DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Supply a quote, or stand revealed as committing a deliberate falsehood.
Proof there is a God
- Thread starter JBrentonK
- Start date
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
If we are *unconscious* such as the brainless slime mold which can solve a maze trough a purely mathematical function, is it then not reasonable to assume that God also needs not possess a brain (if slime molds are also His emanations)?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
But that does not make it *common sense*, a definition which by your own words does not apply here.
It does make it *common wishful thinking*. "Praise the Lord for He will grant you eternal life"
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
A quote out of context is as disingenuous as altering a quote. Shame.
Here's the context:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No, this is not my way, this is how it is in reality. But thanks for the concession.
From post 994 or
However, it is not clear what sense "responsible" has. I think you mean "prime cause" or "creator" and not "overseer" or supervisor of things that happen in the material world, (mass murders, even extinctions of some groups; wars, even those that use rape as a weapon, etc.) Perhaps you could define the Devil that way, but this thread is not about the existence or not of the Devil, so you do not need to define the Devil.
Thus your definition God postulates "God created the universe." Science thinks the universe was created in the "Big Bang" more than 13 billion years ago (and less than 14) So for scientist (most of them) you may be just calling the Big Bang" God, if God is defined as you do. But I don't think you intend that, as your give God characteristics, more associated with humans (love, justice, etc.) than physical events, which the Big Bang clearly does not have.
The only scientifically defensible (not postulating "God did it") cause for the Big Bang is that the universe was created in a statistical fluctuation of the "nothingness" much like every second electron / positron pairs are now created out of the "nothingness" of the vacuum. The main difference is that these virtual electron positron (a total energy of slightly more than one Mev) mutually self destruct, within the time the uncertainty principle allows ~1 MeV to exist in brief violation of energy conservation.
The statistical fluctuation that the produced the enduring universe out of the nothingness (equal amounts of positive and negative energy, so total remained zero) was promptly followed by an extremely rapid "inflation." So rapid, that most of the negative and positive energies got separated before they could re-join to make zero again, as Electron / positrons do. (Except when they "pop out of the nothingness" very near the event horizon of a black hole and one falls inside it.)
I believe the "positive energy" cooled, and then made quarks, which later when still cooler, three at a time combined to make protons and neutrons. Still later this 100% ionized neutral plasma, cooled more and became transparent. So the intensely hot Black Body spectrum of radiation could escape from it and is now observable as the "Cosmic Background Radiation (much cooler now in a much larger universe). I also think that the negative energy still exist, but is now called: Dark Energy. It seems to be expanding the universe at an accelerated rate. Perhaps because the off setting, mutual gravitational attraction, between stars, etc. is growing weaker as they become on average separated by ever greater distances.
SUMMARY: Yes we would like to have so explanation of how the universe came to be. “God made it” is yours and it violates Ockham's suggestion not to postulate more than you need to.) We don't make any such "God postulate" with the scientifically version.* In fact we know particles are constantly being created out of the nothingness by Statistical fluctuations. The only thing that may not be explained (perhaps it is and I just don't know it) is why the extremely rapid “inflation” occurred with the statistical fluctuation that made the universe. In some crude sense, perhaps all very large statistical fluctuations “blow up” - too high an energy density not to?
You are supposed to be trying to prove this "Supreme Being" exists, so it is reasonable for you to try to define Him/Her/. Defining God as being described in the Christian "Scripture," while there are several others in addition to the bible, that give different AND CONFLICTING characteristics to the God they define, is not reasonable. It is mutually contradicting and thus very illogical. So I will take your definition of God as the "Supreme Being that is responsible for the material world" as your better defined definition of God. (rather than your "scripture describes God" version.
However, it is not clear what sense "responsible" has. I think you mean "prime cause" or "creator" and not "overseer" or supervisor of things that happen in the material world, (mass murders, even extinctions of some groups; wars, even those that use rape as a weapon, etc.) Perhaps you could define the Devil that way, but this thread is not about the existence or not of the Devil, so you do not need to define the Devil.
Thus your definition God postulates "God created the universe." Science thinks the universe was created in the "Big Bang" more than 13 billion years ago (and less than 14) So for scientist (most of them) you may be just calling the Big Bang" God, if God is defined as you do. But I don't think you intend that, as your give God characteristics, more associated with humans (love, justice, etc.) than physical events, which the Big Bang clearly does not have.
The only scientifically defensible (not postulating "God did it") cause for the Big Bang is that the universe was created in a statistical fluctuation of the "nothingness" much like every second electron / positron pairs are now created out of the "nothingness" of the vacuum. The main difference is that these virtual electron positron (a total energy of slightly more than one Mev) mutually self destruct, within the time the uncertainty principle allows ~1 MeV to exist in brief violation of energy conservation.
The statistical fluctuation that the produced the enduring universe out of the nothingness (equal amounts of positive and negative energy, so total remained zero) was promptly followed by an extremely rapid "inflation." So rapid, that most of the negative and positive energies got separated before they could re-join to make zero again, as Electron / positrons do. (Except when they "pop out of the nothingness" very near the event horizon of a black hole and one falls inside it.)
I believe the "positive energy" cooled, and then made quarks, which later when still cooler, three at a time combined to make protons and neutrons. Still later this 100% ionized neutral plasma, cooled more and became transparent. So the intensely hot Black Body spectrum of radiation could escape from it and is now observable as the "Cosmic Background Radiation (much cooler now in a much larger universe). I also think that the negative energy still exist, but is now called: Dark Energy. It seems to be expanding the universe at an accelerated rate. Perhaps because the off setting, mutual gravitational attraction, between stars, etc. is growing weaker as they become on average separated by ever greater distances.
SUMMARY: Yes we would like to have so explanation of how the universe came to be. “God made it” is yours and it violates Ockham's suggestion not to postulate more than you need to.) We don't make any such "God postulate" with the scientifically version.* In fact we know particles are constantly being created out of the nothingness by Statistical fluctuations. The only thing that may not be explained (perhaps it is and I just don't know it) is why the extremely rapid “inflation” occurred with the statistical fluctuation that made the universe. In some crude sense, perhaps all very large statistical fluctuations “blow up” - too high an energy density not to?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
You seem to need God, but you don't know why. It just gets curiouser and curiouser.
The Christian definition falls into that scriptural definition. The Christian will not deny that definition.
That being said, it would be rather silly of me not to accept the most universally comprehensive definition when try to prove God.
Responsible in the sense that you are responsible for the maintenance of all of your body.
No I don't need to define the devil.
While I do believe that God has other characteristics, for the purpose of this thread, I have only given the characteristics that are present within scriptures.
IOW it doesn't matter what I believe, I could be quoting the same scriptures that I have been doing, and explaining them the same way if I was an atheist.
I suppose that sums it up then.
God couldn't have possibly made it, because it violates Ockham's Razor.
Someone ought to inform the boys at the scripture making factory.
jan.
Last edited:
Why do you think people need God?
You said: I can suggest lots of equally-good-as-each-other sources [information about God].
What sources?
jan.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
OK, I'll repeat the five conceptions of God I listed for you yesterday but which you seem not to have read. This is what I wrote:
" You and I have covered at least four over the last few days, namely: Order-in-the-Universe, Complete Whole - Impersonal, Conscious Spirit who Cares for the Soul (a.k.a. Complete Whole - Personal?), Supreme Being Responsible for the Material World. And we have not even mentioned the God most commonly assumed in everyday speech in Christendom: Personal, 3 persons in one essence, Father (creator), Son (relationship with Man) and Holy Spirit (means of transmission of God's influence). So let's put that on the table , too. That makes five. "
I really think it is you who is scared to think. You wriggle and evade constantly and we are no nearer your supposed proof than we were a week ago.
By contrast, I have demonstrably thought about alternative conceptions of God, enough to give you five different ones. So that shows I am neither "scared" of these ideas, nor content to remain in a state of ignorance about them.
I have also given you my reasons for thinking it is not possible to prove God's existence ((a) the absence of objective evidence, and (b) the fact that even theories of science, which are based on objective evidence, cannot be proved.)
Since I sense this dialogue is almost at an end, I may as well tell you that my view is also that it is, equally, impossible to prove His non-existence.
I am thus agnostic about the existence of God, though I see no objective need for the hypothesis given the absence of evidence.
And now, rather than get on with this supposed proof of yours - which I am becoming convinced we will never see because you have realised you cannot do it - you resort to abuse by calling me "wilfully ignorant", when it is clear from my approach to this issue that that is a baseless charge. Am I pissed off about being called "wilfully ignorant"? Too fucking right I am!
One final observation: I was amused to see you saying: "You're not interested in knowing God exists." So the mask has slipped. You reveal your conviction and your inability to set that aside for purpose of making an argument. You sound, in that phrase, in fact, like the worst sort of smug evangelical Protestant - which is what I originally thought you were. And perhaps that is what you are, and all this Indian stuff is a smokescreen. But I'll never know.
So you say you are using common sense as per the definition you provided, but then say that this definition does not apply as we aren't discussing common things???
Ok - no quibbling from me on that... so why insist on common sense that you clearly deem not applicable to this matter?
So you are simply appealing to popularity. Got it. Thanks.
In the same way that it is "common knowledge" that exactly three magi visited Jesus in his cradle? Or that Mary Magdalene was prostitute? (Just to give two examples related to the Bible).
And since you apparently "rely on" this common sense, you are basically saying you have nothing other than this popular conception of God as being sentient to support your position?
Intriguing.
We are not discussing practical matters. Whether God exists or not, is sentient or not, has no necessary bearing on practical matters.
Why? We are also violent, dangerous, hurtful, uncaring, unconscious, dead, and an almost infinite people are as non-existent as my younger sister. So, being His emanations, this makes God non-existent, unconscious, dead, dangerous, violent, hurtful, uncaring?
Or perhaps, just perhaps, such properties are only relevant at a certain level of localised complexity, and can not be assigned, as you do, to what we are emanations of (if indeed we are).
But you know enough to believe? Then prove whatever it is you think you currently know.
Binary decision: i.e. you have to choose one of two options with no possibility of any other alternative. In binary there is just 1 and 0. If you have to choose between whether something exists or whether something does not exist, this would be a binary decision.
But in most cases, as in the question of belief in whether or not God exists, there is always the option of saying "I don't know." and thus it is no longer a binary case.
So no proof then? Just arguments and evidence in support of? How disappointing, after all this time in a thread about "proof of God".
No, you're up against people who are asking you what you believe and to prove that what you believe is indeed true. Your unwillingness to do so manifests in your continuing efforts at evasion and in your misconception that what they happen to believe is relevant to you being able to prove what you believe. And your style of writing is one that doesn't convey that it is your belief but that it is the truth. And when confronted with someone seeming to tell the most hat the truth is, the natural response is for them to ask for you to prove it.
What you're up against, Jan, is your own unwillingness.
In this particular instance it is that the property of a part (and/or emanation) can necessarily be attributed to the whole.
The difference, Jan, is that I respond to your points as well as criticising what I see of you that gives rise to your view - in the hope that tackling the issue at the source might at least improve the manner of discussion,
You, on the other hand, simply criticise the person in lieu of arguing against the points raised.
Where?
I don't know how you work these out to be ''concepts of God'', but here is what I thought you meant...
Conceptions of God in monotheist, pantheist, and panentheist religions – or of thesupreme deity in henotheistic religions – can extend to various levels of abstraction:
- as a powerful, human-like, supernatural being, or as the deification of an esoteric,mystical or philosophical entity or category;
- as the "Ultimate", the summum bonum, the "Absolute Infinite", the "Transcendent", or Existence or Being itself;
- as the ground of being, the monistic substrate, that which we cannot understand; and so on.
You don't even know what a conception of God is. How can you comprehend what proof of God is?
You don't seem to have any idea of what God is, let alone thought about concepts of God. You are scared to discuss this subject rationally.
Obviously you're not going to admit it, but it shows in your responses (when pushed). You would prefer me to stick within your comfort range, but I don't, and, you don't know where to go. So you try come after me. Pathetic.
You don't even know what God is (anymore), you have your own personal conception (that suits you), then claim it cannot exist.
You shy away from scripture, and when confronted with it, or reasoning on or about it, you act as though they are insignificant (as though there are any other comprehensive sources out there), so you don't have to discuss them.
You're right, it is at an end. And precisely what you wanted. You do not want to have to accept anything in scriptures as reasonable, because you know it will follow on, and you will be forced to change your thinking.
And you don't want to do that.
Nothing but a title. Your true view of God is present in what you say when you talk about God.
Of course you are, because you're not prepared to do anything about it. And you don't like being called out.
Here goes!
Bye exchemist!
Stay in your cozy little world where God doesn't exist, unless it's the kind of God that personally suits you.
jan.
Last edited: