To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.
- Thread starter Pachomius
- Start date
- Status
Sarkus,
Its a figure of speech.
I'll take your word for it.
Gee! You guys are so cool.
Why is it possible?
You need to be more specific.
I didn't say it unambiguously lead to God, but it gives an idea of how one needs look for evidence of God.
From comprehending the knowledge that if God exists, He is the origin of everything, what, one or two pieces of data, within His effect, would jump out at you and reveal His existence?
IOW what is an atheist looking for when they say ''no evidence''?
And please don't say anything that leads them to acknowledge God. Be more specific.
No one's asking you to.
It just put's God, scriptures, and essential religion, into perspective.
And reveals the shallowness of equating God with invisible sweet-talking pepper pots, performing in a concert on Saturn.
I'm not saying it is evidence of God. I'm saying 'if God exists, then everything is evidence. As I said before, that logic gives some perspective. It means I have to look at the scriptures, and the whole notion of God differently than anything within the limited range of material existence. The absurd explanation refuses to look at God in any other way than material, and in this way justifies its claim by using absurdity to give the impression that belief in God is no less absurd than belief in very silly things.
Does it not put into perspective the level of evidence that is required to believe in God?
That suggests that it is possible to actually believe in something at will. Do you think that is possible?
Well, as a theist I can tell you that you are mistaken (at least in some cases).
I don't think you fully comprehend my point, because it is fairly simple. I'm no academic, or great thinker.
It is what it is. Silly. And it works for people who lack comprehension of God.
It has nothing to do with God, or evidence, or not, of God.
None seems to see God as God, be it fictional or non-fictional.
How can you agree to those silly notions?
jan.
Its a figure of speech.
I'll take your word for it.
Gee! You guys are so cool.
Why is it possible?
You need to be more specific.
I didn't say it unambiguously lead to God, but it gives an idea of how one needs look for evidence of God.
From comprehending the knowledge that if God exists, He is the origin of everything, what, one or two pieces of data, within His effect, would jump out at you and reveal His existence?
IOW what is an atheist looking for when they say ''no evidence''?
And please don't say anything that leads them to acknowledge God. Be more specific.
No one's asking you to.
It just put's God, scriptures, and essential religion, into perspective.
And reveals the shallowness of equating God with invisible sweet-talking pepper pots, performing in a concert on Saturn.
I'm not saying it is evidence of God. I'm saying 'if God exists, then everything is evidence. As I said before, that logic gives some perspective. It means I have to look at the scriptures, and the whole notion of God differently than anything within the limited range of material existence. The absurd explanation refuses to look at God in any other way than material, and in this way justifies its claim by using absurdity to give the impression that belief in God is no less absurd than belief in very silly things.
Does it not put into perspective the level of evidence that is required to believe in God?
That suggests that it is possible to actually believe in something at will. Do you think that is possible?
Well, as a theist I can tell you that you are mistaken (at least in some cases).
I don't think you fully comprehend my point, because it is fairly simple. I'm no academic, or great thinker.
It is what it is. Silly. And it works for people who lack comprehension of God.
It has nothing to do with God, or evidence, or not, of God.
None seems to see God as God, be it fictional or non-fictional.
How can you agree to those silly notions?
jan.
Last edited:
Sarkus,
wait till i finish the above post b4 you reply.
i sent message before i finished, and couldn't split it in edit mode.
(what's that all about?)
wait till i finish the above post b4 you reply.
i sent message before i finished, and couldn't split it in edit mode.
(what's that all about?)
Why? Because we are psychologically and physiologically capable of it.
In what way is "Originator of all" not specific enough?
Yes, one must look for evidence that rationally and unambiguously leads to "God" rather than be merely an observation that fits every theory under consideration.
It would need to be something that can not possibly be evidence that fits any alternative possibility, that can only possibly lead to the conclusion of "God", or at least such that any alternative notion that it does fit fails Occam's razor compared to "God".
And while some have given you examples of what might convince them, I can not say what would convince me. You have asked me this before, and my answer remains the same, whether I accept that God exists or not.
How? You have to accept that they are correct, and you have to do so in the same manner that you accept God exists - i.e. without any support whatsoever. Whether you accept the scriptures or not makes them no different in this regard, no better supported. There is no grounds to take them further than acceptance.
Afterall, I could accept with the same level of support that my lawn is blue.
It does no such thing. If anything it merely shows how the analogy is equally valid to the scriptures and essential religion in so as much as they refer to God.
But it is evidence of every theory that it fits, even competing theories (and I of course use the term theory unscientifically).
The perspective of needing to be fallacious to make it meaningful?
By saying that everything is evidence, you are including everything that is material, and yet you say it is somehow wrong to look at the material aspect??
Other than that criticism, I simply can't see how any of your conclusions flow from the "logic" you claim.
Not really: it has always been, for me at least, at rather a high level - "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" etc.
No, I don't think we can choose to be irrational, but one person's rationality is another person's irrationality. My point is not that one can choose, but that if one is not in the cycle of believing to believe then one will not believe until some threshold is reached. Likewise one does not escape the cycle until a threshold is reached. And that threshold will be different for each person.
Please show me, logically, how it is possible to believe in God and yet not believe.
I don't fully comprehend your point, that much is obvious, and if you want me to understand then I would think the onus is on you to explain. I have tried to point out the areas of contradiction I have noted, of confusion in your replies, and where I simply disagree. You can put that disagreement down to misunderstanding if you want, or simply it is that I do understand, and you do not understand the nature of the disagreement.
It works. Period. Whether we deem it silly or not. It is meant to explain precisely and clearly (through exaggeration / comparison to the absurd) why some atheists do not believe in God. It is not meant to work in any other way.
As an explanatory analogy it works.
Yes it does. It has everything to do with it, and of the atheist perspective of it. If you disagree with the atheist's perspective then of course it will not work to explain your position. But it does work to explain the position of those whose position it is designed to explain.
Because whatever their notion of God, the use of the analogy by them tells me that they have no evidence of that notion. That tells me all I need to understand why they do not believe in God (or their notion of it).
If God exists and does not match their notion then the analogy still works in the way it works for anything else for which you have no notion of.
I have no notion of a Sparkkat. I therefore have no awareness of evidence of a Sparkkat, for to have awareness of evidence of a Sparkkat I must have a notion of what a Sparkkat is. The analogy to the celestial teapot thus holds... in that I have as much awareness of evidence for the existence a Sparkkat as I do for a celestial teapot.
Of course, you will find something to disagree with here, but please try to come up with something other than "it's silly".
I don’t believe that God exists because the ancients decreed it, that was my take on your assertion that God can be adequately conceptualized and realized through acceptance of traditional religious dogma.
Yes, let's look at your own.
Parlor tricks? You mean like Jesus healing the sick, curing the blind, and raising the dead? Were these accounts not meant to sway non-believers? Why can't God attempt to so sway me?
.
He was pretty good at turning water into wine, too. A big party hit, but frowned upon by bar owners.
You say:
"So called virtual particle pairs arise with no apparent cause in the vacuum of space."
Forgive me, your words above do not denote categorically that virtual particles pop in and out of existence without a cause.
So called virtual particles, do they exist in objective reality like the nose in our face, or only in the mind of scientists talking about them?
No apparent cause, may I ask what is that supposed to be, a no apparent cause; does it exist or not exist only in the mind of scientists talking about so called virtual particles?
Vacuum of space, is that total nothingness as literally status of non-existence whatsoever, not even a mind thinking about nothing?
In brief, can you say that scientists are categorically telling mankind that so called virtual particles when they do pop into existence from vacuum of space [nothingness of existence?] into existence, are objectively existing like the nose in our face during the time duration of their popping existence and that from no apparent cause that is not apparent, pray, to whose mind?
Forgive me, but I get the impression that you write in a manner that is not into making categorically definite statements.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Jan's argument seems to be that you have to believe in God in the first place before you can understand God. If you have to accept something that doesn't exist before you can talk rationally about it then this explains the circular logic that all Jan's posts exhibit.
Regarding the comment about loving your wife. This just goes back to my comment about God being a "feeling" to some. Jan says that's not the case and then brings up this example of Love (which is a feeling).
Regarding the comment about loving your wife. This just goes back to my comment about God being a "feeling" to some. Jan says that's not the case and then brings up this example of Love (which is a feeling).
Science is not commonly in the business of making definitive statements. I feel this is more of a strength than a weakness.
These particles are real enough that it may be possible to extract energy from them, it's called zero point energy.
The absolute nothing that you refer to sounds more like philosophy than physics. There may be either no such thing as absolute nothingness, or such an unstable state that it tends to readily collapse into space-time.
Yazata,
Yes, because that is where you'll find the best definitions of God.
Simply put, scriptures are writings that can help with your connection to God.
Because they are descended from God (I'm not claiming this, I'm answering your question for the purpose of discussion)
They are not necessarily authortitive, just because they're authorititive, you come to understand that this is a authoritive.
jan.
Yes, because that is where you'll find the best definitions of God.
Simply put, scriptures are writings that can help with your connection to God.
Because they are descended from God (I'm not claiming this, I'm answering your question for the purpose of discussion)
They are not necessarily authortitive, just because they're authorititive, you come to understand that this is a authoritive.
jan.
Simply put, there is no connection until some god gets up the courage to come out of hiding & show itself.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Unicorns can exist with the imagined reality like kind wear wolfs and colorful ponies. You can't really say anything because the imagination would be invisible to the observable world, and by nature all mighty. Just imagine what an Imagination would be capable of. Totally sentinent and conscious. Capable of creation.
Last edited:
The HolyBabble has Jesus telling his disciples he speaks in parables so that most people will not understand. Are you trying to emulate that?
You have His Word which documents miracles were performed...you attest to it by referencing it and predicating your question upon it, yet at the same time you dismiss it. That same Word documents the inability of miracles performed to convince most to believe. If you don't believe His Word, you will not be convinced by a miracle performed for you because what is the difference between the two? His Word to you or a 'miracle' to you? It is your attitude to the Source that blocks your way to faith, not a failure on His part to satisfactorily demonstrate His existence.
Jesus: “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ ” Jesus says in another place: "...do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”
Thanks Spidergoat for your reply.
You say,
"Science is not commonly in the business of making definitive statements. I feel this is more of a strength than a weakness."
I am talking about the objective reality of virtual particles, namely, whether they are concepts in the mind of the experts of virtual particles, or they do have objective existence outside the mind of their experts, like the nose in the face of these experts.
There is a noes in the face of the experts of virtual particles; that is a definitive statement, and they can break their nose accidentally if they bang hard their nose in the dark against a concrete wall.
Can you answer with a definitive statement to the effect, namely, that they are just concepts in the minds of the experts of virtual particles, or they are as real as the nose in the face of their experts.
The distinction is between concepts in the mind and objects outside the mind in actual objective reality like the nose in our face.
So, if I may, just tell me then that virtual particles are all just concepts in the minds of the experts of virtual particles, they don't have objective existence outside the minds of these experts, not like their noses.
Anyway, I like to ask you, what do they the virtual particles explain in the real objective reality like the nose in our face?
They must explain something in the realm of objective existence outside of concepts in the minds of experts of virtual particles.
Annex
spidergoat, Wednesday at 10:39 AM Post #209
Science is not commonly in the business of making definitive statements. I feel this is more of a strength than a weakness.
These particles are real enough that it may be possible to extract energy from them, it's called zero point energy.
The absolute nothing that you refer to sounds more like philosophy than physics. There may be either no such thing as absolute nothingness, or such an unstable state that it tends to readily collapse into space-time.
You say,
"Science is not commonly in the business of making definitive statements. I feel this is more of a strength than a weakness."
I am talking about the objective reality of virtual particles, namely, whether they are concepts in the mind of the experts of virtual particles, or they do have objective existence outside the mind of their experts, like the nose in the face of these experts.
There is a noes in the face of the experts of virtual particles; that is a definitive statement, and they can break their nose accidentally if they bang hard their nose in the dark against a concrete wall.
Can you answer with a definitive statement to the effect, namely, that they are just concepts in the minds of the experts of virtual particles, or they are as real as the nose in the face of their experts.
The distinction is between concepts in the mind and objects outside the mind in actual objective reality like the nose in our face.
So, if I may, just tell me then that virtual particles are all just concepts in the minds of the experts of virtual particles, they don't have objective existence outside the minds of these experts, not like their noses.
Anyway, I like to ask you, what do they the virtual particles explain in the real objective reality like the nose in our face?
They must explain something in the realm of objective existence outside of concepts in the minds of experts of virtual particles.
Annex
spidergoat, Wednesday at 10:39 AM Post #209
[Start of quote from Pachomius]
You say:
"So called virtual particle pairs arise with no apparent cause in the vacuum of space."
Forgive me, your words above do not denote categorically that virtual particles pop in and out of existence without a cause.
So called virtual particles, do they exist in objective reality like the nose in our face, or only in the mind of scientists talking about them?
No apparent cause, may I ask what is that supposed to be, a no apparent cause; does it exist or not exist only in the mind of scientists talking about so called virtual particles?
Vacuum of space, is that total nothingness as literally status of non-existence whatsoever, not even a mind thinking about nothing?
In brief, can you say that scientists are categorically telling mankind that so called virtual particles when they do pop into existence from vacuum of space [nothingness of existence?] into existence, are objectively existing like the nose in our face during the time duration of their popping existence and that from no apparent cause that is not apparent, pray, to whose mind?
Forgive me, but I get the impression that you write in a manner that is not into making categorically definite statements.
[End of quote from Pachomius]
You say:
"So called virtual particle pairs arise with no apparent cause in the vacuum of space."
Forgive me, your words above do not denote categorically that virtual particles pop in and out of existence without a cause.
So called virtual particles, do they exist in objective reality like the nose in our face, or only in the mind of scientists talking about them?
No apparent cause, may I ask what is that supposed to be, a no apparent cause; does it exist or not exist only in the mind of scientists talking about so called virtual particles?
Vacuum of space, is that total nothingness as literally status of non-existence whatsoever, not even a mind thinking about nothing?
In brief, can you say that scientists are categorically telling mankind that so called virtual particles when they do pop into existence from vacuum of space [nothingness of existence?] into existence, are objectively existing like the nose in our face during the time duration of their popping existence and that from no apparent cause that is not apparent, pray, to whose mind?
Forgive me, but I get the impression that you write in a manner that is not into making categorically definite statements.
[End of quote from Pachomius]
Science is not commonly in the business of making definitive statements. I feel this is more of a strength than a weakness.
These particles are real enough that it may be possible to extract energy from them, it's called zero point energy.
The absolute nothing that you refer to sounds more like philosophy than physics. There may be either no such thing as absolute nothingness, or such an unstable state that it tends to readily collapse into space-time.
His word as determined by whom? Members of primitive societies who couldn’t differentiate hallucinations from reality, disease from demon possession, or the living from the dead? Why take their unsubstantiated word on anything? If a god wants to make the best possible case for itself, it ought to start by making the best possible case for itself, instead of relying on lines of communication and evidence that most in our modern society would find unacceptable or laughable to employ in their daily lives.
So Jesus makes a ploy to legitimize himself through an unsubstantiated connection to revered historical figures who themselves had no substantiated connection to an unsubstantiated divine entity. A chain of evidence not only forged of imagination, but one that stretches the imagination as well.
The issue with anything at the quantum scale is that ordinary measurement is impossible. That is to say, unlike one's nose, measuring such a particle necessarily changes it. All we can say is that virtual particles seem to work as a means for calculating particle interactions. The only difference between a virtual particle and a real one is duration. The standard of being as real as the nose on your face may be inappropriate. If you feel that this is unreasonable, I will withdraw the example and instead emphasize the causelessness of radioactive decay.
We do not have his word documenting anything. There is no his word until he gets up the courage to come out of hiding & show himself.
Why do you refer to it as male? Does it have a penis?
It is your attitude which blocks your way to truth & reality.
IF I cared enough about whether you believe I exist, I'd be knocking on your door. Your impotent god cannot even do that. There is certainly no good reason to believe in any god that cannot/will not show itself & speak for itself.
To Spidergoat:
How is your information about virtual particles and radioactive decay, both of them I understand from you that they are popping in and out of existence without a cause, how are they relevant to the issue of God existing in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning?
How is your information about virtual particles and radioactive decay, both of them I understand from you that they are popping in and out of existence without a cause, how are they relevant to the issue of God existing in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning?
Spidergoat, Wednesday at 2:13 AM Post #200
I can give examples of this. So called virtual particle pairs arise with no apparent cause in the vacuum of space. Radioactive decay also seems to occur with no cause. So yes, the science shows that not everything with a beginning has a cause, at least not for quantum scale events.
Spidergoat, yesterday at 12:08 PM Post #217
The issue with anything at the quantum scale is that ordinary measurement is impossible. That is to say, unlike one's nose, measuring such a particle necessarily changes it. All we can say is that virtual particles seem to work as a means for calculating particle interactions. The only difference between a virtual particle and a real one is duration. The standard of being as real as the nose on your face may be inappropriate. If you feel that this is unreasonable, I will withdraw the example and instead emphasize the causelessness of radioactive decay.
I can give examples of this. So called virtual particle pairs arise with no apparent cause in the vacuum of space. Radioactive decay also seems to occur with no cause. So yes, the science shows that not everything with a beginning has a cause, at least not for quantum scale events.
Spidergoat, yesterday at 12:08 PM Post #217
The issue with anything at the quantum scale is that ordinary measurement is impossible. That is to say, unlike one's nose, measuring such a particle necessarily changes it. All we can say is that virtual particles seem to work as a means for calculating particle interactions. The only difference between a virtual particle and a real one is duration. The standard of being as real as the nose on your face may be inappropriate. If you feel that this is unreasonable, I will withdraw the example and instead emphasize the causelessness of radioactive decay.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I would think it would be a better approach for a theist to take God out of the realm of the physical world altogether including creation. Certainly invoking QM or the Big Bang isn't going to be satisfying.
The argument goes (I guess) that God has always existed and the universe was created (at the Big Bang) so God must have done it. God is defined as a spirit outside of time and space.
The logic goes that since we generally observe cause and effect in nature that the "effect" of the Big Bang must have been "caused" by something. However, cause and effect are principles of the material world. That's the only world that we know of and it's the only time we have noted "cause and effect".
To argue that a spirit (God) was the cause of a material effect is without precedence. We have no evidence of any kind that there is such a thing as a spirit and to posit that an immaterial spirit can "cause" the creation of the material universe isn't logical at all as it is without precedence and without any mechanism to effect this.
Why not just leave "God" out of the material world and keep it in some spiritual guidance role? At that point you can get out of the business of having to continually make up more and more implausible and complicated explanations for the material world.
Before we figured out exactly how the planets revolved around the Sun there was the complicated system of "epicycles" (I believe was the name) that the planets had to follow to make everything come out right.
A through historical study of the Bible and other religions of the day would abuse anyone of the notion that Christianity was anything other than man of the day coming up with yet one more religion inspired no more or less by their made up gods than any other religion.
You aren't going to derive any universal truths or science. Why not just take it for what it is...a philosophy and leave it at that?
The argument goes (I guess) that God has always existed and the universe was created (at the Big Bang) so God must have done it. God is defined as a spirit outside of time and space.
The logic goes that since we generally observe cause and effect in nature that the "effect" of the Big Bang must have been "caused" by something. However, cause and effect are principles of the material world. That's the only world that we know of and it's the only time we have noted "cause and effect".
To argue that a spirit (God) was the cause of a material effect is without precedence. We have no evidence of any kind that there is such a thing as a spirit and to posit that an immaterial spirit can "cause" the creation of the material universe isn't logical at all as it is without precedence and without any mechanism to effect this.
Why not just leave "God" out of the material world and keep it in some spiritual guidance role? At that point you can get out of the business of having to continually make up more and more implausible and complicated explanations for the material world.
Before we figured out exactly how the planets revolved around the Sun there was the complicated system of "epicycles" (I believe was the name) that the planets had to follow to make everything come out right.
A through historical study of the Bible and other religions of the day would abuse anyone of the notion that Christianity was anything other than man of the day coming up with yet one more religion inspired no more or less by their made up gods than any other religion.
You aren't going to derive any universal truths or science. Why not just take it for what it is...a philosophy and leave it at that?
- Status