Denial of God

[Bishadi]

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

Good step 1, you see that in a natural setting; 'life' not suggeting anything else, but as observed; life abuses entropy (all cases; think of movement itself)

Oli,
i am no trying to hurt you

just be fair and you see for yourself

that is what the absolute in truth enables

so damnit, stand up and be a man and not fowl

 

[Oli]

Bishadi: you are a deluded idiot.
You have invented your own little paradise and refuse to see reality.
There is no conflict between life and thermodynamics: if there were one or the other would not exist.
I'm out.

 

[Bishadi]

Bishadi: you are a deluded idiot.
You have invented your own little paradise and refuse to see reality.
There is no conflict between life and thermodynamics: if there were one or the other would not exist.
I'm out.

sure your out!


Let's try this;

if all of existence was in a sphere of space (you can read anything to get and idea of how big), then what brings all that mass together?

What is mass according to E=mc2?

1 gravity

2 light

gravity is entangled energy (light) between mass

the whole paradigm of how mass and energy works, is about to change (look up entanglement, polaritonics)

these truths are being shared ground down to the absolute (founded in mathematical applicability to existence itself)

if you have not done the homework, to actually substantiate your claims, then you are being a follower (religiously accepting a belief) rather than actually know what you are talking about

that is why i am here, learning, sharing and working at it, all day long

nothing you will get from me is self prescribed; i learn and i share

the fault is on you, your depth, your intent and definitely your integrity.

i am just the one idiot on this site mean enough to square up with you, as i figure one day you will say something that i can use to grow with

but not yet

 

[Oli]

Wow: you don't even understand E=mc[sup]2[/sup].
Stunning.

 

[Norsefire]

I suppose what I had to say wasn't worth a response from anyone

 

[Bishadi]

The core idea itself is simply: an intelligent entity responsible for the beginning of our universe.

not much left when suggesting something that could never be proven

 

[Bishadi]

Wow: you don't even understand E=mc[sup]2[/sup].
Stunning.

Hey duck, i was calculating the reaction threashold time of specific mass volumes of 235, back before i had hair on my balls.

i would bet i know the Big E's work better than any single man you have ever met or come into contact with, during your whole life.

Ya see, ducks quack, and thinkers react.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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

You say a while ago.
What's happened since?

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

If such an entity were so intelligent as to create the universe with innumerable units of conciousness, why should we make no other distinctions?

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

Which one is more likely to produce life?

There are no other possibilities, and the latter isn't really that ridiculous.

It isn't ridiculous, period.
The former is clearly more ridiculous, however.

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

What do you mean by"religion"?
There are all kinds of religions, including ones that deny God.

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

If you believe that an intelligent cause is quite rational, why stop at the idea that God cannot communicate with whom he wishes to?

jan.

 

[Norsefire]

How do you know if god is communicating with you, though?

We can speculate about higher intelligence; that's fine. Such speculation is derived from the observed phenomenon of intelligence being a force of causation.

However, any further speculation has no basis.

 

[Jan Ardena]

How do you know if god is communicating with you, though?

We can speculate about higher intelligence; that's fine. Such speculation is derived from the observed phenomenon of intelligence being a force of causation.

However, any further speculation has no basis.

One step at a time.
The point is if you think an intelligent cause is a rational idea, then the
notion of communication between the cause and the effect can follow on.
Unless you can think of a reason why it couldn't.
How? .... may be an entirely different matter.

jan.

 

[Norsefire]

Of course it is possible for two intelligent entities to communicate; you and I are doing so right now!

However, there is no observable phenomenon to suggest that a "deity", an intelligent being with any significant influence over the physical world, is currently communicating or attempting to communicate with Humanity.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Of course it is possible for two intelligent entities to communicate; you and I are doing so right now!

However, there is no observable phenomenon to suggest that a "deity", an intelligent being with any significant influence over the physical world, is currently communicating or attempting to communicate with Humanity.

Was "observable phenomenon" a factor in deciding an intelligent cause is a "rational idea"?

jan.

 

[Bishadi]

Clearly said: denial of truth is denial of God


such that one of the prime rules is 'thou shalt not lie' which is equally important to every branch of mankind (the children of existence/God)...........

this leads a real conclusion that the greatest 'anti-truth' folk are the ones holding the religious doctrine in their hands.

For example: in the old days, many believed God or the God's raised the sun from the underworld and took it back to the underworld at the ened of each day, and it was only by the grace of God, that it returns the following. With the earth as the center of existence (believed back then), it was of homages, sacrafice and the prayers that pleased God to give us the life bringing light of the sun.

But then copernicus and then galileo shared the old model was not quite what many 'believed' true.

Now here 500+ yrs later, we know that the sun is not going around the earth, but we (earth) are going around the sun.

Nothing was ever taken from God by defining 'truth' but many of the religious not only condemned Galileo but eventually them leaders had to eat their words (beliefs) in order to remain with any integrity amoung mankind, and God for that matter. (basically, the few who gave ther time for knowledge and the evolution of, are the pure contributers to God (existence itself))

So to deny TRUTH is a greater denial of God, than any other real commitment any person could make for God.

My opinion

 

[swarm]

What truth?

 

[Saquist]

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. )

There is more than enought evidence for God. Evidence. Evidence is a word that scientist (the evolutionary variety) have often used to antagonize the religious as to say say there is none for God.

According to the actually word.
Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

Going back to legalities.
Evidence can be used by both the prosecution and the defense. Yes, it can be the same evidence.

Believe it or not the world and everything that exist is evident of a God (from a legal sense) While the evolutionist looks at this universe as a series of innumerable happenstances the religious person sees it as a construct of inteligence and purpose, polar opposites. So it's anything but mysticism and thus not irrational.

However the problem comes from science attempt to define a god by means of evidence, not from the legal perspective but from a scientific perspective. That's impossible. If there is a god that created the universe and most everything in it, then for the forseedable future there will not be away to detect that god from our vantage point. Our ability to identity, detect and observe would have to transcend cause and effect, litteral the boundaries of this universe to authenticate anything solid. It's a litterally a misuse of science and thus a quite irrelevant todays science.

What I'm saying is that Intelligent Design is not science to find God. It defines complexity by comparison and there is nothing wrong with that. Science is nothing more than comparison. Michael Behe's theories are valid just not to the evolutionist that can always theorize why something happend by happenstance instead of proving it.

The only means to come to a conclusion about God is consider the text that the past has left us, (all of them) Because the only proof too God would be a log of his communication with us. So we are burdeoned with the responsibility to investigate them. Discovering which rings true is difficult. The criteria you use may be completely arbitrary but there can be reason behind it even if it is biased toward a loving, caring God. So much like a jury we all have to make our own decisions

 

[Norsefire]

Was "observable phenomenon" a factor in deciding an intelligent cause is a "rational idea"?

jan.

Absolutely.


This is why the idea of a "deity", an intelligent entity with significant influence over the physical world, is not a crazy idea at all.

It is supported by both logic and observation; logically speaking, everything is either intelligent or not intelligent (i.e, possessing "will" or not)

Therefore, the universe either began because of intelligent action (without specifying the nature of this intelligent force) or without it.

In terms of observation, we can observe that intelligence

1) exists
2) posesses influence over the physical world


Speaking of "God" in this way, in my opinion, renders the idea not just "possible", but even worthy of serious consideration.

The problem is religion goes beyond this simple speculation and instead not only asserts the speculation as truth, but also adds details seemingly from nowhere

 

[Lebo]

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. )

I once thought how could it be possible to believe in God; I don't see God, he is not a earthly thing so I was leaning to not believing but than I realized:

I was playing around one day with my friend, he said close your eyes and he tied a ribbon around my eyes and I couldn't see. Now I was in a busy place and there were many objects in the way so I could have easily been hurt but my friend said just trust in me and have FAITH. He started to tell me where to go but at first I had to double check in my own mind where I was, I was putting my hands out to check but then I realized I can't live life this way so I put my FAITH in my friend and he led me through the trouble.

Just like I put FAITH in God to lead me through the trouble because I can be blind and now I hear God as he guides me through life.

 

[SkinWalker]

What Lebo has demonstrated is 2 things: 1) he's willing to make attempts to evangelize the godless of a science board (a toleration that will be of limited supply, btw); and 2) that he has a real-life friend who can be empirically demonstrated to exist.

What he hasn't demonstrated is how his faith in a being that appears to be invented by humanity to explain humanities ignorance (and maintained by those "faithful" that that ignorance will remained unexplained) is compatible with rationalism. What good reason is there to hold on to your belief that the Christian god leads you "through trouble?" Why are your own wits, intelligence and experiences not insufficient as explanations? Why is your analogy of a flesh and blood person guiding you to a supernatural and apparently non-existent guide not a fallacious one?

That is what the OP is asking.

 

[SkinWalker]

Michael Behe's theories are valid just not to the evolutionist

I challenge you to begin a thread with the single-most convincing "theory" that Behe has and why it is "valid." I would tolerate such a thread in the religion forum, since Behe's motivations are clearly religious rather than scientific, but you can start with the Biology forum if you feel it has a chance.

This is a friendly challenge by the way. I think it would make for an interesting discussion. You could even pose the challenge in the Formal Debates forum if you feel strongly enough about it.

 

[kerux]

Objective evidence is the object of the curious thinkers

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.

Who is God or What is God? is a basic question or a question which should have a basis. God is a term given by believers if supreme owner of this universe. This term has something to refer to "Voice." God has a shape but unlike us, He is not matter but the source of matter and spirit. Motives? He wanted His Son to be delighted by us, but most men only grieve Him. God is just. That's how I justify my belief. Circumstantial? Circular evidence? Just leave this spectrum of pluriverses and you will end up still inside it; you can go nowhere but inside this universe. Holes are always found anywhere, especially if the purpose of debate is to waste time and not to come up on a certain conclusion.

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. )

He is not compatible with human rationalism inasmuch as human ratiocinating is but human and also human accepts empirical evidence the way human beings see them and weigh them. So, what's the criteria? You need to be God first before you can compare him with your rationalism or empiricism. To prove one is wrong is not only hypothesis but hyperthesis also. How can one prove one to be wrong when the thesis is not visible? I can prove atheists but agnostics I can't prove them wrong because they are doubters. They are in-between and they may be able to decide, unlike atheists who lack any belief of a god or gods. In the Bible, atheists are without or outside God.