Does God Exist?

[Sarkus]

Excellent, then if you understand what I mean by Implied Creation, then you've heard some of the arguments from the problems of life from lifelessness and while there is many a theory there is no definitive answer to the conundrums of figuring it out.

But it doesn't stop there.
Look at the universe and it's current state. The Big Bang is no longer a valid argument since it's initial logic was that of balistic forensics. Since it's obvious that the universe is expanding faster rather than slowing down then we are left with a shorter concept of the age of the universe.

The structure of the universe is strange having huge bubbles that is also inconsistent with the randomized distrubtion of matter.

The presence of matter in greater abundance to antimatter also contradicts the big bang.

The balance of energy and matter also defies that theory. But what we've learned from disproving the big bang is that an unlikely balance does exist not just in life but in the universe as a whole, between gravitational forces and the Electromagnetic force. Elements vital for our life (particularly carbon, oxygen, and iron) could not exist were it not for the fine-tuning of the four forces evident in the universe. If it were significantly weaker, electrons would not be held around the nucleus of an atom. , because atoms could not combine to form molecules. Conversely, if this force were much stronger, electrons would be trapped on the nucleus of an atom. There could be no chemical reactions between atoms—meaning no life.

There is no "implied creation" in any of what you mention.
There is only an apparent argument from personal incredulity.

 

[swivel]

oh brother .....
wouldn't mind your whining half as much if you could stick to PM'ing or even just a few lines
:shrug:

Another fine example of an ad hominem attack. Very good, LG.

You dismissed a claim by stating something about the person making the claim, rather than finding fault in the claim itself.

I believe this gives everyone the right to consider you a moron, with no fear of a valid "ad-hom" claim in retort.

 

[Saquist]

And you think that our current state of knowledge is the end all and be all. The big bang theory is a theory, it is not considered the answer to all and we shouldn't stop expanding on the knowledge base to understand how it all happened.

The big bang has been contradicted at it's most fundalmental level, the very hypothesis and premise was not true. Of course there is more to learn but do you deny the obvious eventuality that between the only choices available.

To say that we have to have an answer even though we don't have an answer and therefore claim God did it, is not only ludicrous but very self important.

Allow me to clarify.
If you're going to make a choice, then there are only two options. I don't believe ludicrous plays a part. If you have any other options I know I would entertain those possibilities. Do you know of any other option?

If conclusion, then answer the question by stating your conclusion. If no conclusion, then no answer. Those are the only 2 possible states anybody can have on each or any question. What is your point?

States?
A state of conclusion. A state of inconclusion.
These aren't choices, not of the conclusion variety. These are choices of existance. You will choose to make a conclusion or not. But if and when you do...

My point is: No matter how much time passes, no matter how much knowledge we gain, there is still only two choices. Both choices deal with an infinite paradox.

That will never change.
How you chose to resovle the paradox will depend on how you understand time and space. Litteraly.

There is no "implied creation" in any of what you mention.
There is only an apparent argument from personal incredulity.

If you chose to state your belief as fact, that is of course your choice. But there is a difference between baseless personal incredulity and incredulity based on mathematical improbability. Since math is the model by which we use to predict reality it is the most reliable measure of a probable out come.

Implied Creation becomes apparent when any unlikely series of events transpire to produce a highly complex form such as life or the universe.

I would use the Outback Ant Mounds as an example. They stand 5 some times 6 feet tall. One could presume because we're looking at what looks like an over glorified mount of dirt. Closer inspection shows an intricate tunnel system and chambers. If this structure were empty we could theorize that wind and water created this structure. There are signs though that it was more than random confluence of natural elements that produced the structure. Should we ignore them?

Similarly if you look at the universe as a time line, at the begining what we would call the creation and at the end the production of life, we must think about how many (not just unlikely) but mathematicaly improbable events would have to playout just to arrive at the instant where a product of that universe is questioning it's own existence.

So not just incredulity. Mathematical improbability.
And even after rejecting that model (as certainly you must) you will always be faced with the infinity paradox.

 

[Sarkus]

But there is a difference between baseless personal incredulity and incredulity based on mathematical improbability. Since math is the model by which we use to predict reality it is the most reliable measure of a probable out come.

If both are flawed then the difference is not there.

Implied Creation becomes apparent when any unlikely series of events transpire to produce a highly complex form such as life or the universe.

No it doesn't.
This is baseless personal incredulity that any other scenario is possible.
Further, you do not understand the mathematics you use.
Probability is the prediction of future events.
The probability of a past event is necessarily 1 - due to the fact that it has happened.

Similarly if you look at the universe as a time line, at the begining what we would call the creation and at the end the production of life, we must think about how many (not just unlikely) but mathematicaly improbable events would have to playout just to arrive at the instant where a product of that universe is questioning it's own existence.

So not just incredulity. Mathematical improbability.

Logically flawed argument.

Let me explain.
Take a deck of cards... all 52 of them... and lay them out in any order you wish.
Looking back, what were the odds that you laid them out in that precise order?
Hopefully your mathematical ability would lead you to conclude roughly 1 in 8*10^67?
Well, guess what... you did. You laid them out in the exact order you did.
Go figure.
(If you do the same with 58 cards then you are more likely to correctly select one proton out of all protons in the universe.)
The "probability" that you laid them out as you did, after you had laid them out, will necessarily be 1.

The problem with your "mathematical improbability" is that you are starting with the end point and working back... asking "what are the odds that we got here looking like we did".
Well, deal your cards and look back at what the odds were that you dealt them as you did.

Further, you are asking "What are the odds that the universe is just right for us?" rather than realising that we have ADAPTED to fit our universe.
Do you fill a glass of water and say "Wow - look - what are the chances the water was shaped exactly the same as the glass!"
No - the water fits the vessel.

If you had started just before the BB (or whatever was prior to our universe, if anything at all) and said "This causation will create a universe with human life on it" then yes, you might say that it was mathematically "improbable" that that specific creation event (if one happened) would lead to us.

However, even this "mathematical improbability" is nothing unless you can prove that our universe is the only one. What if it was one of any number of universes, all different, all floating around in infinity? What if every possibility exists? Why is "God" or ID any more likely, rational or logical? After all, that an infinite number of universes exist requires only one unknown (since we know at least one universe exists) - i.e. that the infinite is possible. God requires 2 - infinity and "God".

For example, if you specify that "life only exists if the cards are dealt in just one particular order"... and then lay out ALL possible orders... what are the chances that the order that leads to our precise existence will be one of them?
100%.

"Mathematical improbability" is a very poor argument for the existence of God.

And even after rejecting that model (as certainly you must) you will always be faced with the infinity paradox.

And what infinity paradox are you referring to?
That infinity exists?
Or is this going to be a case of allowing "God" to be infinite but nothing else?

 

[jpappl]

Saquist,

The big bang has been contradicted at it's most fundalmental level, the very hypothesis and premise was not true. Of course there is more to learn but do you deny the obvious eventuality that between the only choices available.

and

Allow me to clarify.
If you're going to make a choice, then there are only two options. I don't believe ludicrous plays a part. If you have any other options I know I would entertain those possibilities. Do you know of any other option?

Which is my point. You are only claiming two options are possible. Yet we are in the infancy of knowledge with regards to the workings of the universe. We are still lacking in sufficient knowledge to better grasp the big picture with regards to the universe.

You have made my point by stating that we must have an answer for it now. Otherwise, if we don't then it must have had help from a supreme being.

So I ask again, do you follow a religious view for the belief in God ? or do you just feel some supreme being was involved in the start of the universe ? and if so do you feel this supreme being is involved in our daily lives ?

 

[Saquist]

If both are flawed then the difference is not there.

No it doesn't.
This is baseless personal incredulity that any other scenario is possible.
Further, you do not understand the mathematics you use.
Probability is the prediction of future events.
The probability of a past event is necessarily 1 - due to the fact that it has happened.

Everything that human does is flawed. Reliability and excusing flaws is the only option we'll ever have. So pointing out flaws is a mute point. We're not perfect.

Second, I'm not a mathematician but I do understand concepts. Probability allows us to conceptualize the begining as though it has not occured.

Logically flawed argument.

Let me explain.
Take a deck of cards... all 52 of them... and lay them out in any order you wish.
Looking back, what were the odds that you laid them out in that precise order?
Hopefully your mathematical ability would lead you to conclude roughly 1 in 8*10^67?
Well, guess what... you did. You laid them out in the exact order you did.
Go figure.
(If you do the same with 58 cards then you are more likely to correctly select one proton out of all protons in the universe.)
The "probability" that you laid them out as you did, after you had laid them out, will necessarily be 1.

I do not understand what you mean by "select one proton out of all protons in the universe." Which proton? And if this is related to your comment above then you're saying that this is a sure thing. In other words it happend.

Yet as I said. The model was wrong. Not just flawed, but wrong. I propose of a myriad of coincidence are like cracks in the current big bang model. Aside from tailoring your response as you have to work against the concept for the use of probability because it's not a prediction appears to be....a strawman.

The problem with your "mathematical improbability" is that you are starting with the end point and working back... asking "what are the odds that we got here looking like we did".
Well, deal your cards and look back at what the odds were that you dealt them as you did.

The model requires that we work from the begining. Attempting to try and find a true begining is more of a problem than most understand because our concept of time is linear. It doesn't really matter which direction you view the concept or the prediction. It's cause and effect.

Further, you are asking "What are the odds that the universe is just right for us?" rather than realising that we have ADAPTED to fit our universe.
Do you fill a glass of water and say "Wow - look - what are the chances the water was shaped exactly the same as the glass!"
No - the water fits the vessel.

It's a intresting question.
I must reject the concept of adaptation as relates to the universe. As far as the universe is concerned we merely "are" Adaptation requires communication. A stimulus, sensing and an action. It think that very inaccurate.

But I understand what you're saying. I must say it is a different perspective to tackle the question but I sense the importance isn't just matter of a vessel and containment. That's why I related the universal time line up to this point. If life was the end out come and that was incredibly un likely then how much more so the processes that brought about that result?

If you had started just before the BB (or whatever was prior to our universe, if anything at all) and said "This causation will create a universe with human life on it" then yes, you might say that it was mathematically "improbable" that that specific creation event (if one happened) would lead to us.

That's the infinity paradox. There is no such thing as...Before or prior to our universe. TIme is only a product of a physical universe in motion, If this universe was not expanding we would not expericence time anyway...so there could not have been any initial cause at all. A cause would require a prior or a before...which requires a universe to even exist.

The cause becomes...infinite.

However, even this "mathematical improbability" is nothing unless you can prove that our universe is the only one. What if it was one of any number of universes, all different, all floating around in infinity?

Sarkus. I don't understand this.
universes floating around in infinity? I don't even know where to begin with that statement.

What if every possibility exists? Why is "God" or ID any more likely, rational or logical? After all, that an infinite number of universes exist requires only one unknown (since we know at least one universe exists) - i.e. that the infinite is possible. God requires 2 - infinity and "God".

Because a decision doesn't require a cause.
That's the only difference.

"Mathematical improbability" is a very poor argument for the existence of God.

I disagree.
Every model that is developed is subject to that model.
Math is essentially a yes...or no. Current models simply say no. No probabilty out of one chance.
Your premise is understandable but if requires more ifs than we know exist. We only know of one.

Saquist,



and



Which is my point. You are only claiming two options are possible. Yet we are in the infancy of knowledge with regards to the workings of the universe. We are still lacking in sufficient knowledge to better grasp the big picture with regards to the universe.

Knowledge is irrelevant against infinity as far as creation is concerned biblical or otherwise. If I say "it's only a matter of time before we find out the last number on the other end of 1,2 and 3" that wouldn't be true.

numbers are infinite, The same is true here.
We're dealing with LITTERALLY an infinite number of beginings which of course is no begining at all....infinity. Problematicly as I related above this does not answer the question of the inital origin. It tells us either the universe is circular or the other option is that the infinite force that actually created the universe is circular.

You have made my point by stating that we must have an answer for it now. Otherwise, if we don't then it must have had help from a supreme being.

But isn't time only relevant if your decision is that there is a God.
Because then the question is...what does "he" want?

So I ask again, do you follow a religious view for the belief in God ? or do you just feel some supreme being was involved in the start of the universe ? and if so do you feel this supreme being is involved in our daily lives ?

I know God exist. (I'm just incapable of saying the word "belief"") and I do pescribe to a religious view. But no...it's clear that there is no litteral or physical involvement by him in our lives with the only possible exception of the spirtual level which is frankly beyond our means to detect and thus prove.

But the question isn't about me it's about yourself. What do you believe? According to Sarkus mathematical probability is a "poor" method of answering these question because he can "what if" his way to a myriad of contradictions. But that's a highly intangible premise.

This is pure existentialism and existentialism can be reduced down to a logic problem in this case. Which is more logical. An infinite cause and beginings or a circular and infinite force of will.

Beyond that we are litteraly incapble of comprehending.
But these mathematical "coincidences" of probability are becoming infinite raising the likely hood of that circular and infinite force of will being the likely answer. (IMHO)

 

[lixluke]

States?
A state of conclusion. A state of inconclusion.
These aren't choices, not of the conclusion variety. These are choices of existance. You will choose to make a conclusion or not. But if and when you do...

My point is: No matter how much time passes, no matter how much knowledge we gain, there is still only two choices. Both choices deal with an infinite paradox.

WTF? What paradox? Furthermore, who said anything about choice? I mentioned 2 and only 2 possible states not choices. States of conclusion are completely involuntary.

RULE#5: An observer cannot voluntarily choose a belief. An observer can only be involuntarily compelled to a belief.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2121067&postcount=193

1. There are no choices. There are 2 states of conclusion.
2. What does that have to do with infinite paradox?

 

[Sarkus]

Everything that human does is flawed.

So you adequately appear to demonstrate.

Relliability and excusing flaws is the only option we'll ever have. So pointing out flaws is a mute point. We're not perfect.

Eh? Pointing out flaws in your argument is a moot point????
If that's the case, should we all just accept what you say and move on?

I do not understand what you mean by "select one proton out of all protons in the universe." Which proton? And if this is related to your comment above then you're saying that this is a sure thing. In other words it happend.

I'm saying that if I ask you to specific proton of my choosing in the universe, you have the same probability as dealing 58 unique cards in a specific order.

Yet as I said. The model was wrong. Not just flawed, but wrong. I propose of a myriad of coincidence are like cracks in the current big bang model. Aside from tailoring your response as you have to work against the concept for the use of probability because it's not a prediction appears to be....a strawman.

I hope at least you can make sense of what you type. Unfortunately I can not.
What model was wrong? Yours? The Big Bang?
I am saying that YOUR understanding of probability is flawed.

The model requires that we work from the begining. Attempting to try and find a true begining is more of a problem than most understand because our concept of time is linear. It doesn't really matter which direction you view the concept or the prediction. It's cause and effect.

(a) Quantum theory might have something to say about that... with asymmetric nature of existence.... but I'm guessing you don't know about that... that observation causes the waveforms to collapse...?
(b) The "model" you work to may require it... and I have pointed out that it is flawed and why.

It's a intresting question.
I must reject the concept of adaptation as relates to the universe. As far as the universe is concerned we merely "are" Adaptation requires communication. A stimulus, sensing and an action. It think that very inaccurate.

Feel free to reject anything you want... but if you feel that things don't adapt... again, your perogative, it just further invalidates your point.
You see adaptation as a conscious thing?
My intention was to infer "evolution by default" but I thought the introduction of the word "evolution" would spark a separate discussion.
For example... a bag of matter of various sizes falls through a seive. By default the smaller pieces get through and move on to the next stage. The rest stay in the seive until they interact / collide long enough to break up, making them small enough to fall through... Evolution by default. No conscious thought or conscious process, yet you have an end result that can move on in the grand scheme of things.

But I understand what you're saying. I must say it is a different perspective to tackle the question but I sense the importance isn't just matter of a vessel and containment. That's why I related the universal time line up to this point. If life was the end out come and that was incredibly un likely then how much more so the processes that brought about that result?

You still fail to understand.
Deal your 58 cards.
There was roughly 10^78 chance of dealing them the way you did. Wow. Flukey.

That's the infinity paradox. There is no such thing as...Before or prior to our universe. TIme is only a product of a physical universe in motion, If this universe was not expanding we would not expericence time anyway...so there could not have been any initial cause at all. A cause would require a prior or a before...which requires a universe to even exist.

The cause becomes...infinite.

No. Admittedly we can only ever go / see / observe back to t=0. But t=0 is not necessarily the start of "time" or of anything... merely of our cycle...
For example, let's take the simplified example of a constantly contracting / expanding universe... every time it grows from t=0 and then shrinks again... and each time it pops you reset the clock to t=0, impossible to look through that point to the prior cycle.
Furthermore, "time" as we observe it, is a concept that might be inconceivable anywhere other than in our universe.
Therefore until we can categorically say what "time" is, and where it might exist, we can say nothing of "infinity" where that word means an infinite period of time, as it is meaningless if time is not a possible concept.

Sarkus. I don't understand this.
universes floating around in infinity? I don't even know where to begin with that statement.

Then I guess that is where you should start your learning.
Or do you think that our universe possibly being a bubble in a dimensional soup is impossible? I'd love to see your evidence for it.
I feel, Saquist, that you are trapped in your thinking, and this thus limits the possible solutions you are capable of accepting.

Because a decision doesn't require a cause.
That's the only difference.

But there you were, not a moment ago, extolling the cause-effect nature of the universe, and here you are arriving at something that doesn't require a cause?

And if you feel that a decision needs no cause, why not a universe?

I disagree.
Every model that is developed is subject to that model.
Math is essentially a yes...or no. Current models simply say no. No probabilty out of one chance.

Firstly, your "no probability out of one chance" is wrong. We are here. It happened. There had to have been a chance.
Secondly, you are still looking from the start and making a projection toward us... but "us" has already happened. The chance of "us" existing is thus 100%.
Thirdly, even someone who accepts that "us" existing as the end result from a pre-universe position is remote can only ever say that our existence is a fluke... i.e. our existence, even accepting everything else, is still obeying the laws of probability. It is not ZERO chance of us existing, even if you take it down to 1 in 10^10^10^10^10 - any finitely remote possibility.
All you can do is say we beat the odds - NOT that this is thus evidence of some creator.

Your premise is understandable but if requires more ifs than we know exist. We only know of one.

It requires at least one less than "God did it".

 

[jpappl]

Saquist,

We're dealing with LITTERALLY an infinite number of beginings which of course is no begining at all....infinity. Problematicly as I related above this does not answer the question of the inital origin. It tells us either the universe is circular or the other option is that the infinite force that actually created the universe is circular.

No it doesn't. There is still too much unknown about the workings of the universe to make any such assumptions. This is my point. That again we crave for an answer now, with such limited information available it would be foolish to declare an answer, because at best it is only a guess.

But isn't time only relevant if your decision is that there is a God.
Because then the question is...what does "he" want?

No. Why do you come to this conclusion ?

You said;

I know God exist. (I'm just incapable of saying the word "belief"") and I do pescribe to a religious view

But then follow with;

Beyond that we are litteraly incapble of comprehending.
But these mathematical "coincidences" of probability are becoming infinite raising the likely hood of that circular and infinite force of will being the likely answer. (IMHO)

First of all again, why the more likely ?

Secondly this is clearly a statement of opinion and belief. So how do you know ? or which is it, do you know or believe ? Claim to know and I ask for evidence and you yourself and myself have both declared there is no evidence that can be presented either way.

You claim you do prescribe to a religious view. So this is your basis for your belief.

Which one, if I may ask ?

 

[Saquist]

So you adequately appear to demonstrate.

That is indeed what Saquist means, Sarkus.

To be in error.
So it seems you're right.

 

[lightgigantic]

Jppapl

“
If you think you can decry a field of knowledge by avoiding a discussion of the relevant qualifications in the field, you can decry anything
”
Meaningless.

prove me wrong by discussing, say, issues of medical analysis and treatment without reference to anything established by a physician

Again, what are the qualifications for knowing God exists ?

as mentioned earlier in the piece, as a brief introduction to the topic ...

BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.

How about providing some evidence.

How about you cut your arm off and pray to god to have in grow again.

After you do that and it grows again, then do it again in front of the rest of us so we can witness the event. That would suffice as proof.

That also proves that god is nothing more than a circus animal that I can beckon to my will .... which tends to run contrary to the very primary understanding of god's nature.
You clearly illustrate the problems of trying to approach issues of evidence without approaching issues of qualification.

 

[Saquist]

Saquist,



No it doesn't. There is still too much unknown about the workings of the universe to make any such assumptions. This is my point. That again we crave for an answer now, with such limited information available it would be foolish to declare an answer, because at best it is only a guess.

I'm afraid that is the very nature of the universe jpappl.
cause and effect, matter and energy.
Ironicly...only two options.

No. Why do you come to this conclusion ?

No? Time isn't relevant?
Or "no, why would I ask that question?"

If your answer is "No time isn't relevant." then are you saying that you have all the time in the world to determine God's purpose for creation? Or that you merely aren't intrested if he does exist.

conversely:
If youre saying "No, why would I ask that question"
Then are you stating if he exist it is not important to determine his motives and purpose for his actions?

I ask these question because, this is your thread.
You can interrogate me but the real question is...what would satisfy you?

First of all again, why the more likely ?

Because a will does not require a cause. It is thus a true begining as opposed to the never ending paradox of infinite beginings which is no begining at all.

Secondly this is clearly a statement of opinion and belief. So how do you know ? or which is it, do you know or believe ? Claim to know and I ask for evidence and you yourself and myself have both declared there is no evidence that can be presented either way.

If you think it is just about opinion and beleif then so be it.
I can only speak for myself, but it is with knowledge that I'm speaking from. I understand the nature of the universe. I understand how time works. Very few...even scientist actually get. I've told you already, matter and energy are properties of a universe in motion. It's all about motion.

You claim you do prescribe to a religious view. So this is your basis for your belief.

Negative: There is no contradiction. I have not made a claim. That was an imperative.

Which one, if I may ask ?

It is logical to draw upon patterns to acertain the truth. It is the same spiritually and scientificly. Not to cliche, but if you eliminate the impossible, what ever remains, however improbable must be the truth.

 

[jpappl]

LG,

prove me wrong by discussing, say, issues of medical analysis and treatment without reference to anything established by a physician

This is what I find so offensive about your tactics. You want to blend reality with fantasy. Everytime I interject reality into the equation you cry foul because it asks for evidence, you then claim there is no way to provide the "normal" type of evidence because the discussion of god is beyond that.

And then you use an example which is perfectly explainable using science.

You are a coward and intellectually dishonest. You can not answer a question without a complete circus act because you have nothing.

Of course someone who is diagnosing an illness or other medical condition should have such credentials and qualifications for such.

But you have yet to answer.

What are the qualifications for proving or determining whether or not God exists ?

BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.

Meaningless. You have nothing.

That also proves that god is nothing more than a circus animal that I can beckon to my will .... which tends to run contrary to the very primary understanding of god's nature.
You clearly illustrate the problems of trying to approach issues of evidence without approaching issues of qualification.

You belief or knowledge of God must not be that deep. I bet you would run to a hospital if your arm got cut off you coward. Run to the doctors to put your arm back on.

What. Your God wouldn't do it for you. Are you afraid that God wouldn't be there for you.

Maybe you need to pray harder or something because you are obviously unsure about the whole belief thing.

 

[jpappl]

Saquist,

If your answer is "No time isn't relevant." then are you saying that you have all the time in the world to determine God's purpose for creation? Or that you merely aren't intrested if he does exist.

In fact I am not interested. I see no evidence for a god. Obviously if this god has power over our world than he, she or it is a very cruel son of a bitch.

I have no interest in worshipping such a monster. I don't care where I end up if all that matters is to believe in such so to to live beyond this world.

There are many people, very bad people who claim to believe. Do you want to live with them for eternity. Or are you so sure how it all ends that they will not be there along with you.

I would rather go to hell than be such a kiss ass to live in eternity with some of the god worshipping punks I have known.

I ask these question because, this is your thread.
You can interrogate me but the real question is...what would satisfy you ?

This is not my thread. And I did not mean to interrogate you. You are reasonable and have your opinions as do I. I was merely fishing for more information so that I better understood where you are coming from.

If you think it is just about opinion and beleif then so be it.
I can only speak for myself, but it is with knowledge that I'm speaking from. I understand the nature of the universe. I understand how time works. Very few...even scientist actually get. I've told you already, matter and energy are properties of a universe in motion. It's all about motion.

You understand the nature of the universe. Really ?

It is logical to draw upon patterns to acertain the truth. It is the same spiritually and scientificly. Not to cliche, but if you eliminate the impossible, what ever remains, however improbable must be the truth.

Why is it that when the discussion of God is discussed, and I ask the question of religion. Nobody seems to have the guts to admit which one they follow. It's like a secret or something.

You claimed to prescibe to a religious view, for the second time, can you answer, which one please ?

 

[Sarkus]

Because a will does not require a cause. It is thus a true begining as opposed to the never ending paradox of infinite beginings which is no begining at all.

(1) please provide evidence that a will does not require a cause;
(2) please provide evidence that a will can exist in and of itself - 'cos if it can't you'll have to explain how the "body" was caused.

It is logical to draw upon patterns to acertain the truth. It is the same spiritually and scientificly. Not to cliche, but if you eliminate the impossible, what ever remains, however improbable must be the truth.

:shrug:
Yet you casually ignore countless possibles (regardless how remote) and arrive at your "truth". Hey ho.


Jpappl, you'll find with Saquist that he spouts much, supports little accept with flawed arguments, and gets very defensive when you ask him to explain anything - and will most likely try to turn the table and accuse you of brow-beating or interrogating purely to shift the discussion away from the questions you ask. Be warned.

 

[Saquist]

Saquist,



In fact I am not interested. I see no evidence for a god. Obviously if this god has power over our world than he, she or it is a very cruel son of a bitch.

I have no interest in worshipping such a monster. I don't care where I end up if all that matters is to believe in such so to to live beyond this world.

There are many people, very bad people who claim to believe. Do you want to live with them for eternity. Or are you so sure how it all ends that they will not be there along with you.

I would rather go to hell than be such a kiss ass to live in eternity with some of the god worshipping punks I have known.

This explains alot, jpappl. I was definitely curious of your perspective and believe me I wish to be respectful as possible because this topic I have before handled poorly or at least not aswell as I could.

Time has assisted in me understanding other perspective, sometimes even taking their side briefly also helps.

This is not my thread. And I did not mean to interrogate you. You are reasonable and have your opinions as do I. I was merely fishing for more information so that I better understood where you are coming from.

Ah...that's right, it's lixlukes thread. I forgot.

You understand the nature of the universe. Really ?

I know, it sounds arrogant. But I've studied it for a while. And while I could have wasted more time on the theories which I now know have been steering us in wrong directions since the early 90', I began studing the similarities in the universe because I like Einstein believe that there IS a unifying force.

I think there is a reason why we haven't detected gravitons
I think I know why light has the appearance of a particle and a wave
...and I know why the universe had to have a moment of creation.

It's all realated to the very nature of what the universe is. Energy which is motion and mass which is the opposite of motion. That understanding right there is the reason that mass has inertia and why mass has gravity and why mass "appears" to draw objects toward it.

Why is it that when the discussion of God is discussed, and I ask the question of religion. Nobody seems to have the guts to admit which one they follow. It's like a secret or something.

You claimed to prescibe to a religious view, for the second time, can you answer, which one please ?

Anonimity... is like a warm blanket.
~Max : Mission Impossible

In this case anonimity allows me to play both sides and remain dedicated to the precision of both religion/history and science. I prefer not to state my affliliation because I would then be representing them as a whole. And unfortunantly my behavior hasn't always been "pristine". That goes to reputation but surfice to say I'm convinced the Hebrew Aramaic and the Christian Greek Scriptures are accurate documentations of contact with the creator.

 

[Saquist]

(1) please provide evidence that a will does not require a cause;
(2) please provide evidence that a will can exist in and of itself - 'cos if it can't you'll have to explain how the "body" was caused.


:shrug:
Yet you casually ignore countless possibles (regardless how remote) and arrive at your "truth". Hey ho.


Jpappl, you'll find with Saquist that he spouts much, supports little accept with flawed arguments, and gets very defensive when you ask him to explain anything - and will most likely try to turn the table and accuse you of brow-beating or interrogating purely to shift the discussion away from the questions you ask. Be warned.

Yes, Sarkus you're right. I'm not going to give you any information.
I'm quite content to allow you to do what ever you want. I just won't be participating.

 

[Sarkus]

I know, it sounds arrogant. But I've studied it for a while. And while I could have wasted more time on the theories which I now know have been steering us in wrong directions since the early 90', I began studing the similarities in the universe because I like Einstein believe that there IS a unifying force.

I think there is a reason why we haven't detected gravitons
I think I know why light has the appearance of a particle and a wave
...and I know why the universe had to have a moment of creation.

It's all realated to the very nature of what the universe is. Energy which is motion and mass which is the opposite of motion. That understanding right there is the reason that mass has inertia and why mass has gravity and why mass "appears" to draw objects toward it.

Apologies for not taking you seriously, but you make it very difficult.
You have "studied it for a while"??
You put youself on a pedestal next to Einstein?
You "think there is a reason..."?

Do you have anything to support these ideas of yours?
Other than a clear case of cosying up next to Einstein?

Yes, Sarkus you're right. I'm not going to give you any information.
I'm quite content to allow you to do what ever you want. I just won't be participating.

I really can't see that I'll be missing out on anything. You already don't give information - you never have - just unsubstantiated claims. And you do not participate - you make a claim and then you go defensive when we ask you to support your claim.
Hey ho.

 

[Saquist]

I really can't see that I'll be missing out on anything.

Absolutely, nothing to see, nothing here.

 

[jpappl]

Saquist,

In this case anonimity allows me to play both sides and remain dedicated to the precision of both religion/history and science. I prefer not to state my affliliation because I would then be representing them as a whole. And unfortunantly my behavior hasn't always been "pristine". That goes to reputation but surfice to say I'm convinced the Hebrew Aramaic and the Christian Greek Scriptures are accurate documentations of contact with the creator.

Ok, so you really don't base your belief of god in your studies of the universe, but actually make your beliefs about the universe fit into your religious texts which state god did it.

So, do you believe in dinosaurs ?
Do you believe dinosaurs walked alongside man ?