|
|
e-lysander
Known Hero
Lysander
|
posted June 05, 2008 09:27 PM |
|
|
No matter how you attempt to bend logic, God cannot be seen, proven, heard, or any of it. If you claim to have seen or heard him, it can be explained away easily with it being a psychotic dellusion; and every time someone's "vision" of God/a god was documented and researched, it was seen to be simply have been a dellusion.
Saying, "I cannot concieve what was before God, so therefore he exists" is silly, ignorant, and naive. Personally, I cannot imagine what happened before the universe... why should a magical childish imaginary idea ("GUY IN THE SKY WHO CAN DO ANYTHING SEES EVERYTHING KNOWS EVERYTHING AND MADE EVERYTHING") get any credence?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 09:32 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 21:34, 05 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
it can be explained away easily with it being a psychotic dellusion;
Surely that can explain absolutely anything, including anything else. But then I doubt you made these tests (and besides, how can you prove something was delusional??  at best you can prove it is 'unreproducible'). What was 'researched' was already based on the fact that God is reproducible -- i.e it follows some laws. I wrote this before anyway. Also how do you know these 'documents' were not fake since they were based on human subjects, the experiments were not reproducible (at least not with the same people at the same time, which would be impossible).
Quote:
Saying, "I cannot concieve what was before God, so therefore he exists" is silly, ignorant, and naive.
Hmm, when did I say that proves God in ANY way?
That was just a question I was asked, and actually I did not get a proper answer (unlike the quote above you used which was an answer), because the answer would be impossible. This does not prove God in any way. It only makes the question look silly, that's all.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 06, 2008 08:08 AM |
|
|
It's not so much in reference to time that people ask "What was before god?" or that people ask "What was before the big bang?"
But rather a main argument for god is that people say that everything must have a prior mover. Therefore the big bang or whatever must have had something to initiate it.
Therefore, god exists. QED.
Then I would ask what initiated god 
But yeah personally I wouldn't ask what was before god (in time) because there are already enough fantastic answers to that question (god created time when he created the universe etc. time before god has no meaning etc.)
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 06, 2008 01:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But rather a main argument for god is that people say that everything must have a prior mover.
That includes time, and 'prior' is a notion in time 
Like I said of course that does not mean that God exists, it only means the question has no answer (no matter how you look at it); usually same happens even if you ask about the Big Bang, because the Big Bang created time and the other dimensions as well, so that's not only for God.
but anyway I'm not that familiar with creationist theories.
Here's my previous posts re-explained in a different fashion (you can at least skim through them if you understood what I meant previously).
As for the evidence of God, well obviously we'll first have to define 'evidence'. Is something that you experience once (let's say going through a Black Hole teleporting back in time) called evidence? Maybe it is for YOU, but not for scientists. The point I'm trying to make is that the scientists want a reproducible evidence (I'm not saying that they're foolish for that, I'm only stating what they want!). Obviously, for such evidence to exist, you need to believe that it is reproducible. For the example above, the Black Hole scenario is not reproducible because any attempt to do so will get you back in time, hence they wouldn't even know they started the experiment -- thus it's not reproducible.
There is a problem when you start to use this belief to imply truth about ANYTHING. It is obviously ok to use it for example to electricity (since it is 'perhaps' reproducible, but with quantum stuff it's more like a 'chance' based than mechanical view). But is it ok to apply that belief (in the induction -> every evidence is reproducible) to the other things, like e.g: the black hole scenario above?
Evidence is plenty for some scientific material if you believe in induction. If you don't reproducible evidence will do little to justify it (e.g: you perform an experiment in the lab, so you assume whatever happened there must also happen outside and always (induction); however if you do not believe in reproducibility, then the experiment would be worthless, as you wouldn't assume the same for outside-the-lab scenarios). Example: gravity. You take an apple, you let go of it, it falls. Is it correctly to assume this for other objects? Obviously, since most of what we see falls, then it's correct to assume gravity. But that's what it is, it's still an assumption, based on the belief in induction. Evidence exists only upon some belief system.
Now take for example the Bible. Let's assume you believe it's true for a moment. Then there is plenty of evidence for God, written in the Bible -- because you have that belief in the Bible (the fact that is true), you have a lot of evidence in front of you. Obviously, if you don't believe it's true, there's little the Bible will tell you about 'evidence'. It all comes down to your beliefs. In this case (like above), the evidence is still there, but you have different beliefs. While in the former you believed in induction, here you believed in the Bible's trueness.
If you believe that the Bible is true, is there evidence for e.g: quantum mechanics found with this belief (in the Bible)? Highly unlikely (though I'm not saying NOT, maybe there's some interpretation there, who knows??).
If you believe in induction, is there evidence for e.g: God? Highly unlikely (since God is not reproducible).
It all comes down to what you believe. The problem starts however when you apply your belief to ALL areas. If you take ONLY the induction belief, applying it to find 'evidence' for God (the God in the Bible obviously, since that's the one you try to find evidence about) is almost impossible, since God is not reproducible (doesn't obey laws or whatever).
Likewise, if you take ONLY the belief in the Bible's trueness, and apply it to computer science, you'll most probably not find any evidence with this belief there (especially since computers work like 'we designed' them to, on the macro level of course (not the atomic/electric level)).
Therefore it is wrong to use a belief and apply it to ALL areas.. that only leads to 'there's no evidence for that, it's not true'. You may argue of course that belief in induction is more 'rational' or more 'logical' than in the Bible. But that is only a biased (subjective) view. Much like the ones that give credit to the Bible (I'm not saying those are better, both are subjective, the same in principle).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 06, 2008 04:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You may argue of course that belief in induction is more 'rational' or more 'logical' than in the Bible. But that is only a biased (subjective) view.
It's subjective - if you think that your imagination and trust can be better tools than your senses.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 06, 2008 04:36 PM |
|
|
|
Obviously I said that both are subjective
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 06, 2008 06:24 PM |
|
|
The thing is that your senses verifying something repeatedly is always going to be more reliable than you saying, "Oh, it's unexplainable. It's a divine miracle."
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted June 06, 2008 06:47 PM |
|
|
Just checking in.
I still feel the only possible way a reality could become like ours as we see, is by devine intervention only.
alas, there is atleast a director.
And I say this not by saying "its unexplainable it must be god"
I say it meaning there is only one logical solution to the outcome of reality we have. This world is to perfect, and there are way to many "things" like love, war, compassion, hate, tables, chairs, pain joy, ect. Just open the dictionary to any page and tell me how could a godless variation of reality be turned into this?
That, my friends has no proovable awnser, nor any logical possible explanation.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Ecoris
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 06, 2008 10:51 PM |
|
|
I've always found that argument strange.
Event A is incredibly unlikely to happen but it has happened, thus it can't be do to chance alone.
Usually there is some logic in such a statement (statisticians argue like that). The problem, however, in this case is that Event A is a premise for the argument itself.
It is circular logic.
____________
|
|
Gnoll_Mage
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2008 12:45 AM |
|
|
And in any case, how do you know that things like love and war are unlikely to arise `by chance` - it's not exactly like you have another 100 universes just around the corner that you can use to see how probable it is...
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 07, 2008 05:50 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 17:51, 07 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
And in any case, how do you know that things like love and war are unlikely to arise `by chance` - it's not exactly like you have another 100 universes just around the corner that you can use to see how probable it is...
For the same reason, how do you measure 'chance' objectively? You can't. Since you can't feed a computer with an algorithm/formula for this, then it remains subjective...
so what mvass said... the 'reliability' factor is chance-based and subjective. That's only from your point of view
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted June 07, 2008 06:13 PM |
|
|
@ Circular logic... and Chance
What are the chances of variable .0000000000001 (but if you want to get specific .0000000000000000000000000001) occouring with not atleast ONE push from a director?
____________
What are you up to
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2008 06:39 PM |
|
|
Greater than 0, which is what we should assume until we have evidence of a director. Unlikely things happening are not evidence of a God.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Ecoris
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2008 11:03 PM |
|
|
Rendering a divine being probable using logic is a mistaken, although common, approach.
____________
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted June 09, 2008 05:30 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 17:32, 09 Jun 2008.
|
Using logic to show some form of God being "probable", is only the beggining.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Ecoris
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 09, 2008 06:20 PM |
|
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted June 09, 2008 09:19 PM |
|
|
Look I'm more of a "from all point of views on everything kind of guy" but this God issue I cant seem to find it possible that all this can exist without atleast a nudge in this direction by some higher being or form of "God".
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 09, 2008 09:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I cant seem to find it possible that all this can exist without atleast a nudge in this direction by some higher being or form of "God".
So the truth about reality is decided solely by your lack of imagination?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted June 09, 2008 09:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So the truth about reality is decided solely by your lack of imagination?
Now there's irony for you.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted June 10, 2008 02:13 AM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 02:17, 10 Jun 2008.
|
I didnt say lack of imagination, I can imagine a few variations of reality without a God. I said "I cant seem to find it possible that all this can exist without atleast a nudge in this direction by some higher being or form of "God". "
I cant find the power to see any of my imaginations makeups to be more probable than some form of God or greater being.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
