Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

Poll

Question About God

God doesn't exist87%87% - 42
God exists, but just doesn't listen to people's prayers12%12% - 6
Total: 48
2008-04-16 07:05:15
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|6829|Portland, OR USA

SenorToenails wrote:

This breaks down at a point.  Can you reasonably believe that you can walk through solid walls just because you don't know how?

If you are referring to physical phenomena, then I agree that there is a reason for it.  You know there is a reason for it because you observed in in nature or determined that it must exist for a physical model to be complete (in which case, you know what to look for).  In the case of god, there is no physical manifestation.  There is no evidence that points to a testable 'god' model.
Well everything could be argued to break down at a point, but that's due to an incomplete understanding.  Reference the use of "constants" in accepted advanced sciences.  Not those representing unitless ratios such as pi, but things like the gravitational constant which serve no other purpose than to make the numbers jive with what we think they should look like which is seen in their meaningless units.

And yes, I believe that matter can pass through matter but we just don't know how.  There's too much empty space in an atom.
2008-04-16 07:18:02
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6432|North Tonawanda, NY

PuckMercury wrote:

Well everything could be argued to break down at a point, but that's due to an incomplete understanding.  Reference the use of "constants" in accepted advanced sciences.  Not those representing unitless ratios such as pi, but things like the gravitational constant which serve no other purpose than to make the numbers jive with what we think they should look like which is seen in their meaningless units.
I don't see how universal constants represent a 'lack of understanding'.  If anything, they represent greater understanding.  It is be foolish to think that the laws governing the universe should be simple, with such complex phenomena surrounding us.

PuckMercury wrote:

And yes, I believe that matter can pass through matter but we just don't know how.  There's too much empty space in an atom.
I deserve that.  I am not foolish enough to seriously believe that something is impossible just because we don't know how yet.  With today's understanding of physics, there really is no way that large pieces of matter can pass through other large pieces of matter.
2008-04-16 07:21:51
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|6829|Portland, OR USA

SenorToenails wrote:

With today's understanding of physics, there really is no way that large pieces of matter can pass through other large pieces of matter.
Agreed there, but I think we're on the verge of a different understanding.  As I alluded to, there's way too much empty space in an atom.  Atoms make up molecules which comprise matter, ergo there's space in matter.  Tons of it.  Maybe it's an example of a collective belief like Wile E. Coyotee walking off a cliff until he looks down and realizes there's nothing there.  Once we shatter the belief, we just fall through everything.  ;-)
2008-04-16 07:24:53
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6432|North Tonawanda, NY

PuckMercury wrote:

Agreed there, but I think we're on the verge of a different understanding.  As I alluded to, there's way too much empty space in an atom.  Atoms make up molecules which comprise matter, ergo there's space in matter.  Tons of it.  Maybe it's an example of a collective belief like Wile E. Coyotee walking off a cliff until he looks down and realizes there's nothing there.  Once we shatter the belief, we just fall through everything.  ;-)
This topic is ironic in timing.  I've been studying nuclear scattering in one of my classes lately.
2008-04-16 07:53:43
chittydog
less busy
+586|7137|Kubra, Damn it!

God exists but doesn't answer your prayers since he only speaks Arabic.
2008-04-16 11:33:40
too_money2007
Member
+145|6610|Keller, Tx
We're all in a type of Matrix, where someone/something else is controlling us. Simple as that.
2008-04-16 12:53:54
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6951

Stingray24 wrote:

Null.  God does listen to prayers.  However, He is not a genie that must respond to our mortal demands.  He is all-powerful and He is also sovereign.  I have no right to demand God act on my behalf because I am not sovereign over my Creator.  If God were bound by my mortal requests, He would not be God now would He?

Edit: See the book of Jobs

https://www.luxurygaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/24kt-gold-diamonds-macbook-pro.jpg
Sorry...
2008-04-16 13:27:09
Drakef
Cheeseburger Logicist
+117|6664|Vancouver
I would not say that there are no gods definitively, but in a loose sense I will say that any gods do not exist. It is not that I have belief, it is that I lack belief in a god. I'm not discounting the possibility, but it is a small possibility that is not worth exploring. I wouldn't say that unicorns do not exist definitively, but without any proof whatsoever, I would call nonexistence.

There are also numerous philosophical arguments I have with the Abrahamic god, specifically. However, it is difficult to argue these points when there are literally thousands of views of this god, and many contradict each other. On the other hand, this only serves to underline the idea that it is difficult  to choose one religion even if one were to believe in a god.
2008-04-16 15:56:08
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6592|Éire

pierro wrote:

Here's another point to think about (sorry if my original one wasn't understandable...my fault not any of yours)...if it is a godless scientific universe, then there is no soul and everything we are is just elements bonded together. In short, nothing differentiates us from computers aside from better hardware and programming.
i use this clip a lot because it sums up my feelings on the issue...

Last edited by Braddock (2008-04-16 15:56:33)

2008-04-16 16:01:32
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6977|Canberra, AUS

PuckMercury wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

With today's understanding of physics, there really is no way that large pieces of matter can pass through other large pieces of matter.
Agreed there, but I think we're on the verge of a different understanding.  As I alluded to, there's way too much empty space in an atom.  Atoms make up molecules which comprise matter, ergo there's space in matter.  Tons of it.  Maybe it's an example of a collective belief like Wile E. Coyotee walking off a cliff until he looks down and realizes there's nothing there.  Once we shatter the belief, we just fall through everything.  ;-)
We'd have to find a way to shatter the electromagnetic force as well. That's the thing that causes 'physical' interactions.

However: neutrinos count as matter (given that they probably do have mass, a very, very, very, very, very small one) and they just go right through 'atoms' because they are neutral (hence no electromagnetic force). On the very rare (and it indeed is very rare) occasion that they hit the nucleus, they'll bounce off.

BTW, I think you'll be familiar with the Geiger-Marsden experiment. If not, read up on it.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2008-04-16 16:35:30
Drakef
Cheeseburger Logicist
+117|6664|Vancouver

pierro wrote:

Here's another point to think about (sorry if my original one wasn't understandable...my fault not any of yours)...if it is a godless scientific universe, then there is no soul and everything we are is just elements bonded together. In short, nothing differentiates us from computers aside from better hardware and programming.
In broad terms, yes, that is correct.
2008-04-16 19:26:38
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6707|North Carolina

bakinacake wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

bakinacake wrote:

God exists because millions upon millions of people believe he does, he has given us so many things, and that he has helped millions of people. I mean for goodness sake, his son died for us, would you let your son die for the world, and their sins? If people choose not to accept that he loves them, and is there, you can have a chat about that when you die.
God as an abstract concept is what exists when millions of people believe in him.  You would not be extolling the virtues of Xenu or The Flying Spaghetti Monster if millions of people believed in them.

I don't discount god, thought it may seem that way.  I take exception to people applying god to science.  Religion needs to keep out of science, because I don't remember Father Thomas talking about blackbody radiation in his sermons.  I suppose I will have to answer for that when I die, right? 
I suggest you look into this fella

Louie Giglio
I can do better...  www.venganza.org

May you be touched by his noodly appendage.

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-04-16 19:27:11)

2008-04-16 20:17:52
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6987|United States of America

sergeriver wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

You can easily prove a positive, indeed.  But the thing is you can't say something doesn't exist just because you have no proof.  For instance, everyday we discover new animal species.  Didn't these species exist before we discovered them?  I'm not saying God exists, I'm just saying that not being able to prove a negative isn't an excuse to say something doesn't exist.
Are you suggesting that I should pre-invent animal species and then go and find them? OK then. Zoblogots exist. Go find them.
No, I'm saying the species DO exist, you just DON'T know they exist.  Big difference.  I'm not suggesting you go and find God, if that was what you were implying.
Well, I was certainly confused by all the negated statements here, but here is my gist:

No one ought to make a claim as to the existence or nonexistence of a god, as the opposing side just has to say "prove it."
Agree?
2008-04-16 20:24:35
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6707|North Carolina

DesertFox- wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


Are you suggesting that I should pre-invent animal species and then go and find them? OK then. Zoblogots exist. Go find them.
No, I'm saying the species DO exist, you just DON'T know they exist.  Big difference.  I'm not suggesting you go and find God, if that was what you were implying.
Well, I was certainly confused by all the negated statements here, but here is my gist:

No one ought to make a claim as to the existence or nonexistence of a god, as the opposing side just has to say "prove it."
Agree?
I see where you're coming from, but the burden of proof is on belief, not skepticism.  If the burden was equal, then I could just say that Santa Claus exists, since you can't definitively prove he doesn't.
2008-04-16 20:36:02
imortal
Member
+240|6967|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

No, I'm saying the species DO exist, you just DON'T know they exist.  Big difference.  I'm not suggesting you go and find God, if that was what you were implying.
Well, I was certainly confused by all the negated statements here, but here is my gist:

No one ought to make a claim as to the existence or nonexistence of a god, as the opposing side just has to say "prove it."
Agree?
I see where you're coming from, but the burden of proof is on belief, not skepticism.  If the burden was equal, then I could just say that Santa Claus exists, since you can't definitively prove he doesn't.
Except there is no burden of proof needed on either side.  It is a matter of faith, not of proof.  You can not prove objectively that God exists.  You can not prove objectively that God does not exist.  It is a matter of faith, a leap of the heart and arguably the soul whether or not you believe.

Oh, who ever said there is no Santa Claus? He just may have gotten really lazy and off his game lately, so parents have to cover for him.  Or maybe the elves got unionized and went on strike.

EDIT:  Oh, and food for thought.  Someone once said that God answers everyones prayers; it is just that sometimes, the answer is "No."

Last edited by imortal (2008-04-16 20:37:17)

2008-04-16 20:40:30
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6707|North Carolina

imortal wrote:

Except there is no burden of proof needed on either side.  It is a matter of faith, not of proof.  You can not prove objectively that God exists.  You can not prove objectively that God does not exist.  It is a matter of faith, a leap of the heart and arguably the soul whether or not you believe.

Oh, who ever said there is no Santa Claus? He just may have gotten really lazy and off his game lately, so parents have to cover for him.  Or maybe the elves got unionized and went on strike.
This opens the door for logical fallacies though.  See, the principle of Occam's Razor states that the simplest, most logical answer should be assumed to be the truth until proven otherwise.  Assumptions should generally be reductionist in nature, because they minimize the chance of errors and allow a sober frame of reference to explore possibilities from.

So, to state that belief and disbelief require faith is true, but belief requires far more faith than disbelief.  I'm assuming a lot less by saying there is no God than someone who believes that God exists and the Bible accurately describes his nature.
2008-04-16 20:48:09
imortal
Member
+240|6967|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

Except there is no burden of proof needed on either side.  It is a matter of faith, not of proof.  You can not prove objectively that God exists.  You can not prove objectively that God does not exist.  It is a matter of faith, a leap of the heart and arguably the soul whether or not you believe.

Oh, who ever said there is no Santa Claus? He just may have gotten really lazy and off his game lately, so parents have to cover for him.  Or maybe the elves got unionized and went on strike.
This opens the door for logical fallacies though.  See, the principle of Occam's Razor states that the simplest, most logical answer should be assumed to be the truth until proven otherwise.  Assumptions should generally be reductionist in nature, because they minimize the chance of errors and allow a sober frame of reference to explore possibilities from.

So, to state that belief and disbelief require faith is true, but belief requires far more faith than disbelief.  I'm assuming a lot less by saying there is no God than someone who believes that God exists and the Bible accurately describes his nature.
It is true that it takes a lot more faith to believe in God than not to believe.  A true believing Calvinist would, I am sure, point out that Doubt is one of Satan's great weapons to make you turn away from God and not to believe.

I will not deny that there are logical fallacies.  But human beings are really, REALLY good at believing things despite proof hung in front of their faces,and that is true of more than just religion.

Looking at the odds of life developing at all on this planet, expecially down to the designs joining of the proteins that allowed the formation of life is enough in itself to want to go to church.
2008-04-16 20:56:52
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6707|North Carolina

imortal wrote:

It is true that it takes a lot more faith to believe in God than not to believe.  A true believing Calvinist would, I am sure, point out that Doubt is one of Satan's great weapons to make you turn away from God and not to believe.

I will not deny that there are logical fallacies.  But human beings are really, REALLY good at believing things despite proof hung in front of their faces,and that is true of more than just religion.

Looking at the odds of life developing at all on this planet, expecially down to the designs joining of the proteins that allowed the formation of life is enough in itself to want to go to church.
Mathematically speaking, life developing on this planet is quite possibly just random chance.  Look at the size of the universe and consider how it has a nearly endless amount of planets and galaxies.  Out of this ridiculously large number of planets, there is bound to be one that probably even has beings nearly identical to our own.  To me, it's just statistics and chance.
2008-04-16 20:59:57
imortal
Member
+240|6967|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

It is true that it takes a lot more faith to believe in God than not to believe.  A true believing Calvinist would, I am sure, point out that Doubt is one of Satan's great weapons to make you turn away from God and not to believe.

I will not deny that there are logical fallacies.  But human beings are really, REALLY good at believing things despite proof hung in front of their faces,and that is true of more than just religion.

Looking at the odds of life developing at all on this planet, expecially down to the designs joining of the proteins that allowed the formation of life is enough in itself to want to go to church.
Mathematically speaking, life developing on this planet is quite possibly just random chance.  Look at the size of the universe and consider how it has a nearly endless amount of planets and galaxies.  Out of this ridiculously large number of planets, there is bound to be one that probably even has beings nearly identical to our own.  To me, it's just statistics and chance.
If that is fine and enough for you, then so be it.  Some choose to find peace through the belief that there is something greater behind it.  I do not see where the belief in or disbelief in God is an issue until someone tries to convince someone else that one side is right, and the other wrong.  Or judgements based on people based on their beliefs.  That is where problems begin.
2008-04-16 21:00:41
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6707|North Carolina
Well, I can definitely agree with that....
2008-04-16 21:09:08
Drakef
Cheeseburger Logicist
+117|6664|Vancouver

pierro wrote:

Drakef wrote:

In broad terms, yes, that is correct.
I would hope, therefore, that one can understand the implications...if there is no soul and we are just machines, then how is there conciousness? After all, is it really possible to make a computer concious?
As for a computer, on a general level we could apply a Turing Test for consciousness. It is a problem in philosophy, when we consider if an artificial intelligence is actually thinking.

The idea of a soul within religious terms is not exclusive for consciousness, or existence. It is bewildering to consider that only the idea of a soul could explain that. We are essentially the function of a body with a brain that acts almost as a computer, but the existence of thinking creates an exclusive domain for humans (or living beings, depending on your philosophical belief). We act as our brains dictate, by certain neural areas 'firing'. We do not have this 'soul' to guide us. Consciousness is granted by having a brain.
2008-04-16 21:12:43
imortal
Member
+240|6967|Austin, TX

Drakef wrote:

pierro wrote:

Drakef wrote:

In broad terms, yes, that is correct.
I would hope, therefore, that one can understand the implications...if there is no soul and we are just machines, then how is there conciousness? After all, is it really possible to make a computer concious?
As for a computer, on a general level we could apply a Turing Test for consciousness. It is a problem in philosophy, when we consider if an artificial intelligence is actually thinking.

The idea of a soul within religious terms is not exclusive for consciousness, or existence. It is bewildering to consider that only the idea of a soul could explain that. We are essentially the function of a body with a brain that acts almost as a computer, but the existence of thinking creates an exclusive domain for humans (or living beings, depending on your philosophical belief). We act as our brains dictate, by certain neural areas 'firing'. We do not have this 'soul' to guide us. Consciousness is granted by having a brain.
Is it?  So, are animals self-aware?  Do they have consciousness(es?)?  Does our feeling of "self," of "me-ness," our soul, simply come from the electrochemical responses in our brain?  Is it inevitable that we feel this way, or was it by chance? 

This is the point where you leave the "Biology" building and enter the "Philosophy" area of the campus.
2008-04-16 21:13:58
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6707|North Carolina
Good points, Drakef, and one of the more immediate concerns with the belief in souls is that, so far, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of it being possible for a consciousness to be able to exist without any physical components.  This completely leaves out the possibility of an afterlife unless consciousness is somehow determined to be something capable of ethereal existence.
2008-04-16 21:21:12
imortal
Member
+240|6967|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:

Good points, Drakef, and one of the more immediate concerns with the belief in souls is that, so far, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of it being possible for a consciousness to be able to exist without any physical components.  This completely leaves out the possibility of an afterlife unless consciousness is somehow determined to be something capable of ethereal existence.
Yeah, but that is the problem with the whole 'afterlife,' thing.  If you believe in an afterlife and are wrong, you will never know.  If you are right, you reap the rewards.  If you do not believe in an afterlife and are correct, then you never know.  But if you are wrong, you suffer for it... for who knows how long?

I think the concept of an afterlife determines how we act in our current one.  It can be either a promise of better things to come or a threat of eternal suffering.  So it could simply be a construct for ensuring acceptable behavior.

However, if your life is all you have and then you are done, what are your motivations for your actions?

Like it or not, the entire formulation of religion, whether God exists or not, is based on how to live with each other in a group, and placing the moral authority for those rules and mores on something greater than the individual in order to avoid a person violating them (as opposed to a "because I said so" form of authority, which allows rebellious people to ask 'well, what makes him so smart that I have to follow his rules?' people are less likely to doubt the laws if they are delivered from God.)

I was discussing religion there, not God.  There is a difference.
2008-04-16 21:34:23
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6707|North Carolina

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Good points, Drakef, and one of the more immediate concerns with the belief in souls is that, so far, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of it being possible for a consciousness to be able to exist without any physical components.  This completely leaves out the possibility of an afterlife unless consciousness is somehow determined to be something capable of ethereal existence.
Yeah, but that is the problem with the whole 'afterlife,' thing.  If you believe in an afterlife and are wrong, you will never know.  If you are right, you reap the rewards.  If you do not believe in an afterlife and are correct, then you never know.  But if you are wrong, you suffer for it... for who knows how long?

I think the concept of an afterlife determines how we act in our current one.  It can be either a promise of better things to come or a threat of eternal suffering.  So it could simply be a construct for ensuring acceptable behavior.

However, if your life is all you have and then you are done, what are your motivations for your actions?

Like it or not, the entire formulation of religion, whether God exists or not, is based on how to live with each other in a group, and placing the moral authority for those rules and mores on something greater than the individual in order to avoid a person violating them (as opposed to a "because I said so" form of authority, which allows rebellious people to ask 'well, what makes him so smart that I have to follow his rules?' people are less likely to doubt the laws if they are delivered from God.)

I was discussing religion there, not God.  There is a difference.
Pascal's Wager is interesting, but it seems like a cop out to me.  I guess where my individualism comes in involves my determination to remain uncommitted to ideologies built upon tradition.  If I do eventually choose to believe in something, it will likely be very different from the norm.  If Christianity was my choice, I'd probably be a Gnostic.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard