Denial of God

[Clucky]

Scientists are constantly challenged over their theories by, not only each other, but also those who feel that those theories invalidate what they see as fundamental truths. This has been displayed in the "Denial of Evolution" thread. But to these people, I pose the following questions: Who/What is God? What are its motives? How do you justify your belief in said being? Can you show me, even circumstantial, evidence of it? If we must defend what we believe in using evidence and objectivity, then so must you. We reserve the right to pick holes in your arguments, do not expect punches to be pulled.

I am interested to see if a god is compatible with rationalism or empiricism. And if it's not, how it is a viable hypothesis. Though I doubt it is. Perhaps you can prove me wrong.

(I wonder if there are enough believers here to get a fluid discourse going. )

 

[Norsefire]

A while ago, I attempted to approach the idea of a god rationally. I still believe that god is a fairly rational idea, based on what we know and can assume. However, I make a clear distinction: the idea itself, and the mythology of today

The core idea itself is simply: an intelligent entity responsible for the beginning of our universe. If we make no other distinctions other than this, this isn't really that irrational of idea. We can observe that intelligence has an effect on the environment; we can also assume that the universe, which had a beginning, either

a) began without intelligent cause
b) began because of intelligent cause, or with intelligent intervention

There are no other possibilities, and the latter isn't really that ridiculous. Humans might one day harness the power to create universes, which would render the second hypothesis true in that universe.

This is what I mean. However, today, "religion" goes far beyond. Religion makes claims on the identity(s) of this god, the nature of this god, the desires of this god, etc

None of these can rationally be hypothesized, and are derived purely from imagination.

However, I remain by my original statement that the core idea of an influential intelligent entity is not really ridiculous. We are living proof of the existence of influential intelligent entities.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

. . . .evolution is NOT factual ....it's at best circumstantial, and at the worst, it's simply wild suppositions. . . .

"Wild suppositions"? The evidence for evolution is more solid than the evidence used to put many convicted murderers on death row. Since you live in the state that revels in killing convicts, I hope we can therefore assume that you're active in the movement to abolish capital punishment because of its basis on "wild suppositions"?

I was always taught that science was built on facts.

You're being disingenuous again, Sam. Oops I mean Max. You both argue the same way, hoping to trick people by concealing things you know that don't support your argument. You just ain't that dumb a rube. You know very well how science works. Reasoning is perfectly valid support for a theory.

Even most evolutionists/biologists will admit that evolution is simply the best-guess, most plausible, scenario of what happened millions of years ago. No one knows.

Again you're being disingenuous, Sam. You know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. It's abiogenesis you're talking about, not evolution. You're starting to be a real pain in the ass. Consistent disingenuous arguing is trolling and will get you banned.

 

[SkinWalker]

Posts and threads that are purely anti-science may be moderated.

One post was deleted as anti-science; one as spam. This is a new thread -no need to link to old atheist-trolling threads.

 

[swarm]

I am interested to see if a god is compatible with rationalism or empiricism.

God is not compatable with empiricism because god cannot be observed or measured.

God is not compatible with rationalism because god is irrational (supernatural)and supposedly not bound by natural laws or reason.

 

[Bishadi]

Scientists are constantly challenged over their theories by, not only each other, but also those who feel that those theories invalidate what they see as fundamental truths.

Good point as evolution breaks the 2LoT. (Life: abuses entropy)

This has been displayed in the "Denial of Evolution" thread. But to these people, I pose the following questions: Who/What is God?

All of existence at the same time. Basically, we (all life) was born (per se created) from the garden. We all came from the instinct of nature. (God's creations)

This is easy to observe in that from both camps; mankind came from the garden (mother nature/God if you like the term)

What are its motives?

Nature has a pure inctinct; to continue. (life; purposed to continue)

How do you justify your belief in said being?

What being? A theist is often taught that God is some dude on a thrown (like Zeus) but not a ONE on this earth ever to walk, has seen 'the guy on the thrown'.
(well maybe a pharaoh god) (kind of like saying; imo-tep, imo-tep, imo-tep)

Can you show me, even circumstantial, evidence of it? If we must defend what we believe in using evidence and objectivity, then so must you. We reserve the right to pick holes in your arguments, do not expect punches to be pulled.

my kind of guy.......... making damn sure you observe reality over beliefs!

I am interested to see if a god is compatible with rationalism or empiricism.

God ain't thinking about it, mankind is and rule A1 is to be honest. That means the liars themselves are going against the Boss (mother nature) just by creating, following, and continuing a lie.

so when you argue, be sure to put that on the top; "lying is for dying, and what does your God say about that? Are you to be honest first or lie about God first?"

 

[Bishadi]

This is easy to observe in that from both camps; mankind came from the garden (mother nature/God if you like the term)

Here is another funny item:

both in genesis and origins of species; there is talk about the 'tree of life'

such as many think that term biblically speaking is just about the fruit story, but it is far deeper than that:

'we all from the same tree'

kind of weird how the guy many criticize (Darwin) drew up the very item (tree of life) as well genesis and much of the bible discusses the 'tree'


it tells me dar-wins

(and i thank him often for giving us his time for knowledge to 'evolve')



Nothing can be taken from God (keep that in mind) but liars can corrupt mankind and the idea that a belief system teaches folk to lie for a belief, shares to all why their judgment will be worse than a pedophile

 

[Oli]

Good point as evolution breaks the 2LoT. (Life: abuses entropy)

No it doesn't.
It can't.

All of existence at the same time. Basically, we (all life) was born (per se created) from the garden. We all came from the instinct of nature. (God's creations)

To support that comment you'd have to show that nature has an instinct.

Nature has a pure inctinct; to continue. (life; purposed to continue)

"Nature" does not have instincts.
And the "purposed to continue" bull remains bull no matter how often you repeat it.

my kind of guy.......... making damn sure you observe reality over beliefs!

Such a pity you're incapable of following your own precepts.

 

[Killian_1_4]

In response to Norsefire: God may not be a ridiculous possibility but at this point in time he is not necessary to explain the universe nor is there any evidence other than perhaps the universe that he exists. In that way I would say it is irrational to actively believe in God.

 

[Bishadi]

No it doesn't.
It can't.

again, you follow rather than think

To support that comment you'd have to show that nature has an instinct.

every life i know does; do you have an example of otherwise?

"Nature" does not have instincts.
And the "purposed to continue" bull remains bull no matter how often you repeat it.

everything i know in nature does; from the amoeba to the tree and mankinds 'in and out urge"

all based on an "intent to continue"

perhaps, you can deny truth from nature (God) all you like.

that is perhaps why people say ducks...... quack and why you fit the bill of an arrogant quack with little capacity of being honest.

Such a pity you're incapable of following your own precepts.

good: supports life to continue

bad: loss to the common

you represent the selfish and corrupt (just will not be honest and lie to keep your position/ a loss to the common): bad

me give life (truth for each to comprehend)

i will live in what i do; you are continually killing yourself and will take down anyone you can, along with you. ( you make a fine preacher)

 

[Oli]

again, you follow rather than think

Really?
How exactly does life abuse entropy?

every life i know does; do you have an example of otherwise?

No, that's merely your warped perception.
Not a fact.

that is perhaps why people say ducks...... quack and why you fit the bill of an arrogant quack with little capacity of being honest.

As opposed to someone with no idea whatsoever of what he's talking about?
Yep.

good: supports life to continue
bad: loss to the common

Tautology.
Meaningless.

you represent the selfish and corrupt

I represent no one but myself.

(just will not be honest and lie to keep your position/ a loss to the common): bad

Position?
You have a strange (and incorrect) view of honesty.
Self-delusion is not honest.

i will live in what i do; you are continually killing yourself

In a way everyone is.

and will take down anyone you can, along with you.

Stupid and incorrect.

( you make a fine preacher)

I'm not a preacher.
Another ridiculous remark.

 

[Bishadi]

Really?
How exactly does life abuse entropy?

existence billions of years old (per scientific data)

life began, no one really sure how but fact is, it is here to stay.

Life, even at the most minute level has been around for a long time and survived all them extinctions, yet the genetics shares that living species from way way back when, still live.

Life has abused the pants out of entropy and you just can't comprehend that.

another example; when your punk ass gets cold, do you put on a jacket by choice? Then the law is moot as the only way you can compare the 2Lot with a living thing is you MUST ALWAYS return to the systme being open; ALL CASES.

the problem is not mine, but yours!

as any can see in most all my post squaring up with you; it is your honesty and integrity that is just beyond rude and practically making you a waste of oxygen; you just will not be honest to keep your position.

You are worse than a religious quack because you have intelligence and selfish intent wrapped into one where as many of religion are just not educated enough to debate with you

Tautology.
Meaningless.

that is YOUR opinion as you are not educated enough to keep up with me

I represent no one but myself.

and your 'self' is all you ever care about (living as a loss to the common by choice)

I'm not a preacher.
Another ridiculous remark.

your worse; you lie based on selfishness, where as a preacher lies based on faith

 

[Oli]

existence billions of years old (per scientific data)

Crap: it's not ABUSE of entropy.

as any can see in most all my post squaring up with you; it is your honesty and integrity that is just beyond rude and practically making you a waste of oxygen; you just will not be honest to keep your position.

Squaring up to me?
You over estimate your abilities and my interest.

You are worse than a religious quack because you have intelligence and selfish intent wrapped into one where as many of religion are just not educated enough to debate with you

Selfish intent?
Granted, I'm selfish enough to work on the desire to have fewer delusional idiots around.

that is YOUR opinion as you are not educated enough to keep up with me

Keep up with you?
Keep up?
I have to step down several notches just to read posts, let alone understand them.

and your 'self' is all you ever care about (living as a loss to the common by choice)

Yup, supposition and an ad hom, because you have, as usual, failed to make any factual point whatsoever.

your worse; you lie based on selfishness, where as a preacher lies based on faith

Ooh, clever, not.
1) not lies.
2) not selfishness: I'm being selfless enough to keep returning and pointing out your errors in the (vain) hope that one day you will understand.
3) you also appear to have no idea what preacher is. I'm not surprised, you have, after all, previously displayed a magnificently faulty grasp of the English language.

 

[Bishadi]

Crap: it's not ABUSE of entropy.

What does abuse mean?

perhaps we need to just help you with english because any can see honesty nor scientific observation are not your strong suit

the rest of your post is the same stuff

trying to defend yourself as well quacking out nothing

'quack'

Hello Oli...........

how about keeping in the thread rather than whinning like you ooosually do

or maybe say.........."close the thread"


like you do when you don't get your way


not sure how you ever became someone people converse with as you rarely ever say anything but repeat or cap on what others say; then when put to the grind, you hold onto what others suggest as real but have no clue what you are talking about.


Denial of GOD?

(it is what the thread is about)


i say God is all of existence at the same time and we live within

how about you, duck?

 

[Oli]

What does abuse mean?

Still can't look up up an on-line dictionary?

a·buse (-byz)
tr.v. a·bused, a·bus·ing, a·bus·es
1. To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege.
2. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.
3. To force sexual activity on; rape or molest.
4. To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile.
5. Obsolete To deceive or trick.

Now tell me which of those definitions fits for life and entropy.

perhaps we need to just help you with english because any can see honesty nor scientific observation are not your strong suit

Yeah yeah.
Ad homs and supposition again.

i say God is all of existence at the same time and we live within

Then why use the word *god* when the word *existence* would suffice?

 

[Bishadi]

Still can't look up up an on-line dictionary?

perhaps a cleaner view

mistreat: treat badly; "This boss abuses his workers"; "She is always stepping on others to get ahead"

life "mistreats" entopy

life "is always stepping on others to get ahead"

Now tell me which of those definitions fits for life and entropy.

entopy is part of the LAW to equilibriate

that the "direction" is inherant in all mass and energy association: to return to equilibrium (balance of hot and cold)



but life abuses the pants off of entropy

life, by intent, is to continue!

Then why use the word *god* when the word *existence* would suffice?

because most do not have enough material knowledge to comprehend that (beginning/ending, alpha/omega, creator of all, the trinity (corporeal/mass, spirit/energy/light, transcendent/time) do combine.

such as you do not comprehend that "life abuses entropy", not because of not knowing the word, but the full scope to comprehend: how, when, why and what the 2Lot means and what it imposed to the current paradigm of the sciences.

 

[jayleew]

I am interested to see if a god is compatible with rationalism or empiricism. And if it's not, how it is a viable hypothesis. Though I doubt it is. Perhaps you can prove me wrong.

The spirit that is god is just that, a spirit. If you believe there is such thing as a spirit, god must be one, which exists in the paranormal realm. Paranormal activity, none of which I believe yet, is interesting phenomenon that some people claim to have experienced. None of the sightings can be proven, so god cannot be proven obviously. Are ghosts compatible with rationalism or empiricism? They are only as much as everything else that is paranormal, including magic, spirits, or abnormal abilities. Do they exist? Hard saying, but probably not. Anyway, I believe god fits into this category, so no. You either believe or you don't, but there is nothing rational about the belief.

(I wonder if there are enough believers here to get a fluid discourse going. )

Not sure, this type of discussion has taken on thousands of different forms over the many years that I have been on sciforums.

 

[Oli]

perhaps a cleaner view
mistreat: treat badly; "This boss abuses his workers"; "She is always stepping on others to get ahead"
life "mistreats" entopy
life "is always stepping on others to get ahead"
entopy is part of the LAW to equilibriate

#Life worls within entropy, it does not abuse or mistreat it.

because most do not have enough material knowledge to comprehend that (beginning/ending, alpha/omega, creator of all, the trinity (corporeal/mass, spirit/energy/light, transcendent/time) do combine.

Superstitious crap.

such as you do not comprehend that "life abuses entropy", not because of not knowing the word, but the full scope to comprehend: how, when, why and what the 2Lot means and what it imposed to the current paradigm of the sciences.

Yeah blah blah blah.
Funny how much woo woos love the word "paradigm".
I wonder if it's genetic?

 

[Bishadi]

#Life worls within entropy,

no it don't.

the food you eat isn't a reduction, you go get it.

procreation is not a reduction, it is instinctive (built in intent)

the problem we have herein again, is your depth

it does not abuse or mistreat it.

just like me abusing the pants off your integrity

see how life works

 

[Oli]

no it don't.
the food you eat isn't a reduction, you go get it.
procreation is not a reduction, it is instinctive (built in intent)
the problem we have herein again, is your depth

So what?
Those events do not take lace in a closed stystem: they work within thermodynamics, they do abuse it.

just like me abusing the pants off your integrity
see how life works

In your case badly.
Stick to your delusions.