The God Denying Method

[Bishadi]

Not necessarily.

not in the minds of people, perhaps

but in reality; existence only operates ONE way!

fact, postulate, reality; take it or leave it!

No it doesn't. Life is negative entropy

case closed!

 

[spidergoat]

In our reality, time only goes forwards, but on the quantum level, time can go backwards as well. That's two different realities.

 

[Bishadi]

In our reality, time only goes forwards, but on the quantum level, time can go backwards as well. That's two different realities.

at least you put into words, the accepted 'differences' within the existing paradigm

i said: life; abuses entropy

and you said the same thing but not capable of just stating with conviction of comprehension what you did in fact state; (negative entropy) is found by observing that living structures can absorb from the environment to sustain 'itself' (by intent)

which by law (the per se law of nature) is impossible

stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium

so either a life is equilibriating or it is continuing; you have your own facts to face!

my point is, you DENYING truth and maintaining your complacency; is the same METHOD of operandi for any of the religiously convinced

perfectly put, you either grow up and start just being honest, or the 'community' of the 'complacent' (and i don't care the discipline) will be run over.

i never ask for a thing except, 'be honest'

and if life proves that the law is wrong, then you, lambridge, mit or any professor on earth; has no right to impose your BS, just because others accept it.

science is a religion of evidence and integrity and if the people of, cannot be fair and honest, then you now have your answer as to why, the evolution of knowledge is being stymied. (look at how you address me, while you post practically the same resolve)

denying that life evolved is stupid and found prevelant in the religious

not having the math to define what is actually occuring at the molecular scale, is the greatest detriment of holding back the knowledge of evolution from being observed in all learning material (the evidence cannot be defined without multiple patches to the math)

"negative entropy" is the "law of nature" (life)

what you are using is a patch to fix the errors of physics (ever notice how gibbs is used for the same thing; its a patch)

(eg.... also you must notice it was the opposing team of standard physics that invoked the concept: Schroadinger??!?!??)

Because that phenomenon can be observed in a 'wave' frame, where as the particle (reductionary frame (current physics into chemistry)) cannot define the energy into an electron (potential difference vectoring)

Energy is not of 'electrons' (they are isolated by a potential difference caused by em)

so when combining energy angular momentum is used versus the amplitude of the combining wavelengths

planck screwed up!

that increased 'l' is the missing energy to the total potential of combining systems

that is why the wave function is so important and what provides evidence (neg entropy itself is that proof) to the error of the law (2LoT), that created or was specifically incorporated in plancks constant (the particle foundation into physics) and imposed the infallibility of time (direction)

if you knew enough you would not even debate a single line i just posted


as you yourself stated the 2 realities

but do not comprehend, what planck did; there is no 'reversals' when 'c' determines the energy

 

[Sardaukar]

a) i said nothing about a given nature.
b) you haven't enquired about the nature, so how can you
be sure of what you're talking about.

A)

I suggest you learn about the nature of God, through a scripture of your choice, as it will save alot of time.

*Yawn*, although you may be referring to a God that has not revealed his nature.

B) I will never know his nature, nor will he reveal it to me. I'm inferring that he does have a nature, and he is as equally inept in his willingness as we are.

How do you know a supreme being does not exist?
Bare in mind what answer you give will reveal exactly what you deny.

I'm simply arguing semantics I suppose. If there is a God, he is not supreme.

Can you explain what the nature is?

No.

So basically you deny God on the basis of "God does not exist", and the
reason for that conclusion is... ?

I do not deny God, it is impossible. I do deny a being who reigns supreme, even over himself.

But yes, if this God does exist, he must have nature. He is God, overseer of the universe. My friend his simple existence, is indicative of his nature. From this I can assume he exists solely because he can only exist.

 

[spidergoat]

and you said the same thing but not capable of just stating with conviction of comprehension what you did in fact state; (negative entropy) is found by observing that living structures can absorb from the environment to sustain 'itself' (by intent)

which by law (the per se law of nature) is impossible

It's not impossible, since life occurs not as a closed system, but in the context of the entire universe, in which net entropy is increasing. The existence of life, or any other process which creates order, does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics for this reason. Local order can increase, in perfect harmony with natural laws.

The reason for not being able to simulate evolution on the molecular level is because computing power is not yet equal to the task. Emergent properties can come from very complex physical systems. We can prove the principles of evolution from observation, and by the modelling of simplified systems. Your statement is a common approach to debunking science. It goes like this: "Until we know everything, we can know nothing". Nothing is farther from the truth.

 

[Bishadi]

It's not impossible, since life occurs not as a closed system, but in the context of the entire universe,

with that in mind, then there is no closed system unless taking into consideration, the whole universe.

in which net entropy is increasing.

no it aint

hubble did not 'prove' that and don't ever believe it either

The existence of life, or any other process which creates order, does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics for this reason. Local order can increase, in perfect harmony with natural laws.

that means nothing

if a hot thing stays hot and does not equlibriate, it is breaking the law!

anything at zero or neg en..... is breaking the law!

as that law is infallible to planck and 'h' (then to 'c': the speed of light)

The reason for not being able to simulate evolution on the molecular level is because computing power is not yet equal to the task.

not even close

Emergent properties can come from very complex physical systems.

and if a emergent property is observed, you don't cover it up; yu define it.

eg..... what is entanglement to the physics of cosmology? where is that property addressed in QM as a potential to observe?

We can prove the principles of evolution from observation, and by the modelling of simplified systems.

so can i

take two men, measure what they can lift individually; then measure what they can lift together; which is greater, the sum of the individual amounts or the amount they can lift together?

you just had an example of how associating systems can have a greater potential, then the 'community' has implimented into physics

Your statement is a common approach to debunking science.

perhaps from your group

but i would never

i contest the paradigm and the complacent

you are being practically religious, defending a law over observing the evidence. It is almost like holding a book and saying 'here-in lies god'

It goes like this: "Until we know everything, we can know nothing". Nothing is farther from the truth.

i never said that either

i say, "be responsible to evidence over accepted beliefs."

being honest is how to 'deny' any false impositions from any belief; religious or scientific.

i know walking the planck is not as bad as believing in a magical creationary ideology; but the overall reality, not only addresses the religions, but also is like a 'reversal of nature' to the scientific community.

all disciplines are affected

 

[spidergoat]

You have no evidence that life is in violation of any natural law as understood presently. The closed system is indeed the entire universe, which means that local increases in order are possible. In light of the rest of the chaotic universe, the existence of life is not physically significant.

 

[Bishadi]

You have no evidence that life is in violation of any natural law as understood presently.

sure i do; you and me

i dried myself off this morning cus i was getting chilly after going in the pool

the only cause was my choice and no outside causality

meaning breathing air was not the 'open' cause; it was internal; based on my life; the choice, this rock made, not some open outside invisible force; i did it

i break the law with dilengence (maybe i am related to matt dillinger)

The closed system is indeed the entire universe, which means that local increases in order are possible.

So it is not a law? ( 2LoT is just a suggestion?)

i can buy that!

because for physics to suggest the law applies universally, is stupid.

In light of the rest of the chaotic universe, the existence of life is not physically significant.

to you and I, it is

and to mankind, as it is the single most important concept every kid ever born has wanted to know about.

why do you think religions even exist? (because they are used to give people hope, to them, wanting to 'live')

that comprehension of life and how life exists is the next chapter to mankind

and to realize how it works is going to break the planck in 2

 

[spidergoat]

You are being either incoherent or deliberately evasive (what else is new?). The 2nd law of thermodynamics states:

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.​

Life is not isolated from the rest of the universe.

Even on Earth, the apparent order of life is balanced by the rise in entropy when we convert food to energy in many forms, when we create huge piles of garbage and waste, when we destroy the balance of ecosystems...

 

[Bishadi]

You are being either incoherent or deliberately evasive (what else is new?).

come on SG

i am not trying to be evasive, as i know where the mistake was incorporated in planck's work (physics)

what we are discussing is the application into common sense

be fair

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states:

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of increasing entropy,​

and that principle is not universal or there would be no neg-en

stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

and life has evolved over time, increasing its chance of survival (intending to beat up entropy)

Life is not isolated from the rest of the universe.

exactly................. but the unit 'energy' of each living thing is isolated to the unit specimen and that life, can impose its own genetic instinctive objective. The specimen of life is the energy, not the mass.

That energy (life) intents to continue (hence procreation), and further identified by 'its' taking from the environment, to continue.

It is absorbing energy, by intent (instinct). Which at the molecular scale is a property of the energy itself. (it aint random)

Perhaps that is the point you are missing; that the rules of how energy and mass interrelate, are what applies to life. Meaning the rules are universal, but the law is not.

Even on Earth, the apparent order of life is balanced by the rise in entropy when we convert food to energy in many forms, when we create huge piles of garbage and waste, when we destroy the balance of ecosystems...

but knowledge is increasing so the end game is still productive.

life is not increasing the environmental entropy by converting food, that is just rediculous and the reason many do not comprhend that is that very few observe the energy UPON THE MASS as the product.

We do not consume elements, the energy is our food; the elements go back to the earth, and like in most cases of dung, there is a beatle or bug that is just happy go lucky to raise their kids in the shit

the cycles are all interrelated; that is how nature works

there is no closed system anywhere, ever, in existence. (only by the opinions of mankind; but not in reality)

(other than to address the total of existence itself; then find there is no entropy or equilibriation and the first law, told us that before the 2nd was used for designing steam engines)

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sardaukar,

A)*Yawn*, although you may be referring to a God that has not revealed his nature.

That's not the point.
You can still learn about His nature.

B) I will never know his nature, nor will he reveal it to me. I'm inferring that he does have a nature, and he is as equally inept in his willingness as we are.

As above.

I'm simply arguing semantics I suppose. If there is a God, he is not supreme.

Your argument is out of context.
The basic definition of God, is that he is the supreme being.

No.

Then what good is your conclusion?

I do not deny God, it is impossible.

That's is my point exactly.
Thanks.

From this I can assume he exists solely because he can only exist.

I see your point here.
Now you are begining to understand the nature of God.

jan.

 

[Sardaukar]

That's not the point.
You can still learn about His nature.

From where? In most Religious text God clearly contradicts his stated nature. So then where can we learn of his nature? We can't even confirm his existence, if we can't even do that what can we learn from a being that might/might not exist?

Your argument is out of context.
The basic definition of God, is that he is the supreme being.

Supreme over us? Maybe, but not supreme over himself. He is just a being above us, but not supreme.

Then what good is your conclusion?

I'm not trying to define his nature, I'm only speaking hypothetically of his nature in general.

I see your point here.
Now you are begining to understand the nature of God.

If I knew God exists, I would know he exists. I do not, therefore neither you nor I understand his nature.

 

[SkinWalker]

Mod Note: normally, I'm against meta-discussion in a thread, but this would have been too long for a PM and perhaps its best that this be said in the open. I ask, however, that if such discussion is to continue it be taken to the SFGov subforum

JDawg, are you reading the same posts and thread the rest of us are? You're clearly seeing something that I'm missing.

I would ask you the same question. He's made two off-topic posts that were directed at me rather than my argument. And why am I having this discussion with you?

The answer to that question is that you're getting out of line. Sin's alleged "off-topic posts [...] directed at [you]" are responses to what is borderline flame-baiting.

In a post above, Sin states, without ambiguity:

My last post wasn't an argument nor was it an attack on you

...and...

I was interested in speaking with and I wanted to make sure you weren't being simply malevolent with your charges of lesser intelligence, so if I were attacking you I would betray my own intentions of trying to facilitate dialogue. What I was doing was clarifying, just as I am now, so you may understand where I am coming from.

He concludes that the "whole interchange with you was lame."

He was right.

Interestingly enough, you responded with:

And once again, your post has zero substance, and is full of personal attacks. Mild and, for the most part, poorly-conceived as they are, they're still insults.

So, at this point, I'm truly wondering if we're reading the same posts. I haven't known you to be so antagonistic and irrational with a new member before and it seemed a bit out of character.

And, since I only had a few moments to catch up on the thread before heading to work this morning, I actually figured I missed something based on your response to me in post #78. So I carefully went over the thread, isolating yours and Sin's posts, reviewing them as objectively as I could.

I'm not liking what I saw.

To sum Sin's OP, he stated the following:

• The concept of God is impossible to prove either the existence or the nonexistence of
• a method might exist for the evaluation of "gods" as they are described in the holy books that house the details of their character and actions
• only god in abstract is unprovable
• we might be able to dismiss different gods as petty, incompetent, impotent and short-sighted
• this is part of the reason why the old ancient gods were so easy to dismiss - they were riddled with all sorts of imperfect qualities to the point where belief in them denoted blind lunacy.
• The method seems to have been used throughout history without being formalized or inscribed for all to see
• denial of another religions gods is a necessary condition of subscribing to one over the other

Can such a systematized god denying method exist to disprove all gods and not just the ones a particular group identifies with?

And, after my post on observing a god who affects this reality:

any god that has apparent bearing on the world exists within religion and we therefore may actually be able to deny existence to them upon scrutiny of their own actions for inconsistency or otherwise, falsehoods.

In a later post, Sin stated:

The origins of religion is far more complex than to attribute it as an attempt to explain the mysterious environment. It may have been founded with political/theocratic intentions and later adapted for explaining the unknown. There are many speculations but the world may never know.

And, to JDawg, asked:

Now when you say you 'believe' there to be a negative correlation between intelligence and religious propensity, do you say that with evidence and studies or the same lack of evidence you frown upon in the faithful?

• There are intelligent people on both sides, there are idiots on both sides.
• In either case, instead of accusing people of having inferior mental abilities a priori, demonstrate how what they believe is perniciously irrational and misleading.

JDawg, I saw what you were getting at with the negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence. However, I'm very familiar with the Nyborg studies as well as other data. I've actually conversed via email with Nyborg. But I also recognized that one of his studies is very recent (I'm not even sure if it's in publication yet -I have the in-press version) and there's no reason to assume Sin is aware of these studies in any case. His question was fair. A fair and civil response would have been to engage in discourse about it.

Instead, this is your response:

You're clearly speaking out of ignorance--as in, you haven't the first clue as to what you're talking about--yet that doesn't prevent you from chiming in. I mean, more power to you, but it's a bit ironic that a person who honestly doesn't even know how to approach the discussion would be taking a side in the matter.

This is an example being antagonistic where Sin was not. I, too, had questions about what he meant by "theocratic" and took the time to actually ponder it. I pondered it in the context of "political" and came to the conclusion, based on my posts that followed, that he does have a clue and he's clearly not speaking out of ignorance but has a bit of insight. But even if I disagreed totally, such comments above serve to limit discourse and not further discussion.

What, exactly, are "theocratic" intentions?

This is a perfectly good question. Simply asking it without the flaming excerpt above creates discourse and conversation. But rather than take the civil high-road, you stayed on the flaming low one.

The origin of religion should be obvious, if you knew the first thing about religion, which I'm guess you don't.

I'm in partial agreement with Sin and in partial disagreement with you. I'm still not sure what he means about "theocratic" in the context above, but I've voiced my support of where he's going. But since I agree with the bulk of what he's saying (specifically that Religion is complex and not simply a result of trying to explain the unexplainable), would you also stipulate that I, too, "don't know the first thing about religion?"

Now, I posted somewhere in all this, where you were being quite indignant to our new member (Sin, welcome to SciForums, btw!), about the complexity of religious origins in a very, very brief and under-cited synopsis from an anthropological-archaeological perspective. While this is my area of academic focus, I freely admit to being woefully under-educated compared to those from whom I study. But I'm very certain of one thing when it comes to the origins of religion: anyone who says its "clear to them" is not looking at the issue holistically and that person probably already has a conclusion to which he/she attempts to fit all other data. Which brings me to where you said:

I really don't see it. It's clear to me that the main purpose religion serves is the answering of question. The texts all begin with creation stories, and virtually all of them offer at least an answer as to what happens after we die. That's what so many of them are based on that it should be evident that the entire idea of a higher power, or spiritual realm, was meant to answer questions.

I believe you when you say you really don't see it. I hope that you haven't come to a conclusion that precludes you from looking further.

And I hope you won't continue berating and needlessly antagonizing new members who are willing to engage in such discourse. Rather, I'd hope someone with your knowledge, curiosity, and tenure would help guide discussions to fruitful outcomes. There is no expectation that all discussion in the Religion subforum must be debate.

The reason I took the time to post all this is that I reviewed the posts in which you, I, and Sin interacted. Particularly after you stated, "He's made two off-topic posts that were directed at me rather than my argument," and asked, "why am I having this discussion with you?"

The reason is that I'd rather you play nice in the sandbox than chase off the new kid because you don't like the color of his shovel. He made no attempt to insult or berate you. He attempted to clarify his position to you. You were completely unfair and inflammatory for his efforts.

In the meantime, the thread has a viable OP (see my synopsis above) and I also think the subject of religious origins is an interesting and viable topic of discussion. Perhaps someone would like to take portions of this thread and start a new one. I see no convenient point to split this one.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sardaukar

In most Religious text God clearly contradicts his stated nature.

In every scripture Gods' nature is defined as pure, unadulterated, "spirit", of which the symptom is pure consciousness.

We can't even confirm his existence, if we can't even do that what can we learn from a being that might/might not exist?

We don't need to confirm His existence, as it is apparant, based on the definition. However, we can accept it, or not.

Supreme over us? Maybe, but not supreme over himself. He is just a being above us, but not supreme.

How so?.

I'm not trying to define his nature, I'm only speaking hypothetically of his nature in general.

His nature is already defined, pure, unadulterated "spirit" of which the symptom is consciousness.

If I knew God exists, I would know he exists. I do not, therefore neither you nor I understand his nature.

God must exist, by definition.
To believe God does not exist, is to say "i don't accept the definition of God", which is denial.
There are those who have a perfect understanding of His nature, which has
been acquired through practice.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

The existence of God(s) is not axiomatic, nor are the definitions of God(s) the same in all religions.

 

[Bishadi]

The existence of God(s) is not axiomatic, nor are the definitions of God(s) the same in all religions.

morning SG,

fine statement!

 

[Oli]

i dried myself off this morning cus i was getting chilly after going in the pool
the only cause was my choice and no outside causality

But you just stated you did it because you were chilly: outside causation (or influence).

So it is not a law? ( 2LoT is just a suggestion?)

No, it's a law.

because for physics to suggest the law applies universally, is stupid.

If you think that then you haven't understood it (but that's been obvious all along).

 

[Jan Ardena]

The existence of God(s) is not axiomatic, nor are the definitions of God(s) the same in all religions.

It is axiomatic to some, and not to others.
I'm not talking about religion.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

It doesn't work that way. If it's axiomatic, it is an absolute.

 

[Sardaukar]

In every scripture Gods' nature is defined as pure, unadulterated, "spirit", of which the symptom is pure consciousness.

He also displays qualities such as insecurity and ignorance. Contradictory of his supposed immaculate nature.

We don't need to confirm His existence, as it is apparant, based on the definition. However, we can accept it, or not.

Because if the universe didn't have an overseer life would cease function? There is no evidence of God's existence. Don't be so rash as to conclude he must exist out of necessity.

How so?.

Given as you said, God is loving and caring. He can no longer work outside those given characteristics, and if he does then that too is compiled into his nature. As do we, neither God has free will.

His nature is already defined, pure, unadulterated "spirit" of which the symptom is consciousness.

By whom? Religious text has already proved itself countless times as an unreliable source.

God must exist, by definition.
To believe God does not exist, is to say "i don't accept the definition of God", which is denial.
There are those who have a perfect understanding of His nature, which has
been acquired through practice.

Man made God. We twist and distort the definition of a figurative being that probably doesn't exist, so as to answer our questions of life, to feel rewarded for our "good" deeds, with the promises of heaven, and Whom do you think wrote the bible, why man did. And man is a sick creature filled with devious manipulative perception.

We can make anything as it seems.