could you convince

[mustafhakofi]

welcome itseemstome: I 've had no near death experiences, and I have no fear of death what so ever.
I think you will find that most people, have no fear of death.
see here. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44767
unfortunately near death experiences, are just halucinations and wild visions all steming from the realms of fantasy, no two people have the experience together, no two people have the exact same experience, it just like me going to sleep and dreaming, it's baseless.
and I think you'll find that most people already know that religion started because of other religions and cults.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Ooooh, so close! Your assertions were questionable, but well formulated. Then you stated without evidence or proof that "a natural answer to Why is 'something' wanted it" and then merely defined the word "God" to stand in for that 'something'.

Yep, you're right. Devils advocate is not an easy role to play. What I
should have done is shown the 'why' component of the car and the
'why' component of the universe/reality side by side. One is filled in
and the other is not. I could have then shown how the 'why' component
for many things is because 'something' wanted them. After this, I
could have suggested that the 'why' component for the universe/reality
would be 'something' wanted it by mere relationship to the other 'why'
components. In the end though, I am trying to convince farenheit and
I want to see what he thinks.

The Creation (Big Bang, for example) is the creation of everything, the entire Universe and everything in it. If there is no Universe "prior" to the Creation, then there is nothing to "want" a Universe to create.

The 'Big Bang' appearse to be a cyclical rapid inflation of our universe.
m-theory predicts far outside the scope of our universe and actually suggests
that our universe may have a definitive beginning and end (i.e. there was
a starting inflaction cycle and at some point there will be an ending inflation
cycle). It really gets weird though.

However, if we accept the process of the necessity of a Creation anthromophorsised into "wanting" the Universe to exist, then let us say that the Universe exists because the immutable and absolute laws of mathematics force the creation of the Universe - and that this is the equivalent of "something" (ie the laws of Mathematics) "wanting" the Universe to exist. Mathematical laws (unlike physical laws) really are immutable, eternal and changeless, just like God is supposed to be. But despite having the same characteristics as the common conception of God, and having the same effect as the common conception of God (ie the creation of all the laws of Physics and the Universe for them to play in), the Laws of Mathematics are not really equivalent to the kind of God I believe fahrenheit451 is asking for proof of.

The laws of mathematics in this case would have produced a reality with
life forms (humans are a good example). We know that life tends to produce
life (sexual reproduction, asexual reproduction, pollenaton...) and by
anthropomorphic relations (again) it could be hypothesized that the laws of
mathematics may actually be a form of life itself.

 

[water]

I think, given the time and inclination, that I could convince you of the probability of a higher form of intelligence than that of which we are normally aware. Lets leave out God/Gods, that's too emotive.

My arguments would revolve around Near Death Experiences and the fact that those who have experienced them are completely unafraid of death, totally changed people and couldn't care less whether you believe them or not. They are content to an extent way beyond the norm. Whether these experiences are due to some independent intelligence or some 'higher' aspect of their own minds is something we could philosophise about.

Man does not fully accept his death until he is on his deathbed; it would make him idle and careless to fully accept death before the time comes.

However, at experiencing near death, one can be, by sheer circumstances, forced to accept one's own death. But if those circumstances don't result in death, and one remains alive, even unharmed, it can easily happen that one becomes "completely unafraid of death, totally changed and couldn't care less whether you believe them or not".

It is the idleness and carelessness that follow such a situation (not always though) that are crucial. They can force one to think in absolutes -- a "higher aspect of one's mind". The endless void witnessed in the near death experience can force one to set a new course of thinking in their lives, being undoably aware that this new course is a matter of their own choice. This is both wonderful and terrifying.

It is in such a state of facing an absolute and surviving it, that one can become open to other absolutes, the prime one being God.

If you were then inclined to look for further evidence I would suggest you look at some of the results of hypnosis.

Looking for god in magic ...

* * *

and I think you'll find that most people already know that religion started because of other religions and cults.

Infinite regress. You can do better.

 

[mustafhakofi]

Infinite regress. You can do better.

yes, I must apologise, for that I was in a rush earlier.

 

[fahrenheit 451]

crunchy cat:have you anything that has a solid base, assertion are all well and good but they are just assertions, though they are valid points.

alain :I cant agree with your reasoning regard the universe being infinitly old, I think you have that back to front.( I think the stars would be more spread out the older the universe is, and some would be to faint to see.)

itseemstome :sorry you could not convince with that arguement your into the land of make believe.

 

[Raithere]

ASSERTION #2: The quality of reality is flawless.

In comparison with what?

ASSERTION #5: In m-theory (formerly known as string theory), there are lots of great models about how 'reality' came to be. No theory to date postulates why any reality would exist.

We know 'reality' exists, the question is why would it not exist? The problem here is that you're assuming that we must begin with non-existence.

so, if the universe was infinately old, the night sky would be literally full of stars, not a single gap.

If what you described were true there would be light coming from everywhere and, in fact, this is what we find in the cosmic background radiation. The difference is that since the Universe is expanding the light is red-shifted to the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.

the single best arguement i can think of for a god is the question,what happened to create our universe?where did the matter come from?even if you believe in multiple universes,tears in space time,whatever,the question still stands.

"God" doesn't answer the question, it just pushes it back a step and one must then ask, "what caused god?"

matter is only energy in motion. the dilemma could be more easily resolved by answering the question; what was the first cause of movement?

Energy is motion, you cannot have static energy.

Universe to exist, then let us say that the Universe exists because the immutable and absolute laws of mathematics force the creation of the Universe - and that this is the equivalent of "something"

Math is a language, not a force or a law. Math can be used to describe laws however, such as the laws of physics. Which are, contrary to your comment, apparently immutable.

My arguments would revolve around Near Death Experiences and the fact that those who have experienced them are completely unafraid of death, totally changed people and couldn't care less whether you believe them or not.

Anecdotal evidence is notoriously unreliable.

I can be attributed to (associated with) the commonality existing within men/women across all nations; all cultures; not the differences therein; but the common mystery we share in being.

Can this not be more easily attributed to the fact that we are one species? Whence comes the need to fabricate god to explain the commonality of things that are mostly alike?

How do you get from nothingness to being; science ends at this wall.

As does theology. Theology simply makes an arbitrary assignment, asserting that god is eternal and without cause. There is no logical argument for such an assertion that does not form a simpler equation if we apply it to the Universe directly. God remains an unnecessary complication.

~Raithere

 

[ellion]

Energy is motion, you cannot have static energy.

okay. the revised version of my post with the added weight of the profound wisdom of Raithere.

matter is energy, energy is motion.[you cannot have static energy] the dilemma could be more easily resolved by answering the question; what was the first cause of movement?

 

[Raithere]

matter is energy, energy is motion.[you cannot have static energy] the dilemma could be more easily resolved by answering the question; what was the first cause of movement?

There is no direct answer to this question. If we answer with "God", we then have to ask what set God in motion. At some point we're faced with one of two options; either 'something' was always in motion or at some point in the reduction our conception of causality no longer applies. Findings in quantum physics tend to indicate the latter.

~Raithere

 

[Crunchy Cat]

crunchy cat:have you anything that has a solid base, assertion are all well and good but they are just assertions, though they are valid points.

The assertions are the base of it all. It's all a matter of whether you accept
them to be true. It sounds like you feel they are valid points and my next
question would be, do you accept the assertions as being true?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

In comparison with what?

Good question. It's ultimately up to Farenheit to decide (which is why I
left it open for interpretation). Maybe he'll campare it to computers (ever
see reality throw a General Protection Fault?).

We know 'reality' exists, the question is why would it not exist? The problem here is that you're assuming that we must begin with non-existence.

I am not assuming anything. I am asserting something for Farenheit to
examine. Consequently I could have asked the questions 'why would any
reality exist' and 'why would nothing exist'.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Itseemstome: I think, given the time and inclination, that I could convince you of the probability of a higher form of intelligence than that of which we are normally aware. Lets leave out God/Gods, that's too emotive.
*************
M*W: Welcome to the wonderful and crazy world of sciforums. Scientific studies have been done and concluded that the human brain has a molecule called DMT (short for some chemical name I can't remember). Time magazine recently had an article about "The God Gene," based on a scientific study of the same name.
*************
Itseemstome: My arguments would revolve around Near Death Experiences and the fact that those who have experienced them are completely unafraid of death, totally changed people and couldn't care less whether you believe them or not. They are content to an extent way beyond the norm. Whether these experiences are due to some independent intelligence or some 'higher' aspect of their own minds is something we could philosophise about. If you were then inclined to look for further evidence I would suggest you look at some of the results of hypnosis.
*************
M*W: Having worked with patients who experienced NDE, and having one myself while under anesthesia, I believe they are a manifestation of whatever chemical or gene activates the experience. Now that I think about it, Paul on the Road to Damascus fell off his horse because of an epileptic seizure and he was blinded by a bright white light. This is common in seizures, but maybe he was having a NDE.
*************
Itseemstome: On the other hand I think I could show a fairly convincing argument that the three monotheistic religions all originated from the ancient astronomical beliefs of the Egyptians and others. I think I'll wait and see where these remarks take us, if anywhere, before adding to that.
*************
M*W: I believe you are right about the ancient astronomical beliefs of the Egyptians. When Moses was pharaoh, he instituted the belief in a monotheistic god -- the Sun. All ancient peoples believed that the sun, moon, stars, planets, lightning, thunder, rainstorms, floods, etc., were gods, because they were more powerful than humans. They worshipped and feared the elements. The sun brought light, and the moon brought darkness. The sun caused their plants to grow, the moon face changed from night to night. I'd like to hear more about your beliefs and, again, welcome to sciforums.

 

[Raithere]

Good question. It's ultimately up to Farenheit to decide (which is why I left it open for interpretation)
...
I am not assuming anything. I am asserting something for Farenheit to
examine. Consequently I could have asked the questions 'why would any
reality exist' and 'why would nothing exist'.

What I was challenging were the tacit assumptions in your assertions. These are fairly common arguments that seem to me, intrinsically flawed.

First - I acknowledge this is a thought experiment openly, so your comments are mostly out of context.

I'm just challenging the arguments made which would make my comments well within context.

What I stated was there was a commonality to all being; not just humanity; all reality; all being.

Other than that they exist what commonality are you referring to?

I am not arguing a new theology; nor metaphysics; god is a distinct possibility of being.

I find that to be dependent upon the definition of god being discussed. Some gods are logically impossible; others can be demonstrated as nonexistent.

Specifically I stated a future/or/now god; I see no reason why a being can’t evolve (in the very distant future) into a god (or if you like god-like) being.

Again, it seems to me that a definition of god is called for. God-like is certainly not the same as god. And I would have to say that evolution is certainly limited in the range of possible development. Science perhaps less so but what you're hinting at sounds highly speculative and I can think of any number of prohibiting factors that would have to be overcome. Remember, Fahrenheit is asking for an argument that will convince him that god exists, stating that it's an inevitable consequence of evolution is a bit anemic standing alone.

So instead of assuming the antagonist position (like most) against the possibility; try the opposite (we are not speaking of mythology here); try the converse thought simultaneously; argue the other side.

Towards what purpose? I'm not trying to be antagonistic but idle speculation alone really accomplishes nothing. You have to challenge and test ideas to find their worth.

~Raithere

 

[Crunchy Cat]

What I was challenging were the tacit assumptions in your assertions. These are fairly common arguments that seem to me, intrinsically flawed.

Let's let Farenheit challenge them. Maybe the assertions are utterly flawed,
maybe they are partially flawed, maybe they are not flawed. Whichever the case, I want to see if Farenheit accepts / rejects them and on what grounds.
Remember, the challenge is to make him a 'believer' on his terms and I am
interested to see his reasoning. So far the only real feedback received
was:

"...assertion are all well and good but they are just assertions, though they are valid points..."

He is acknowledging the assertions as just that and he has implied
acceptance of them through acknowledgement of being 'valid'.

 

[ellion]

There is no direct answer to this question. If we answer with "God", we then have to ask what set God in motion. At some point we're faced with one of two options; either 'something' was always in motion or at some point in the reduction our conception of causality no longer applies. Findings in quantum physics tend to indicate the latter.

~Raithere

i totally agree, and whether it was god or not we can still ask the same question, what was the first cause of movement?

and as you have pointed out the answer could be obscured due to our conception of causality.

 

[water]

crunchy cat:have you anything that has a solid base, assertion are all well and good but they are just assertions, though they are valid points.

What would you consider to be a solid base?

Anything, any argument, any assertion, any evidence can eventually be discarded on the basis of what you have said above.

What would convince you of the existence of god(s)? Divine intervention?

 

[audible]

I think he wants, some religious person to try to convince him with solid hard evidence.
which you know as well as I, nobodys is going to be able to do.
I dont think divine intervention would do it either, because I would question myself first, believing I was halucinating, and I'm sure he would.

and just for the fun of it.

 

[water]

I think he wants, some religious person to try to convince him with solid hard evidence.
which you know as well as I, nobodys is going to be able to do.

But this is so with everything. ANY scientific theory can be discarded -- already because of the premise "Every theory is valid until further investigation proves is otherwise".

I dont think divine intervention would do it either, because I would question myself first, believing I was halucinating, and I'm sure he would.

Then you are just declaring that nothing could ever convince you.
Except what you have essentially arbitrarily, in advance, declared to be able to convince you.

and just for the fun of it.
http://img2.uploadimages.net/788614scimethod9va.png

Yes, just for the fun of it ... Strawman.

 

[fahrenheit 451]

ASSERTION #1: When humans 'create', the end result will likely be of
extraordinarily high quality if the creator really cares about the result.

if I understand this assertion correctly, the humans creating are parents, or doctors cloning, in the case of cloning they would strive for perfection, but with parenting its haphazard, but we all think of our children as perfect.( this is a valid point( but does not try and convince me of a god))

ASSERTION #2: The quality of reality is flawless.

as we can only know our own reality, then it would be flawless.( this is a valid point( but does not try and convince me of a god))

ASSERTION #3: Humans are a natural product of reality and their behavior towards quality is a result of how reality made them.

no, the creation of a human is haphazard, we are not perfect, and may never be.(but what has this to do with a god.)

ASSERTION #4: Cars are a product of humans. We know how they come to
be and we know many correct answers as to why they would exist in the
first place (the most fundamental answer being humans want them).

yes we want them, but no car is perfect either, even though we strive for perfection,(but what has this to do with a god.)

ASSERTION #5: In m-theory (formerly known as string theory), there are
lots of great models about how 'reality' came to be. No theory to date
postulates why any reality would exist.

agreed, but they make a good arguement, as opposed to, it must of been god.

If these assertions are accepted as true then the Universe is of flawless
quality, we have some ideas how it came to exist, and we don't know why it
would exist at all. If we consider a car then we can address the quality
component, the how component, and the why component. The biggest
difference between reality and the car is the why component (we know 'why'
for the car and don't know 'why' for reality). A natural answer concerning the
'why' component of reality is that 'something' wanted it. That something
would be 'God'.

you cant say that something that does not exist in reality, can effect reality, so that just brings us back to "why" we will always be left with the 'why' component.
.

 

[audible]

Except what you have essentially arbitrarily, in advance, declared to be able to convince you.

what!

 

[water]

“ Originally Posted by rosa

Except what you have essentially arbitrarily, in advance, declared to be able to convince you. ”

what!

Oh yes.
Ah, where is SouthStar when I need him?!


P.S.
Why do you refer to me as "rosa"?