So because people describe god as being undetectable, and of course god IS undetectable, that means god effectively exists? Haha! That's genuinely funny.
Who can give the best account of why there is a God?
- Thread starter alexb123
- Start date
So because people describe god as being undetectable, and of course god IS undetectable, that means god effectively exists? Haha! That's genuinely funny.
It would be funny, had I said it, but I didn't.
That's not remotely close to what I said.
You didn't read it, did you?
It's OK, you can admit it.
I know it's long.
LG,
Personal testimony is never acceptable in science. Empirical evidence is needed to establish knowledge. There is no other proven method for establishing knowledge. Authority figures in science are only ambassadors for hard evidence. It is the evidence that is paramount and not the scientists.
I have demonstrated by logical reasoning how we can hypothesize for the existence of self as an emergent system based on the existence of other emergent systems. This is a justifiable explanation based on known material phenomena. This is a current area of investigation in science that has both supporters and opponents.
You have not been able to present any equivalent logical reasoning to support the possibility of anything supernatural. Your argument is based on assertions that “magic happens” but can give no evidence of any type for support. Your only defense is based on the assertions of others who you claim as authoritative but you are unable to show how they say anything more than “magic happens”.
I do not see that your claim that “magic happens” is in the least bit superior to the theory of emergence.
Personal testimony is never acceptable in science. Empirical evidence is needed to establish knowledge. There is no other proven method for establishing knowledge. Authority figures in science are only ambassadors for hard evidence. It is the evidence that is paramount and not the scientists.
I have demonstrated by logical reasoning how we can hypothesize for the existence of self as an emergent system based on the existence of other emergent systems. This is a justifiable explanation based on known material phenomena. This is a current area of investigation in science that has both supporters and opponents.
You have not been able to present any equivalent logical reasoning to support the possibility of anything supernatural. Your argument is based on assertions that “magic happens” but can give no evidence of any type for support. Your only defense is based on the assertions of others who you claim as authoritative but you are unable to show how they say anything more than “magic happens”.
I do not see that your claim that “magic happens” is in the least bit superior to the theory of emergence.
an interesting squabble on this very topic
http://2thinkforums.org/phorum3/read.php?f=1&i=19776&t=19655
note: the grey text shows the comments that the questing beast is addressing
"Author: Questing Beast
Date: 10-28-06 14:41
In this case, you hold a double-standard in which we must explain the existence of existence while you don't have to explain the existence of God.
Two entirely separate things. It isn't special pleading at all. And I never require that you explain anything: I ask if you can offer another explanation other than "God", that remains consistent with what we know, as the cause or reason why the world exists in the first place.
I cannot, nor can anyone else, explain the existence of "God." Our incapacity to explain how the world exists in the first place, yet it does, means that any explanation which answers the question of "why?" and remains consistent within itself, is the most likely (known) explanation. Since any explanation which falls short of a radical, uncaused supreme being fails to answer the question "why does the world exist in the first place?", the only possible answer is "God." "That which transcends the universe", is not a contingent Existence, and is in fact the ONLY THING that is NOT contingent. "God" is the only radical Existence. What we mean by that remains a mystery beyond the observation that "God" is responsible for the existence of the world and its eternal continuance (if in fact it is eternal).
Just because we can accept that "God" is real does not mean that we can explain how or why there IS a single radical Existing supreme being. A crude example is a singular work of art: examine it all you like, and all you may know is that its existence proves an artist is responsible: you may never meet, or learn a single thing about, the artist beyond the work of art itself. The person who believes that the work of art did not spontaneously leap into existence, who does not believe that it will sustain itself eternally and not erode away, is not required to present the artist in order to prove that the artist exists.
Religious thinkers (and unthinking religious credulists) have long asked skeptics: "Why is there something rather than nothing?", implying that God is the only answer to their conundrum. We skeptics ask in turn: "Why God rather than nothing?" After all, if nothingness and non-existence are natural state, why is there a God?
Simply because "nothing" is no answer to anything. It is meaningless. It has been disproven scientifically. There is no such thing as annihilation, only change. There are no perpetual motion machines. There are no enclosed systems. The world (cosmos) cannot be "nothing" and at the same time come into existence exnihilo. Yikers, unscientific fallacy, indeed.
When you rehearse the observation that matter and energy in the cosmos apparently spring out of a vacume, you are not advancing exnihilo, because we know that even in the vacume of space there is matter (light at the very least), and energy (the "microwave" field which is everywhere).
Do we really need to point out that if God created existence (as you claim), God required His own existence before He could have created existence?
Exactly. Evidence that "God" is the ONLY RADICAL EXISTENCE. Only a supreme being which required no outside influence to Exist could account for the existence of the world in the first place, and sustain it eternally (if in fact that is what is happening). You won't doubt your own existence, surely? It is a fact. The "why" of it is answered only by a supreme being of radical Existence. How such an Existence is possible is not for the "work of art" to know, afaict.
But the most ridiculously absurd aspect of your profoundly irrational post is when you magically (and laughably) forced everyone into being a theist by playing your own stupid re-definitional word games by asserting that an uncaused Universe IS God! That they're one and the same thing! Ergo, anyone who believes in the Universe automatically believes in God!
(You and JAK go to the same school?)
All I said was: "You have to have a Cause of the universe in the first place. If the universe is not caused, has always existed, then that is GOD." Meaning, that if the world is all that there is, and it is eternal, then what we see manifested IS "God" in part (the part that we see). Because what causes the world to Exist cannot be a contingent Existence, ergo it is radical Existence, or the only REALITY ("Existence in the first place").
But that is the only logical conclusion when you admit that there is no exnihilio, and no perpetual motion machines.
If you accept that the universe did not come from nothing, that there IS a reason why it exists in the first place, then such an admission is a tacit agreement that there is in fact an original cause for the contigent existence of the world. And the only possible explanation so far as we know at this stage, is "God": the supreme being without contingent Existence. If you continue to ignore the question "why do we exist in the first place?", then you are ignoring the question as to a cause. As far as I can tell, that is what you are doing. So you are not a deist, you are an ostrich.
QB54 "
Basically, another, "we don't know, must be God," except at the fundamental level. We exist, therefore God did it. Why did God do it? Because it makes so little sense, it must be true.
How the fuck can you argue with that position?
It's not like you'd stop arguing because you were clearly wrong, it's that he creationist is clearly crazy.
Nice googling, btw.
Cris,
Are there any such persons on the platform of direct perception in regards to the theory of emergence of life from matter?
In other words science, whether it is spiritual or material, is only held as credible if there is a personality on the platform of direct perception of phenomena and a process indicated that enables a person to come to that platform of perceptionj - if it cannot meet these standards then it is in the category of celestial teapots and other such speculations
empirical evidence without the personal testimony of qualified persons is completely useles, as evidenced by the krebs cycle
sounds like it is in the same boat as theism then since it innvolves identical general principles
I have indicated the process for perceiving theistic truths - just like I can indicate the process for perceiving truths in physics
If a person does not accept the process they are not privvy tot he direct perception - the electron also appears magical to the high school drop out
In theism there are claims of the direct perception of truths and also indications of processes that enable one to come to the platform of perceiving those truths.
Are there any such persons on the platform of direct perception in regards to the theory of emergence of life from matter?
In other words science, whether it is spiritual or material, is only held as credible if there is a personality on the platform of direct perception of phenomena and a process indicated that enables a person to come to that platform of perceptionj - if it cannot meet these standards then it is in the category of celestial teapots and other such speculations
you know there is an answer to this question that makes sense, so may have been said already here
Q " why is there a God?"
A: Because we (humans) needed one, so we created one, infact we created more than one.
We asigned him characteristics, desires and aims. We created rules and said he created them. Consider how mothers say to naughty kids 'wait till your father gets home'. The religious say something similar ie 'sin and god will punish you'. It's all very man made.
(why did we need one? well we discussed that already in other threads, it's all about thinking first we were omnipotent as babies, then thinking our parents were omnipotent, finding out that wasn't true, needing an omnipotent being to watch over us etc etc, also the voice in the head thing and fear of death etc, lots of reasons why humans need 'God')
Now this does not mean that there is not a God just means that the religious representation is perhaps false and was man made.
As you know I believe in something more than ourselves, but it does not conform with the god religion has 'created' . Sure they have similarities, My god for example also has a long white fluffy beard and a copy of Readers Digest never too far away
Complete nonsense. The krebs cycle is technical because of the complex nature of the process. Conversly, even if I'm familiar with the technical terms of theism, the effects that are claimed about it are not reproducable by anyone, only the believer.
Lg,
But there MUST be evidence first – religion doesn’t have any.
No it isn’t. You have no basis to show anything supernatural might exist.
They are not comparable – one uses demonstrable evidence, religion doesn’t come close.
Yet nowhere have you shown that these claims and processes ever reveal any truths.
Can any theist demonstrate an equivalent mechanism that can lead to something supernatural apart from baseless assertion?
Spidergoat
The technical terms of theism innvolve practical application. Like for instance it is not sufficient to know what the terms "humble" and "free from sin" mean (rather one must actually exhibt these qualities), any more than it is sufficient to know what COO istands for with the krebs cycle.
God is a belief. Humans need a belief or purpose.
well than prove me God.
Cris
If it appears that most people do not perceive these things (either truths in physics or theism) it indicates that the processes to perceiving them ar enot being utilized (Like for instance 400 years ago nobody perceived the nature of the electron - all because they had no access to the processes to determine the nature of an electron - the high school drop out is in a similar scenario ....)
correction - first there must be qualified person to perceive evidence - after all the evidence hidden in a murder scene is prcatically non-existent until the detectives come
The reason you say this is because you have no basis to determine how supernatural things exist
saintly persons and scripture make claims and demonstrate how such claims can be perceived, just like physics text books and physicists make claims and demonstrate how such claims can be perceived.
If it appears that most people do not perceive these things (either truths in physics or theism) it indicates that the processes to perceiving them ar enot being utilized (Like for instance 400 years ago nobody perceived the nature of the electron - all because they had no access to the processes to determine the nature of an electron - the high school drop out is in a similar scenario ....)
Obviously the "truth" (whether in science or theism) can only be revealed theoretically to one who doesn't take the process - and thus it is contigent on the attitude/capacity of the hearer, much like the stalemate of the high school drop out and the physics professor
Yes, it can be indicated in theory - to get the practical result of it, however, is dependant on practice - just like it is the person who actually takes th e polio vaccination that perceives the benefits of it, and not the one who enters into anlayzing it theoretically.
Last edited:
One could say that you relegate god's existence to the sphere of belief just to have a purpose in life
One could say that your purpose is to declare that god is not true.
Cris
Aren't the claims of physicists out of bounds (in terms of practically, as opposed to theoretically, verifying their truth/falsity) for anyone except physicists?
Well isn't that how it works in all fields of knowledge?
Aren't the claims of physicists out of bounds (in terms of practically, as opposed to theoretically, verifying their truth/falsity) for anyone except physicists?
the same as any experiment, namely the conclusion arrived at determines the feasibility of the claims