in even light. I know this can be classified as an eddy in the scheme of entropy, but if everything with gravity (anything with mass) can only grow how can you ever reach a unified, indistinguishable field of energy/matter without it all being concentrated in one place?

If other universes are indeed speeding at us, at this point in time, they are a difference which makes no difference.
I think this is a BIG difference. Even though they do not effect us now, instead of a closed system with only two options (big crunch or infinite expansion) it gives us a third model which is an open model. In this model our big bang is like a bubble of water bursting in space. The parts and pieces spread apart until they begin to breach the cusps of other bursting and building bubbles. Parts of our universe are sucked into other big collapses, parts of our universe join up with other bangs. Expansion and contraction everywhere all the time, not one isolated event. The super black holes we witness today may be the start of the next big bang. In addition, we can then look at gravity as at outside force in the entropy system. It seems to condradict the notion of ultimate entropy in my opinion.

Uncertainty does permeate. So why is our Big Bang view so certain? One start.. One end.

Might not that all pervasive Uncertainty, (which applys to sub-atomic particle position and the rest of your day), Be the finger of God that writes our reality?
Perhaps, or is the finger of God the smallest nudge that builds life systems from chaos as gravity builds planetary systems from dust?

Black holes as windows into other dimensions/universes? Who knows. It is pretty unclear EXACTLY what time does in a vortex like that. Time/gravity is the basic fabric of our reality in my opinion so if other realities exist I think places where time approaches undefinable terms is a good place to look. Now how we learn anything about that is another question... since the force in a black hole can smash a planet into the size of a quarter it is hard to contemplate how we would ever know...

Dizzy Man

06-16-2004, 09:27 PM

Whoa, all this scientific talk is confusing!

Again I ask, what does all this have to do with proving God's existence?

You either believe the universe is random, or God made it. Of what relevance is it how the universe works?

I don't see any way we can find out whether it's God or randomness by studying physics. Unless God's put us a message in the periodic table!

POPthree13

06-16-2004, 09:28 PM

[QUOTE=geckopelli]
The inherent theoretical instability in every thing from uranium atoms to the proton itself to my marriage can be attributed to the Uncertainty Principle. [QUOTE]

Another thought... Uranium is only unstable because it is on Earth. In a very high gravity situation it would not be so. Our gravity allows only so much mass per atom before they begin getting unstable.
Gravity opposes uncertainty.

Similarly protons and electrons are only unpredictable in an environment which allows it. As atoms approach absolute zero (as science has gotten us DAMN close now) they become very predicatable. Stagnant it would seem.
The same effect can be gained by looking at atoms in super gravity environemnts. As matter compresses the pressure makes it colder/slower etc. (Think of compressed gas even.) GEt a super black hole big enough and it will approach absolute zero - no movement. Again gravity opposes uncertainty.

You marriage I can't help you with. ;) But if your wife were smashed into the space of a proton by gravitational forces I am sure she would become easier to predict.

POPthree13

06-16-2004, 09:35 PM

Dizzy, human's understanding of the universe is written in physics. The periodic table is just a map of the elements, but by studying them too you can have an understanding of what has happened to get us where we are.

So if God created the universe the only clues to proving that he did will lie in physics.

"You either believe the universe is random, or God made it."

That doesn't help us PROVE the existence of God eother. Beleif has absolutely nothing to do with proof.

tikoo

06-16-2004, 11:58 PM

To prove god is within our existence , we must share a physical experience that is of us/not of us . We would witness a motion in the elements , like of wind , and it will have a singular meaning for our togetherness .

geckopelli

06-17-2004, 01:19 AM

Popthree13,

We cannot treat the universe as anything but a closed system and get meaningful implications.

I submit that if two Universes collide, they become one by definition.

Even a system of billions of universes would add to the net Universal entropy. And eventual end- now prolonged trillion of years.

And, of course you're aware that the production of particles appers to require an anti-particle be simultaneously produced.
It may be that universe are created in a logical sequence, +,-,+,-,+,-,+,-,+,-, thereby never allowing two universes of matter (or anti) to meet without first being annilalated.

All in all, way to many "maybes" and "perhaps".

For now, better to play with the pieces we have and obtain the answers we can. The alternative is pure speculation- and that's where we started 4000 years ago.

"Gravity opposes uncertainty."

Although a local gravity field may be stong, if space were divided into an infinite number of points, the average strenght at all points would be far less than the points localized on the surface of the earth.
So overall, it dosen't matter weather it does or not, Entropy is a statistical proposition.

"Similarly protons and electrons are only unpredictable in an environment which allows it. As atoms approach absolute zero (as science has gotten us DAMN close now) they become very predicatable. Stagnant it would seem."

But none of this applies to individual leptons and hadrons, and what after that? And quantum mechanics come in to play.

A begining and an ending? Yes, altough as The Dust Mote puts it:

"Since beginnings begin endings and endings end beginnings, than naturally the end of the ending is the beginning of the beginning."

Dizzyman,

we have a puzzle- maybe from god- and sooner or later, we're going to figure it out. Do you really think your god doesn't want us too?
If he doesn't, he would have made me a lot dumber and a WHOLE lot less curious.

God or no, I (and others) follow the path I am compelled to follow.
I want to KNOW- and back up what I know with facts.

POPthree13

06-17-2004, 06:59 PM

Alrighty then... how about this for an idea....

Ultimate entropy can be described as one of two things:
1) A universe of indivisible particles spread evenly throughout space.
2) OR a single mass of indivisible particles collected into one place.

So we really have expanding entropy (based on basic thermodynamics) and fueled by 'free' energy (Particles with no mass and no fixed position).
And we also have collapsing entropy (based on gravity - warp in space/time) and fuled by 'captured' energy (particles with mass and fixed location in space.)

In a 'stable' system the balance between expanding and collapsing entropy is always constant. You have stars radiating light, heat and bursts of matter and massive structures sucking in light, heat and matter. All approaching entropy on two sides of an equation.

In an expanding system (like our current universe) expanding entropy slowly builds (black holes dissolve, stars burn themselves out, etc.) as the ambient energy in the universe becomes spread out and weaker.

If the universe were to begin to contract, collapsing entropy would begin to build (black holes grow, star systems collapse, etc.) as the ambient energy in the universe becomes more concentrated.

Gravity does apply to the basic elements of atoms if we are to draw a correlary between reducing speed through temperature and reducing speed through gravity. As scientist have used pressure, temperature and magnets to compress atoms they have almost stopped electrons. In keeping with quantum rules though, the electrons appeared to be in all positions in the shell at once! If you know the position you can not know the speed... if you know the speed you can not know the position.

I agree that every ending is a beginnign and every ending is a beginning, but that doesn't have to make it a clean system. I have read a number of papers which presuppose that our universe is not a closed system and that is exactly why a grand unified theory has not emerged. It is messy to think about, but without considering it we may never be able to rectify the differences in micro and macro physics.

POPthree13

06-17-2004, 07:06 PM

PS: How do you explain the fact that our universe exists at all if this is truly a closed system. If we are to beleive that the entire universe erupted in a massive explosion of anti-matter/matter pairs then where did this imbalance come from? To create matter from energy you must make 1 antiquark for every 1 quark.

I know the discrepency is small something like 5 billion anti quarks to 5 billion + 1 quarks, but where does this plus 1 come from? Any ideas?

POPthree13

06-17-2004, 07:19 PM

I think to prove God exists we must find life on other planets. I do not see God as a force beyond physics - I think it plays by the same rules we do.

When I suppose that God exists I base it on the complex, self-sustaining, self-changing nature of life. It MAY be true that life can ACCIDENTALLY happen, but I think the odds of that are quite beyond our ability to calculate (1 in a trillion maybe to pull a number outa-my-ass). If life existed on Mars, if life exists in many star systems (even 1 in 10,000) then I think that life can not be attributed to accident. The odds are just too great.

Meagain

06-17-2004, 10:48 PM

I'm back,
Had some things to do.

Back to the original question:
Can we prove the existence of God?
I think we are getting way of the track here. The God I tried to explain, and ask for proof of, is the traditional dogmatic Jewish and Christian "Big Daddy" "Holy Father" dude. Not all this other stuff I seem to hearing most of you talk about.
So no Hegel's "absolute", or Kant (who disputed Descarte's proof of this God) or whatever.
I don't see the relevance.

Same with all this physics stuff. This is defining the current universe.
Tell me about Big Daddy God.
How can he exist outside of this universe? He must be outside of it if we can't find him.
If we can find him he must be in this universe and can not have created it.
Again, universe means one verse.
There is nothing else.
Only one-verse.
Now, how can we prove that Big Daddy God exists in another verse?
Outside of everything else!
If we can't... any assertion of the reality of a Big Daddy God is just wishful thinking.

I'd like to address all the other concerns from my last post but don't have the timne right now.

POPthree13

06-17-2004, 11:52 PM

I guess I don't beleive Big Daddy God exists in the way you describe it. I think if a Judeo/Christian/Muslim came in contact with the force I imagine then they would instanly recognize it as God, but it doesn't fit into one of your nice packages.
Outside vs. Inside the universe?
All present I think, like gravity. Inside it all - everywhere. On the line of time. Try to point to Time, gravity... you can point to the effects, but you can't point to them. Still they exist in our universe.

My thinking in Physics is closer related than you might think. I am always looking for a place for God to live in this universe. Yes that mean he did not create it in the conventional sense of the word. Neither does a builder create a house he just borrows pre-created things and bends them to his will.

My other thinking in Physics realtes directly to your assertion that becasue some scientist named this uni-verse means there must be only one verse. I refute that and it has big implications for a non-homocentric view of where God may play in.

Perhaps the universe existed forever thus it had no creator. Does this mean there is no God? I don't think so...

geckopelli

06-18-2004, 12:14 AM

Meagin,

Your reasoning is faulty, and we ARE speculating on reasonable, real-world answers to the question at hand.

One my build a house around one self and lock all the doors.
---
We already Know basic "wants" of this alledged god.

We call them the Laws of Physics.
The basis for the things we are disscussing are clearly, if it means anything, god's will.
---
God dosen't exist outside the universe- that's the tenative conclusion. "Outside" seems to have no ironclad meaning. Now we have a clue where he could (if he exist) be.
Now we have a basis to search for god and and the basis for an argument that god could exist within our reality.
----
Popthree13,

If +,-,+,-, etc. doesn't hold then
Uncertainty is my answer. That small but crucial discrepency is accounted for thusly:

At some level something "reacts" to create the positron and electron. If indeed it is 3 leptons, it is at this point the basic "quantum property level" changes from 2 to 3.
( hope that makes sense!)

This increses the complexity of the formation of higher particles and greatly raises the chance of large "clusters" occrring. Chaos therory says this must be so, and the three blackjacks that damn dealer got in a row with one deck last month agree!

So sudenly an excess of matter apears amid the shower of energy brought about by qudrillons of mutual annilation (on a most basic level). The high energy sends it flying- and a pocket of matter, virtually anti-matter free, heads of and becomes our-
Galactic cluster?
Universe?

This allows for other galactic clusters of anti-matter to exist in our universe (the next discrepency may go the anti way) or seperate Universes of - and +.

It's also a speculative answer to the apparent colliding galaxies and a possible accounting for high energy content (dark matter)that is suspected of inhabiting inter-galactic space.
---
There can be no argument that the Universe is geared to Life. You can see it in both telescope and microscope.

All natural processes move in that direction, so other than verify that, other-world life will add little to the question at hand UNLESS we find life based on something besides carbon- an event which would, in my opinion, tend to indicate no intelligent guidance.

On the other hand, if life exist nowhere but earth, well, -
I'll race you to the church!

Dizzy Man

06-18-2004, 12:43 AM

AGAIN I ask: what does cosmology have to do with God?

Cosmology is no more relevant to God than geography, or sociology. God is external to the universe, so there can be no way to 'detect' God inside it!

"You either believe the universe is random, or God made it."

That doesn't help us PROVE the existence of God eother. Beleif has absolutely nothing to do with proof.I wasn't saying that our beliefs help to prove the existence of God. I was saying that physics is of no relevance to God's existence. If there were some hidden message in physics, that would be quite good evidence, but talking about chaos theory, cosmology and quantum physics is, as far as I can see, totally pointless and irrelevant.

geckopelli

06-18-2004, 02:11 AM

AGAIN I ask: what does cosmology have to do with God?

Cosmology is no more relevant to God than geography, or sociology. God is external to the universe, so there can be no way to 'detect' God inside it!
That's highly unlikely. We've just discussed why.

An atheist and a believer- and both fear honest inquiry in to the nature of god!

God does not describe himself in the bible- instead he jokes:

I am what I am.

A riddle?
---
If this is god's universe, than he PERSONALLY wrote a whole lot more information into it's very fabric than into a few manuscripts WRITTEN by MEN.

No man was needed to bring forth the Book of the Universe we live in.

Perhaps he describes himself there.

Let's continue to read it and find out.

Meagain

06-18-2004, 02:44 AM

POPthree13

I guess I don't beleive Big Daddy God exists in the way you describe it. I think if a Judeo/Christian/Muslim came in contact with the force I imagine then they would instanly recognize it as God, but it doesn't fit into one of your nice packages.

I agree 100 percent.

All present I think, like gravity. Inside it all - everywhere. On the line of time. Try to point to Time, gravity... you can point to the effects, but you can't point to them. Still they exist in our universe.
They all exist because of conscienceness and are dependant upon it.

My other thinking in Physics realtes directly to your assertion that becasue some scientist named this uni-verse means there must be only one verse. I refute that and it has big implications for a non-homocentric view of where God may play in.

I was thinking more of philosphers and mystics. By universe, do you mean dimensions perhaps? Please tell me what a non-homocentric view is.

Perhaps the universe existed forever thus it had no creator. Does this mean there is no God? I don't think so...

No problems here. I agree that there is something some referr to as God.

geckopelli.

Your reasoning is faulty
You sound like my wife!
Be specific please.

We already Know basic "wants" of this alledged god.

We call them the Laws of Physics.
The basis for the things we are disscussing are clearly, if it means anything, god's will.

The laws of physics are man made. They are based on science and are changed as man redefines them.
What is this God's will statement? Can man presume to know BDGod's will?

Now we have a clue where he could (if he exist) be.
Now we have a basis to search for god and and the basis for an argument that god could exist within our reality.

I missed that, please restate it in simple terms for my simple mind.

TheHammerSpeaks

06-18-2004, 07:37 AM

I think we are getting way of the track here. The God I tried to explain, and ask for proof of, is the traditional dogmatic Jewish and Christian "Big Daddy" "Holy Father" dude. Not all this other stuff I seem to hearing most of you talk about.
So no Hegel's "absolute", or Kant (who disputed Descarte's proof of this God) or whatever.
I don't see the relevance.
You can take the debate in any direction you wish, but I think Hegel is quite relevant. Your question is, "How can we know that God exists." This implies that God's existence or non-existence, if it is to have any meaning to us at all, is dependent upon our ability to know Him. Hegel does exactly that (a subject can only be known through its predicates). He begins his philosophy with epistemology and moves it into metaphysics - in that order.

Also remember that Hegel was a Christian and that his ideas, more or less, conform to the Christian faith. He also considered Chrstianity to be the high point of religion.

But, if you don't want to discuss Hegel, that's fine. It's your thread.

queenannie

06-18-2004, 08:44 AM

This doesn't prove His existence, but it might make it easier to close in on.

The dogmatic Christian-Judea God that you refer to is actually not the supreme being. That God is names Jehovah Saboath, the Jews may refer to him as Yehovah, El Shaddai, a.k.a. The Lord God, etc... He was the god of the Jews, as well as the Church of Rome, but he was outranked and passed by Jesus Christ (who was not his son).

The omnipotent God is unnamed except to himself, is supreme above all, and is nothing at all about violence, or war, or killing, or dogma. He's the one who just wants us to love him, and love each other. Period.

Anyway, you asked how do we know there is a God outside of the universe? I guess I think of (the supreme one) as being of this universe, possibly even he is this universe. That's more and more my suspicion. He is pure light, he might be a star, or the source of all light in universe. No one will ever be able to look at him (like the sun).

The one named Jehovah Saboath is in charge of the earth, the one who sent the ten commandments, and is Regent of the moon. Proving him is easy; as long as there's war and strife among men, he is still around. His name means war-like or something to do with war.

As for the (supreme being), there is no proof, except the belief one holds in their heart. If you want more, then you're out of luck. That's why they talk about "faith" so much. It's the only requirement. Proof is a man made concept, and, while we may not know the nature of Him, we can definitely agree it's not man made.

The only way anyone can answer you is with a lengthy involved (but educational) physics debate, or a bitchy answer like this one (I don't mean it that way). It's just because I'm telling you straight up, because no one can pretend to know the bottom line when they're on the bottom rung (earth is the bottom rung). But the bright side is, no one's going to hell--we're already there!!!

Meagain

06-18-2004, 05:13 PM

Hammer,

I don't know enough about Hegel to really form an opinion. All I've read is something about an absolute,

The whole of existence is a web, a unity of which everything is an integral and indisoluble part.
-Philosophy: An Introduction, Randall, Buchler, 1942. (This is not Hegel but an explaination of Hegel)

So this is second hand from a college text. It goes on, but dosen't get into too much depth. I agree with most of what I've read about his ideas, but haven't seen much to support Main-line BDGod stuff. I have seen the statement made in several texts that many of these philosophers had to be very careful with what they said so as not to upset the Church or their peers. So I would have to read more Hegel to form an opinion on whether he is talking about BDGod or just throwing BDGod in at the end of his musing about an "absolute" to save his weekly pay check.

Maybe you could start a thread on Hegel? It would be most interesting.

Queenie,

Well this is what I'm trying to get accross in this thread. I am mainly asking fundamentalist, what justification does anyone have for the statement of fact of a BDGod?
I have no problem with belief in BDGod.
I just don't think that BDGod can be stated as a fact. This is only important because fundamentalist, by definition, will not entertain any other type of God. This makes them the sole "owner" of the truth.
You seem to be ready to entertain other ideas. I think that is great! I have read that the Jews had many Gods originally and that the God of Moses was but one.

To all,

I think this has been I great thread which has raised many questions and has been contributed to by many people who are willing to at least listen to others. A thread on what God is (and I know some will argue that there is no God) would be great but I have tried to limit this to the concept of a BDGod.

geckopelli

06-18-2004, 05:46 PM

Hegel- rationalization based on rationalized arguments. Useless. Even if it's logical, it isn't reasonable.

Disscussing opinons without evidence can lead only to more opinions.
------------------
Meagin,

Your reasoning is faulty You sound like my wife!
Be specific please."

You assume rules a god to be a god must follow. Whatever the motive, you methods are the same as a die-hard christian. Faith Based.
Not reasonable in the face of the reality all around us.

It's true that an atheist belives every bit as hard as a fundementalist.

Quote:
We already Know basic "wants" of this alledged god.

We call them the Laws of Physics.
The basis for the things we are disscussing are clearly, if it means anything, god's will.

"The laws of physics are man made. They are based on science and are changed as man redefines them.
What is this God's will statement? Can man presume to know BDGod's will?"

Therein lies your misunderstanding.

The "laws" of physics are descriptions of observable events and there permissible consequences, just as "a pine needle is green" is a description and not a creation.

Let's run an experiment:

Hold an object at arms length.

Now release the object.

If there is a god, it is clearly his undenialble will that the object accelerate toward the largest near object.
Try it- it works every time.

Physicist call this, "the Universal Law of Gravitation".

So if I believed in your BDgod I would point to this (and others things pop and I have been disscussing) and say, " this here, it is the undenial will of my god."
Quote:
Now we have a clue where he could (if he exist) be.
Now we have a basis to search for god and and the basis for an argument that god could exist within our reality.

"I missed that, please restate it in simple terms for my simple mind."

Within the Universe, for the concept of "outside" is a fuzzy one at best, involving enough speculation to border sci-fi.
There's no real evidence that such a "place" does or even can exist. Nor is there a demonstrable need for a god to reside elsewhere.

There's is a piece of time/space within the universe where we can never see. It's all around us and within us.
It's a "place" where seeming chaos rules, for it is beyond our possible relams.

But to get to that requires more of the dreaded physics and cosmology.
-----
So for now, let me ask this: what is the difference between the possible sigularity that began the universe and the Universe it bore?

POPthree13

06-18-2004, 07:46 PM

Megain...

"By universe, do you mean dimensions perhaps? Please tell me what a non-homocentric view is."

I think other dimensions may exist, but I meant literally other big bangs and big collapses. I guess I mean this... Does space exist 1/2 inch beyond the expanding universe? If not, what is the universe expanding into? If space exists 1/2 inch ahead of our big bang then why not 1000 light years? Why not a billion? Why not infinite? If it is infinite, then thinking our little big bang is the only thing going on is as homocentric as thinking everything revolves around the earth.

If there is only one big bang it seems there must be a beginning and end and it seems resoanble that an entity must exist outside of it as its creator/moderator. Then what is it made of? I do not beleive in this view. Yet I think this Other force must be bigger than our perceived universe or it is subject to an end just as our perceived universe is. It must be infinite, so our universe must be infinite too... ie: beyond the big bang we perceive.

Dizzy: I don't think there is a 'clue' to God's hand hidden in physics. I think physics is the paintbrush that our universe is built on. Sure it is OUR interpretation of it, subject to change and completely made up, but there are calculations which prove true all the time. I agree that it is hard to study a system to find a force where a force permeates the system, but where else do you start? I heard a great quote one time:
'Debating the existence of God is like fish debating the existence of the ocean.'
In this quote one whould have to got to the edge of the ocean (I see physics as the edge of our universal understanding) to begin debating whether or not what we experience is riddled with things which logically can be attributed to an outside force.
I wish I knew more about Hegel and if I get the chance I will do some looking...

Meagain...
If a god exists we can know something if its will. Naturally the path life has taken must be in accordance with its will. We can also try to put ourselves in a gods shoes. If you were a god what would you do? I think this too can be a basis for supporting a god theory.
A sentient being who transposed all of reality could arguably 'see' everything. What then is there to do? How do you not becoem bored? I know this sounds childishly simple, but stick with me...
Your particular arrangement of cells and systems is unique to you, just as this moment is unique. Your emotions and what you see, taste, hear, feel, smell and sense are unique to you, never to be repeated, never to be relived. They are events which are unique in the WHOLE of the universe. If you are living a self-defined good life you are enjoying these senses more, you are experiencing as much as possible, you are experiencing love, empathy, joy, and hapiness. This feels good.
Perhaps this force can feel what we feel, see what we see. It wants to feel good.. not bad. It wants to see more.. not less.
This can explain why life has grown better and better at sensing it's environment. Why consciousness errupted and we were able to turn our perceptions inside and outside to see more. Science errupted so we could better understand reality and appreciate even more what surrounds us. Life.. always growing more, always seeing more, always knowing more. Why?
Because a universe without change is boring and a universe without an ability to see itself is dead. We seek the comfort of our friends and family to share our experiences and hear about theirs. Why do we supposed God is so different?
To look for God you must look at what is going on here and ask the unaswerable question of 'why'.

geckopelli

06-18-2004, 08:08 PM

To me, the "why" is clear:

to Create Life- a very low probability event.

but this does not imply that human life is the end-all.

(There are some that would argue that we are in the way.)

Like he said in the movie,"Life will find a way".
Perhaps this is an aspect of "god's will".

Dizzy Man

06-19-2004, 01:12 AM

Okay, forgive me but this thread is very long and I'm a slow reader and there is a lot of strange scientific jargon being used, here.

Could anyone please just explain (in layman's terms) what the theories here are that link science/cosmology with God's existence? I mean, basically, what are you guys talking about?

(Sorry, this has to be the biggest lamer post I've ever made!)

geckopelli

06-19-2004, 02:13 AM

Dizzyman,

There are none, per se.

So I look for allowances.

If we accept the bare existence of god, without presupposing ANYTHING else about him/it then we must assume god has a "place" to be.

For the religious, Heaven is a "place", but only the truly ignorant think god lives in the sky.

As simply as possible, what everybody really means by "place" is "an existence in this time/space continum."

Even if god existed outside the universe, he would still have to be capable of maintaining a presence within the Universe in some form in order to interact with it's inhabitants. The Bible has plenty of examples of this.

The Uncertainty principle dictates that we can't know both position and velocity at the same time on a quantum level.
(A "quanta" is the smallest amount of something which has certain properties i.e. an electron is the smallest concentration of energy that displays the properties we associate with mass).

It also means we can not measure something smaller than our smallest "ruler".

For example, if string theory is anywhere near correct, everything is made of ultra-micro strings.

If god were "made of" "particles" smaller that a string, there would not even exist a theoretical possibility of detecting those particles directly.

God could have a "body"(read: presence) that extended everywhere/when that does not violate the Rules of Reality that we have ascertained so far.
That covers, "heaven and earth", "omnipotence" and "omniprescence".

Now let's assume god is all powerful. He has undeniable will.

So we look for examples and see that the physical laws describe undenialble forces.

So a god that is in a "place" we can not see in life, here in the Universe with us, omnipotent, omnipresent, and of undenialble will is permissible.
----------
sorry about all the " ". since I don't know what a possible god is, I have to use terms like "made of", "place", and "body" to express the idea. But they are analogous words and not to be taken literally.

Meagain

06-19-2004, 04:48 AM

Geckman,

Hegel- rationalization based on rationalized arguments. Useless. Even if it's logical, it isn't reasonable.

ra·tion·al·ize (rhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/abreve.gifshhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-nhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-lhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/imacr.gifzhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gif)
v. ra·tion·al·ized, ra·tion·al·iz·ing, ra·tion·al·iz·es
v. tr.

To make rational.
To interpret from a rational standpoint.
To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one's behavior): “Many shoppers still rationalize luxury purchases as investments” (Janice Castro).
Mathematics. To remove radicals, such as from a denominator, without changing the value of (an expression) or roots of (an equation).
Chiefly British. To bring modern, efficient methods to (an industry, for example).
I assume you mean diffinition #3?
I don't understand in what context Hegel would be saying this and how it applies here.

Disscussing opinons without evidence can lead only to more opinions.

I agree, I am asking for evidence.

Therein lies your misunderstanding.

The "laws" of physics are descriptions of observable events and there permissible consequences, just as "a pine needle is green" is a description and not a creation.

Let's run an experiment:

Hold an object at arms length.

Now release the object.

If there is a god, it is clearly his undenialble will that the object accelerate toward the largest near object.
Try it- it works every time.

Physicist call this, "the Universal Law of Gravitation".

So if I believed in your BDgod I would point to this (and others things pop and I have been disscussing) and say, " this here, it is the undenial will of my god."

Well, first of all If there is a god, it is clearly his undenialble will that the object accelerate toward the largest near object
This makes no sense to me at all. How did we get from one object accelerating toward another to the assumtion that it is a will of a God? I thought it had to do with mass.

Try it- it works every time.

It does not work every time. This is a conditional occurance. I can site serveral examples of this not happening, such as when the larger object has less mass than the smaller, or when a magnetic attraction or repulsion overcomes the atractiion of gravity. I'm sure I can think of a few more, but I understand your point. You are saying that BDGod wills an object of larger mass to attract an object of lesser mass.

What is your reason for stateing this?
I can say "So if I believed in your Easter Bunny I would point to this (and others things pop and I have been disscussing) and say, ' this here, it is the undenial will of my Easter Bunny.'"
And it makes just as much sense.

There's is a piece of time/space within the universe where we can never see. It's all around us and within us.
It's a "place" where seeming chaos rules, for it is beyond our possible relams.

and this "place" is where BDGod hangs out?

So for now, let me ask this: what is the difference between the possible sigularity that began the universe and the Universe it bore?

Obviously there must be differences, or they would be the same thing, no?
So what?

Scholar_Warrior

06-19-2004, 05:01 AM

Meagain

06-19-2004, 05:09 AM

Poppy,

Does space exist 1/2 inch beyond the expanding universe? If not, what is the universe expanding into? If space exists 1/2 inch ahead of our big bang then why not 1000 light years?Space is a relative term dependant on consciousness. It is based on time and motion, which are relative as Einstein proved. All that exists is energy. Space is a form of energy.

The Big Bang is a theory, it is not an established fact.

If there is only one big bang it seems there must be a beginning and end and it seems resoanble that an entity must exist outside of it as its creator/moderator.
You are back to a first cause argument. Do you want me to get into the error of cause and effect?

If a god exists we can know something if its will. Why would you say this? How can you presume this?

Naturally the path life has taken must be in accordance with its will.
Really? I thought Adam and Eve screwed the whole thing up and he had to send his son down here to fix things up. And now we must prove that we are worthy of salvation by humbling ourselves before him.

We can also try to put ourselves in a gods shoes. If you were a god what would you do? I think this too can be a basis for supporting a god theory.

Oh come on! I have been giving you way to much credit. If I were a God what would I do? I'd sure set up a better world than the one we have, that's fer sure!
What kind of proof is this anyway?

To look for God you must look at what is going on here and ask the unaswerable question of 'why'.
I say, why not? And how would this prove the existence of a BDGod anyway? Could be Zeus and all his co-horts or the Titans, whatever.

Meagain

06-19-2004, 05:23 AM

Gecky,

Now let's assume god is all powerful. He has undeniable will.

Why? You are making an assumption to prove your point.

So we look for examples and see that the physical laws describe undenialble forces.
Physical laws are man made explainations of observable facts subject to change with the introduction of new observations.
Etc.

This whole post proves nothing about a BDGod.

Dizzy,

That's what I'm trying to figure out.

WarDude,

why might I want to prove your description of what you call God? even the best words used to describe what is called by some "God" are mere sign-posts pointing the way. you cannot describe God with words, much less define God.

I am asking why some people insist on stateing that there is, as an undenialable fact, such a thing as a Big Daddy God like the one that fundamentalist Christains, Jews, and Musleums claim. And note that they are all different.
Convince me.

what ever "God" is, the very fact that we are having this conversation is proof that something exists which brings life. maybe that is God.
Really? How? Here comes the Easter Bunny again...If we have a discussion about the Easter Bunny, does that prove he exists?

Take care all!

Scholar_Warrior

06-19-2004, 05:26 AM

you guys will never get it. you are looking to the ten thousand things. that is the wrong direction. look to the three, and the two, then maybe you will find the one.

Stiff_Bizquette

06-19-2004, 05:36 AM

can any one prove God does not exist?

the way i see it if i believe in God and live a life according to his laws and he accepts me into heaven i have gained everything.

if i do not believe and i go to hell i have lost everything

if i live a Godly life and there is no life then i have lost nothing.

POPthree13

06-19-2004, 07:02 AM

Ok, whatever, you don't but my hypothesis there. If there is a god, I pressume we must be able to see its will in what life is doing on this rock. If there is no god then all of this is an accident, if there is a god then we must assume thing are progressing according to its will. What is life doing? Progressing towards to most attentive, educated, perceptive, and populated state. So what would be the purpose of that?

Seriously, why would god set up a perfect world? What fun is that? really? Ever had an ant farm? You watch them to see what THEY do. Perfection is very dry. Try real experience... experience which can never be replicated. Experience that is imperfect, overcomes problems, deals with reality. That is entertaining...

Space is not at all energy. I agree that all that is contained within spase is energy, but space is just that. space. empty. nothing. My proofs were simply aimed at proving belief in a single big bang is lacking.

Adam and eve? That is a story with a moral. There is stuff to be gained from it, but it is only a parable.

geckopelli

06-19-2004, 04:56 PM

Geckman,

ra·tion·al·ize (rhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/abreve.gifshhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-nhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-lhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/imacr.gifzhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gif)
v. ra·tion·al·ized, ra·tion·al·iz·ing, ra·tion·al·iz·es
v. tr.

To make rational.
To interpret from a rational standpoint.
To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one's behavior): “Many shoppers still rationalize luxury purchases as investments” (Janice Castro).
Mathematics. To remove radicals, such as from a denominator, without changing the value of (an expression) or roots of (an equation).
Chiefly British. To bring modern, efficient methods to (an industry, for example).
I assume you mean diffinition #3?
I don't understand in what context Hegel would be saying this and how it applies here.

[that's correct. homocenrtric philosophy is based on an unwarranted assumption followed by a string of seemingly logical points to back it up. The problem is those "rationalizations" are designed toward proving an unwarranted assumption. No philosopher tries to disprove his initial premise. It may be logical within it's own structure, but it is NOT reasonable agaisnt the back drop of the whole Universe.
it's thoughtful opinion and nothing more.]

I agree, I am asking for evidence.

[First, we must define what may possible BE evidence]

Well, first of all
This makes no sense to me at all. How did we get from one object accelerating toward another to the assumtion that it is a will of a God? I thought it had to do with mass.

[If we accept the premise that god's will is undenialble, then we must look for undenible forces as possible examples.
To assume god's will must make itself known on simplistic human terms (miracles, virgin births, in a word- magic) is completly unwarranted.
Nor may we limit god to any certain form when it comes to expressing her will.

When the kitchen needs cleaning, I will it done, and the mechnism through which my will is expressed are my two teenage daughters. They have no choice. Yet the clean kitchen is a expression of my will.]

It does not work every time. This is a conditional occurance. I can site serveral examples of this not happening, such as when the larger object has less mass than the smaller, or when a magnetic attraction or repulsion overcomes the atractiion of gravity.

[ this statment is inaccurrate.

The larger object ALSO approaches the smaller object to a proportional degree.

You can modify that attraction with the additon of energy to the system, but it doesn't just stop.

So we may say, " God requires the expenditure of energy to move against the gravatic background of the universe".

The rules still hold- god's will?]

I'm sure I can think of a few more, but I understand your point. You are saying that BDGod wills an object of larger mass to attract an object of lesser mass.

[ I simplified that. ALL objects are attracted toward ALL other objects.]

What is your reason for stateing this?
I can say "So if I believed in your Easter Bunny I would point to this (and others things pop and I have been disscussing) and say, ' this here, it is the undenial will of my Easter Bunny.'"
And it makes just as much sense.

[you're misrepresenting my statement.

You state conditions for YOUR BDgod, so I look for possible examples- and I find them.

Do you now claim the easter bunny also has the powers of your BDgod?]

and this "place" is where BDGod hangs out?

[As I said,"place" is a term of adopted for simplifacation.
Not to be unkind, but pop is the only one on this thread who appears to know enough physics to follow an elaboration of what this "place" is.]

Obviously there must be differences, or they would be the same thing, no?
So what?
If it's obvious, in the most basic term, tell me what that difference is.

geckopelli

06-19-2004, 05:05 PM

Meagin,

you define god and object when someone finds possible examples of your description.

State your true agenda.

Let's face it, you're just another self-rationalizing bible basher.

Who cares? The bible is of no import.

I find your belief system as rigid and rationalized as the worst bible thumper.

You make definative statements about what you believe god has to be like. I'm sorry to inform you, but you, too, are a believer.

I just look for answers.

Dizzy Man

06-19-2004, 08:05 PM

we must assume god has [...] "an existence in this time/space continum."That is a false assumption. God has no need to exist inside our universe. He created it, and so naturally is external to it.

Even if god existed outside the universe, he would still have to be capable of maintaining a presence within the Universe in some form in order to interact with it's inhabitants. The Bible has plenty of examples of this.
That, again is a false assumption. God does not need to have any kind of presence in this universe in order to interact with it.

God designed the entire universe — he controls everything, so has no need to visit us! If I wrote a book about people on a planet, I could quite easily interact with the people on the planet, without having to physically visit the planet.

Any references in The Bible to God coming to Earth are obviously metaphors referring to communications and visions from God. God surely cannot enter our universe. By his very nature, God is not of our universe. He is something else. He doesn't exist in time, or in space. The universe is self-contained, so its creator could never inhabit it. If he was somehow able to get here, he would never be able to return since he would be trapped by this universe's physical laws. If he wasn't bound by these laws, then he would not actually have visited this universe in the first place.

If I write a book, I can write a character into my book who represents me, but I can't physically jump into the book and live alongside the characters in it. I and the book would be completely different in our nature. I am a human and the events of a book are a concept. This is similar to God's realtionship with our universe. We are but a concept to him. He cannot live inside his own concept.

There is no logical reason for God to enter and live inside our universe. What reason would God have to come here? God doesn't need to come here to make changes, he can do anything he wants from where he is. And anyway, he will never need to change the universe again since it's already perfect. He made 6 changes when he designed it, and after that he was pleased with what he made. We know that God will never make changes to the universe ever again since we exist — and if God was ever to change the universe again then we wouldn't be here, so this must be the final draft of the universe.

I think all this scientific/cosmological talk is just silly. Physical science and spiritual science are totally unrelated. Spiritual science is the study of what cannot physically be proven, since it realates to matters beyond our universe. God can't be found in strings, branes and big bangs. These are part of his creation, not God himself.

Megain...If there is only one big bang it seems there must be a beginning and endNo, the big bang is accelerating. The expansion will never slow down. (And what do big bangs have to do with God anyway?)

If I were a God what would I do? I'd sure set up a better world than the one we have, that's fer sure!I see nothing wrong with the world God has given us. The only thing wrong with this planet is humans, and since God does not control us, we cannot blame him for our mess!

queenannie

06-19-2004, 08:22 PM

What if....

God is the universe?!?!?! Let us assume (falsely or otherwise), that is the actuality. There, also, is your proof! Look up.

Meagain

06-21-2004, 03:03 AM

Queenie,

Sorry, I don't follow that.

Geeky,

you define god and object when someone finds possible examples of your description.

State your true agenda.
I don't understand this either, did you mean redefine?

Now, you made this statement:

homocenrtric philosophy is based on an unwarranted assumption followed by a string of seemingly logical points to back it up. The problem is those "rationalizations" are designed toward proving an unwarranted assumption. No philosopher tries to disprove his initial premise. It may be logical within it's own structure, but it is NOT reasonable agaisnt the back drop of the whole Universe.
it's thoughtful opinion and nothing more.
Thenyou made this one:

If we accept the premise that god's will is undenialble
Why would we accept this? It seems to be an example of the homowhatsit you described above. How is it not?

And then this:

So we may say, " God requires the expenditure of energy to move against the gravatic background of the universe".I cannot see why the term God is needed! It seems very unwarrented to me!

You state conditions for YOUR BDgod, so I look for possible examples- and I find them.

Do you now claim the easter bunny also has the powers of your BDgod?
This is not my God, it is a definition accepted by many fundamentalist.
I still don't see the relation between your examples and a BDG.

All I did with the Bunny is to transpose terms. My point is that the statement makes the same logical sense with either term, which is none.

I understand your analogy of place. I am saying that there is no BDG to inhabit such an area.

Obviously there must be differences, or they would be the same thing, no? So what?- Me
If it's obvious, in the most basic term, tell me what that difference is.- YouA singularity that exists before the big bang is singular. The universe is not presently completely singular. Therefore they must be different or the big bang could not have occured.

Meagain

06-21-2004, 03:12 AM

Poppy,

If there is a god, I pressume we must be able to see its will in what life is doing on this rock. If there is no god then all of this is an accident, if there is a god then we must assume thing are progressing according to its will. What is life doing? Progressing towards to most attentive, educated, perceptive, and populated state. So what would be the purpose of that?
This all sounds like that homo stuff that the Geck was talking about.

Space is not at all energy. I agree that all that is contained within spase is energy, but space is just that. space. empty. nothing.
Space is not nothing. Space and matter exist together, you can not have one without the other. Impossible. What is matter? Energy. If space and matter must co-exist they are the same (at a fundamental level).

Einstein’s general theory of relativity thus completely abolishes the concepts of absolute space and time. Not only are all measurements involving space and time relative, the whole structure of space-time depends on the distribution of matter in the universe, and the concept of “empty space” loses its meaning.-Fritjof Capra

We may therefore regard matter as being constituted by regions of space in which the field is extremely intense…There is no place in this new kind of physics both for the field and matter, for the field is the only reality.-Albert Einstein

The field exists always and everywhere; it can never be removed. It is the carrier of all material phenomena. It is the “void” out of which the proton creates the pi-mesons. Being and fading of particles are merely forms of motion of the field.-W. Thirring

Meagain

06-21-2004, 03:31 AM

And Lastly,

The argument from design has been advanced in this post as a proof of a God in the Christian, Jewish, Musleum mode.

It states something like, there are natural laws which prove that God exists.
Then some of us got into a type of physics which others of us, apparently, are not capable or at least have not studied enough about, to understand.
So let's look at some statements by physicists.

The notion of an eternal, divine law of nature greatly influenced Western philosophy and science. Descartes wrote about the ‘laws which God has put in nature,’ and Newton believed that the highest aim of his scientific work was to give evidence of the ‘laws impressed upon nature by God.’

In Modern physics, a very different attitude has now developed. Physicists have come to see that all their theories of natural phenomena, including the ‘laws’ they describe, are creations of the human mind; properties of our conceptual map of reality, rather than of reality itself.- Fritjof Capra

So, there are no natural laws according to Capra (Ph.D. University of Vienna, reasearcher in high-energy physics at the U. of Paris, U. of Calif at Berkeley and Santa Cruz, Stanford U., and Imperial College in London for those of you who have never heard of him).

How about the idea that these nonexistant laws are the exclusive property of the Christian/Jewish God?

The general notions about human understanding…which are illustrated by discoveries in atomic physics are not in the nature of things wholly unfamiliar, wholly unheard of, or new. Even in our own culture they have a history, and in Buddhist and Hindu thought a moreconsiderable and central place.

Darn! that dosen't sound like a Christian/Jewish God. Who made this stupid remark?!

Let's see...some guy called Julius Robert Oppenheimer.
Well, what does he know?

How 'bout this one...

For a parallel to the lesson of atomic theory…[we must turn] to those kinds of epistemological problems with which thinkers like the Buddha and Lao Tzu have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence.-Neils Bohr

Neils Bohr, who's that clown? I'm not up on much physics!

Lastly...

The great scientific contribution in theoretical physics that has come from Japan since the last war may be an indication of a certain relationship between philosophical ideas in the tradition of the Far East and the philosophical substance of quantum theory.-Werner Heisenberg

Sound like a western religion?
Wasn't this Werner dude famous for something? I don't know...

Oh well.
(Double darn...trouble with fonts and stuff again, sorry!)

queenannie

06-21-2004, 04:55 AM

What I meant is this:
Why try to find a way to prove to each other the existence of a highest power, either within or outside the universe? Changing the kingdom's location does have some bearing on proving either point. If we eliminate that cause for opposition, and say God is the universe--and by that I mean the primordial cosmic stuff that was what was, before all else, in Genesis, that the substance he created the universe out of was the substance he was, and that he is literally within every speck in His creation, because he is the only ingredient. That the universe is not just space, dark matter, light, and energy, that it is also consiousness, wisdom, and love, and the creative force commonly referred to as God.

So if that becomes the point, it is then also easily provable that he exists, because no one ever denies that there is something out there commonly referred to as the universe. We know of nothing outside of that. We arguing the case of the existence of the highest god we know. Why can't they be the same thing? Is there any way to prove that they are not the same?

POPthree13

06-21-2004, 05:32 PM

Poppy,

This all sounds like that homo stuff that the Geck was talking about.

Space is not nothing. Space and matter exist together, you can not have one without the other. Impossible. What is matter? Energy. If space and matter must co-exist they are the same (at a fundamental level).

I disagree I am not just talking about humans here. The very simplest of life forms has shown an urge to reproduce, to become more complex and develop new systems with which to observe the universe around them. Lets call it 'Life-Centric' philosphy.

I don't see God as a 'Master of the Universe'. I see it only as a function of the 'living' universe. Therefore, the only place I can search for clues to the existence is in life itself. I see it at a starting place for life. Not even a magical creator of life, but more a pattern which permeates the whole universe upon which life aligns itself.

I understand Einsteins rational, but it does not disprove the existence of space without matter. It tells us that we measure space/time based on matter, so with matter removed it becomes undefinable... which makes sense becasue it is nothing. How do you define that with mathmatics? Or in other terms space is as measurable as the matter within it.

Meagain

06-21-2004, 10:26 PM

Queenie,
Sounds good as long as we don't seperate God from the rest of the universe. This is what main line Christian/Jewish belief is. God and his creation are seperate and can never unite.

Pop,
Same as above.
I really wish you guys would read "A brief History of Everything", by Ken Wilbur.

A few excerpts:

...Granted that everything Kant said is true enough; granted that this worldcentric moral stance is found nowhere in the categories that frame sensory nature, but only in a practical or ethical mind; and granted that nature in that sense is something that must be transcended. But then how do you integrate mind and nature?...
...And Kant had no final answer to this, although he attempted to heal the split between the knowledge of morals and the knowledge of nature via aesthetics, morals , and science...Kant cannot pull them together, try as he might.-Ken Wilbur

,,,So where Kant and Fichte would talk endlessly of the autonomy of the self from nature and nature's baser instincts, The Romantics would talk endlessly of uniting with nature....-Ken Wilbur

Creativity, not chance, builds a Kosmos. But it does not follow that you can then equate creativity with your favorite and particular God. It does not follow that into this void you can postulate a God with all the specific characteristics that make you happy - God is the God of only the Jews, or only the Hindus, or any other indigenous peoples, and God is watching over me, and is kind, and just, and merciful, and so on. We have to be very careful about these types of limited and anthropomorphic characteristics, which is the reason I prefer "Emptiness," which means unbounded or unqualifiable.
But the fundamentilists, the "creationist," sieze upon these vacancies in the scientific hotel to pack the conference with their delegates. They see the opening - creativity is an absolute - and they equate that absolute with their mythic god, and they stuff this god with all the characteristics that promote their egoic inclinations, starting with the fact that if you don't believe in this particular god, you fry in hell forever, which exactly reflects the state of mind of those who believe this brutal notion.-Ken
Wilbur

POPthree13

06-21-2004, 10:52 PM

I am not sure what your response, or those quotes have to do with anything I was saying.

I have flipped through the book 'A breif History of Everything' and frankly it seemed a little childish to me. These are concepts I got done grappling with after my first philosphy class.

Dizzy Man

06-21-2004, 11:13 PM

geckopelli

06-22-2004, 06:10 PM

Geeky,

"This is not my God, it is a definition accepted by many fundamentalist."

It's not my god either. I was using the same definition as you.

But I have no preconcieved notions as to weather or not this god exist.

I merely attempt to define and identify.

"I still don't see the relation between your examples and a BDG."

I shown that the Rules of Reality allow for the "god" qualities described thus far; and that's enough to warrant further investigation into the matter.

"All I did with the Bunny is to transpose terms. My point is that the statement makes the same logical sense with either term, which is none."

True- until some hypothesis to the contrary gains enough support to become a theory.

Yet I can find no allowances for such as your easter bunny to exist.

"I understand your analogy of place. I am saying that there is no BDG to inhabit such an area."

A flat statement- faith.

Why not investigate the matter?

"A singularity that exists before the big bang is singular. The universe is not presently completely singular. Therefore they must be different or the big bang could not have occured."
Ah, but the Universe IS singular. It is a single quanta of Universe.

And before the big-bang (if) that sigularity was also a single quanta of universe.

Varuna

06-22-2004, 08:18 PM

I believe I can show you the reality of God.

But first you have to understand the nature of reality. You have to understand what, and who, God is.

Then you have to realize who, and what, you are.

After that, the rest is easy.

Meagain

06-22-2004, 09:08 PM

Dizzy,

How can God be the universe if God created the universe? Something can't create itself. Who said he did? Not me.

God is intelligent, whereas the universe is not intelligent.Assumption.

And how can space be anything other than nothing, when it is defined as nothing. Space, like a hole, only exists as a concept. It does not physically exist any more than time.Talk to Einstein

Pop,

I have flipped through the book 'A breif History of Everything' and frankly it seemed a little childish to me. These are concepts I got done grappling with after my first philosphy class.Really! Flipping through a book is not reading a book. Childish? Here's the first 19 titles of 75 reviews on Amazon by people who have actually read the book (Except for number 17.)
http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-5-0.gif Read With Care: A Summary of the Content
http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-5-0.gif Great book that unifies wisdom from many sources.
http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-4-0.gif Thought provoking in some ways, but undertone of discomfort
http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-5-0.gif One of the best
http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-5-0.gif Life-changing philosophy
http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-5-0.gif A joy to read
http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-3-0.gif Disappointed Wilber Fan
http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-5-0.gif Abstractionist and pattern-finder extraordinaire
http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-5-0.gif Excellent for those who have background knowledge
http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-5-0.gif Best Book Ever
http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-5-0.gif mind altering
http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-4-0.gif Not for the faint of heart
http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-5-0.gif No Exit? Wilber Opens a Door.,
http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-5-0.gif Great Insights of a Modern Sage
http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-5-0.gif Made Me Think
http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-3-0.gif Ken Wilber (I've not read this book and I've never read anything by Ken Wilber )
http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-1-0.gif Still looking through his own glasses
http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-5-0.gif Terrific descriptions of the subtle, causal and non-dual
http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-4-0.gif Significant flaws don't outweigh the overall brilliance.

Not all good, but not bad.
I myself, think the idea of a BDG is not childish but tied to older thought patterns.

Geeky,

Ah, but the Universe IS singular. It is a single quanta of Universe.LOL, Well, ya want'a play that game? LOL

How can anything be singular? What would you contrast it to? How can there be one without two. Visualize one for me. Does it have a background?
And if it is singular where does God come from?
How about all this stuff I see?

sin·gu·lar·i·ty (shttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifnghttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gifgyhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-lhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/abreve.gifrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gif-thttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif) n.4. Astrophysics. A point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time to become infinitely distorted.

I had assumed that you were talking about the definition above and saying that this would be reality before the Big Bang.
There I go assuming again!

Well, guys and gals do we have anything else to discuss here?

POPthree13

06-22-2004, 10:51 PM

You are right, flipping through a book is not reading it. I did not like the question and answer format, and it seems to gloss over topics that I have a whole bookshelf dedicated to. That's all.... I am sure it is a great read for someone just getting into the philosphies of life and existence on this planet, so I in no way mean to say that it is an irrelavent work. It just spends a few pages on topics that I have read numerous books on. I think hes got the right ideas, I just don't think there is much I can gleen from the book. If I had nothing but tiem I am sure it wouldn't be a bad read.

geckopelli

06-24-2004, 03:05 AM

sin·gu·lar·i·ty (shttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifnghttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gifgyhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-lhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/abreve.gifrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gif-thttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif) n.4. Astrophysics. A point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time to become infinitely distorted.

This assumes the observer is on the outside trying, and failing, too looking in. And that's the point.

It also ignores the possibility of an Einstien-Rosenberg bridge.

Further, it implies that your BDgod must be within the universe to interact with it.

The door to god's existence stands open- held that way by a physics book.

Niethier Atheism nor any other theism stands proven or disproven.

Only individual, well defined aspects may be discredited or credited.

There may be a god, and maybe not- there's no empirical evidence. Only allowances and opinions.

queenannie

06-24-2004, 11:19 AM

How can God be the universe if God created the universe? Something can't create itself. God is intelligent, whereas the universe is not intelligent.

And how can space be anything other than nothing, when it is defined as nothing. Space, like a hole, only exists as a concept. It does not physically exist any more than time.

But how does anyone know the universe is not intelligent? It has some sort of higher organization that only the men among us that we call "genius" can even make a stab at interpreting for the rest of us! So just because we don't see something we recognize as being capable of intelligence, we deny it any at all? How arrogant and foolish men can be when they limit what they don't understand.

The same goes for assuming that the bottom line qualifier for "existence" is based on physical substance (which in reality is just the same particles going at a slower vibration, making things appear in this plane as "solid"). Just because we perceive "space" doesn't mean that there is not life/energy/matter occupying that space. As mankind, we are not the authorities of all, otherwise, why would we have NASA? ;)

Varuna

06-24-2004, 08:25 PM

But how does anyone know the universe is not intelligent? It has some sort of higher organization that only the men among us that we call "genius" can even make a stab at interpreting for the rest of us! So just because we don't see something we recognize as being capable of intelligence, we deny it any at all? How arrogant and foolish men can be when they limit what they don't understand.
queenannie, I think you have given us a glimpse into the real mystery of all of this. I have always believed that the universe itself is conscious and intelligent, in ways we probably don't (and quite possibly cannot) fully understand. The more one learns about everything, about life itself, about the physical, social, intellectual and spiritual reality of all of this, the more it seems that the universe is anything but random.

It certainly is creative.

To borrow and paraphrase a pair of phrases - "Consider the lillies of the field, and the birds of the air." Consider the idea that you are an expression of the universe, that you are a point of consciouness, an intelligence, a bundle of senses and understanding that the universe has created in order to look around and appreciate itself. It is a lovely way of looking at things, yes?

The same goes for assuming that the bottom line qualifier for "existence" is based on physical substance (which in reality is just the same particles going at a slower vibration, making things appear in this plane as "solid"). Just because we perceive "space" doesn't mean that there is not life/energy/matter occupying that space. As mankind, we are not the authorities of all, otherwise, why would we have NASA? ;)
Yeah! This is the good stuff. Anyone who has ever experienced love, happiness, sorrow, wonder, etc. knows that these things are at least, if not more, "real" as flesh, blood and bone and stone and water and metal and wood and . . .

I think, ideally, the material and non-material realities are really good when they are put together. A fun analogy is that of a balloon and the air that fills it. Both are different, in physical form, in function, and in meaning, when they are put together as an inflated balloon. So much more colorful and festive. In fact, it may be argued that a balloon is only a balloon when it is full of air (or water, helium, nitrous, etc.) otherwise it is just a wrinkled bit of . . . uhm . . . well . . . what are balloons made of???

And, by the way, I love NASA. They show me pretty pictures of a wondrous universe and they make me say Wow, a lot.

----------------------------------------
Love one another . . . it is just that simple.

geckopelli

06-25-2004, 05:38 AM

i can prove god exists to anybody
but they have to be willing to let me run them thru the god box
which takes about a half hour in a temple
debating the existence of god is futile, because you need solid proof, you need to experience an authentic miracle
which i can do, but not online, nor will I explain the god box here
but if you really need to see god, you can come to seattle and I'll show you
PLAAAAAT!

Gimme a break.

And how much $ do you get?

Dizzy Man

06-25-2004, 09:19 PM

God Box! :) Ha ha ha.

Dizzy Man

06-25-2004, 09:59 PM

By the way, any God sceptics here (like Gecko): are you aware of The Bible Code? The Bible Code seems to present very strong evidence of the existence of God, or at least that the writing of the entire Bible was overseen by an extremely advanced intelligence with more sophisticated computational skills than we currently have.

geckopelli

06-26-2004, 07:01 PM

Dizzyman,

The bible says lots of things. The historical references are shrouded in religious dogma.

Psalms 38:36

"Yet he passed away, and behold, he was no more; indeed I sought him, but he could not be found."

Time to move on- that's what it says.

geckopelli

06-26-2004, 07:05 PM

i dont do it for money
i do it for fun

haven't you ever heard of union with god experience coming from lsd or dmt?
or yoga freaks?
I've done lots of Hallucenogenics, and many times in ritual settings. God ain't there.

That's why they're called HALLUCINATIONS.

Dizzy Man

06-27-2004, 12:15 AM

But what about the Bible Code? Have you heard of that?

Meagain

06-27-2004, 12:28 AM

Hey Geck,

Actually they aren't hallucinations.
When you hallucinate you don't know that what you are experincing is not real. With psychedelic drugs your concept of reality is distorted, possably expanded etc, but you know that it is not "reality".
The various opiates would be hallucinogenic drugs.

geckopelli

06-27-2004, 05:11 AM

That's incorrect.

While LSD and it's ilk are ILLUSONARY drugs, mescaline and psylocybin are true hallucenatory drugs at the proper level of ingestion.

Just like opiates, although the quality of the opiate experience has more of an "everyday" feel to it.

geckopelli

06-27-2004, 05:16 AM

DM,

What, pray tell, does the bible code have to do with the price of tea in China?

Hebrews 7:28

"For the law appoints as high priest men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever."

Dizzy Man

06-27-2004, 07:57 PM

Gekco, this thread is titled "Can you prove that God exists?". The Bible code is alleged proof of his existence.

Whether the code is real or not at this point has not been universally agreed. It's still pretty controversial. But if it was real — how could it be explained other than because God is real?

POPthree13

06-28-2004, 05:56 PM

I think its easy to explain the 'bible code' without any need for God. There are only so many letters in any alphabet and if you randomly pick and choose step-valued ciphers you will eventually find 'hidden' messages in any text.

The only reason that they can claim that the bible's 'hidden messages' are so complex that the authors couldn't have had the math to do it is that the 'code breakers' had to go SO FAR out on a limb with mathmatics to find anything meaningful.

Look hard enough at anything, trying to beleive, and you will find the meaning you are looking for.

Dizzy Man

06-29-2004, 01:44 AM

POPthree, your information on the Bible Code seems a little outdated.

The Bible Code was originally debunked on the basis that you could find similar messages in any large text, such as War and Peace or Moby Dick. This is quite true, but there are large clusters of codes now being found in The Bible that are statistically highly improbable, which make the Bible Code seem more and more convincing every day.

Perhaps one of the most significant Bible Code messages discovered to date reads:

"Gushing from above, Yeshua was my mighty name, and the clouds rejoiced"

The chance of this 22-letter message appearing anywhere in the Old Testament is 1 in 287,000,000,000,000,000,000 — which is incredible enough. It also has a very low skip distance of 20 letters, which makes it even more significant. But what makes this really interesting is the fact that this message begins on the first letter of the second word of Isaiah 53.

Isaiah 53 contains the strongest and most significant finding to date — a massive collection of messages all focussed around Isaiah 53, known as the Isaiah 53 cluster.

In case you didn't know, Isaiah 53 is a very significant chapter of the Old Testament as it seems to quite plainly and explicitly foretell the coming of the messiah, even though it was written some 600 years before Christ. Nobody who wrote it could have known about the circumstances surrounding Christ — let alone that his name would be Yeshua!

Whether or not the Bible Code is real is all a matter of statistical significance, which is a highly complicated and controversial matter, and the arguments are still going back and forth as we speak. But when you compare the findings in The Bible with findings in other 'control' books, The Bible seems to have a lot more to say, and seems to throw up a lot more interesting coincidences. The above example has me convinced, personally.

If you're interested, here's a good site about the Bible Code:
http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/9

queenannie

06-29-2004, 02:32 AM

I'm not affirming or discrediting the bible code theory, but in reading these posts, a few things have occurred to me that are worth considering.

The first one is the fact that the books of the bible were originally written in Hebrew, and I don't know specifically which ones, maybe all of the OT, I really don't know. This in itself is not a obscure bit of info, but a complication arises with the fact that the original Hebrew text was written without vowels, and had no spaces between words. There is a lot of fine detail in meaning which has been inaccurately translated over the many generations of bible versions, all stemming from that one fact.
That's bound to throw a curve in the code breaking formula.

Another obvious, or maybe less obvious, complication is the fact that the english translations were not one of the first ones, there were Greek, Coptic, Latin, etc... before the first english version. That's definitely another complicating factor.

I don't know any details about what versions have been examined for code, so understand I'm not attacking anyone's belief, just wanted to sow some healthy skepticism seeds.

I do feel the bible is definitely something to be approached with a code breaker mentality, but I don't think the proper one has been used very often. The bible's code, IMO, is in symbolism, much of it astrological, and figurative as well as allegorical. And I don't mean just Jesus's words and parables. There is a unique code in those, as well, and it seems just to be his own personal way of explaining things in a way understandable to us. It is very consistent, though, and logical. Time periods in the bible are in a kind of code, one that is of a proportionate nature, with a lot of 7's going on. There is a big numerical aspect, as well, but not a formulary one, but rather of a numerology slant.

The message and basic instruction in the bible in regard to the antichrist, beast, and the end times, etc. is not found just in Revelations. That theme, and the theme of sacrifice/savior is replayed countless times, over and over. It's something very hard to detect if one "studies" the bible in the manner modern religion prescribes, i.e. reading tiny portions, 1 or 2 verses at a time, and dissecting each little phrase to death in the hopes of discerning the hidden truths within. That is doomed to failure because it misleads and also leaves a lot open which false prophets can utilize with ease. The bible is more of a "big picture", and that is where the secrets are found, by looking at in from a wider perspective. Narrow may be the road to salvation, but not to understanding.

It would be a terrible waste to miss the message in the bible that is known to be encoded in the search for a code which might be there, and is based on a more modern-day method of encoding, based on a language that was not even in existence when it was written.

Dizzy Man

06-29-2004, 08:19 PM

The first one is the fact that the books of the bible were originally written in Hebrew, and I don't know specifically which ones, maybe all of the OT, I really don't know.It was all in Hebrew.

but a complication arises with the fact that the original Hebrew text was written without vowels, and had no spaces between words.This isn't a complication. Hebrew has no vowels, and neither The Old Testament or the messages found via the Bible Code have any spaces.

There is a lot of fine detail in meaning which has been inaccurately translated over the many generations of bible versions, all stemming from that one fact.Yes, but this doesn't affect the messages found via the Bible Code. If you find the message "GODEXISTS" it's quite obvious that if this was a message hidden in The Bible by God for us to find then there should be a space in there. Spaces are only a problem if you found a message where the spacing could affect the meaning, which I don't think has happened yet.

Another obvious, or maybe less obvious, complication is the fact that the english translations were not one of the first ones, there were Greek, Coptic, Latin, etc... before the first english version.The Bible Code does not use a translation, only the original Hebrew texts. These texts themselves are not necessarily the "original" texts, however, if we are to hypothesise that God hid these messages for us to uncover with computers, then the texts that we are using must be the "correct" ones that God intended us to use. Otherwise, there would be no point him putting codes in there in the first place.

Either the Bible Code is real, and the text we use are 100% correct, or the codes don't exist at all. There can be no inbetween.

geckopelli

06-30-2004, 03:37 AM

More unsubstantiated words and opinions.

The bible code means nothing more than any other un-verifiable words.

It's still flat statements with nothing to back it up.

queenannie

06-30-2004, 10:06 AM

I'm with geckopelli.

The bible code is of a modern-day mindset, and I just can't see it as being something consistent enough to put stock in, especially by forgoing the bible's less covert other code.

What other statements have been found? And where?

Dizzy Man

06-30-2004, 11:16 PM

The bible code means nothing more than any other un-verifiable words.Whether the messages in the Bible Code are "true", "false", or even meaningful is besides the point. The point is that if codes are found in The Bible that represent a statistical "impossibility", or the codes actually do predict the future then it seems a reasonable assumption that God (or at least someone vastly intelligent pretending to be God) was the indirect author of The Bible.

It's still flat statements with nothing to back it up.The Bible Code is not based on "statements" or opinions, it's purely science. The Code's validity rests solely on the conclusions of statistical experiments, which do not need "backing up" since they are mathematical experiments which can be repeated by anyone at any time. The only people who can declare The Bible code to be real or false are expert statisticians, and at present there is no universally accepted consensus.

There was a lot of hype and sensationalism surrounding the Code when it was first revealled. Many of the original claims were subsequentially proven false because the mathematician behind the software was frankly a lousy statistician and his experiments were painfully flawed. But new Bible Code findings continue to be made which are based on good statistics, and are not so easy to refute. At this stage, the experts still can't agree, and there is still no clear and obvious explanation of how these seemingly "impossible coincidences" could be.

All other aspects of my faith are personal opinions, but The Bible code is something I (and everyone) should leave to the experts, because it is science, and I am not an expert statistician. This is frustrating, but for now I am happy to see the Bible Codes as an interesting curiosity. However, as I am a believer in God, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Codes turned out to be real.

geckopelli

06-30-2004, 11:48 PM

"Whether the messages in the Bible Code are "true", "false", or even meaningful is besides the point. The point is that if codes are found in The Bible that represent a statistical "impossibility"... then it seems a reasonable assumption that God (or at least someone vastly intelligent pretending to be God) was the indirect author of The Bible."

A statistical improbability- not impossibility.
Unfourtunetly, this argument is of no value. The same can be said of so improbable an event as evolution.
Does evolution prove intelligent design?
And if we accept that it does, than what of the bible? Is it the same god?

"or the codes actually do predict the future..." this is so open to debate that it is beyond resolution.

"The Bible Code is not based on "statements" or opinions, it's purely science. The Code's validity rests solely on the conclusions of statistical experiments, which do not need "backing up" since they are mathematical experiments which can be repeated by anyone at any time. The only people who can declare The Bible code to be real or false are expert statisticians, and at present there is no universally accepted consensus."

Again, "true or false"- null sounds. Statistics are a study in probability.

"There was a lot of hype and sensationalism surrounding the Code when it was first revealled. Many of the original claims were subsequentially proven false because the mathematician behind the software was frankly a lousy statistician and his experiments were painfully flawed. But new Bible Code findings continue to be made which are based on good statistics, and are not so easy to refute. At this stage, the experts still can't agree, and there is still no clear and obvious explanation of how these seemingly "impossible coincidences" could be."

Your "experts" are bible scholars and statisticians, believers all- not scientist. If they knew anything, they would speak of low probabilities, not impossibilies.

"All other aspects of my faith are personal opinions, but The Bible code is something I (and everyone) should leave to the experts, because it is science, and I am not an expert statistician. This is frustrating, but for now I am happy to see the Bible Codes as an interesting curiosity. However, as I am a believer in God, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Codes turned out to be real"

It is not science. it's bible study.

POPthree13

07-01-2004, 12:55 AM

Just an interesting link I found on bible code and clustering.

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html

The information given on http://www.biblecodedigest.com is simply unreliable at best. How did they figure that probability? I need to get some ciphering software and I can have some real fun. Anyone with a computer a some software can probably make thousands of 'codes' from any newspaper.

Dizzy Man

07-01-2004, 02:43 AM

"Whether the messages in the Bible Code are "true", A statistical improbability- not impossibility.I put "impossibility" in inverted commas. If something is highly improbable beyond all reasonable doubt then it is only sensible to draw a conclusion based upon it. For example, if you toss a coin a billion times and every time it comes up heads — it would be sensible to conclude that the coin is biased. That is what science is based on. All the laws and principles in modern science could be wrong. But we work on the assumption that they are not.

Unfourtunetly, this argument is of no value. The same can be said of so improbable an event as evolution.That's totally different. There is no basis upon which we can determine how probable evolution is. If we assumed the universe was infinite and had no beginning or end, the probability of evolution occurring eventually would be 1. On the other hand, if the universe was finite, and we assumed that everything happened for a reason, then the probability of evolution would be 0 since there would be nothing to cause the universe, and nothing would exist.

Okay, I'm being a little silly, here, but the point I'm trying to make is that you would have difficulty putting a probability on something happening within the universe at some point in time. A mathematical equation, on the other hand, gives a very clear and precise result (the same result every time) which cannot be disputed.

Does evolution prove intelligent design?
And if we accept that it does, than what of the bible? Is it the same god?I don't think evolution itself proves intelligent design. If you think our existence is evidence of a creator then there are much more fundamental factors in our existence, such as gravity, time, space, meteors etc. I don't think evolution is any more significant than anything else that contributes to our existence.

"or the codes actually do predict the future..." this is so open to debate that it is beyond resolution.Again, it's all about reasonable doubt. If the codes can be seen to successfully predict future events with great accuracy — an event that can not be biased by its foreknowledge by humans — then it would be reasonable to assume that the codes can predict the future.

Your "experts" are bible scholars and statisticians, believers all- not scientist. If they knew anything, they would speak of low probabilities, not impossibilies.You clearly know little to nothing of the Bible Code. The Bible Code is legitimate science and is not studied exclusively by religious groups. Study of the Bible Code is not a study of history or religion or society, and it is not based on trial and error or proving/disproving theories. The Bible Code is science in its purest form: mathematics. The conclusions of Bible Code experiments may be up for interpretation, but the results are not.

It is not science. it's bible study.Bible study is about reading the text of The Bible. The Bible Code is, essentially, about completely ignoring the text of The Bible and looking for hidden codes in order to verify the book's authenticity as the word of God.

Just out of interest, do you consider SETI (the search for extra terrestrial life) science, or do you consider it the study of random cosmic radiation? Or perhaps an indulgence for science-fiction nerds?

Gecko, I'd like to add that I find it quite interesting that you are very obstinate and persistent in your denial of anything remotely connected with religion being scientific. Almost to the point of saying "1 christian + 1 christian does not equal 2 christians because it's not science, it's religious study". I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you simply don't think people who believe in God are rational and logical, and you somehow feel offended if they want to use science because you don't think they're qualified to use it. You also seem quite closed-minded about the possibility of it being possible to "prove" God's existence. That's how it seems to me, at least.

queenannie

07-01-2004, 03:46 AM

A mathematical equation, on the other hand, gives a very clear and precise result (the same result every time) which cannot be disputed.I don't think evolution itself proves intelligent design. All the laws and principles in modern science could be wrong. But we work on the assumption that they are not.

Is it just me, or do those 3 statements seem to contradict one another, as well as your claims?
A consistent mathematical result does not prove intelligent design, either. And if we are working on the assumption that science laws and principles are correct, could that not also be applied to mathematics?

The more people trying to find hidden messages in the bible, the more hidden messages will be found. That is statistics, too, and I'm no mathematician. The probability in that alone makes it questionable. The very statements you make to support your claim can also be used in the same manner to dispute it!

The bottom line is this: hidden codes in no way, whatsoever, prove anything except a preoccupation with things of man, which is a no-no.

The Bible Code is, essentially, about completely ignoring the text of The Bible and looking for hidden codes in order to verify the book's authenticity as the word of God.
Do you hear what you're saying? Do you have a lightning rod nearby for your own protection? How can you think it is okay to ignore the text of the bible, when looking for authenticity? If you require authenticity, then your faith is not as strong as you might think. If you believe the bible is real, and sent by God, then you believe in God because your heart tells you so. Heart=love=God. To have to look for proof means you're still proving to yourself that you need faith and that it is profitable to have faith.

The conclusions of Bible Code experiments may be up for interpretation, but the results are not.The results are nothing but facts and figures, made from a science devised by man. Quantum physics is a science I can believe has divine correlation or origination. Statistics is something man has devised as a tool for rationalization in order to explain things which he lacks the ability to understand, and as a way to alleviate the fear of powerlessness.

Dizzy Man

07-01-2004, 10:16 AM

Is it just me, or do those 3 statements seem to contradict one another, as well as your claims?There is no contradiction as far as I can see. When I said that scientific principles could be wrong, I was talking about theoretic principles such as gravity, particles, etc. Mathematical calculations cannot be wrong, since they do not

The more people trying to find hidden messages in the bible, the more hidden messages will be found. That is statistics, too, and I'm no mathematician. The probability in that alone makes it questionable.You are obviously not a statistician; nor am I. I don't think either of us is in a position to question the experts. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you're talking about something you don't know much about. Proving the Bible Code is real is not about how many messages are found, it's about making findings that defy probabilities.

For example, if I search for the word "Yeshua" and it occurs 1,000,000 times, then I scramble the text and perform the experiment 1,000,000,000 times and none of the scrambled experiments give anywhere near as many results as the original text, then this would seem to be a statistical improbability.

Do you hear what you're saying? Do you have a lightning rod nearby for your own protection? How can you think it is okay to ignore the text of the bible, when looking for authenticity?I have not mentioned my own involvement with The Bible Code in this discussion. I didn't invent it, and I don't have a degree in statistics, hence I don't study it.

Anyway, I don't see how it could be in any way objectionable (to God or anyone) to try and verify the authenticity of The Bible. If you're religious, and you have no desire to verify whether the Bible was written by God, you'd have to be an extremely narrow minded and ignorant person.

If you require authenticity, then your faith is not as strong as you might think.My faith is about 99%. Despite having a religious vision 3 years ago, I don't think my faith would ever rise above 99% or I would have lost my objectivity and I would consider myself a fool. I am quite happy questioning the authenticity of The Bible whilst knowing that I believe in God. It's already pretty obvious that a lot of the Bible is not true, and was fabricated by early Christians, which leaves serious doubt as to whether the rest of it was written by God. This is one reason I would be very interested in validating the authenticity of The Bible as the word of God, because if it was shown to be his word then I could see it more as a direct message from God than an old book written by a bunch of people.

If you believe the bible is real, and sent by God, then you believe in God because your heart tells you so. Heart=love=God.I do not believe in God because my heart tells me so. I believe in God for the same reason I believe in Jupiter. Facts. (Although there is obviously a lot more scientific evidence to prove Jupiter!)

To have to look for proof means you're still proving to yourself that you need faith and that it is profitable to have faith.[/quote]To look for proof is to seek the truth. If you think there's anything wrong with seeking the truth then you're an idiot. No offence.

Statistics is something man has devised as a tool for rationalization in order to explain things which he lacks the ability to understand, and as a way to alleviate the fear of powerlessness.I can only disagree. Statistics is a very sound and reliable method of determining things.

Peace

07-01-2004, 10:44 AM

geckopelli

07-01-2004, 06:10 PM

Studying a written text is literature, not science.

Dizzyman, all your arguments are the same: It' obvious to a believer because it's in the bible.

Although the bible may be subject to mathematical interpretation, so is mother goose.
Eithier way, it's just analyzing words written by people- and that's not Science.
It's bible study. Or is reading the bible text in greek also not bible study?

As long as you insist the bible is proof of it's own validity, you belong in the christian froum. Your arguments are preaching and of no value; we don't accept your premise blindly- what use repeating dogma not open to disscusion?

The existence of the bible does not provide ANY evidence for the existence of this undefined god. Might as well ignorantly follow the quran or book of mormon- they profess thier books to be true with more vigor than the christians.

queenannie

07-01-2004, 07:57 PM

I can prove that God can't do everything. If God could do everything then he could kill himself right? But that means God would ahve to be able to die, but many people say that God is immortal or undieable or whatever. So either can can die or he can't do everything.
G-d is not about Death, it is the realm of the world we live in that dictates death; so when we choose G-d, we no longer are in the hold of death, hence eternal life. It's not that G-d gives us eternal life, it's that when we let go of earthly attachment, we let go of death. It seems to me that life is natural, death is not. It's really not about being immortal, it's that in G-d's realm of being, there is no time, therefore eternity and immortality, and no point of origin. Without time there is no beginning and no end.

Besides all that, why would G-d want to kill himself anyway? He's everything, and if he killed himself, there would be nothing!

Another thing is, how can you "prove" that G-d can't kill himself? How can you prove anything about G-d, if he doesn't want you to?

queenannie

07-01-2004, 08:23 PM

There is no contradiction as far as I can see. When I said that scientific principles could be wrong, I was talking about theoretic principles such as gravity, particles, etc. Mathematical calculations cannot be wrong, since they do not Quantum physics is what the universe operates on, it seems. Humans can only get as far as theory in that area. Mathematics is considered absolute by humans. Anything we see as absolute from our limited understanding probably cannot be applied to that of the Greater Intelligence. We cannot even pretend to know the bottom line of anything, to do so is arrogant. Math seems absolute to me, for sure, but I realize that doesn’t mean squat within a bigger picture. And the bible is something related to the bigger picture.My dictionary says statistics is: the calculation, description, manipulation, and interpretation of the mathematical attributes of sets or populations too numerous or extensive for exhaustive measurements. The word manipulation in there says it all.

Proving the Bible Code is real is not about how many messages are found, it's about making findings that defy probabilities.

Most of the bible describes events and concepts that defy probability.

I have not mentioned my own involvement with The Bible Code in this discussion. I didn't invent it, and I don't have a degree in statistics, hence I don't study it.

Then where is the basis for your vehement defense of such? Are you a blind believer in human staticians so that you can then be a blind believer in God? Again, do you realize what you are saying?

Anyway, I don't see how it could be in any way objectionable (to God or anyone) to try and verify the authenticity of The Bible. If you're religious, and you have no desire to verify whether the Bible was written by God, you'd have to be an extremely narrow minded and ignorant person.

I have had an ongoing desire to verify the authenticity of the bible, but statistics doesn’t seem to be a viable way to do this.

My faith is about 99%. Despite having a religious vision 3 years ago, I don't think my faith would ever rise above 99% or I would have lost my objectivity and I would consider myself a fool. I am quite happy questioning the authenticity of The Bible whilst knowing that I believe in God.

99% is not 100%, what does that other 1% depend on? If it depends on ‘proving’ the authenticity of the bible, you might never get there. At some point faith has to take over in all areas.

It's already pretty obvious that a lot of the Bible is not true, and was fabricated by early Christians, which leaves serious doubt as to whether the rest of it was written by God. This is one reason I would be very interested in validating the authenticity of The Bible as the word of God, because if it was shown to be his word then I could see it more as a direct message from God than an old book written by a bunch of people.
I couldn’t agree more, but there’s no question it was written by a bunch of people. Unless G-d once held a pen in hand and applied it to paper. The question is was it divinely inspired? Statistics cannot answer that.
I do not believe in God because my heart tells me so. I believe in God for the same reason I believe in Jupiter. Facts. (Although there is obviously a lot more scientific evidence to prove Jupiter!)
The only way to truly believe in G-d is from your heart. That is a divine source. Science is a man made field, subject to man’s fallibility.

To look for proof is to seek the truth. If you think there's anything wrong with seeking the truth then you're an idiot. No offence.

No offense taken. I seek truth constantly. But not by the means of man. If you live by the truth, it will be revealed to you by the source of truth, G-d.

Statistics is a very sound and reliable method of determining things.

Of humanity, not divinity.

POPthree13

07-02-2004, 12:08 AM

Mathmatics is absolute, but it is based entirely on things which are not absolute.
Example: 1 = 1. This is true.
1 lemon = 1 lemon. This is not true, because you have crossed the real world with mathmatics. Do the lemons wheigh the same? Do they have the same number of cells? Are they in the exact same state of ripeness? Do they have the same number of pores in there skins? Do they have the same number of atoms? Are the electrons spinning in the same directions simultaneously? Of course not. No 1 lemon in the whole univese equals another lemon. Sameness is an illusion which math DEPENDS on.

So mathmatics is a theoretical absolute which helps us approximate reality, but reality will always defy the absolutness of math.

geckopelli

07-02-2004, 12:40 AM

Math falls flat when a Quantum Limit is reached.

It IS possible to cross a room in finite time.

POPthree13

07-02-2004, 05:50 PM

Sure you WILL cross a room in finite time, but can you measure EXACTLY how long it takes? Our understanding is only as exact as our measuring stick.

geckopelli

07-02-2004, 09:45 PM

Quantized Time?

POPthree13

07-02-2004, 09:55 PM

Time-quants eh? I don't buy that for a second. Even if the highly theoretical concept was true our measuring sticks aren't nearly sensitive enought to measure it. Go below Planck Mass and all hell breaks loose with time. TIme as studied as a 'thing' seems to seem like it must have a finite piece. But understood as a function of gravity I think prooves it must be infinitely divisible, just as mass is.

themnax

07-02-2004, 10:57 PM

i would have to ask what is the point of attempting to prove or disprove the existence of anything. and also to point out that no proof of anything is ever irrifutable. there is only such a thing as a preponderance of evidence or there is not. or there is a personal feeling, whatever its origen, or there is not.

=^^=
.../\...

geckopelli

07-03-2004, 12:24 AM

Now mass is not infinetly divisible.

When it drops below the "energy density of an electron", it no longer display all the properties of mass. It is "less than" a single quanta of mass. it is no longer "mass".

A basic energy is divisable- but it's something else that results, not mass.

Uncertainty states that Time must also exist for us as so-small-and-that's-all pieces.

Remember Einstiens wasted years and a failed attempt to demonstrate otherwise.

This is a Quantum Universe. And that's the loop-hole that allows for god and themnax's "other beings", although they are as yet undescribed.

SelfReflection

07-03-2004, 09:27 AM

Remember the Mystery in Which You Live - Which Is God!

· There is a way to stop being righteous: if you love. “If you will love people and persist in that feeling, allow yourself to love people all the time, then you will not be righteous...”
· If you love then you will be able to tell someone that they are doing something that is not right without any anger, any righteousness.
· When you are being righteous you forget for the moment that you love them.
· Whenever you do not love, whenever you do not feel, you start getting angry.
· You have to be able to love all the time, to feel all the time, to feel the world all the time.
· The devotee of My Teacher wakes up in the morning feeling Him, feeling God. The devotee knows that God is all over this world, all inside the world, and inside everyone and everything. My Teacher’s devotee feels that the world is about Love.
· The people on television (and all ordinary people like us) do not know that the world is about Love, about God and that is why they do not love very much. That is why they are always talking about themselves and about negative things.
· You cannot stop being righteous by trying to stop being righteous. You will stop being righteous when you forget about being righteous, which means you have to remember to love.
· You are all the time remembering what you have to remember to be angry and righteous. Instead, you have to remember what you have to remember to be Happy, and that means you have to Remember God, or the Lord, or the Divine.
· Do not wait for love just to happen. You have to practice loving people. And you have to communicate love to them.
· Even the really bad people are with God just like you. They have some things to learn, but you cannot teach them without loving them.
· You cannot teach anybody anything without being Happy with that person. And you cannot be Happy with anybody else unless you are Happy. You cannot wait for others to do something to make you Happy. You have to be Happy, and then you make other people Happy too.

SelfReflection

07-03-2004, 09:30 AM

THE LIBERATOR (ELEUTHERIOS)

ONE: Truth is the Ultimate Form (or the inherently Perfect State) of "knowledge" (if mere knowledge becomes Realization).
Truth is That Which, when "known" (or, rather, when fully Realized, even via the transcendence of all knowledge and experience) sets you Free from all bondage and all seeking.
Truth is Eleutherios, the Liberator.

TWO: God is not the awful Creator, the world-making and ego-making Titan, the Nature-God of worldly theology. God is not the First Cause, the Ultimate Other, or any of the Objective Ideas of mind-made philosophy. God is not any Image created (and defined) by the religious ego. God is not any Power contacted (and limited) by the mystical or the scientific ego. God is not any Goal that motivates the social ego.
God is Truth, or That Which, when Perfectly "known" (or fully Realized), sets you entirely Free.
God is Eleutherios, the Liberator.

THREE: God is not, in Truth, the Cause (or the Objective Origin) of the conditional world and the ego (or the apparently separate self-consciousness). All causes (including any Ultimate Objective Cause) are only conditional modifications of conditional Nature.

Every cause is moving Energy, or the conditional mover of Energy. Therefore, the Ultimate Cause is, Itself, only Energy, or the Ultimate conditional mover of Energy. No cause, and no Cause of causes, is Truth Itself, since to know a cause (or the Cause) is merely to know an object (or the Object) and not to be liberated from bondage to the search for objective (or otherwise conditional) existence itself.

The knowledge of objects does not set you Free, since it is the knower (rather than the known) that knows itself to be bound. Freedom can only be Realized by transcending the subject (or knower) of knowledge, not by increasing the objects of knowledge. Therefore, Freedom is not Realized even in the attainment of an Ultimate Object of mere (or conditional) knowledge.

FOUR: God is not the Cause (or the Objective Origin) of the world. God is the Source (or the Perfectly Subjective Origin) of the world. The Cause of causes is not Truth, since to know such a Cause does not set you Free. Therefore, if you are to be Free, the Perfectly Subjective Source of that Cause (and of all causes) must be "known" (or, rather, Realized in Truth).

The Existence of God is not proven (or even rightly affirmed) by appeal to the process of objective causation. But the Existence of God is Self-Evident in the "consideration" of the Perfectly Subjective Source of all causes, all effects, all seeking, all mere (or conditional) knowledge, and the conditional self-consciousness that engages in causes, effects, seeking, and mere (or conditional) knowledge.

FIVE: God is Consciousness, or the Perfectly Subjective Source of the apparent conditional world and the apparent conditional self. The Deep Space of Consciousness is the Matrix in Which the Origin and the Ultimate Condition of conditional self, mind, body, world, the entire cosmos of conditional Nature, and the Universal Field of Energy is inherently Obvious. When This (Deep Space of Consciousness) is "known" (or fully Realized), the apparent conditional world and the apparent conditional self are fully "known" (and thus transcended) in the Realization of Truth. To "know" (or to Realize) God as Consciousness, or the Perfectly Subjective Source of the conditional world and the conditional self, is to transcend both the conditional world and the conditional self by means of Truth, or the only "knowledge" (or Realization) That can set you Free.

SIX: God is not "known" (or Realized) by the body (or in the process of bodily experience), since God is not reducible to any kind of object (or Objective Force).

.....Truth is That Which, when "known" (or fully Realized) sets you Free. Therefore, Realize the Truth.
Reality is What Is, no matter what arises or changes or passes away. Therefore, "Locate" (and Realize) Reality.
To "Locate" (and Thus to "know", or fully Realize) Reality is to be set Free. Therefore, Reality is Truth, and to Realize Reality is to Realize the Truth.
God is the Source (or the Source-Condition and not merely the immediate, or otherwise remote, and active, or otherwise effective, Cause) of whatever arises, changes, or passes away.

....The conventions of human life and civilization are based on the mechanical, arbitrary, and uninspected identification of Consciousness with the patterns of experience. Thus, human pursuits are, as a matter of convention and habit, directed toward self-centered elaboration of experience, self-fulfillment via experience, and strategic escape within (or from) the context of experience. Both conventional science and conventional religion are conventions of egoity in the embrace and pursuit and avoidance of experience. All conventional human pursuits are a bewildered search founded on uninspected egoic identification with experience rather than "radically" intuitive Identification with the inherent Happiness of Consciousness Itself, or Self-Existing and Self-Radiant Transcendental (and inherently Spiritual) Divine Being (Itself). Thus, either experience, or conditional Nature, or materiality, or God as the Reality that is Other than the conditional self and conditional Nature tends to be presumed and propagandized as the First, the Ultimate, the One, or the Most Important Principle--but such presumptions are simply the Ultimate Illusions or deluded Visions that are developed from the base of the ego (or Consciousness presumed to be limited and bound by experiencing)."

That was just a brief excerpt from "The Liberator (Eleutherios), The Epitome Of Perfect Wisdom And The Perfect Practice" by Da Avabhasa (The "Bright"). He has other books that explain in detail (in language we can understand) some of what I have excerpted above. Contact the Dawn Horse Press to get a list of His Teaching Work: 1 800 524 4941.

queenannie

07-03-2004, 10:06 AM

There is a way to stop being righteous: if you love. “If you will love people and persist in that feeling, allow yourself to love people all the time, then you will not be righteous...”

I’m confused.

My friend, Dick Shonarry, said that 'righteous' means: acting in a just, upright manner, doing what is right and virtuous, as in ‘a righteous man’; morally right, fair and just, as in ‘a righteous act’; or morally justifiable, such as ‘full of righteous anger’; and if used as slang, it means good, excellent, satisfying, pleasant, authentic, etc.

Perhaps you mean ‘self-righteous’?

geckopelli

07-03-2004, 11:37 PM

Sorry, Self, but a little more Reflection is required.

Your whole post is an opinion based on unwarranted assumptions.

How can believers fear the search for thier god?

I think I'll eat 10 grams of mushrooms and ask god to explain himself.

Dizzy Man

07-04-2004, 01:40 AM

Sorry Gecko, but I'm seriously losing my respect for your intelligence. You say some very silly things at times.

Studying a written text is literature, not science.Oh come on! Bible Code is not literature. It's searching for statistical improbabilities in The Bible. The literature itself is irrelevant.

Dizzyman, all your arguments are the same: It' obvious to a believer because it's in the bible.Here you go being dumb again. When have I said that anything was obvious? I've drawn no conclusions.

Why do you keep implying that The Bible Code is only persued by religious people? The Bible Code is the alleged scientific proof of God! It should be of equal interest to both believers and non-believers. Simple logic. The only people who won't care about proving or disproving God are ignorant people who are happy to believe in something because they like making up their beliefs more than knowing the truth.

Although the bible may be subject to mathematical interpretation, so is mother goose.Of course. But why would anyone want to analyse Mother Goose to find evidence that whoever wrote it was inspired by a being of vast intelligence to humans? That's pretty unlikely.

The Bible is the only text that has brought up any alleged improbabilities, despite many control books being studied.

Eithier way, it's just analyzing words written by people- and that's not Science.It's not what you might traditionally think of as science, and it is quite unprecedented, but that doesn't mean it's not science. I would say it is one of the purest sciences there is.

I'll break this explanation down into separate statements, so you can stop me at the point which you think I'm going wrong, okay?

1. Science is the study of the nature of the world we live in. How it works, and why things are the way they are.

2. One of the most important (if not fundamental) questions therefore is: why does the universe exist in the first place?

3. There are two popular hypotheses to answer that question: Either the universe either exists for no reason whatsoever, or it exists because an intelligence designed and created it.

4. There is no overwhelming scientific evidence to support either theory, so either theories are valid hypotheses at this time, since neither can be disproven.

5. Under the hypothesis that there is a "god" who created the universe, it would be reasonable to assume that he would probably let us know of his existence, rather than remaining anonymous. The ability to do this would be incredibly easy, after all.

6. If he was to let us know of his existence, a good place to look for such message(s) would be a book alleged to have been indirectly written by him (The Bible). This does not mean he definitely wrote it, but it's as good a place as any to look.

7. If God wanted, he could encode hidden messages into this book. This does not necessarily mean he has, but he could.

8. If any messages do exist, it would be impossible for them to have been put there by the authors of the original book since the codes can only be decoded using state of the art technology (unavailable when the book was written) and encoding would be vastly more complicated than decoding. Plus, the book had many authors, separated over many centuries. Plus, the book would almost certainly not have reamined unchanged since it was originally written, meaning it would be highly unlikely any messages intentionally placed by humans would remain intact.

9. So, if it was proven that messages had been intentionally encoded into The Bible, it would be a strong indication (if not proof) that a vastly intelligent being placed the messages there. It would also be more than likely that this being had designed our universe, since any being living within our universe could not ensure that his codes would remain unchanged.

10. So proving that the Bible Codes are real would more or less prove God.

11. Statistical analyses are a sufficient method of determining with a great deal of certainty if Bible Codes are significant (ie deliberate and intelligently coordinated messages) or insignificant (ie random chance).

12. Such statistical analyses are therefore highly scientific since they seek to mathematically prove a very popular hypothesis of why the universe exists.

It's bible study. Or is reading the bible text in greek also not bible study?It's Hebrew, not Greek! (Shows how little you know of this.) Gecko, you must surely know by now (I've said it enough times already) that studying the Bible Code is not about reading The Bible itself. Nobody involved with studying the Bible Code has needed to read any of The Bible. Reading The Bible is irrelevant. How many different ways can I put this!?

As long as you insist the bible is proof of it's own validity, you belong in the christian froum. The existence of the bible does not provide ANY evidence for the existence of this undefined god.I have never said that The Bible is proof of its own validity. I am of the opinion that much The Bible represents the word of God, but that is just my personal opinion. I am not certain, and I have never implied that there is anything written within The Bible that proves it is the word of God. You cannot prove God by reading something a human wrote, and no intelligent person would believe you could.

Your arguments are preaching and of no value; we don't accept your premise blindly- what use repeating dogma not open to disscusion?Do I not seem open to discussion to you? If anyone doesn't seem open to discussion, it's you. I'm very open minded about the subjects in question, here, but you don't seem capable of even entertaining certain notions. Plus you don't seem to be listening to anything I'm saying. Half of your replies to me don't actually match up with what I've said. You seem to be inventing things that I've said!

Like, when have I ever preached my own beliefs? I don't preach and I never have. I respect my own right to form my own opinions, and I respect other people's right to form their own opinions.

You think my arguments are of no value? As I said: I'm losing respect fairly quickly. You're acting like a jerk.

I simply ask your opinion on something and you accuse me of trying to preach my own opinion — even though I have no opinion! Unbelievable.

queenannie

07-04-2004, 02:09 AM

I simply ask your opinion on something and you accuse me of trying to preach my own opinion — even though I have no opinion! Unbelievable.
You sure have a lot to say about something on which you have no opinion. If you want someone to take you serious about this, it would be best to examine your statements for contradictions and eliminate the convoluted path to your final point. Which, BTW, really should be an opinion of some sort, in order to justify the time spent.

Don't take any offense at what I say, I'm only trying to give constructive criticism on the art of debate. Ask my boyfriend, he'll tell you I'm qualified. lol ;)

geckopelli

07-04-2004, 02:58 AM

DM,

"Why do you keep implying that The Bible Code is only persued by religious people?"

It's a Joke. It's just a book-you can't prove otherwise, preacher. It doesn't prove itself.
We non-religious laugh at the latest attempt at self justifacation.

"The Bible Code is the alleged scientific proof of God!"

It's Bullshit! It's not science.

"Of course. But why would anyone want to analyse Mother Goose to find evidence that whoever wrote it was inspired by a being of vast intelligence to humans? That's pretty unlikely."

Unlikely?- but no more so than you're chosen text!
I rather think I can put Humpty-Dumpty back together again before anybody but a believer would buy your nonsense!

"The Bible is the only text that has brought up any alleged improbabilities, despite many control books being studied."

I could teach you about chaos or cluster theory- but you're not interested in anything other the biblical self-justification, so what's the point?
But if you knew you'd understand.

"It's not what you might traditionally think of as science, and it is quite unprecedented, but that doesn't mean it's not science. I would say it is one of the purest sciences there is."

Say what you like- using an word as something unrelated to it's accepted meaning is called "slang". At that's what your nonesense code is- slang science.

It ain't Science, no matter how many religious wakos say it is. and apples ain't oranges, eithier.

"I'll break this explanation down into separate statements, so you can stop me at the point which you think I'm wrong, okay?

1. Science is the study of the nature of the world we live in. How it works, and why things are the way they are."

Your vital error: there's no "why" involved- just what IS.

When we say "two bodies attract because of gravity", that's a description of what we observe. But we don't really know what gravity is or why it is there; we just know that two bodies attract. Gravity is a sufficently rigid explanation of what we observe to calculate and predict orbits. But why it's "there"- who knows?

"2. One of the most important (if not fundamental) questions therefore is: why does the universe exist in the first place?"

This is entirely homocentric.
It's only important to man- and not even all of us.

Human life may be more valuble than other life to you and me, but there's no reason but conciet to suppose it's inherently more valuble too the guys on Alpha Epsilon IV.

"3. There are two popular hypotheses to answer that question: Either the universe either exists for no reason whatsoever, or it exists because an intelligence designed and created it."

This is religious arrogance/ignorance. popularity has NOTHING to do with science.

Science- REAL science- ask "what IS"? That's all.

"4. There is no overwhelming scientific evidence to support either theory, so either theories are valid hypotheses at this time, since neither can be disproven."

Science doesn't apply to your RELIGIOUS ASSUMPTION.

"5. Under the hypothesis that there is a "god" who created the universe, it would be reasonable to assume that he would probably let us know of his existence, rather than remaining anonymous. The ability to do this would be incredibly easy, after all."

It's not a hypothesis. It's a assumption- no evidence. The bible's a book. So what consequence a day dream might have do not interest me.
You can't tell me what or where your god is, but you know all about what a god would do!

"6. If he was to let us know of his existence, a good place to look for such message(s) would be a book alleged to have been indirectly written by him (The Bible). This does not mean he definitely wrote it, but it's as good a place as any to look."

How about a better place-with no humans involved in the writting?
I read a book that makes the bible look as simplistic as a cookie fortune. And if your god exist, he wrote it himself.
And I know some of the code. You can test it.
I've explained it over and over again, ad nauseum.
But few believers get an inkling.

Strange that the Scientists see possibilities while the Believers see only rigid, unbending structure!

"7. If God wanted, he could encode hidden messages into this book. This does not necessarily mean he has, but he could."

If "he" exist, he DEFINETLY hide "code" in my book. Your book is only a single type in it. A period on a page.

"8. If any messages do exist, it would be impossible for them to have been put there by the authors of the original book since the codes can only be decoded using state of the art technology (unavailable when the book was written) and encoding would be vastly more complicated than decoding. Plus, the book had many authors, separated over many centuries. Plus, the book would almost certainly not have reamined unchanged since it was originally written, meaning it would be highly unlikely any messages intentionally placed by humans would remain intact."

It's BULLSHIT! As repetatively elaborated on. They wanted to find a message- so they found it. Where's the surprise?

"9. So, if it was proven that messages had been intentionally encoded into The Bible, it would be a strong indication (if not proof) that a vastly intelligent being placed the messages there. It would also be more than likely that this being had designed our universe, since any being living within our universe could not ensure that his codes would remain unchanged."

It can't be proven- don't you get it? Not even in theory.
It requires some modicum of faith.

There's no god- so there's no message.
Give evidence of god (and no, the bible doesn't count) and then we'll disscuss a possible message.

You're on the merry-go-round. "God put in the code so that proves he exist because the code exist and was put there by god."

"10. So proving that the Bible Codes are real would more or less prove God."

you just repeat the same thing! your proff lies in you premise.

"11. Statistical analyses are a sufficient method of determining with a great deal of certainty if Bible Codes are significant (ie deliberate and intelligently coordinated messages) or insignificant (ie random chance)."

you just repeat the same thing! your proff lies in you premise.

"12. Such statistical analyses are therefore highly scientific since they seek to mathematically prove a very popular hypothesis of why the universe exists."

you just repeat the same thing! your proff lies in you premise.

Alas, math is a description, not a "proff". 1+1=2 DESCRIBES something- it DOES NOT PROVE IT.

Stop pretending you know what science is- you clearly don't

"It's Hebrew, not Greek! (Shows how little you know of this.) Gecko, you must surely know by now (I've said it enough times already) that studying the Bible Code is not about reading The Bible itself. Nobody involved with studying the Bible Code has needed to read any of The Bible. Reading The Bible is irrelevant. How many different ways can I put this!?"

What it shows is that I'm a sneaky little bastard, and that you are easily manipulated by your blind faith.

Indeed, only an under-educated christian would give that predicted knee-jerk reaction!
So greeks read the bible in english or hebrew do they?
Your christian based racism snuck out a little there!

If you get a blackjack system out of the bible, it's STILL the results of bible study.
How can the bible give scientific results if it's not studied?

You're getting in way over your head. You're logic needs work.

"I have never said that The Bible is proof of its own validity."

That, Sir, is ALL you say!

" I am of the opinion that much The Bible represents the word of God, but that is just my personal opinion. I am not certain, and I have never implied that there is anything written within The Bible that proves it is the word of God. You cannot prove God by reading something a human wrote, and no sane person believes you can."

They why do you have a problem with those of us who wish to know for sure "IF". Got no strength in your faith?

If the bible thumpers and thier phony "scientist" would get out of the way, some of us practical types might make a little progress toward that IF.

It's sad that I don't even believe in your god, yet I know more about him then you can imagine or read in the bible.

"Do I not seem open to discussion to you? If anyone doesn't seem open to discussion, it's you. I'm very open minded about the subjects in question, here, but you don't seem capable of even entertaining certain notions. Plus you don't seem to be listening to anything I'm saying. Half of your replies to me don't actually match up with what I've said. You seem to be inventing things that I've said!"

I cut right to the chase- you make an assumption that is unwarranted, and then you rationalize reasons why it's true- all validated by the original assumption.

Since I don't blindly accept the assumption, the rationalizations are null sounds.

On the other hand, you color ALL your rationalization with that assumption, rendering you incapable of "an open mind".

I'm sorry, but that's the truth.

If I wanted to discuss the bible, I'd go to the christain forum.
I'm into the big picture.

Dizzy Man

07-04-2004, 05:45 PM

Gecko,

We non-religious laugh at the latest attempt at self justifacation.So, you're open to the possibility that God may exist, yet you can't even entertain the notion that God might write a book for us? Why are you so certain The Bible is not God's word?

"Why would anyone want to analyse Mother Goose to find evidence that whoever wrote it was inspired by a being of vast intelligence to humans? That's pretty unlikely."

Unlikely?- but no more so than you're chosen text!Again, why are you so certain that The Bible has nothing to do with God?

"The Bible is the only text that has brought up any alleged improbabilities, despite many control books being studied."

I could teach you about chaos or cluster theory- but you're not interested in anything other the biblical self-justification, so what's the point?Of course I'm interested! Anything you have to say that could persuade me that The Bible is insignificant or false is extremely important to me, since I'm a Christian. My life would be changed significantly if my opinion on The Bible changed. Although I don't see what chaos theory has to do with The Bible.

But if you knew you'd understand.Great! Explain it to me, then.

1. Science is the study of the nature of the world we live in. How it works, and why things are the way they are."

Your vital error: there's no "why" involved- just what IS.Rethink this. Science is based on asking questions and answering them. "Why?" is just as valid a question as "how?" or "does?" "can?" or "is?". Questions like these are the curiosity that starts any science, and questions like these are an important part of many, if not all, scientific studies.

Do you accept that the study of how the earth was formed is science? Or the study of where stars come from? Or the study of what caused the big bang? Isn't that science? If so, how is it any different to study "what caused the universe" or "why the universe exists". I don't see any difference in the question.

Gravity is a sufficently rigid explanation of what we observe to calculate and predict orbits. But why it's "there"- who knows?If you think questions such as why gravity exists are outside the bounds of science then I think you have a somewhat limited definition of what science is.

"2. One of the most important (if not fundamental) questions therefore is: why does the universe exist in the first place?"

This is entirely homocentric.
It's only important to man- and not even all of us.All science is only important to man. So what?

Human life may be more valuble than other life to you and me, but there's no reason but conciet to suppose it's inherently more valuble too the guys on Alpha Epsilon IV.Huh?

"3. There are two popular hypotheses to answer that question: Either the universe either exists for no reason whatsoever, or it exists because an intelligence designed and created it."

This is religious arrogance/ignorance. popularity has NOTHING to do with science.
Really?

Well, there are two popular theories on time travel: fixed time theory and parallel dimension theory.

There are also two popular theories on why spiral galaxies are spiral: Destiny wave theory and stochastic self-propagative star formation.

Are these theories irrelevant to science?

Of course not! Theories give scientists a basis for experiments, which can then be proven/disproven and help towards discovery and understanding. The strength of a theory is directly related to its popularity. For the scientific community to embrace a theory, it has to be seen as viable by a great many scientists, without being refuted. Any theory that is globally popular must be a sound theory. That doesn't mean it's correct (the two most popular theories are often mutually exclusive, so at least one must be wrong) but it does mean it's a valid theory.

"4. There is no overwhelming scientific evidence to support either theory, so either theories are valid hypotheses at this time, since neither can be disproven."

Science doesn't apply to your RELIGIOUS ASSUMPTION.You're just being stupid, now. If you don't know the difference between a hypothesis and an assumption, you're not qualified to be having this conversation.

"5. Under the hypothesis that there is a "god" who created the universe, it would be reasonable to assume that he would probably let us know of his existence, rather than remaining anonymous. The ability to do this would be incredibly easy, after all."

It's not a hypothesis. It's a assumption- no evidence.There you go again being stupid. Since when do you need evidence to make a hypothesis? I think your grasp of science is poor.

"6. If he was to let us know of his existence, a good place to look for such message(s) would be a book alleged to have been indirectly written by him (The Bible)."

How about a better place-with no humans involved in the writting?Like where? I'm sure there are people looking in other places for messages from God, although I can't think of anywhere in particular to look off the top of my head.

"7. If God wanted, he could encode hidden messages into this book. This does not necessarily mean he has, but he could."

If "he" exist, he DEFINETLY hide "code" in my book. Your book is only a single type in it. A period on a page.Huh?

It's BULLSHIT! As repetatively elaborated on. They wanted to find a message- so they found it. Where's the surprise?Yes, it's true that you acn find messages anywhere if you look for them. The Bible Code is not about finding messages, it's about conducting experiments to validate whether or not there is any statistical significance to the findings.

If you decide to search for the word "Yeshua" in The Bible Code, and that word comes up 10,000,000 times — that statistic alone could well be meaningless and insignificant. But if you jumble up the text 10,000,000 ways and the only combination that gives the word is the original one, then that is statistically significant since the odds of that happening by chance were infinitesimal. This is just a simplified example of course.

continued...

Dizzy Man

07-04-2004, 05:45 PM

... continued

"9. So, if it was proven that messages had been intentionally encoded into The Bible, it would be a strong indication (if not proof) that a vastly intelligent being placed the messages there."

It can't be proven- don't you get it? Not even in theory.
It requires some modicum of faith.It can be proven just as well as anything else that is proven with probabilities. Like I said, if I toss a coin 10,000,000 times and it's heads every time then I have proven that the coin is biased. Of course, it's not completely proven since it could just be a coincidence, but it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and anyone sensible who saw the results of the experiment would have faith in the coin being biased.

There's no god- so there's no message.Are you the same Geckopelli I used to know? I thought you had an open mind about the existence of God. You seem to have changed. You're now a lot less open minded, and you seem dumber than before.

Give evidence of god (and no, the bible doesn't count) and then we'll disscuss a possible message.Why should I give evidence of my opinions, and not you? You can't prove your belief of why the universe exists, can you?

You're on the merry-go-round. "God put in the code so that proves he exist because the code exist and was put there by god."I never said I believe the code existed. I said I wouldn't be surprised if it did (because I believe in God), but I don't have an opinion on the Bible Code since the debate is currently ongoing between some of the smartest people on the planet and I'm not one of them.

I have never begged a question in my life. I'm far too logically-minded for that.

Okay, here it comes. Ladies and gentlemen, I proudly present to you: ****THE WORLD'S DUMBEST STATEMENT! ****

Alas, math is a description, not a "proff". 1+1=2 DESCRIBES something- it DOES NOT PROVE IT.
So 1+1=2 is not proof. Sure.

Stop pretending you know what science is- you clearly don'tYou took the words right out of my mouth!

Indeed, only an under-educated christian would give that predicted knee-jerk reaction!
So greeks read the bible in english or hebrew do they?
Your christian based racism snuck out a little there!Racism? What are you talking about? "Charistian-based racism"? You really know nothing of Christianity. Racism totally defies Christian teachings.

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew. The New Testament was originally written in Greek. Both the old and new Testaments have been translated into almost every language there is.

Honestly, what does any of this have to do with racism. You're not making any sense.

"I have never said that The Bible is proof of its own validity."

That, Sir, is ALL you say!Please find me a quote of me ever saying this. I think you'll struggle.

why do you have a problem with those of us who wish to know for sure "IF". Got no strength in your faith? Err...? What are you smoking Gecko? Why would I have a problem with someone wanting to know if the Bible is authentic? I'm one of those people myself — as I keep saying over and over. Really, I don't know why I bother writing this. You're not likely to pay any attention to it.

If the bible thumpers and thier phony "scientist" would get out of the way, some of us practical types might make a little progress toward that IF.What do Bible thumpers have to do with this conversation? As far as I'm aware, I'm the only Christian here, and I have never preached to anyone.

And what "phony scientists" are you talking about? I was talking about Bible Code. There is nothing phony about the study of The Bible code" It's been studied by many of the world's greatest statisticians. There is nobody better qualified to study it than the people who do study it.

It's sad that I don't even believe in your god, yet I know more about him then you can imagine or read in the bible.Meaning what?

you make an assumption that is unwarranted, and then you rationalize reasons why it's true- all validated by the original assumption.I have never done that. Again, I ask you to show me something I've said was true that rests on an assumption. You will struggle.

On the other hand, you color ALL your rationalization with that assumption, rendering you incapable of "an open mind".What assumptions have I made?

If I wanted to discuss the bible, I'd go to the christain forum.You obviously want to talk about evidence proving/disproving God (as you're in this thread), but you don't think it's appropriate for people to make suggestions about where that evidence may be! What kind of discussion were you expecting to find in here?

geckopelli

07-04-2004, 06:56 PM

[QUOTE=Dizzy Man]Gecko,

"So, you're open to the possibility that God may exist, yet you can't even entertain the notion that God might write a book for us? Why are you so certain The Bible is not God's word?"

Because a notion is all it is. Maybe the bible is god's word, but there's ZERO evidence for this.
And much evidence, albeit circumstancial, that it ISN'T.
Give me ONE piece of evidence- the burden of proff for your fantsies lies with you.

"Again, why are you so certain that The Bible has nothing to do with God?"

I'm science minded. I'm only sure that there is a bible that has had profound effect upon human history.
But what god do you mean? "the god in the bible". Circles.

"Of course I'm interested! Anything you have to say that could persuade me that The Bible is insignificant or false is extremely important to me, since I'm a Christian. My life would be changed significantly if my opinion on The Bible changed. Although I don't see what chaos theory has to do with The Bible."

Your arrogance exceeds your ignorance.
What exactly makes you think I want to persuade you that the bible is false?
But it ain't science, brother!
Nor does it reflect the world around us. THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE THE CONCEPT OF "ZERO"= YET THEY SPOKE OF AN INFINITE GOD!
They were ignorant by the standards of scientific knowledge today. The thought the universe revolved around the sun!

"Great! Explain it to me, then."

Where do I start? you don't even get "1+1=2"!

"Rethink this. Science is based on asking questions and answering them. "Why?" is just as valid a question as "how?" or "does?" "can?" or "is?". Questions like these are the curiosity that starts any science, and questions like these are an important part of many, if not all, scientific studies."

You misunderstand.
Turn off the light. It lights up. What's happening- why?
"because electricity flows to the light".
Are you sure? Well, then, what is electricity? Electrons you say? And they are-?
Why leptons! which in turn are possibly quarks then strings...
And strings are?
Why, as far as we can go. Ok, NOW find a priest!

"Do you accept that the study of how the earth was formed is science? Or the study of where stars come from? Or the study of what caused the big bang? Isn't that science? If so, how is it any different to study "what caused the universe" or "why the universe exists". I don't see any difference in the question."

It's not what caused it. it's "what happened? what events had tracable effects?"
Religion- yes. God- no.
Religion cannot prove god and we got nothing else. It's a matter of faith not science.

"If you think questions such as why gravity exists are outside the bounds of science then I think you have a somewhat limited definition of what science is. "

Again, it's "what is gravity" NOT "why is gravity".

"All science is only important to man. So what?"

Science isn't important at all. It just describes what is.

"Huh?"

Your religion predates the knowledge of the possibility of life on other planets- and thus ignores it.

"Really?

Well, there are two popular theories on time travel: fixed time theory and parallel dimension theory.

There are also two popular theories on why spiral galaxies are spiral: Destiny wave theory and stochastic self-propagative star formation.

Are these theories irrelevant to science?"

Those are science based speculations. They are of theoretical consideration only to science- just as my own speculation is concerning the possible existence of a god.
They search for answers that don't violate any known "laws" of physics- just like me. But they find only gross observations to work with- just like me.
In reality, empirical knowledge extends only to the sub atomic level. Beyond that the realm of theoretical physics is introduced, and the concepts easily become misconstrured by layman.
In other words, those concepts cannot be experimented with so far.

Frankly, popthree13 and shaggie are the only ones here I've seen display a true grasp of theoretical physics. It's not a simple thing to learn.

"Of course not! Theories give scientists a basis for experiments, which can then be proven/disproven and help towards discovery and understanding."

No, they don't. Theoretical physic remains in the realm of theory- in cannot be experimented on.

"The strength of a theory is directly related to its popularity. For the scientific community to embrace a theory, it has to be seen as viable by a great many scientists, without being refuted. Any theory that is globally popular must be a sound theory."

Now your being a religious ass.
Read science history. there are titanic struggles between egos, but in the end, what IS and can be observed by anyone ALWAYS wins.
They scoffed a Lavosier. But you don't know the allusion.
Eienstien tried to disprove Uncertainty at the hiehgt of his power, and failed. Ever her of heinsberg and Dirac?

"You're just being stupid, now. If you don't know the difference between a hypothesis and an assumption, you're not qualified to be having this conversation."

Your a fool after all.
I defined the difference.
Go back to church.

"There you go again being stupid. Since when do you need evidence to make a hypothesis? I think your grasp of science is poor."

a hypothesis is based on SOMETHING. and ASSUMPTION is based on NOTHING.

I hypothsize that the moon circles the world, becuase it crosses the sky.

You assume god is real, because some else said so.

Are you really a middle schooler?

"6. If he was to let us know of his existence, a good place to look for such message(s) would be a book alleged to have been indirectly written by him (The Bible)."

"Like where? I'm sure there are people looking in other places for messages from God, although I can't think of anywhere in particular to look off the top of my head."

Creation, book blind one!

My possible god created the universe without any contractors from around here.
But your god is limited; he can only tell some guy to write something on paper and tell everybody else to pass the word.
My possible god is undeniable and omnipotent, yours lives in the pages of a dusty old book.
My god controls all possibilities. Your god ingnores war and death while he waits for dinero and whorship from a bunch of hypocrits on sunday.
If your god is real, I'm a sinner.
If my god is real, your the devil's best boy.

geckopelli

07-04-2004, 07:12 PM

[QUOTE=Dizzy Man]... continued

It can be proven just as well as anything else that is proven with probabilities. Like I said, if I toss a coin 10,000,000 times and it's heads every time then I have proven that the coin is biased. Of course, it's not completely proven since it could just be a coincidence, but it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and anyone sensible who saw the results of the experiment would have faith in the coin being biased.

[Wrong! see Chaos and Cluster therory!]

Are you the same Geckopelli I used to know? I thought you had an open mind about the existence of God. You seem to have changed. You're now a lot less open minded, and you seem dumber than before.

Why should I give evidence of my opinions, and not you? You can't prove your belief of why the universe exists, can you?

[ I have no belief of why the Universe exist- it just DOES. I don't know why, but I know a WHOLE LOT about WHAT!
I don't care why, eithier.]

"I never said I believe the code existed. I said I wouldn't be surprised if it did (because I believe in God), but I don't have an opinion on the Bible Code since the debate is currently ongoing between some of the smartest people on the planet and I'm not one of them."

[Only religous nuts and profiteers!]

I have never begged a question in my life. I'm far too logically-minded for that.

[you no NOTHING about logic]

What's in the Box?

Someone has given you a box that cannot be opened.

What we know:
1) The box itself is a 4-demensional "point"; it has length, depth, height, and duration. It takes up space and time.

2) There is no possible way for anything outside the box to interact with anything inside the box.

In other words, you can't use ANYTHING to "look" in the box.

What's in the Box?

What's NOT in the Box.
Example: Air.

It's possible that "air" may have been sucked out

of the box, so "air" is not the answer.

You're an idiot. "1+1=2" describes a theoretical case.
I orange + 1 rock = 1 squihed orange and one sticky rock.

"acism? What are you talking about? "Charistian-based racism"? You really know nothing of Christianity. Racism totally defies Christian teachings.

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew. The New Testament was originally written in Greek. Both the old and new Testaments have been translated into almost every language there is.

Honestly, what does any of this have to do with racism. You're not making any sense."

You assumed christains were engish speaking. RACISIM.
YOU act little of christianity.
Your blind belief makes you predictalbly boring.

on the other hand...

I grow weary of your repition, and, since you've nothing of substance to discuss, I'll leave you with your own words:

It's not possible to pretend to be smarter than you are, only dumber.

Dizzy Man

07-04-2004, 11:13 PM

Gecko,

Give me ONE piece of evidence- the burden of proff for your fantsies lies with you.Why do I need to prove God to you or anyone? You can't prove your theory and I can't prove mine. We're quits.

Your arrogance exceeds your ignorance.
What exactly makes you think I want to persuade you that the bible is false?You seem convinced that the words of The Bible are false. You also seem to think that chaos theory can prove this. You said that if I understood things how you understand them then I would see that The Bible was false. Is it unreasonable for me to ask you to reveal what it is you think you know that invalidates my opinion?

THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE THE CONCEPT OF "ZERO"= YET THEY SPOKE OF AN INFINITE GOD!You don't necessarily have to understand the concept of zero to understand the concept of infinity. It's only when you're using infinity in maths that you need zeros.

They were ignorant by the standards of scientific knowledge today. The thought the universe revolved around the sun!So what? You're saying that because our scientific understanding is continually growing (and we have much yet to understand) we're stupid and we can't be trusted?

"Do you accept that the study of how the earth was formed is science? Or the study of where stars come from? Or the study of what caused the big bang? Isn't that science? If so, how is it any different to study "what caused the universe" or "why the universe exists". I don't see any difference in the question."

It's not what caused it. it's "what happened? what events had tracable effects?"Yes but obviously it it impossible to determine what caused the universe to exist using conventional science. If someone made our universe, the only way we could ever know would be if they told us themselves. We can't 'detect' them since they are not in our universe.

Again, it's "what is gravity" NOT "why is gravity".They're the same question. (They both have the same answer.)

Science isn't important at all. It just describes what is.True, but if the universe was invented by a person, then science is suddenly personal, as well as scientific.

Your religion predates the knowledge of the possibility of life on other planets- and thus ignores it.Not sure what you mean by this. What does religion have to do with life on other planets? We haven't even made contact with intelligent alien races yet, so what is the relevance?

"Theories give scientists a basis for experiments, which can then be proven/disproven and help towards discovery and understanding."

No, they don't. Theoretical physic remains in the realm of theory- in cannot be experimented on.So what is the basis for a scientific experiment then? Why do people decide to conduct scientific experiments? How do they decide which experiments to conduct? Surely the answer has to be: to test a hypothesis?

"The strength of a theory is directly related to its popularity. For the scientific community to embrace a theory, it has to be seen as viable by a great many scientists, without being refuted. Any theory that is globally popular must be a sound theory."

Now your being a religious ass.
Read science history. there are titanic struggles between egos, but in the end, what IS and can be observed by anyone ALWAYS wins.
They scoffed a Lavosier. But you don't know the allusion.
Eienstien tried to disprove Uncertainty at the hiehgt of his power, and failed. Ever her of heinsberg and Dirac?So you're saying that a theory can be incredibly popular — and flawed? I wouldn't have thought that possible. But my knowledge of history is pretty bad and you seem to think that it has happened several times, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I only mentioned the two most popular theories out of interest, anyway. There are no doubt others but I was only talking about the theory of God at the time so it makes no difference.

"You're just being stupid, now. If you don't know the difference between a hypothesis and an assumption, you're not qualified to be having this conversation."

Your a fool after all.
I defined the difference.When?

Go back to church.I don't go to church.

"Since when do you need evidence to make a hypothesis?"

a hypothesis is based on SOMETHING. and ASSUMPTION is based on NOTHING.A hypothesis is defined merely as a tentative explanation. It doesn't have to be based on anything. An assumption is completely different as itn't not hypothetical. An assumption takes something unproven to be true. The only person out of us two who has taken something unproven to be true is you. I don't make assumptions, but you seem convinced God doesn't exist.

I hypothsize that the moon circles the world, becuase it crosses the sky.That's not really a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a tentative explanation for something unknown. The reason for the moon crossing the sky is known. Hypotheses are no longer necessary.

You assume god is real, because some else said so.I do not assume God is real. I think God is probably real, but I don't assume he is. To assume he was real would be to conclude that he was definitely real, with no conclusive proof.

But you on the other hand do assume God is not real!

Are you really a middle schooler?What's a middle schooler?

My possible god created the universe without any contractors from around here.
But your god is limited; he can only tell some guy to write something on paper and tell everybody else to pass the word.So how would your god tell people of his existence? Neon lights in space flashing "I exist"? Tell me what your god would do to make his presence known.

My possible god is undeniable and omnipotent, yours lives in the pages of a dusty old book.My god is omnipotent, too. Omnipotence pretty much comes with the job when you design an entire universe. My god does not live in the pages of a dusty old book! God exists everywhere and everywhen. And the Bible is relatively brand new, considering humans have been around for millions of years and The Bible was only written a couple of thousand ago.

My god controls all possibilities. Your god ingnores war and death while he waits for dinero and whorship from a bunch of hypocrits on sunday.If your god controls everyone then your god sucks because he doesn't give anyone the gift of true free will and we are no more than puppets. My god allows us free will, which means we don't get stopped when we start wars.

Why do you think religious people are hypocrites?

If your god is real, I'm a sinner.Yes. All humans are sinners.
If my god is real, your the devil's best boy.Why?

Dizzy Man

07-04-2004, 11:31 PM

"If I toss a coin 10,000,000 times and it's heads every time then I have proven that the coin is biased. Of course, it's not completely proven since it could just be a coincidence, but it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and anyone sensible who saw the results of the experiment would have faith in the coin being biased.

[Wrong! see Chaos and Cluster therory!]Okay then. I'd be very interested to know why that is wrong. I'm no statistician but I did A-level statistics at school and I'm pretty sure I'm right about that.

I have no belief of why the Universe exist- it just DOES. I don't know why, but I know a WHOLE LOT about WHAT!
I don't care why, eithier.If you don't care why the universe exists then why are you here? If you don't care if God exists or not then why are you always here on these forums? Surely you're not a preacher — you seem to hate preachy people.

"I have never begged a question in my life. I'm far too logically-minded for that."

you no NOTHING about logicWhy do you say that? Have I demonstrated any particular lack of logic lately? If so, tell me.

You're an idiot. "1+1=2" describes a theoretical case.
I orange + 1 rock = 1 squihed orange and one sticky rock.You said that 1+1=2 is not proof. In itself, that equation is proof. If the numbers represent other things then of course it isn't proof.

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew. The New Testament was originally written in Greek. Both the old and new Testaments have been translated into almost every language there is.

Honestly, what does any of this have to do with racism. You're not making any sense."

You assumed christains were engish speaking.When did I assume Christians were all english speaking? I don't think I even mentioned the English language, did I?

RACISMWhat does language have to do with racism? Racism is intolerance for other races.

YOU act little of christianity.
Your blind belief makes you predictalbly boring.Explanation for these statements?

I grow weary of your repition, and, since you've nothing of substance to discuss, I'll leave you with your own words:

It's not possible to pretend to be smarter than you are, only dumber.It's a while since I wrote that! You have a good memory.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me like you just wrote a load of nonsensical things and you can't be bothered justifying them. Fine by me.

God

07-05-2004, 09:24 AM

I Exist!!!!

geckopelli

07-05-2004, 07:32 PM

DM,
You just don't get it.
I can't find evidence of god, only allowances- and in that I'm much closer to god than you. You have nothing but blind faith. You should back me up by continuing your empirical education.

Mights as well start at the very begining...

Statisical Anayalses and Short Term Unpredictability.
Keep an eye out for the "Gamblers Cluster" thread.

PS. Those were wise words-
It's for those moments that I bother with all this-

sm0key42o8

07-15-2004, 04:25 AM

no one can prove it, thats why most religions are considered faith or beliefs

queenannie

08-18-2004, 10:05 PM

see http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24281

PeaceBabe

08-27-2004, 04:30 PM

themnax

08-29-2004, 04:16 PM

i cannot prove that anything exists
i cannot prove that it does not
what i can observe is that there is no natural requirement
for anything not to

=^^=
.../\...

Spiritforces

08-29-2004, 05:05 PM

Could you please define what you would have to see to say, now I know and in me other can trust and believe my testimony?

How many ppl have to know? So that other will trust and believe
Because the Revelation could not be for everyone at once, or maybe it is?

Write here some example of what the best Proof could be , how you imagine it ... and you part of, hum maybe...

Miracles (if it exist) are caused by God (or whatever the name(s) you give Him, i mean superior energy and vibration maybe), but thru men

I underlined to make it more confortable

Who do you think He or It choose to manifest the Will?
Do you think you create it by Yourself?

I thought you were not seeing the problem on the right side, maybe since the beginning

My personnal proof is to see it just cannot be fitted like this in my day to day life, I pretty much see every moments as kinda "magic in the air", without something/body arranging things like this.

The way we have to see the problem, is that we have to hope and make it real. I am definitly sure lot of us can do miracles. Does one who make a miracles prove the existance of God? I don't think so

Make a proof is an hard job, one should also work on the transmission of that proof, but the truth is that maybe even with divine powers, It must be still pretty hard to do.

Wanna show the unseenable? Wanna make the air glow to reveal essence of the world, which may in a way not exist at all?

Hum.

Just answer the first question ;)

Take care

themnax

08-30-2004, 11:54 AM

we don't HAVE to anything.

but we DO at every instant participate in the creation of
what we will experience in the next

and this applies to every timescale from microseconds
to lifetime after lifetime and what we experience between them.

as for defining an absolute and irrifutable proof
of anything
i would define that as a thing that does not exist

there is only a preponderance of evidence
or a lack thereof

a preponderance means there's more of it for one thing
then for another

and oh yes, nontangable forces and beings, great and small,
might well, should they choose to,
also participate in the proccess
along with our own peers, spiritual and otherwise,
tangable and nontangable alike

i'm not claiming that infallability CAN'T exist
only that it doesn't HAVE to
in order for anything and everything else to do so as well

=^^=
.../\...

venom_zx

08-30-2004, 06:45 PM

Just look around. Look at a tree, you new born baby, or your cat...and tell me there is not god. Thats all I can say. Look at the most beautiful thing in your life, touch it, hold it. and your touching god.
once again i see more touchy feely evidence. i don't see emotions as evidence. the problem i see is that religious people defy logic. aren't discussions suppose to be logical? well i think the first obvious question that needs to be answered is: is it suppose to be a logical discussion? if its not then we could shout out nonsense and swing from lamps. what would the point?

been a while since ive been here :)
hi all

TheHammerSpeaks

08-30-2004, 07:22 PM

So what you're saying is, empirical evidence is out. Do you want everyone to rely solely on deductive arguments?

Genesis

08-31-2004, 02:46 AM

of course we can't prove a thing.

then again...you can't prove you exist either.

WHAT CHAIR?!?!?!:eek:

geckopelli

08-31-2004, 08:54 PM

Welcome back, venom_zx!

venom_zx

08-31-2004, 10:32 PM

hey thanks geckopelli
very good to see you're still around also :) . school has kept me busy mainly. i see alot of new people

So what you're saying is, empirical evidence is out. Do you want everyone to rely solely on deductive arguments? TheHammerSpeaks- what? you are confused by what i said? emperical evidence is exactly what is useful. are you saying that arguments that are not logical are useful, by asking that question(in my opinion its then just an argument and a bad one too)?do you have a problem with deductive arguments?

of course we can't prove a thing.

then again...you can't prove you exist either.

WHAT CHAIR?!?!?!:eek: Genesis- well i think i am indicating/proving to you that i exist by speaking to you . people know that message boards and the internet are used by humans. could i be artificial intelligence ? yes of course but there isnt alot of direct indication to think that . i could come to your house potentially and tap you on the shoulder to indicate that im real. you would be able to see me with your eyes hear me talk, and see me move around objects. interact like existing things/life do/does(this is of course only an example). all from previous experiences of things that do exist, it would indicate to you that i am alike. even if my existence cannot be proven nor disproven it does not make it real or not real . it leaves me in the unknown and the more detail that is added to my description at that point(without indication of it), the more the chances become that it is not true. the more farefetched(may i say propaganda) it is. one of the reasons i don't have a preference for religion if not the main reason.

TheHammerSpeaks

08-31-2004, 11:04 PM

TheHammerSpeaks- what? you are confused by what i said? emperical evidence is exactly what is useful. are you saying that arguments that are not logical are useful, by asking that question(in my opinion its then just an argument and a bad one too)?do you have a problem with deductive arguments?
Empirical evidence is not logical. The problem of induction prevents it from being so. But since you're saying that empirical evidence is useful, we don't have to argue that point at all because I agree with you. Empirical evidence is useful. I just misunderstood what you were saying.

Now, are irrational arguments useful? Yes. Feelings are irrational. Much of the sense data we receive is irrational. But at least it's concrete. It avoids generalisations and universals.

Which brings us to your last question. Yes, I do have a problem with many deductive arguments. Not all of them, mainly only the ones with universal quantifiers ("all" or "no"). The reason for this brings us back to where I started, the problem of induction. So now we've come full circle, haven't we? Surely, we have not, but it's a good place to wrap up this post, nonetheless.

Maes

08-31-2004, 11:05 PM

you can not prove and know whether there is a god or not. And things beyond our knowledge are a matter of belief.So: You believe whether there's a god or not. You can not know.

venom_zx

09-01-2004, 12:01 AM

i dont know why you see observation or experimentation (the empirical) as not logical. i have been talking in an absolute way but im am here by indicating that when i do so i do it because i dont find it necessary to mention that there is no absolute certainty every time i am in a discussion. do you think it is appropriate for me to do so? (not a thetorical question). when i say people this and people that then it is something that i expect this because of previous experiences. it just seems silly repeating the same thing again and again like it is all i base my arguments on. so i hereby say that i only imply, for all clearity.

Genesis

09-01-2004, 12:38 AM

Genesis- well i think i am indicating/proving to you that i exist by speaking to you . people know that message boards and the internet are used by humans. could i be artificial intelligence ? yes of course but there isnt alot of direct indication to think that . i could come to your house potentially and tap you on the shoulder to indicate that im real. you would be able to see me with your eyes hear me talk, and see me move around objects. interact like existing things/life do/does(this is of course only an example). all from previous experiences of things that do exist, it would indicate to you that i am alike. even if my existence cannot be proven nor disproven it does not make it real or not real . it leaves me in the unknown and the more detail that is added to my description at that point(without indication of it), the more the chances become that it is not true. the more farefetched(may i say propaganda) it is. one of the reasons i don't have a preference for religion if not the main reason.

wow

LMAO

i was of course taking the utter piss hence the "what chair" reference. y'know that whole philosophy thingy?

i think this is a nevermind moment.

ill try lower next time:)

TheHammerSpeaks

09-01-2004, 01:08 AM

i dont know why you see observation or experimentation (the empirical) as not logical.
There's a difference between observation and experimentation. Experimentation (the scientific method) does use a kind of logic, inductive logic. The problem of induction applies here because the scientific method always uses patterns in particulars to create a universal (i.e. Socrates, Newton, and Einstein are all men. Socrates, Newton, and Einstein all died. Therefore, all men are mortal). But there is no logical process involved in touching an ice cube and feeling that it is cold because the statement "The (but not necessarily all) ice cube is cold," is not a universal statement.

But what does all of this have to do with your posts? I think that you are too quick to dismiss, as you called it, "touchy feely" evidence. If logic and rationality lead to unverifiable universals, then what else do we have to on?

venom_zx

09-01-2004, 02:34 AM

But there is no logical process involved in touching an ice cube and feeling that it is cold because the statement "The (but not necessarily all) ice cube is cold," is not a universal statement. i disagree with this. but why are you telling me this? are you referring to my comment on PeaceBabe's post? it does not seem necessary to go there otherwise. the touching is part of a how you interpret what you felt and would so be logical. it alone of course is not logical. but its done for a logical reason and its part of more than just touching (obviously). i have previous no experiences of touching god that i know of. i do on the other hand of touching cold ice cubes and not of not cold ice cubes. of course there is a possibility that an ice cube is not cold, as anything is possible. but there is no reason to assume so if you have not experienced this.

But what does all of this have to do with your posts? I think that you are too quick to dismiss, as you called it, "touchy feely" evidence. If logic and rationality lead to unverifiable universals, then what else do we have to on? you're not making sense. logic does not lead to unverifiable universals. that its verifiable is what makes it logical/rational of course. it also looks to me like you have already accepted this idea. you must have a reason for saying that i dismissed it to quickly. you should have mentioned it. i dont see the relevance of this:

Just look around. Look at a tree, you new born baby, or your cat...and tell me there is not god. Thats all I can say. Look at the most beautiful thing in your life, touch it, hold it. and your touching god.
venom_zx

TheHammerSpeaks

09-01-2004, 03:26 AM

i disagree with this. but why are you telling me this? are you referring to my comment on PeaceBabe's post? it does not seem necessary to go there otherwise. the touching is part of a how you interpret what you felt and would so be logical. it alone of course is not logical. but its done for a logical reason and its part of more than just touching (obviously).
I think you're a little confused as to what logic actually is. A few logical operations are as follows:

2 + 2 = 4

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Either I am sitting or I am standing.
I am not standing.
Therefore, I am sitting.

Logic is a process that does not require much (arguably no) sensory experience. They're basic rules that are based on the laws, which, as we understand it, govern the universe. The problem with these laws is that they reduce to universals. "Two" is a universal. The statement, "All men are mortal" is a universal. The logical process involved in solving the final problem is the Law of Non-contradiction, a universal. There is no logical process involved when feeling a cold ice cube. This is fundamental difference that separated the approaches of the rationalist and empiricist schools at the beginning of the Enlightenment.

i have previous no experiences of touching god that i know of.
I already assumed that. But that doesn't mean He's not there.

i do on the other hand of touching cold ice cubes and not of not cold ice cubes. of course there is a possibility that an ice cube is not cold, as anything is possible. but there is no reason to assume so if you have not experienced this.
No, of course that's no reason to assume, but can you really then have knowledge that all ice cubes are cold. The same applies to God. I'm not trying to present an argument for the existence of God at this point. I'm just trying to open your mind to the possibility of the existence of God.

you're not making sense. logic does not lead to unverifiable universals.
Then give me an example where it doesn't. I've already given you three that show that it does.

that its verifiable is what makes it logical/rational of course. it also looks to me like you have already accepted this idea.
I have not accepted this idea. Logic cannot be verified. If it could, then it would be empirical evidence. When was the last time you saw a "two," not two chairs, or two ants, or two people - just "two?" When was the last time you saw all men? When was the last time you saw the Law of Non-contradiction?

you must have a reason for saying that i dismissed ["touchy feely" evidence] to quickly. you should have mentioned it.
Just waiting for you to ask. Your touchy-feely evidence is still a kind of empirical evidence. And it's a kind of evidence that I feel is more reliable than logic, at least in matters of theology.

Jatom

09-01-2004, 06:42 AM

venom_zx

09-01-2004, 07:15 AM

you are not listening to me.

-your usage of the most important words in your statements appear wrong.
-you say that you are trying to open up my eyes to the possibility while i already said anything is possible.
-you can also explain to me now what you mean with universal. do you mean absolute?
-there is usually a logical process involved in feeling an ice cube but you dont seem to have the same definition of logic as me.using your example:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

:::::::::::::::: the body moves through coordination of the owner, the body can touch matter
:::::::::::::::: i own a body
:::::::::::::::: therefore i can coordinate my body to touch matter (an ice cube for example of course).

the reason the processes are logical is because they are related to one another.

you cannot deny this now that you defined this as a logical process. when i was referring to the idea being accepted i was talking about your own. of course you would have to observe theological matters in a theological way if you would want it to be compatible, but without a reason to change my point of view to that i will not. that would be absurd. so if you cannot even agree about arguments needing to be logical for no reason, we can stop talking or would not even matter what is said.

venom_zx

campbell34

09-01-2004, 08:03 AM

campbell34

09-01-2004, 08:12 AM

Chocolate, porn, women, orgasms. Only god could have created these.Nobody ever cares until they burn in the fires of hell for 10,000 years and then the fools realize, this is just the beginning of damnation. How shall they neglect so great a salvation?

themnax

09-01-2004, 02:44 PM

once again i see more touchy feely evidence. i don't see emotions as evidence. the problem i see is that religious people defy logic. aren't discussions suppose to be logical? well i think the first obvious question that needs to be answered is: is it suppose to be a logical discussion? if its not then we could shout out nonsense and swing from lamps. what would the point?

been a while since ive been here :)
hi all

when i look at the simultanious existence of entropy and our own selves (along with each of those wonders mentioned)
what is see is a very compelling suggestion that none of us knows all the answers, not a proof nor disproof of any
particular one of our collective or individual speculations

=^^=
.../\...

geckopelli

09-01-2004, 04:31 PM

Hammer,

Your use of logic is not reasonable. It must be both to apply to reality.

And you are clearly confused as to the nature of science.
Deductive, not inductive.

Clever arguments, albeit unreasonable ones, are entertaining but useless. Do you really think denying the Reality of science and the power of observation somehow prove your nameless god?

Science is wrong, and so you are right? That's your argument?

Logical AND reasonable is what's required.

The concept of "Feeling cold" has a resonable meaning. To exclude it from your logical argument is to be unreasonable. Your logic has no real world application.

Cambell34,
I feel sorry for you.

themnax,
I agree. But how about a darker color for an old man to see?

TheHammerSpeaks

09-01-2004, 05:35 PM

Venom, would I be correct in assuming that you have never taken a philosophy course in your life? Because I really don't have the time to give you an introduction to the subject. But please read these links, and if you still want to discuss this topic afterwards, let me know:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/apriori.htm

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties/

And this one's for gecko, but I think you should read it too:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/ded-ind.htm

This is the very basics. If you have any questions, let me know.

TheHammerSpeaks

09-01-2004, 05:55 PM

TheHammerSpeaks, I must say, your knowledge of philosophy probable far exceeds any current posters in this board, and your position seems to be well developed. I hope to see something published by you in the near future :) At any rate, I'm curious; do you hold to a form of fideism?
Thank you for your kind words, Jatom. It's nice to be appreciated. And as a matter of fact, I'm going to try to get something published in a second-rate philosophy journal in the near future. If it's accepted, I'll be sure to inform you.

But now, let me get to your question. The fideists have always been greatly underrated, at least in my opinion. But without them, late 18th and 19th century German philosophy would look a lot different. Both Kant and Hamann were influenced by the fideists. And as we all know, Kant led to Hegel and Schopenhaur, and Hegel and Schopenhaur led to Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. So while I am not seriously influenced by the fideists directly, any practitioner of continental philosophy can't help but see their ideas in the works of his favourite philosophers.

But is my philosophy a variety of fideism? If you take the definition of fideism in a text book way, then probably not. I think that science is certainly useful, just not in matters of theology. And I do not think that faith is a prerequisate for scientific exploration. But if you define fideism in a more loose way, that faith is essential to being a complete human being, then yes, you could say that I am a fideist.

geckopelli

09-02-2004, 01:53 AM

Spiritforces

09-02-2004, 02:22 AM

Hey Hammer :) and hey everybody

You wrote:

All men are mortal.

Then you wrote what was next,
Socrate is a Man

and...

That's deductive? Okay

There is no place for creativity in a deduction. That's sad

"You are living in the Now, create dude"

There is also no place for what we ignore in a deduction. That's being closed and admitting we know.

And I would even add that since the beginning, people deduct things, but they are not objective, so the fact on which they base their deduction is sometimes pretty wrong.

even "All men are mortals" contains maybe mistakes
(I agree for the body of course)
and many could understand that simple sentence in a lot of different way (comparing that sentence to all what they know and believe)

Deduct is a way to make probalities are on your side, but I am not sure it always works.

It would be better to say that I am sure that the way the men deduct leads them to a pretty shitty situation.

You could tell me that you have to base it on universal truths; and reject others as being objective.
I would tell you that even define an universal truth is already defining a concept, and concept do not exist. It is just in our head.

There is one things I know:
Things are ( since I experienced them, or heard about them or seen them)

The rest is shit

What we gotta do is learn to perceive

TheHammerSpeaks

09-02-2004, 02:44 AM

Hammer,
Philosophy is an endless argument that contains it's own proof. It's meaningless in relation to Reality. All the arguments in the world cannot bring a non-existent god into being. You may fool the less educated, But I for one see the flaw in all your arguments.I'm starting to wonder exactly what your level of education is. If you have a PhD in street smarts from the school of life, I'm not impressed.

"A deductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion."

So your site say's you blew it. The above describes your arguments, whereas...

"In a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide support for the conclusion that is so strong that, if the premises are true, it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false."
...Describes a scientific argument.Whereas what? Both of those quotes describe a deductive argument. It says so right in the quotes. I think you need to book your next optomatrist appointment, old man.

So, you're clearly still confused on the difference between deduction and induction. I already gave a few examples of deductive arguments, so now I'll give one of an inductive argument. Let's perform a scientific experiment, shall we? Using the scientific method:

I'm not sure that gravity exists, so I'll check to make sure. I'm holding a pencil. Now, I have released that pencil and, surprise surprise, it has fallen to the floor. Let me try that again. Hmm... interesting, it fell to the floor again. Once more to be sure... that settles it! I have witnessed the pencil fall to the floor three times now. I conclude that when a pencil is dropped near the surface of the earth, it will fall to the floor every single time!

That's an inductive argument. It's a form of logic so it contains a universal. Namely, "all pencils that are dropped near the surface of the earth will fall to the floor." The trouble is that I have no way of knowing with certainty whether the next time I drop a pencil it will fall to the floor. That's the problem of induction.

Fourtunetly, I've long since dispensed with trite philosophical nonesense.Dude, it's pretty obvious that you don't know the first thing about philosophy. So, you couldn't have dispensed with it if you never had any knowledge of it.

None of the things you say are relevant to the existence of a god- unless you're trying to make a back door admission that the existence of god is depedent on the existence of man?I'm getting there Gecky, take it easy; I thought patience was supposed to accompany old age. Why did I believe that? Because all old men I have known are patient. I made a universal out of it, and now you have proven that universal to be false. Induction at work! And no, I am not suggesting that God's existence is conditioned upon the existence of man.

TheHammerSpeaks

09-02-2004, 02:48 AM

Spirit, don't get me wrong, I can't stand deductive reasoning... or inductive for that matter. I'm just trying to get these guys to understand what it means because they are clearly in the dark. In fact, I completely agree with you. Philosophy is an art, it's also a game, but primarily, it's an art. And what's art without creativity? Boring, that's what. You want to know something interesting? Every attempt, ever, to reduce philosophy to a science, from logical positivism to phenomenology, has failed. But some people can only learn the hard way, I guess.

Turn

09-02-2004, 03:08 AM

Sucks that my reply will be lost in all of these but

Most scientists and mathmaticians who work in the extremly complicate workings of the universe belive in a God just from the complexity of matter and how it is designed to support life.

venom_zx

09-02-2004, 04:11 AM

Hammer- i was expecting a more direct reply from you hammer. very dodgy. you havent even summarized why you disagree. you should atleast be able to give a brief explanation. instead i have to listen to how i am not educated enough. so i really don't have any confidence in those sites being of any help and its by your own doing. i really dont have time to read the whole of those sites and i also dont know for what to look. if something there is of use to you then quote it.

themnax, i agree. to me it doesnt matter how low the entropy

TheHammerSpeaks

09-02-2004, 04:32 AM

Hammer- i was expecting a more direct reply from you hammer. very dodgy. you havent even summarized why you disagree. you should atleast be able to give a brief explanation.
If you disagree with me that logical processes lead to universals, and that universals do not qualify as undeniable knowledge, then we're not going to get anywhere.

instead i have to listen to how i am not educated enough.
I didn't mean that in derogatory way. I did for Gecko, but not for you. But am I right in assuming that you haven't taken any philosophy courses? If so, then I really can't blame you, now can I. Hence the links, a quick lesson.

so i really don't have any confidence in those sites being of any help and its by your own doing.
I don't understand what you mean? Those sites are credible. You could site them in a paper if you wanted to, and no one would question it.

i really dont have time to read the whole of those sites and i also dont know for what to look. if something there is of use to you then quote it.
It's really not that much reading. You could get through it in a hour or two tops. And all of it is essential, so I can't quote selectively. I've already tried to tell you the difference between deduction and induction, a priori and a posterior, universal and particular. You didn't believe me. You wanted proof. Well, there it is in those links. If you don't want to learn anything, then why are you participating in the discussion in the first place?

venom_zx

09-02-2004, 04:51 AM

TheHammerSpeaks

09-02-2004, 05:19 AM

its good that you've explained what you mean with universals. if universals are not necessarily completely universal as i understand you mean then there is no disagreement there. what i meant is you didnt give me any summary(you have now though). as you could see that summary cleared up things. alot simpler and straight to the point. now i could now reverse the order to check what if you really needed all that text in those pages but i wont do that.
No need to now I suppose. So great. We're on the same page now. So how do you know that any universal is entirely true? Doesn't the problem of induction prevent any real knowledge of universals? Can you really tell me that there are no round squares, floating around at some distant corner of the universe, with absolute certainty?

So what are we left with? Knowledge of particulars. Instead of saying, "All ice cubes are cold" we may say, "this ice cube is cold." And I can do it with absolute certainty that, to me at least, the ice cube is cold. And to me, I can see God in the world around me. But most of all, I see God in what I don't see, in the particulars I have not experienced.

When a particular contradicts a universal, the universal must be disgarded in favour of a more all-embracing universal. But there's no end to it. Each universal is based upon the same pre-suppositions as the last. There is only one way that we can claim to have knowledge of everything. It is by, paradoxically, claiming to have knowledge of nothing. All anomalies can thus be explained as acts of God, the only being possessing a paradoxical existence and essence.

Now, what are the benefits of this. First of all, it grants you the ability to see acts of God in the world around you. It makes you think that many events taking place in your life possess a quality of meaning. Consequently, you act more spontaineously, you trust your instincts more. Perhaps more importantly, it gives you (well, only Christians) a sense of responsibility, since Christ died for your sins. It causes you to experience a wide variety of emotion ranging from love to hate, from joy to sorrow, from guilt to faith. And you become more of a human being because of it. If you deprive yourself of such experiences, then I dare say you are only half a man.

I'm sure you have many questions and criticisms, and I look forward to them.

Jatom

09-02-2004, 08:24 AM

TheHammerSpeaks,

Thanks for the info, and I'll have take a more indepth look at the philosophers you've mention. Indeed, fideism (or aleast a 'strong(?)' form of fideism) is usually attacked in Christian theological/philosophical circles, athough the different 'degrees' of fideism are never distinguished e.g., "moderate," etc., so I'm especially interested in your view. Anyway, keep up the good work, and God bless!

P.S. Kant and Hume (problably among others I'm unfamiliar with) seemed to have influence on you? ...or at least in your current disscussion

Jatom

09-02-2004, 09:16 AM

"In a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide support for the conclusion that is so strong that, if the premises are true, it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false."

...Describes a scientific argument. You don't understand your own argument. Fourtunetly, I've long since dispensed with trite philosophical nonesense. All your arguments fall flat in the face of facts.geckopelli, I think you missed it here. In an deductive argument, the conclussion follows from the premises in such a way that conclussion cannot be false if the premises are indeed true. Take for example the classic categorical syllogism:

All man are mortal
Socrates is a Man
Therefore Socrates is Mortal

If the first two propositions (premises) are true, then the third proposition(conclussion) must be true.

That is, if it is true that all men are mortal and that Socrates is a man, then one cannot logically deny that Socrates is mortal. Science, however, goes about buisness in a different way. In science, one may, for example, first affirm that Socrates is mortal, classify Socrates as a man, and from this conclude that all men are Mortal. But given the hypothetical above:

If the first two propostions (premises) are true, then the third propsition (conclussion) must be true.

this use of abductive(?) reasoning is fallacious (affirming the consequent) becuase it does not follow from the mortality of this one man, that all men or mortal; nevertheless, the conclussion can be true, but it only takes the discovery of one man who isn't mortal to dispove the argument. Welcome to the world of science (among other things).

TheHammerSpeaks

09-02-2004, 05:05 PM

Indeed, fideism (or aleast a 'strong(?)' form of fideism) is usually attacked in Christian theological/philosophical circles, athough the different 'degrees' of fideism are never distinguished e.g., "moderate," etc.
Indeed it is. And I'm flirting with heresy enough that I don't need to go there. I'm a Catholic before I'm a philosopher, so my views have to conform to the dogma of the Catholic Church. Fortunately, the Church gives a lot of leeway in these matters, something a lot of people don't realise. Just look at the drastic differences between Franciscan and Dominican theology during the Scholastic period. I, personally, prefer the Franciscan view.

P.S. Kant and Hume (problably among others I'm unfamiliar with) seemed to have influence on you? ...or at least in your current disscussion
Hume is certainly a major influence of mine, not so much Kant, however. Kant was philosophy's first great systematiser. I have no intention of creating a philosophical system, I'm working on a philosophical method (in the loosest sense of the word) but I want to avoid a system because they are inherently limitting. When dealing with theology, limitting God is the biggest mistake you can make. But I can certainly see why you thought Kant was an influence of mine. My last post gave off a phenomena/noumena vibe.

In fact, one of my other influences is Hamann, greatly underappreciated today, unfortunately. Most people have never heard the name. But if you want to read the best critique of Kant ever, even better than Fichte's, read Hamann's Metacritique. He hints at the same things Derrida deals with, but Hamann does it way back in the 18th century.

God bless.

MattInVegas

09-02-2004, 06:08 PM

Nope! But, I believe. That's enough for me.

geckopelli

09-02-2004, 07:59 PM

What ever god you believe in, pray for us.

Second Hurricane in 3 1/2 weeks is coming.
Hard to see how that fits in to some divine plan.
Mysterious ways, indeed!

See ya- I hope!

venom_zx

09-02-2004, 09:13 PM

Hammer,

well like i said. you don't know if universals are entirely true. you assume so. i already agreed with you on that. why did you mention it again? well the last time i checked sqaures had straight sides and 90 degree angles. if you have a different definitionof a square then yes its possible that by your definition. you do know the definition of a the word square dont you? the specific rules that i know about shapes dont predict that but the general rules i have say that there is a chance. its like you dont know the word unknown.

well not just knowledge of particulars but also the possibilities they bring of course. well you cant say its cold with absolute certainty but with a higher amount because you know that ice cubes are cold. and as i thought , you place god with everything that is unknown. it seems to specific. anything to define the unknown is too specific. its inconsistant. you already agreed with me by differentiating between absolute certainty and what is not known. but now you have just disagreed again despite our agreement earlier. by defining the unknown as god. please make up your mind. if the definition of god to you is the same as unknown then we agree and you have been using the word god when you should have been using (the) unknown.

having no knowledge is the only true knowledge not all knowledge necessarily. guessing answers may bring you the right answer the are of course an infinite amount of answers possible. so that would give you a chance of one out of the infinite? in other words... if for example there is a lottery on tv and they draw the same number every show, you would not look at the pattern and deliberately do something else for no reason.well you have provided a reason and that is no reason. because none of -the arguments you have used/-reasons you have mentioned, to indicate this have made any sense. despite your efforts to deny this.

i think its time for you to face the music. less of a man? this is a flame. are you heaving trouble keeping hold of all those glorious emotions? dont just say things. show them also. i never talked about any of my emotions. in other words you are saying that those that do not believe in "god" dont have emotions.

you arent making sense Hammer and as you can see, im not just saying this.

venom_zx

09-02-2004, 09:29 PM

If the first two propostions (premises) are true, then the third propsition (conclussion) must be true.
you come to a conclusion, yes. but how that conclusion is interpretted is upto you. maybe you expect it to be the absolute truth maybe you dont. i only expect from conclusions. the word must is only relative to the method of analysis.

TheHammerSpeaks

09-02-2004, 10:03 PM

well like i said. you don't know if universals are entirely true. you assume so. i already agreed with you on that. why did you mention it again? well the last time i checked sqaures had straight sides and 90 degree angles. if you have a different definitionof a square then yes its possible that by your definition. you do know the definition of a the word square dont you? the specific rules that i know about shapes dont predict that but the general rules i have say that there is a chance.
I mentioned it again because I wasn't convinced that you realised what you were saying by denying that we can ever know if a universal is true with certainty. Because you admit that there's a chance that a round square may exist, you have shown me that you do realise the force of such a conviction. I was just making sure.

its like you dont know the word unknown
I don't understand. I'm the one saying that we can never know if a universal is true. So I definately understand what the word "unkown" means.

well not just knowledge of particulars but also the possibilities they bring of course. well you cant say its cold with absolute certainty but with a higher amount because you know that ice cubes are cold.
I can certainly say, "To me, this ice cube feels cold" with certainty. The statement is not a universal. The question is whether or not the ice cube is objectively cold. The answer is no because words have no objective meaning to begin with.

and as i thought , you place god with everything that is unknown. it seems to specific.
Yes! Good, you're catching on. But you're wrong that I'm defining God as the unknown. Certainly part of God is unknown, but He is not necessarily all of the unknown. And then there's the part of God which is known. God's very hard to pin down like that.

anything to define the unknown is too specific. its inconsistant. you already agreed with me by differentiating between absolute certainty and what is not known. but now you have just disagreed again despite our agreement earlier. by defining the unknown as god. please make up your mind.
Oh, I see what you're saying. I am not claiming to have absolute certainty of God's existence. It's ultimately a leap of faith. However, with that said, belief in God gives rise to a world-view more coherent than a belief in universals, because universals can be proven false. Faith is the ultimate coherent belief system because it can be used to overcome any logical inconsistency.

if the definition of god to you is the same as unknown then we agree and you have been using the word god when you should have been using (the) unknown.
Well, I already said that that's not my definition of God.

having no knowledge is the only true knowledge not all knowledge necessarily. guessing answers may bring you the right answer the are of course an infinite amount of answers possible. so that would give you a chance of one out of the infinite? in other words... if for example there is a lottery on tv and they draw the same number every show, you would not look at the pattern and deliberately do something else for no reason.
Well, since the odds are one out of infinity, I think that provides a good reason not to gamble. But don't get me wrong, universals have been working great for science and mathematics. No one can deny that. But that doesn't mean that they work for philosophy and theology. The disciplines answer completely different questions, and so it is necessary that they have different methodologies.

i think its time for you to face the music. less of a man? this is a flame.
It's not a flame. You're trying to pass it off as offensive so you can avoid answering it. There was no offense intended. So how do you define a man? I believe that men are defined by their experiences. So, it follows that if you have had less experiences than another, you are less of a man than that other.

are you heaving trouble keeping hold of all those glorious emotions?
Emotions are fleeting. That's the way they work. The point isn't to hold on to them, just to experience them.

in other words you are saying that those that do not believe in "god" dont have emotions.
No, I'm saying that those who do not believe in God don't experience as wide a variety of emotions as those who do.

venom_zx

09-02-2004, 11:28 PM

Hammer.

now you have change from is cold to feels cold . and absolute certainty to certainty.retreating? if we are now talking about the touch then you are referring to the sensation. complete lack of heat is -273 degrees celsius which is objective. there is not really alot of point argueing about what is cold and what is not, as cold is lack of heat. ice cubes are generally colder than the body temperature. more heat can always be added to any temperature, in theory. the only certain cold is complete lack of heat. so if the ice cube is -273 degrees celsius then its objectively cold. the rest is open to interpretation.

yes god is part of the unknown like any other possibility. so instead you should have said "where i see the unknown i see a possibility for god (or anything else)" if that is what you truely believe. instead of saying "where i see the unknown i see god" .

despite you saying you understand the word unknown, its clear to me that you do not understand what it means. because you think you are in the right turning it into what you want it to be. your main argument is basicly " because i say so" .we cant talk with like .

yes it is a flame because you attacked me on a personal level without any reason. you can't just say that those who believe in god experience more emotions than those who dont. who decided that? you cant just say anything you want and ship it off as "philosophy" . i may not be the best at philosophy but im pretty sure thats not how it works. it is what you have constantly been doing. you say what you want and then when people are onto you you quickly show them to a few pages (or try to intimidate them? with how they have been educated, which is not even appropriate to the discussion). you are just talking. literally.

TheHammerSpeaks

09-02-2004, 11:47 PM

now you have change from is cold to feels cold . and absolute certainty to certainty.retreating?
I haven't changed a thing. You can go through all my past posts in the discussion and I always say that the ice cube feels cold to me. That's all I can say with absolute certainty and I've never claimed anything more.

if we are now talking about the touch then you are referring to the sensation. complete lack of heat is -273 degrees celsius which is objective. there is not really alot of point argueing about what is cold and what is not, as cold is lack of heat.
Cold is also a figure of speech, as in "to give the cold shoulder." I could probably find a lot of other meanings if I gave it some more thought. So it's not quite as clear cut as -273 degrees celsius. Are you telling me that -272 degrees celcius is not cold? If you ask me, that's pretty cold. A word's meaning is dependent upon it's context. Therefore, there is no objective definition of a word.

ice cubes are generally colder than the body temperature. more heat can always be added to any temperature, in theory. the only certain cold is complete lack of heat. so if the ice cube is -273 degrees celsius then its objectively cold. the rest is open to interpretation.
It's all open to interpretation. That's my point.

yes god is part of the unknown like any other possibility. so instead you should have said "where i see the unknown i see a possibility for god (or anything else)" if that is what you truely believe. instead of saying "where i see the unknown i see god" .
No, I see God in the unknown, not just the possibility of God. I can see Him there because I appreciate the complexity of the universe.

despite you saying you understand the word unknown, its clear to me that you do not understand what it means. because you think you are in the right turning it into what you want it to be.
I could say the same to you. It's all about context.

yes it is a flame because you attacked me on a personal level without any reason. you can't just say that those who believe in god experience more emotions than those who dont. who decided that?
It was not a flame because it wasn't even directed at you personally. It was directed at atheists as a whole. And I gave my reason already in my last post. I am basing that accusation on personal experience. I was an atheist. Now I'm a Christian. My life as a Christian involves far richer thoughts and feelings than it did as an atheist.

you cant just say anything you want and ship it off as "philosophy" . i may not be the best at philosophy but im pretty sure thats not how it works. it is what you have constantly been doing. you say what you want and then when people are onto you you quickly show them to a few pages (or try to intimidate them? with how they have been educated, which is not even appropriate to the discussion). you are just talking. literally.
I'm not just saying what I want. Most of what I've been saying isn't even original. It's based off the work of previous philosophers. And for the last time, my comment on your level of education was not derogatory. I just wanted to get an idea of what you know about philosophy. Don't be so touchy.

venom_zx

09-03-2004, 01:26 AM

Hammer,

everythings is of course open to interpretation but, i have already mentioned that as one of my main rules. its not an absolute. its a conclusion and a expectation. the way i see it is that we are throwing around different conclusions and. but you seem to want to do more (dictate?).

"Are you telling me that -272 degrees celcius is not cold?" lack means not enough so it could be left to decide wether its cold or not.which i have said. i think your body get burns from extremely low temperature. im not sure about the sensation. -273 i think is cold but if you leave it open to interpretation a mad man could say its yellow. i dont see anything interesting about that. i have looked at the meaning of words and drawn conclusions. we could argue about what you interpret those words to be or change their meaning for some reason. but we do want to understand eachother dont we? i already know that its open for interpretation but i expect you to use the words the same way as me. dont forget to interpret/predict expectations of communication.

being an atheist does not qualify as any other group of people that do not believe in god. did you not know that? so its still a bad reason to say that.

complexity is relative. but relative to what is the complexity of the universe?

venom_zx

surfnaked

09-03-2004, 01:46 AM

surfnaked

09-03-2004, 01:48 AM

TheHammerSpeaks

09-03-2004, 03:33 AM

everythings is of course open to interpretation but, i have already mentioned that as one of my main rules. its not an absolute.
Well actually, the statement "all things are open to interpretation" is an absolute. But it seems like you're changing your mind now. You said that -273 degrees celcius is objectively cold. But if everything is open to interpretation, then how can that be?

its a conclusion and a expectation. the way i see it is that we are throwing around different conclusions and. but you seem to want to do more (dictate?).
Yes, we are certainly throwing around different conclusions. But I'm not dictating anything. My conclusions follow from the starting point and methodology I have adopted. I'm sure the same can be said for yours.

-273 i think is cold but if you leave it open to interpretation a mad man could say its yellow.
That's not what I meant. I'm just trying to show you that the word "cold" has no objective meaning. And that the word means something at least slightly different to every human being on this earth.

i have looked at the meaning of words and drawn conclusions.
No, you have looked at a meaning of the word. More specifically, you have looked at your meaning of the word.

we could argue about what you interpret those words to be or change their meaning for some reason. but we do want to understand eachother dont we? i already know that its open for interpretation but i expect you to use the words the same way as me.
That's not what I'm getting at. What I'm driving at is that you could look at, say, the moon and see the law of gravity and the effects of light at work. I look at it and see God, not to say that God is the moon, but rather that God has a very real presence in the moon.

being an atheist does not qualify as any other group of people that do not believe in god. did you not know that? so its still a bad reason to say that.
I don't understand that first sentence. Please be more careful with grammar and spelling simply for the sake of clarity. But let me turn the question to you then: What makes a man? What makes you an individual?

complexity is relative. but relative to what is the complexity of the universe?
It's relative to each human being's understanding of the word "complexity," but that's not the point either. I was alluding to the fact that universals simplify the universe, thus making us unable to appreciate it's complexity.