God does exist.

[chroot]

Originally posted by Binary
I tried qiute hard (with out getting typing cramps) to explain one dimensional physics in my string called reason, but I now realize that although far simplier in that it only incorporates physical laws(as far as I can see) that it is still to complex to be comprehended by the average individual.

We tried quite hard to get you to show us how your theory explained anything -- and you never responded.

It's rather rude of you to suggest that your theory is "to complex" for the "average individual," when you yourself seem incapable of basic middle-school math.

If you come here with the notion that you know more than everyone because you think physics is different in binary and hexadecimal, you just might have some competition. If you're man enough to weather the storm, do it. If you're too much of a wuss, leave.

- Warren

 

[Binary]

Wow, if you guys are on the east coast you sure stay up late.

Well I just got back to the forum, hope you don't think I was being rude.

First to matnay:

you are on the right track and are most certainly a lot closer, but the answer to your question can be found in the third paraghraph of my first post.

And are you sure our "moral" and "self-awareness holds no value with bees"?
What is "moral" and what is "self-awareness"?

To chroot :

I see now the error of my wording. It is not that it is to "complex" but that it is to contray to the average mind to recieve willingly. This I assume is most likely due to that no one else they know has ever scraped most of modern mathematics to even dream that there was a better way of expressing data.

I'm willing to teach you my system but I ask that you be patient with me. I have never tried to show anyone else before, and I'am only now thinking of ways in which it can be best understood.

 

[matnay]

Binary wrote:
And are you sure our "moral" and "self-awareness holds no value with bees"?

Yes, of course not. What I mean is that bees function on a whole different level than us and our values and self-awareness are on a completely higher level than theirs. We could say that our conciousness is closer to what you would call "perfection", but that is exactly why we don't judge bees by our own values(ie. it's wrong to kill another). And I use this as an analogy for our relationship with God. I'd think that someone as smart as God would realize that humankind runs by it's own rules, and that God's values, no matter how "perfected" for his own world, do not apply in the world of man.

What is "moral" and what is "self-awareness"?

Morals, and one's perception of one's self in the universe(self-awareness) are not truth- they are not absolute. They are subjective and only relevent to the eye of the beholder.

 

[matnay]

Binary wrote,
Ok, now lets go a little futher. Lets say we where this race that had reached perfection. An after that we had come to know this perfect undersatnding, we did not create our own universe because we reconized the perfection(meaning here with out error) of our own universe and ourselves, due to that there is no laws dictating its course or our actions, by which being incomparable we are perfect. An being that in our universe, no matter how expressed, there is only one correct solution to a problem(in other words only one perfect way for something to be done or happen). Would not we now being infinite due to our perfect knowledge, be to men as ourselves, like god?

I think this is the paragraph that you directed me back to...again. But this paragraph is just a theory, and even more important to consider- it is the deduction of an imperfect, non-godlike, far-from-all-knowing... human. It does not answer my question, it only forces me to ask it again. So I'll ask my question again:

Why would you assume that God is absolutely perfect(that there is even such a thing as absolute perfection), or that his perfection has any relevance to how we live our lives?

 

[Binary]

Man is not to god as the bees are to man. You see what seperates man is our ability to understand. The bees are born with wisdom they are fashioned and crafted in perfection that they are not aware of, neither ever can be. In this they are and always will be nothing. They like all the other aninmals and plants, are merely part of a complex body a support system for us. In what does the fish differ from the bird? Do they not both follow a knowledge of a pattern of life to which they are ingorant of it's wisdom? Are they not both incapable of understanding the purpose for which they exist, and in this are they more than a ameba? We on the other hand do have this ability and in this are seperate from the beast. And having this ability to understand and reason, how exempt are we truly from his judgements. Is it not only that he reqiures us to use our abilities, as with every other creature. An seeing that we have the ability to judge, what is the difference between our judgements, and his, besides the perfection of his knowledge? (refer to paragraphs 2, and 3 of original post)

 

[matnay]

Binary wrote:
And having this ability to understand and reason, how exempt are we truly from his judgements. Is it not only that he reqiures us to use our abilities, as with every other creature. An seeing that we have the ability to judge, what is the difference between our judgements, and his, besides the perfection of his knowledge?

So you are saying that God know's what's best for us? Because it doesn't seem to me that an eternity in hell could possibly be what's best for anyone's soul. Even the most disgusting human in the history of humankind does not deserve that punishment. And to any creature- God, human or other- that would consider hell part of perfection is operating on a wavelength of evil.

I guess perfection comes at a price.

 

[Binary]

Hmm... it would appear you are close to seeing in some capacity what time really is and what the present worlds true purpose is.

Keep thinking, you went farther than I had anticipated.

 

[Daiel Hegarty]

****

Moderator edit: Post deleted - Contained only profanities and added nothing to the debate.

 

[Adam]

Does that mean you wanna snuggle?

 

[Cris]

GB,

Hvnt w. wstd engh tim + bndwdth lrdy? Pls, smbdy, clse ths thread.

One thread or multiple threads - little difference to bandwidth, yet the topic is key to the forum and the discussion remains lively.

 

[Nebuchadnezzaar]

GOD is DOG spelt backwards, i know you all know this but i think it's important and needs to be brought to attention!

If God is real and he EXISTS as it has been claimed, what the heck is he doing?

laughing, chuckling, crying at us? i mean there is obviously nothing new that we do for him, or interesting! I mean God has seen the Medieval ages, Roman times, The Renaissance, i mean geeze he's even seen humans play around in WWI and WWII. All i'm saying is that it might get a little boring, especially for an "alien", "god", "omnipotent one" who's seen it all. And even better lets say he hasn't seen it all, what is he doing? partying with friends in heaven whilst also keeping an eye on that small bum in New York who's about to die, NO NO NO NO NO no intelligent being would waste there time, UNLESS they were a melancholy freak hell bent on keeping the universe a pessemistic can confusing place, That is what God brings, Guilt, Revenge and Jealousy WOOHOO!!!

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Binary
Firstly, it is deterimable that given the current scientific theorys of existance that there arises the possibility of infinite possibilty.

As you said, is it a possibility not a fact. That is it has been suggested as a hypothesis to resolve certain infinities that keep cropping up in physics.
A rather shaky premise to begin an argument with; you have no proof.

Also it is a widely accepted theory that everything in the universe can be represented numerically and therefore capable of being understood by us.

Godel's Incompleteness Therom:
To every w-consistent recursive class k of formulae there correspond recursive class-signs r,
such that neither v Gen r nor Nev (v Gen R) belongs to Flg (k) (where v is the free variable of r).

Or, in English:
All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions.

Or no formal system contains all the answers. Therefore we may extrapolate that if the Universe may be entirely explained by mathematical formulae it will still contain question to which there are no answers. Therefore this proposition is false.

If so, then is there any law that would prevent us from creating our own universe or recreating the one were in?

The question should be; if we could create another universe would we be able to interact with it at all. Please note, that 'if' is a rather tremendous assumption in itself. Also note that that science has no evidence that any of the laws of physics extend beyond the boundaries of our own universe... and that current fact seems to indicate otherwise as all the known laws originated within the Universe.

Would not we now being infinite due to our perfect knowledge, be to men as ourselves, like god?

The Uncertainty Principle indicates that perfect knowledge is impossible.

but simply that he is the only one that exist indepenet of law, therefore he is the law with out cotradition.

Pure assumption. There is no evidence to support this what-so-ever.

As for what gives god the "right" to judge or in general have dominion over us, can be summed up simply by this; he can do what he wants with himself.

Ah, the good old adage of might makes right. Wonderful basis for morality. :bugeye:

~Raithere

 

[MarcAC]

originally posted be French

Maybe god set the universe in motion but doesn't care about us...

Why would He leave us the Bible, which is replete with examples of His love and care, love can be harsh at times, but it is for the greater good. Consider God as a parent figure. You can spoil your kids, or, you can bring t hem up 'under the rod' so to speak. I don't mean abuse them. The Bible tells us that He loves us and He will return. His indwelling Holy Spirit assures us of this.

Why does god have to be the high and mighty christian picture of him? This ALL has to do with god's 'nature'.

Exactly. Any less picture and He wouldn't be God. He would just be a fallable extraterrestrial which is trying to learn about this existence as we are, or maybe a cow, or an elephant? Better yet, a 'purple squid-monkey. My favourite? A cat..

Why would he create us? Its not for goodwill, before we exist he would not love us.

Don't think I get this part too well. But God created us as innocent as ever in the beginning. We simply turned and followed our own path (science and reasoning, and religions) and ended up here. Would you rather He didn't create us?

Is god's sole purpose in the universe to serve the human race?

No. The purpose of God's entire creation is to serve Him (be they angel, human, pleidian, animal, plant, star or neutrino). He helps us to serve Him due to our imperfect nature.

The entire premise of a christian god makes no sense to me at all.

Very well said. It makes sense to many others - in other words they understand it.

That one god created only mankind and no other sentient race.

That is not a part of Christian doctrine. The bible leaves this an open possibility.

That god somehow cares if we bow our heads in fear of him.

He cares because He knows that to 'bow our heads in front of him' means to follow a 'path' to a better existence. He knows best.

That god can do anything yet wories himself over us.

God doesn't worry. God loves us.

That god is good, yet he wants us to have freewill to [****] ourselves up.

Well I, and, I assume, most people who value their humanity, prefer that to being a mindless drone. I suppose you don't? We have the choice to '[****] ourselves up' or not.

That god somehow would send us to hell just because we didn't believe in him.

When we don't believe in Him we use our freewill to '[****] ourselves up'. Imagine mankind mastering artificial intelligence, A.I. one day deciding; "Hey, we don't need them anymore", then choosing to elliminate us from all knowledge and existence, sometimes I wonder why that is the ultimate fear. Maybe it stems from man's intrinsic knowledge of his denial of God.

 

[MarcAC]

Looks like this is it...

Originally posted by Binary

MarcAC get a new bible, because those interpertations are really flat, as in they're wisdom is no longer "manifold".

Well, which one should I get? Then I'll tell you if I have it already. What interpretations? And in light of that - it is best to explain things as simply as possible so that people will understand. Hope you see this Raithere. "[Their] wisdom is no longer manifold"... ?... please expound.

I'd like to start first by saying those of you on both sides who believe that the existance of god can not be proved through reason are wrong.

Well, it can't be proven at the moment, but it can be induced, and deduced from reasoning. If it could be proven well one day everyone will be a Christian. It would be good, but nowhere in the Bible do I see any indication of such an event.

Now with that said I guess I should show you.

You better.

Given a universe, of this or like structuring, would it not be possible that a being capable of thought could have been assembled randomly from particles during the "big bang".

That being would not be God, as He existed before the universe and He even exists after the universe, when you really take a good look at it.

Inlight of your recent post Mar[c]AC, what you said is impossible. It is not that god exist in another universe, (I'm glad you brought it up) but simply that he is the only one that exist indepenet of law, therefore he is the law with out cotradition.

Might I say a very dim light as you seemed to have read my post incorrectly. I didn't say anything about God existing in another universes. The rest I can agree with.

As for what gives god the "right" to judge or in general have dominion over us, can be summed up simply by this; he can do what he wants with himself. (If you don't understand this please consider my post a bit more before asking me.)

Agreed.And a recommendation - It is best to consider one as a genius and then let they prove themselves right or wrong.

 

[MarcAC]

Is it really the end?...

In response to Matnay

Originally posted by MarcACSo what really are the laws of nature? Do we know? If we don't we can't begin to know anything about how they would govern God or how God would function within them - we can assume - but they'd just be that, assumptions.By MatnaySo you too agree that ultimately God does exist within a larger universe with it's own laws. It would then be reasonable to deduce that God does not rule this ultimate nature of the universe, but that nature rules him.

Nowhere did I state this. You misread. I was merely illustrating the point that we do not know what the ultimate laws of nature are, thus, we cannot say how God would function within them, or outside them.

How can anyone, or anything, that is confined within a larger construct claim to be all-knowing? For example- how does God truely know that his moral system is right? Perhapes he himself is governed by even higher Gods with a completely different moral system. So who's right?

The important parts of this paragraph are the question marks "?" and the word "Perhaps". We simply don't know, and from Christian doctrine we can't know until after Jesus Christ's second coming.

How can one God govern the moral world of a people who's very existance resides in a universe with completely different physical laws?

If God governed our 'moral world' we wouldn't need Christianity. God is the ulitmate governer, but humans do have their free-will. And if you meant it this way, God created the universe; we created the computer. Do we understand the 'laws of the digital universe'?

How can God possibly understand what it's like to be human(or even care), any more than we can understand what it's like to be an insect? If we ever claimed to truely understand what it's like to be an insect, then we'd be deceiving ourselves. We could never understand- no more than we could understand what it's like to be a God.

Here is where Jesus Christ comes into the picture. God came incarnate as Jesus Christ and experienced what it is to be human. And that was to ensure that people like me would have an answer for people like you when they ask questions like those.

So what gives God the right to create life? What gives God the right to sit back and judge, punish, or reward? And in the end, isn't it our right to rule ourselves?

What gives humans the right to clone themselves. What gives humans the right to attempt to create artificial intelligence? Please. We do rule ourselves, we have freewill; we have done a swell job of it so far don't you think?

Imagine what it would be like if we treated our dogs or other pets like God treats us. He chews up a sock, and you beat him for eternity. It doesn't seem right.

Bad way of looking at it. Let's say everytime you beat that 'dog' he just goes and chews another sock. Well he will keep chewing for eternity and keep getting beaten for eternity. Simple.

But you might say- "Oh, but the dog had free will- he didn't have to chew it up- he knew it was wrong". But he's JUST A DOG. He isn't human!

Again I say, bad comparison. One dumb dog at that. Any animal will learn from their mistakes. A lioness will avoid a male lion who is not father of her cubs because she knows he will kill them. Life is tough. Get used to it.

Just as we AREN'T Gods and shouldn't be judged as so.

If you read Gen 2-3, also Gen 11:1-9, you will realise that we started to act like 'gods'. So God judged us as 'gods' as you put it.

Think about it. Does the punishment really fit the crime? If someone doesn't believe in God, is eternity in hell a justified punishment.

What punishment is ever a fair one to the criminal? What 'crime' do you speak of? In Genesis man chose his own way over God's way, and it resulted in the present state of the human race. Now he has the choice to go back to God's way, or damn himself to hell in his own way. In essence we punish ourselves. It is like you seeing a flood coming and you see a trench and a hill. You have the choice to climb the hill or jump down into the trench like a dim-witted senile ass.

If you would say yes, then I would say that YOU are the evil one. And I don't need to look that up in a bible. I make my own moral judgment, and it seems to me that I am much more forgiving and understanding than God.

Well, you are acting like you are a 'god' so you will be judged as such.

Just because you have the power, doesn't mean you have the right to use it.

I will assume you use a computer that you bought, or maybe you built it, why do you use it? Does it mean you have a right to use it? I guess you don't have the right to destroy it right? Since you built it. Think about it.

 

[Cris]

MarcAc,

What punishment is ever a fair one to the criminal? What 'crime' do you speak of? In Genesis man chose his own way over God's way, and it resulted in the present state of the human race. Now he has the choice to go back to God's way, or damn himself to hell in his own way. In essence we punish ourselves. It is like you seeing a flood coming and you see a trench and a hill. You have the choice to climb the hill or jump down into the trench like a dim-witted senile ass.

But why should punishment be necessary at all?

Biblical authors used the concept of punishment because that was the accepted way of life in those times. But today the legal system talks of correctional institutions, of rehabilitation, of deterrents, and crime prevention. There is a whole industry that revolves around the science of psychology that develops techniques to help people overcome their past aberrant behavior. The phrase ‘punishment’ is simply not in their vocabulary, since it is inappropriate and archaic.

The idea that a perfect God could not teach and train his creations to adopt appropriate behavior where crime is irrational and unnecessary is ludicrous. If he was so perfect then there is no way that his teachings could possibly fail.

The bible simply reflects the crude and ignorant attitudes of those ancient authors who knew nothing better. The idea that a God would punish just shows how the bible and teachings of Christianity are outdated and irrelevant.

 

[matnay]

I will assume you use a computer that you bought, or maybe you built it, why do you use it? Does it mean you have a right to use it? I guess you don't have the right to destroy it right? Since you built it. Think about it.

Computers are not alive. If we ever do build a computer that we know to be alive, then certainly ethical issues would arise over whether we have the right to destroy that new life, or let that life suffer by our hand. Actually a more accurate analogy would be a whole world within a computer that we create.

 

[kidsun]

god is where science and spirit meet.

the scientific understanding of energy eventually led to spiritual insight. that rush of electricity and chemistry in the body..... you feel it, right? that's it. that's spirit. and that's where god is... inside you. manifested internally by scientific principles, originating ... ? who knows. i don't need to understand it all.

 

[Xelios]

Computers are not alive. If we ever do build a computer that we know to be alive, then certainly ethical issues would arise over whether we have the right to destroy that new life, or let that life suffer by our hand.

You should watch the episode of Star Trek:TNG where they have their big court case about whether or not Data (the android) can be classified as a person and has rights. They did the same thing with Voyager and the EMH thing.

IMO, intelligence is intelligence, it doesn't matter what it's made up of.

 

[Cris]

xelios,

IMO, intelligence is intelligence, it doesn't matter what it's made up of.

Hooray. I’ve also been trying to say for years that neither can intelligence be artificial. Something is either intelligent or it isn’t. When people say AI they really mean non-human intelligence. So NHI might be better or just MI (Machine Intelligence).

Just a comment in passing.