How we know God exists

[Lawdog]

If I knew HOW they interacted, I would get one of those prizes in world science like einstein got.

 

[ggazoo]

nubianconcubine:
Delusion means to believe in spite of zero evidence. This fits you, lightgigantic and our friend Lawdog down to the ground. And no it's not funny, I am apalled.

“he gave us life.”


Evidence?

“he made our world.”


Evidence?

“we are suppose to thank him for it. ”


Evidence?

If you can not provide any evidence you are suffering from a superstitious delusion. That is inescapable.

Evidence? I see this word on here so many times. Just open your eyes, guys. Maybe it's beacuse I work in a creative field, but design is everywhere.

The grass is green, the sky is blue. Oddly pleasing to the eye. And what about sex? Bluntly put, a shaft that goes in a hole. Sounds like design to me.

 

[KennyJC]

Evidence? I see this word on here so many times. Just open your eyes, guys. Maybe it's beacuse I work in a creative field, but design is everywhere.

The grass is green, the sky is blue. Oddly pleasing to the eye. And what about sex? Bluntly put, a shaft that goes in a hole. Sounds like design to me.

Fair enough if you consider this apparent evidence for a 'God'. It has some philisophical merit... But it sounds to me rather naively confident. The perception of colour does not really indicate proof of of a living intelligent God either..

A penis going into a vagina... I feel you could have come up with a million better examples than this. The ingenuity of evolution doesn't imply direct intelligent creation since it was a process that took millions (billions even) of years worth of natural selection to reach the stage. If there is an intelligent creator... why not simply click his fingers to make such things suddenly appear, rather than billions of years of gradual complexity?

However, on TOP of the far-fetched idea that the universe was created by intelligence - You belong to an organised religion and have many additional far-fetched ideas attatched to this creator... which is what I really want to address. I mean, when arguing for the existence of of such a creator, you just argue that one exists... giving no mention to these other beliefs such as : belief that you will see lost loved ones again, belief in heaven, prayer, the soul, the truth of a book called The Bible... anything else?

 

[nubianconcubine]

i was going to stay out of this but i couldn't resist. so go easy on me kenny.
the bible says that god says "thou shalt have no gods before me" implying that there were in fact other gods but if we were going to have anything to do with him, we had to cut old ties. kind of like your new girlfriend wanting you to trash all your stuff from your old girlfriend.
the Bible...that, i'm afraid is something i've been speculating on. i saw a documentary on the way it came to be. would you believe that a group of priests from the catholic church put it together (my husband just told me it was the council of Nicea) and they didn't even put all the gospels (the books written by the apostles) in it! that was cause for alarm. it seemed that some of the gospels not included were important and some that weren't were left out because they weren't what the church considered conducive to their view of what the religion should be. :bugeye:
see, that's why i have what most would call a pagan approach to religion. i don't go to church because i don't want a mere mortal telling me what is good and what isn't (especially in light of the recent allegations against those priests). i was iffy about the bible before because men wrote it and have rewritten it several times since it's creation, and then left some of it out. so i just follow the golden rule.

i have an interesting theory on how evolution could be merged with biblical genesis. anyone remember reading somewhere in the bible about a day in heaven lasting 10K years on earth? alright, y'all be nice in your responses.

 

[Sarkus]

But when you "read" activity in the brain, you are not experiencing that person's thoughts.

Only because we haven't yet got the equipment to read a person's thoughts precisely and interpret them. Every brain has different pathways / connections - which is why we all think differently.
So even if you had the ability to interpret/read one person's thoughts exactly, it would need complete recalibration for any one else.

The experience itself is relegated to an immaterial plane. "Mind over matter" is a common phrase; what it really says is that these immaterial experiences are the hierarchical parent, or the "cause," in a way, of the brain activity.

Mumbo-jumbo horse-poo!
You are taking the phrase "mind over matter" utterly out of context.
The phrase means nothing more than we have the ability to do more physically than our usual conscious self tells us we can.

In Roman Catholic cosmology, the spiritual realm is transcendent, i.e. it is beyond all other realms but still encompasses and permeates them. So a spiritual phenomenon could affect physical reality, but not vice-versa.

And you have utterly failed to explain HOW.
Also - how could you have A able to affect B and not have B able to affect A??? Logically inconsistent.

You are trying to gloss over questions, that you obviously can't answer, with nothing other than pseudo-scientific manure and by babbling religious drivel.

 

[Parmenides]

"We can be certain that God exists because the Roman Catholic Church says so. (The Church says that we can be certain).

No scientific evidence needs to, or can be, or should be produced.

Only the Church has the right, given by God himself,
to make authoritative pronouncements concerning the divine reality.

The Church also affirms that the human mind is capable of concluding, through various evidences, that God exists.
However, to try and prove or disprove God from a scientific standpoint is useless and vain.

The role of Science is not to be a philosophical ground,
but an instrument of coming to knowledge about the physical reality.

God is pure spirit, therefore Science can never make a certain conclusion concerning God."

These arguments are fairly crude, and while they seem to reflect some of the Catchetical statements of the Catholic Church, I'm not sure if they would agree.

It is true that Catholic theologians such as Thomas Aquinas or Jacques Maratain say we can know God exists. These arguments range from God being a necessary being to the necessary first cause of all that exists and so on.

Appealing to authority is unfortunately a bad way of constructing an argument. Many people need more convincing than to simply say something is true because the Church says so. The Catholic Church may appeal to its right of apostolic succession but again this is not going to hold water for skeptics, again for the good reason it is really a circular and hence fallacious argument.

A personal objection I have to your line is in one thread you seem to state conservative Protestant views and here you talk about Catholic theology in a fairly crude manner. These positions do not seem logically or spiritually compatible. In my experience Christians do not argue for two theological views from different churches, usually they analyse the merits of them but from their own viewpoint, be it Protestant, Catholic or other. Which view do you hold?

 

[Parmenides]

Easy. Take a look here and have a look at the countries with high amounts of atheism.
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html

High levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality. Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism. In some societies, particularly Europe, atheism is growing.



Yes, but you never answered why this is characterized depending upong the strength of religious belief amongst the people searching for power.

This is a bad argument. Correlation does not mean causation. Things like high homicide and crime rates, high levels of rape and drug abuse, high levels of capital punishment, and high levels of poverty and income inequality exist in the U.S., the most Christian of Western countries. Does this mean Christianity is the cause of that crime, poverty, drug abuse and rape? No. Similarly, atheism is not the necessary cause of the problems and crime rates in other countries. Japan is mostly a non-Christian nation, and has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

 

[nubianconcubine]

This is a bad argument. Correlation does not mean causation. Things like high homicide and crime rates, high levels of rape and drug abuse, high levels of capital punishment, and high levels of poverty and income inequality exist in the U.S., the most Christian of Western countries. Does this mean Christianity is the cause of that crime, poverty, drug abuse and rape? No. Similarly, atheism is not the necessary cause of the problems and crime rates in other countries. Japan is mostly a non-Christian nation, and has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

um...he wasn't saying that atheism was the cause of those problems. he was saying that theism was. japan is mostly crime-free because it is a mostly non-christian nation whereas, the US which is very christian has many problems.
...just some FYI...

 

[S.A.M.]

What about Vatican City?

Must be a hotbed of crime; can't get any more Catholic than the Pope, after all.

 

[nubianconcubine]

What about Vatican City?

Must be a hotbed of crime; can't get any more Catholic than the Pope, after all.

sam, you know that won't work on kenny.
he's too stubborn.

 

[Godless]

Lawpuppy, mentioned something about knowing the history of the church. I wonder if the puppy knows history at all.

The Christianising of Europe

VICTIMS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

And btw since you do promote this BS religion, you do support as well it's terrorism that your church has caused humanity. And furthermore is causing still suffering, death, wars.

Lawpuppy also mentioned the Vatican, guess what made Medicine Woman consider her religion? Yes lawpuppy visit the vatican see the wonders of it all the rich decadence of his holiness, in contrast to the poor pestilence that support them. :bugeye:

Godless

 

[Tiassa]

Marcus Aurelius does not deny that the gods exist. He calls into question the usefulness of worshipping them. The very fact that he is considering and writing about these things identifies him to be a just man, though being human he made errors in his judgements. He was right to say that "the gods" that is, the demons, dont care.

He had a more rational outlook on the notion of divinity than you do. Aurelius accepted that the gods existed. You, on the other hand--

Our faith is revealed by God, Marcus Aurelius' faith was of human origin. He did not have the advantage of revelation ....

....Yes you are correct, and many christians try to create a Jesus that suites them, but who never existed.

That is why I depend on the Church's definition of who Jesus was, so that I am certain that I am not creating my own gods. I recieve God as he revealed himself, I dont create my own Jesus using passages from the bible.

--believe in God. More specifically, you believe in a specific god defined by humans according to what suited them. The definition of God developed by the Roman Catholic church was not rational unto itself, but rational unto the establishment and preservation of a human body politic, e.g. the Church. One of the tragic comedies of the human endeavor is the triumph of "the Church". Perhaps it's a comedic tragedy. In the end, other approaches to God would have brought people closer to the idea they chased after, but would have hamstrung the political influence of "the Church" and its human leaders who fashioned their God according to their desires.

This is rot. Why should you take her word for it?

Why take any human's word for anything? Oh, right: Goldman's summation is reflected in history. Including that "Church" of yours, a great source of blood and gloom and tears.

Religion lifts protestutes out of degradation, puts theives into paradise (like the theif on the cross), consoles the dying, prays for sick and gives hope to the imprisoned.

Nothing like salvation that you can find in the drawer in any hourly-rate motel, eh?

 

[baumgarten]

Only because we haven't yet got the equipment to read a person's thoughts precisely and interpret them. Every brain has different pathways / connections - which is why we all think differently.
So even if you had the ability to interpret/read one person's thoughts exactly, it would need complete recalibration for any one else.

Even if you could correctly interpret every brain's activities, you would have data, not the same experiences as that person.

Mumbo-jumbo horse-poo!
You are taking the phrase "mind over matter" utterly out of context.
The phrase means nothing more than we have the ability to do more physically than our usual conscious self tells us we can.

Actually, I was using it to illustrate the concept of dualism.

And you have utterly failed to explain HOW.
Also - how could you have A able to affect B and not have B able to affect A??? Logically inconsistent.

Is the operation of a one-way valve also logically inconsistent?

Maybe you find one-way relationships a little counterintuitive, but they are not at all logically inconsistent.

You are trying to gloss over questions, that you obviously can't answer, with nothing other than pseudo-scientific manure and by babbling religious drivel.

You are reading too far into my post. First, I never said that these were my personal views. Second, I never once mentioned science. I did mention religion (since that is the topic of discussion), but my drivel was philosophical, not religious.

I have attempted to explain the basis of the thinking behind Catholic (and most Western) philosophy. It is one way to interpret the human experience, not a testable theory posited as scientific fact. And similar to Lawdog's first post, nothing I said was really up for argument; all the statements I made were just ground rules for a system. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that you responded with such hostility, even if this is Sciforums.

 

[wsionynw]

What about Vatican City?

Must be a hotbed of crime; can't get any more Catholic than the Pope, after all.

The Vatican is brimming with security. So much for faith!

 

[perplexity]

The Vatican is brimming with security. So much for faith!

When I went to see St. Peter's, Rome, they refused to let me in, appalled by the sight of my bare feet.

It made me wonder if they'd let Jesus in.

--- Ron.

 

[Sarkus]

Even if you could correctly interpret every brain's activities, you would have data, not the same experiences as that person.

Of course not - as we are all unique. But uniqueness does not imply something other than uniqueness.

Is the operation of a one-way valve also logically inconsistent?

False analogy - a one way valve has reactions of A on B AND B on A - where there is a Force there is a Reaction. The fact that water / fluid / electricity only flows one way is irrelevant. If the flow tried to go the other way it would still act on the valve but be unable to overcome the resistance.
All physical.

So, please, again, tell me how you can have A able to interact with B but not allow B to interact with A?

Maybe you find one-way relationships a little counterintuitive, but they are not at all logically inconsistent.

So please enlighten me as to where they are and how they work, and how they are not logically inconsistent.

...but my drivel was philosophical, not religious.

My apologies for confusing the flavour of the drivel.

I have attempted to explain the basis of the thinking behind Catholic (and most Western) philosophy. It is one way to interpret the human experience, not a testable theory posited as scientific fact. And similar to Lawdog's first post, nothing I said was really up for argument; all the statements I made were just ground rules for a system. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that you responded with such hostility, even if this is Sciforums.

Perhaps you caught me at an inopportune moment at work - so for any perceived hostility I am truly sorry.

Ground-rules for a system are fine, but without evidence to support those rules they are nothing more than an intellectual exercise.

I could posit any number of logically consistent "Gods" - very much along the line of Deism - but without evidence to support it... well... it's as valuable and just as useless as everything else in the similar position.

The point about Lawdog's posited deity is the interraction with the material plane without demonstrating how this is logically possible - and is thus a flaw in the logic of the whole.

 

[baumgarten]

False analogy - a one way valve has reactions of A on B AND B on A - where there is a Force there is a Reaction. The fact that water / fluid / electricity only flows one way is irrelevant. If the flow tried to go the other way it would still act on the valve but be unable to overcome the resistance.
All physical.

The valve would be neither B nor A, but a junction between them. Water can flow from point A on one side of the valve to point B, but not back from B to A. If this is too physical an example for you, consider the arrow of time. The past affects the present, but the present does not affect the past. Such asymmetrical relationships do exist in nature, but even that is not a prerequisite for logical consistency.

Think of the statement "A implies B, but B does not imply A." A and B can be bits in the memory of a computer. This computer can be programmed to obey the statement "if A==1 then let B=1." If initially A=0 and B=0, then when the program finishes they will still both be set to 0. If A=1 and B=0, then B will also be set to 1. If A=0 and B=1, however, A will not also be set to 1; B does not affect A.

It's the same as saying that in the statement, "I am hungry, therefore I eat," the converse is not also true.

Ground-rules for a system are fine, but without evidence to support those rules they are nothing more than an intellectual exercise.

Maybe it is nothing more than an intellectual exercise.

 

[nubianconcubine]

whoa.
who are you?

 

[Sarkus]

If this is too physical an example for you, consider the arrow of time. The past affects the present, but the present does not affect the past.

Time is not something that acts or reacts. Time is the prerequisite medium for allowing such reactions to occur in the first instance. As such it is an invalid example. Without time we have no action/reaction - but time itself neither reacts nor reacts. To think otherwise is to bestow characteristics to time that it just doesn't have.

Such asymmetrical relationships do exist in nature

There might well be, but I know of none, and I am not convinced by either example yet given.

Think of the statement "A implies B, but B does not imply A." A and B can be bits in the memory of a computer. This computer can be programmed to obey the statement "if A==1 then let B=1." If initially A=0 and B=0, then when the program finishes they will still both be set to 0. If A=1 and B=0, then B will also be set to 1. If A=0 and B=1, however, A will not also be set to 1; B does not affect A.

In this example A and B are never interacting.
A and B are independently interacting with the central processor - that observes both A and B and reacts.
So A and C interact. C and B interact. You only assume that A and B are actually interacting when they actually don't.
So again - false analogy.

Maybe it is nothing more than an intellectual exercise.

But an interesting one, nonetheless.

 

[baumgarten]

Time is not something that acts or reacts. Time is the prerequisite medium for allowing such reactions to occur in the first instance. As such it is an invalid example. Without time we have no action/reaction - but time itself neither reacts nor reacts. To think otherwise is to bestow characteristics to time that it just doesn't have.

I obviously wasn't talking about time itself. Events in the past affect events in the present, and not vice-versa.

In this example A and B are never interacting.
A and B are independently interacting with the central processor - that observes both A and B and reacts.
So A and C interact. C and B interact. You only assume that A and B are actually interacting when they actually don't.
So again - false analogy.

No, the computer program is the means by which A affects B. Neither A nor B are "aware" that there is either a CPU or a program; both are abstracted from the memory space, which is for our purposes the point of input and output. By your logic, I do not type this message, but my keyboard/BIOS/operating system/web browser/PHP script/database does. While it may be true that my keyboard affects the data sent to Sciforums as much as I do, I alone initiate the change that leads to the posting of this message. In the same fashion, the manipulation of A from 0 to 1 is what changes the program's output. Our program cannot change this by itself.

But an interesting one, nonetheless.

I agree!