RE: Per request, here's some target practice.
March 19, 2010 at 4:09 am
(This post was last modified: March 19, 2010 at 5:03 pm by tackattack.)
Well I was just answering Franks request and hadn’t thought out about the technical aspect of replies, but anyways here’s what I have energy for. I won’t be adding any more due to the tax on me required for just simple responses to every1. I hope I got everyone who responded and thank those of you who contributed thus far.
@Dotard
[quote]Why would we assume if there was they would have? It is a logical possibility if there was they haven't.[/quote]
-Yes it is a logical possibility, but we’re talking in likelihoods. If you were a super-intelligent alien race and searching for life in the universe and came across us, what would you do?
[quote]And of course your 'everything needs a cause' train slams on the brakes when it gets to your conception of a God. Your creator needs a creator also. And the creator's creator needs a creator.
I stopped reading right there.[/quote]
-Everything within the universe most likely does have a cause. God could quite possibly have a creator of his own, but I have enough to worry about within the probabilities of this universe. It’s not as circular as you’d like to make it out. Feel free not to contribute and continue not to read, it suits you.
@Ace
[quote] A quick reply.
Design does not equals god.
Cause does not equals god.
Quote:The best cause IMO is God, due to his nature of existing outside the universe, having the attribute of creator, and all powerful .
Saying god is the best cause is no differant from me saying santa claus is the best cause. The attributes of your god are the attributes you gave him. I could give the FSM the same attributes and it would be as valid as your claim.
The first cause, the thing that sparked it all off or whatever is totally unknown. Saying goddidit gets us no where. God remains a high improbability. [/quote]
-No the attributes of My God are well documented in “goat-herder” texts and far older items denote concepts of their God. If Santa, FSM or IPU had the attributes of my God it would be equally as valid. I agree that it scientifically gains us little to no knowledge of our universe to accept God. I don’t accept God for expanding of my worldly knowledge, I have science for that.
@LukeMC
[quote] I don't have the time nor inclination to fire at all of those, so I'll just stick to the first one. My bolding.
(Today 07:12)tackattack Wrote: A- Within our universe 99.9% of "things" have a cause.
a1- The human race should have a cause according to A, it could be an exception
a2- if Natural selection is the cause of the above then nature needs a cause according to A, it could be an exception
a3- matter that exists can not come from nothing according to A, it could be an exception
a4- matter then also needs a cause according to A, it could be an exception
a5- the laws of nature and nature itself as well as all mater should have a cause. according to A, it could be an exception This cause would have to be more complex and powerful than anything we have yet to encounter.
a6-Aside from a complex super-intelligent, super powerful alien species presents itself (which we assume they would have already) the best cause would be a singular source.
a6- The best cause IMO is God, due to his nature of existing outside the universe, having the attribute of creator, and all powerful .
Well that was fun [quote]
- Agreed it could be an exception, but highly unlikely. It would be dismissive when forced to chose to say that it shouldn’t have a cause rather than it should, because it’s far more likely that it would. Thank you for your contribution. Feel free to sit out, I’m sure someone else will be far less dismissive and inconciderate. Why comment at all ?
@tav-
[quote]
1-And how do you determine the holy spirit to be correct, as a means for assessing God claims?
2-A belief in God is subjective. This is not what I have issue with, it is the claim that God objectively and necessarily exists in reality.
3-What's the other .1 percent?
4-Not necessarily. Why can't matter be eternal?
5-I disagree. We as a species do not have evidence to support the argument that there was something "before" the Big Bang, as it argued that the Big Bang is where time, and a rapid expansion of the universe as we know it, developed. Why can't we say nature itself began at the Big bang, along with the laws of cause and effect?
6-Again, why assume a source or prime mover is needed? With no evidence to support anything, would not any claim be approached with the same plausibility?
7-That singular source would also have to be more complex than the universe itself. You're proposing a solution that's essentially more complex than all of the factors in the problem. You also have no credible nor scientific evidence to support your claim.
8-This is the monumental problem with the kalam argument. It assumes that a prime mover is needed, and it posits that God is that prime mover, making a HUGE leap from observation into assumption and speculation.
9-Elaborate - the things actually designed by humans, or things in nature? Also, "appears" doesn't lend any credibility to whether or not a statement is actually true. Take into account HOW you can recognize design from something naturally occurring.
10...or it could have come about through natural processes, the likes of which we have not been able to reproduce as of yet. Or it could have been the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
11-Would it require no faith to say that we don't have a concrete answer yet? God isn't a simple answer when you're trying to evaluate something independently. Science has no bearing on any faith, it is interested in deducing the conclusion that comports most with reality. It separates fact from fantasy. If someone finds it easier to believe microscopic gila monsters constructed the universe, that's fine. It has no merit in the realm of science if he can't demonstrate it.
12-So you have a voice that talks to you and manipulates your actions, you have no good reason to believe it other than your subjective experience, and that somehow ties itself to a claim that a deity exists objectively?
13-That article leaves many questions unanswered and presupposes objective morality, which is it itself a conundrum.
14-That's human nature. We're pattern seeking mammals and would prefer a conspiracy theory, or bad theory to no theory at all (paraphrasing Christopher Hitchens). You thinking you have all of the answers absolutely doesn't do any good to anyone else, nor does it make your answers correct. To know you have all of the answers would be intellectual stagnation. This is exactly what happened in the Dark Ages. Can you tell me ANYTHING in which our understanding has improved by the sole reasoning that God did it?
15-Why is perfection required in the pursuit of truth? Does the human brain even operate in absolutes?
16-I'm pretty sure human perception is the only thing we have to judge such a claim with. How can you back up this claim?
17-Again you're making a huge leap based on assumption.
The subconscious is hard to access, therefore God exists.[/quote]
1- I don’t deem it correct or incorrect just extraneous. The rest is just wishful thinking that it’s God’s will vs. the devil’s.
2- That would depend on your definition of reality. Do I think God exists within our known universe? No. Is god real and affecting my life? I’m fairly certain.
3- I was attempting tentativeness. Everything we’ve seen in reality so far has a cause. Nothing we’ve come across so far is eternal. In the radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus, an alpha, beta, or gamma particle begins to exist spontaneously, without a cause. So, Not everything that begins has to have a cause.
4-cite me some evidence please; otherwise, it’s not within my experience or body of knowledge that any matter is eternal
5- Well 2 things. What is the universe expanding into, nothingness? I agree that nature happened from the big bang and that the laws of cause and effect weren’t around prior to that. That’s why a lot of apologetics feel there’s no need to prove God was created. I’m even pretty sure the bible says that there was nothingness before the “creation event”. To answer your last question here, because nothing has exactly that affect on a quantum singularity, nothing.
6- I agree that it’s way in the realm of ineffective and abstraction to contemplate these things, but that’s one of my pleasures in life. That could also hinge solely on your definition of evidence.
7- I agree no scientific evidence will I present. Credibility is subjective as is your perspective on the value of this exercise.
8- Conceded that a prime maker isn’t necessarily needed. But the little we’ve found reflected in nature without cause that it is highly unlikely most things (to include the universe) most likely have a cause. That is not a large leap at all.
9-Both naturally occurring and created by tangible entities. Speak plainly about the last half of that sentence please, because this is taxing enough .
10-Cite one natural process where atoms become life and I’ll gladly concede, until then BBHH
11-It would require no faith to suspend your belief. I fully accept that there are very little concrete answers. However we as humans function better with the illusion of black and white concrete concepts. If there is an answer though, the best would be the one with the most complete answer, which isn’t science over God, yet.
12-No, that ties me to a belief in the Holy Spirit which then supports purported aspects of Christianity.
13-Yes and I feel objective morality can exist, at the very least on a scale. We have personal morality and societal morality, why not absolute morality?
14-I don’t suppose I have all the answers nor that I am correct. Religion can be stagnation if followed blindly; I don’t use religion that way. To answer your question: Understanding of our surroundings and knowledge have not been improved by any “goddidit”. Acceptance would be betterment of society and subjective spiritual health, not knowledge. Rejection and reevaluation are key to scientific principles. A simpler life though would not be completely devoid of merit.
15-A goal is required for any pursuit, why shouldn’t the best goal be perfection? You don’t function in a cloud of gray chaos, you function better with at least some black and white. I think science is a tool to contain and define our surroundings in the most manageable way possible of black and white.
16-Well we can objectively measure human senses; that however, still requires human perception to intake the info. I know bees can see the ultraviolet range. With varying abilities of perception comes various perceptions of our reality, goes to follow really.
17- Actually the subconscious mind is fairly easy to access based on how much you have revealed of your sub consciousness to yourself. I’m stating that with our diminutive perception the best we can seek to attain would be an omnimax perspective. That would require transcendence, thenfollows relation to God concept.
@blindF- I do that often and hate it too
[quote]
1-100% of things have a cause
3-tackattack Wrote:a3- Matter that exists can not come from nothing.
No, but it can come from energy, other matter, and any combination of the two.
tackattack Wrote:a4- Matter then also needs a cause.
Matter comes from energy.
4-The source of the universe as we know it is believed to be the big bang singularity, a ppoint in space and time comprised of all the matter and energy in the universe in the form of energy. It could not stay that way for more than an infinitely small amount of time, so it expanded, and some of it was converted to matter.
5-The universe is a term to describe everything that exists, and if ChristianGod is outside the universe, then it must not exist.
6-Because we design everything we can that is in our perception.
7-Cells that comprise larger organisms are alive in the same sense that viruses are alive, as they are not self sustaining.
Only cells that comprise larger organisms. The self sustaining cells do not have organization.
8-All the universe has infinite capacity and infinite time, so of course every posible variation will happen. And are living things really that different from non-living things?
9-It is incredibly naive to think science is at its zeinith, that science will never be able to create life, and ChristianGod magically did something like that. Hey, Guess what DNA is made of? Guess what scientists can make? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid_synthesis Science is on its way to producing life, and is getting close.
10-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
11-Look! There is a grey cloud. If I predict rain, that is hardly devine knowlege, that is just reasoning from past experiences.
12-If ChristianGod was responsible, don't you think that the chemical reactions of the chemical based computer that is you would only act to your betterment?
13-I can tell the difference between what is real and what is imaginary too, and it didn't take a car accident, or one of thems ChristianGod things to do so.
14-ChristianGod is an intangible, extraneous, and arbitrary source.
15-Cool! A storybook. While very interesting, it is no more true than The DaVinci Code.
Just because the story has a moral doesent make the details true.
Nor does this contend truthness or any honourability.
Because the most contextual and simple method provides no scrutiny.
Last time I checked, the bible was the only provision for the paramaters of ChristianGod.
16-Hmm, seems such a setup would work against ChristianGod. Just remember, all the information we have about ChristianGod was generated by humans, and not ChristianGod, so it is pretty much gossip.
17-That is not saying that you won't understand, that is saying your understanding is wrong nomatter what, which is very naive.
18-ChristianGod is not responsible for any wisdom that has been packaged and sold by religion.
19-If you have no goals thn you are a failure. Perfection is not required to persue the truth, for if you are perfect, you know the truth already.
20-tackattack Wrote:H- Not only human perception but human sense falls short of capturing even a small portion of our reality. This does more against an argument of ChristianGod than anything.
h1- You eyes see everything, but our minds only subconsciously can focus on minutiae. Your eyes see only a small portion of the radiation specterum. Our perception is not dependent on our eyes though.
[quote=tackattack]h2- That subconscious access is extremely difficult because our focus of will determines our perception. Our paradigm is dificult to change, but it can shift. When it does not though, but needs to, this creates parities in our understanding of the world.
h3- This varying scale of perception would then likely have a maximum and minimum. [b]Any limitations on our perceptions are entirely self imposed.[b]
h4- By God’s attributes listed he is the most likely source for the maximum of this scale. [b]Those who subscribe to the belief that humans are like stupid cattle of ChristianGod, this is true because their paradigm makes it so. They could be changed if they so choose.[/quote]
1-I was attempting tentativeness. Everything we’ve seen in reality so far has a cause. Nothing we’ve come across so far is eternal. In the radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus, an alpha, beta, or gamma particle begins to exist spontaneously, without a cause. So, Not everything that begins has to have a cause.
3-agreed
4-But prior to the singularity space and time didn’t exist. What is outside the universe, nothingness right? Nothingness can contain or affect something (such as a singularity) so something must exist in the nothing outside of our known universe?
5-I’m not here for existence. I will say though I believe God exists in nothingness, therefore doesn’t exists.
6-While science does try and order everything; you’re excluding symmetry, harmony and balance in nature. Science can manipulate nature, but I see it as art imitating life.
7-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(biology) should I define organization for you as well?
8- The Big Bang model of the universe is finite, not infinite I believe. Something about saddle shaped (or flat) and expanding with an originating point and maximum entropy.
9- I did not say science was at its Zenith, and look forward to many years of scientific discoveries.
10- OK, that the chance of it occurring during a period of time of the order of the age of the universe is minuscule, but not zero. I agree anything is possible. But possibilities that have a miniscule chance of appearing within the age of a universe, yet happen successively within one person’s lifetime and are interrelated was kind of my point.
11- That’s not an accurate metaphor, let me example this out for you. I have several synchronistic events about an individual I’ve met once in my life many years ago. I then get an email from that person, and start corresponding via phone. I get the prodding to ask about some obscure thing I would have no reference for (like selling his house, marriage, surgery, etc.). He seems floored that I would know such intimate details, as am I. What do I attribute that to? Deductive reasoning would require conscious cogitation, which there was none, and I think that would be the best alternate solution.
12-What I meant by detriment, was more about a social stigma, or inconvenience to self-directed actions. No my default assumption is that we are flawed and God’s purpose would frequently contradict that based off how flawed we were.
13-I wasn’t talking about reality and delusion, but experienced reality and supposed reality.
14-By adding arbitrary I assume you either mean a)depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law or b) not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority both of which I completely agree with.
15-Honourability isn’t a word in my dictionary. Actually, the Bible teaches the only provision for the parameters of ChristianGod are found in the intuitive knowledge of the spirit, not of reason or worldly ways. I don’t contend the Bible is absolute truth, but you learn from every knowledge input into our brains and to ignore any value from the bible would be unwise, IMO. You can only over define a word so many times before you’re arguing over the trees and missing the forest. As far as not taking a contextual approach, wtf? That would be plain stupid if you can’t see the things you read, you read in context. Picking and choosing words our of a paragraph derails any ability to comprehend the words message.
16- Currenty yes, all known instances of God’s ways are lost to us. However he did send us his son (assumption I know) to explain things. It doesn’t work to God’s detriment. It works for our betterment to have freewill and consequences. It’s not whether God listen’s to us, but rather we’re listening to him.
17- No. What is naïve, disbelieving the depth of evil within the human soul. It’s not stating that there is no understanding, because we can know and understand. It’s a statement about the errant nature of imperfect beings. Since then, we’ve grown up in our understanding quite a bit, but I don’t surmise humanity will ever be flawless.
18-God is responsible for Christ. Christ was packaged by religion. Christ was wise.
19-Having the Goal of deepest understanding of absolute truths requires a goal, typically perfection in the relevant field. If seeking wisdom and truth has no goal, then it is an epic fail.
20-I think we’re saying the same thing until h4. I don’t believe I’m a stupid cattle of ChristGod. Those who believe blindly though in anything are stupid cattle, agreed.
@JoeBlow
[quote]
1-At the moment you have merely assumed that there can be only one cause and that one cause must be god. You have further assumed that it is God's nature to exist outside the Universe! How could you possibly know that? You are merely avoiding the burden of proof. First you must describe your god and then prove it exists.
2-Again you avoid the burden of proof. You talk of "God's attributes in the creation story" so you are assuming the very thing that has yet to proved - God's existence.
Like you, I can marvel at the "apparent" design in the Universe, but it is impossible to go from a sense of awe to the claim that "God did it". I know I am harping on this point, but you cannot use God as an explanation until you first prove that God exists.
3-The bible is just a book. It tells us what some people think about the nature of God, but it does not prove that God exists.
4-You say "Where our understanding fails, God is there to provide understanding". In other words you are saying that you do not know how the Universe got here - and then immediately contradict yourself by saying that you do know that God created it! And again, you have assumed the existence of the very thing you are trying to prove.
5-I'm not sure what you mean. It sounds like you are saying that humans lack perception and human senses fall short of understanding reality, yet you infer that you do perceive things correcly and your senses do lead you to an understanding (of God). I think that idea needs a bit of work - or maybe I have misunderstood you (curse my limited perception).
[/quote]
1-Not can be one, easiest explanation is one thing. I assume God exists outside the known universe because various religions but God/Gods in a creator role. You have to create from a point extraneous to the creation. I don’t hink I avoid anything I can help. My intent is not to prove God exists but that I am able to discern anything about said entity from our perspective by revelation.
2-You have to be able to observe and define an object before you can deem it a part of reality, that is what I attempt to do here. I won’t try and prove “God exists”, so stop looking.
3-This is getting redundant
4-Where HUMAN understanding fails as a whole God attempts revelations into the nature of his creations.
5-
cute. As our understating of ourselves expands our perceptions of our reality and what is and isn’t expands. Our goal being an omnimax perspective, which is listed as an attribute of the Christian God.
@padriac
[quote] Tacky,please pardon me for being thick.
I had a look at your interesting post.
Are you trying to infer God by logic alone? Is not that approach known as Neo Platonism ?
Why need the issue be complex and sophisticated ?[ in the literal sense]
Me: "I do not believe in god(s)"
Believer " I DO believe in god(s)
ME "Wonderful! Kindly show me God . (prove his existence epirically)
Believer "I can't--and--but (followed by an appeal to faith based on authority) or by appeal to one of a handful of arguments, all of which I first heard over 35 ago,and dismissed then.
ME "Fine. I'll continue to disbelieve.Please come back when you can prove your position"
I make no universal claims about my world view or life philosophy. I assert only that they were formed slowly, over decades and enable me to make sense of life. I do my best or remain open to new ideas,but admit I'm not as open minded as I'd like to be.--Of course ,I haven't so far noticed you present anything approaching a new idea. That's an an observation,not a criticism. In my opinion relatively few people have an original idea in a lifetime. [/quote]
-That was a fascinating read on Neo-Platonism, ty. I do agree with some points about the originating source not existing in reality and not describable and better described as a force. It’s also true I have a somewhat Augustinian approach to Christianity, who was influenced a lot by Plato apparently. My intent was not to impress you with anything new, simply to answer a question. I first must prove observance of God,define God in those terms, then that he exists. Thank you for your uncharacteristically kind and humble j/k observations, feel free to sit this one out 
@Fr0d0- feel free to contribute as well, that goes for everyone actually.
I hope that it's not too difficult to read.
I need something mind numbing now.
@Dotard
[quote]Why would we assume if there was they would have? It is a logical possibility if there was they haven't.[/quote]
-Yes it is a logical possibility, but we’re talking in likelihoods. If you were a super-intelligent alien race and searching for life in the universe and came across us, what would you do?
[quote]And of course your 'everything needs a cause' train slams on the brakes when it gets to your conception of a God. Your creator needs a creator also. And the creator's creator needs a creator.
I stopped reading right there.[/quote]
-Everything within the universe most likely does have a cause. God could quite possibly have a creator of his own, but I have enough to worry about within the probabilities of this universe. It’s not as circular as you’d like to make it out. Feel free not to contribute and continue not to read, it suits you.
@Ace
[quote] A quick reply.
Design does not equals god.
Cause does not equals god.
Quote:The best cause IMO is God, due to his nature of existing outside the universe, having the attribute of creator, and all powerful .
Saying god is the best cause is no differant from me saying santa claus is the best cause. The attributes of your god are the attributes you gave him. I could give the FSM the same attributes and it would be as valid as your claim.
The first cause, the thing that sparked it all off or whatever is totally unknown. Saying goddidit gets us no where. God remains a high improbability. [/quote]
-No the attributes of My God are well documented in “goat-herder” texts and far older items denote concepts of their God. If Santa, FSM or IPU had the attributes of my God it would be equally as valid. I agree that it scientifically gains us little to no knowledge of our universe to accept God. I don’t accept God for expanding of my worldly knowledge, I have science for that.
@LukeMC
[quote] I don't have the time nor inclination to fire at all of those, so I'll just stick to the first one. My bolding.
(Today 07:12)tackattack Wrote: A- Within our universe 99.9% of "things" have a cause.
a1- The human race should have a cause according to A, it could be an exception
a2- if Natural selection is the cause of the above then nature needs a cause according to A, it could be an exception
a3- matter that exists can not come from nothing according to A, it could be an exception
a4- matter then also needs a cause according to A, it could be an exception
a5- the laws of nature and nature itself as well as all mater should have a cause. according to A, it could be an exception This cause would have to be more complex and powerful than anything we have yet to encounter.
a6-Aside from a complex super-intelligent, super powerful alien species presents itself (which we assume they would have already) the best cause would be a singular source.
a6- The best cause IMO is God, due to his nature of existing outside the universe, having the attribute of creator, and all powerful .
Well that was fun [quote]
- Agreed it could be an exception, but highly unlikely. It would be dismissive when forced to chose to say that it shouldn’t have a cause rather than it should, because it’s far more likely that it would. Thank you for your contribution. Feel free to sit out, I’m sure someone else will be far less dismissive and inconciderate. Why comment at all ?
@tav-
[quote]
1-And how do you determine the holy spirit to be correct, as a means for assessing God claims?
2-A belief in God is subjective. This is not what I have issue with, it is the claim that God objectively and necessarily exists in reality.
3-What's the other .1 percent?
4-Not necessarily. Why can't matter be eternal?
5-I disagree. We as a species do not have evidence to support the argument that there was something "before" the Big Bang, as it argued that the Big Bang is where time, and a rapid expansion of the universe as we know it, developed. Why can't we say nature itself began at the Big bang, along with the laws of cause and effect?
6-Again, why assume a source or prime mover is needed? With no evidence to support anything, would not any claim be approached with the same plausibility?
7-That singular source would also have to be more complex than the universe itself. You're proposing a solution that's essentially more complex than all of the factors in the problem. You also have no credible nor scientific evidence to support your claim.
8-This is the monumental problem with the kalam argument. It assumes that a prime mover is needed, and it posits that God is that prime mover, making a HUGE leap from observation into assumption and speculation.
9-Elaborate - the things actually designed by humans, or things in nature? Also, "appears" doesn't lend any credibility to whether or not a statement is actually true. Take into account HOW you can recognize design from something naturally occurring.
10...or it could have come about through natural processes, the likes of which we have not been able to reproduce as of yet. Or it could have been the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
11-Would it require no faith to say that we don't have a concrete answer yet? God isn't a simple answer when you're trying to evaluate something independently. Science has no bearing on any faith, it is interested in deducing the conclusion that comports most with reality. It separates fact from fantasy. If someone finds it easier to believe microscopic gila monsters constructed the universe, that's fine. It has no merit in the realm of science if he can't demonstrate it.
12-So you have a voice that talks to you and manipulates your actions, you have no good reason to believe it other than your subjective experience, and that somehow ties itself to a claim that a deity exists objectively?
13-That article leaves many questions unanswered and presupposes objective morality, which is it itself a conundrum.
14-That's human nature. We're pattern seeking mammals and would prefer a conspiracy theory, or bad theory to no theory at all (paraphrasing Christopher Hitchens). You thinking you have all of the answers absolutely doesn't do any good to anyone else, nor does it make your answers correct. To know you have all of the answers would be intellectual stagnation. This is exactly what happened in the Dark Ages. Can you tell me ANYTHING in which our understanding has improved by the sole reasoning that God did it?
15-Why is perfection required in the pursuit of truth? Does the human brain even operate in absolutes?
16-I'm pretty sure human perception is the only thing we have to judge such a claim with. How can you back up this claim?
17-Again you're making a huge leap based on assumption.
The subconscious is hard to access, therefore God exists.[/quote]
1- I don’t deem it correct or incorrect just extraneous. The rest is just wishful thinking that it’s God’s will vs. the devil’s.
2- That would depend on your definition of reality. Do I think God exists within our known universe? No. Is god real and affecting my life? I’m fairly certain.
3- I was attempting tentativeness. Everything we’ve seen in reality so far has a cause. Nothing we’ve come across so far is eternal. In the radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus, an alpha, beta, or gamma particle begins to exist spontaneously, without a cause. So, Not everything that begins has to have a cause.
4-cite me some evidence please; otherwise, it’s not within my experience or body of knowledge that any matter is eternal
5- Well 2 things. What is the universe expanding into, nothingness? I agree that nature happened from the big bang and that the laws of cause and effect weren’t around prior to that. That’s why a lot of apologetics feel there’s no need to prove God was created. I’m even pretty sure the bible says that there was nothingness before the “creation event”. To answer your last question here, because nothing has exactly that affect on a quantum singularity, nothing.
6- I agree that it’s way in the realm of ineffective and abstraction to contemplate these things, but that’s one of my pleasures in life. That could also hinge solely on your definition of evidence.
7- I agree no scientific evidence will I present. Credibility is subjective as is your perspective on the value of this exercise.
8- Conceded that a prime maker isn’t necessarily needed. But the little we’ve found reflected in nature without cause that it is highly unlikely most things (to include the universe) most likely have a cause. That is not a large leap at all.
9-Both naturally occurring and created by tangible entities. Speak plainly about the last half of that sentence please, because this is taxing enough .
10-Cite one natural process where atoms become life and I’ll gladly concede, until then BBHH
11-It would require no faith to suspend your belief. I fully accept that there are very little concrete answers. However we as humans function better with the illusion of black and white concrete concepts. If there is an answer though, the best would be the one with the most complete answer, which isn’t science over God, yet.
12-No, that ties me to a belief in the Holy Spirit which then supports purported aspects of Christianity.
13-Yes and I feel objective morality can exist, at the very least on a scale. We have personal morality and societal morality, why not absolute morality?
14-I don’t suppose I have all the answers nor that I am correct. Religion can be stagnation if followed blindly; I don’t use religion that way. To answer your question: Understanding of our surroundings and knowledge have not been improved by any “goddidit”. Acceptance would be betterment of society and subjective spiritual health, not knowledge. Rejection and reevaluation are key to scientific principles. A simpler life though would not be completely devoid of merit.
15-A goal is required for any pursuit, why shouldn’t the best goal be perfection? You don’t function in a cloud of gray chaos, you function better with at least some black and white. I think science is a tool to contain and define our surroundings in the most manageable way possible of black and white.
16-Well we can objectively measure human senses; that however, still requires human perception to intake the info. I know bees can see the ultraviolet range. With varying abilities of perception comes various perceptions of our reality, goes to follow really.
17- Actually the subconscious mind is fairly easy to access based on how much you have revealed of your sub consciousness to yourself. I’m stating that with our diminutive perception the best we can seek to attain would be an omnimax perspective. That would require transcendence, thenfollows relation to God concept.
@blindF- I do that often and hate it too
[quote]
1-100% of things have a cause
3-tackattack Wrote:a3- Matter that exists can not come from nothing.
No, but it can come from energy, other matter, and any combination of the two.
tackattack Wrote:a4- Matter then also needs a cause.
Matter comes from energy.
4-The source of the universe as we know it is believed to be the big bang singularity, a ppoint in space and time comprised of all the matter and energy in the universe in the form of energy. It could not stay that way for more than an infinitely small amount of time, so it expanded, and some of it was converted to matter.
5-The universe is a term to describe everything that exists, and if ChristianGod is outside the universe, then it must not exist.
6-Because we design everything we can that is in our perception.
7-Cells that comprise larger organisms are alive in the same sense that viruses are alive, as they are not self sustaining.
Only cells that comprise larger organisms. The self sustaining cells do not have organization.
8-All the universe has infinite capacity and infinite time, so of course every posible variation will happen. And are living things really that different from non-living things?
9-It is incredibly naive to think science is at its zeinith, that science will never be able to create life, and ChristianGod magically did something like that. Hey, Guess what DNA is made of? Guess what scientists can make? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid_synthesis Science is on its way to producing life, and is getting close.
10-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
11-Look! There is a grey cloud. If I predict rain, that is hardly devine knowlege, that is just reasoning from past experiences.
12-If ChristianGod was responsible, don't you think that the chemical reactions of the chemical based computer that is you would only act to your betterment?
13-I can tell the difference between what is real and what is imaginary too, and it didn't take a car accident, or one of thems ChristianGod things to do so.
14-ChristianGod is an intangible, extraneous, and arbitrary source.
15-Cool! A storybook. While very interesting, it is no more true than The DaVinci Code.
Just because the story has a moral doesent make the details true.
Nor does this contend truthness or any honourability.
Because the most contextual and simple method provides no scrutiny.
Last time I checked, the bible was the only provision for the paramaters of ChristianGod.
16-Hmm, seems such a setup would work against ChristianGod. Just remember, all the information we have about ChristianGod was generated by humans, and not ChristianGod, so it is pretty much gossip.
17-That is not saying that you won't understand, that is saying your understanding is wrong nomatter what, which is very naive.
18-ChristianGod is not responsible for any wisdom that has been packaged and sold by religion.
19-If you have no goals thn you are a failure. Perfection is not required to persue the truth, for if you are perfect, you know the truth already.
20-tackattack Wrote:H- Not only human perception but human sense falls short of capturing even a small portion of our reality. This does more against an argument of ChristianGod than anything.
h1- You eyes see everything, but our minds only subconsciously can focus on minutiae. Your eyes see only a small portion of the radiation specterum. Our perception is not dependent on our eyes though.
[quote=tackattack]h2- That subconscious access is extremely difficult because our focus of will determines our perception. Our paradigm is dificult to change, but it can shift. When it does not though, but needs to, this creates parities in our understanding of the world.
h3- This varying scale of perception would then likely have a maximum and minimum. [b]Any limitations on our perceptions are entirely self imposed.[b]
h4- By God’s attributes listed he is the most likely source for the maximum of this scale. [b]Those who subscribe to the belief that humans are like stupid cattle of ChristianGod, this is true because their paradigm makes it so. They could be changed if they so choose.[/quote]
1-I was attempting tentativeness. Everything we’ve seen in reality so far has a cause. Nothing we’ve come across so far is eternal. In the radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus, an alpha, beta, or gamma particle begins to exist spontaneously, without a cause. So, Not everything that begins has to have a cause.
3-agreed
4-But prior to the singularity space and time didn’t exist. What is outside the universe, nothingness right? Nothingness can contain or affect something (such as a singularity) so something must exist in the nothing outside of our known universe?
5-I’m not here for existence. I will say though I believe God exists in nothingness, therefore doesn’t exists.
6-While science does try and order everything; you’re excluding symmetry, harmony and balance in nature. Science can manipulate nature, but I see it as art imitating life.
7-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(biology) should I define organization for you as well?
8- The Big Bang model of the universe is finite, not infinite I believe. Something about saddle shaped (or flat) and expanding with an originating point and maximum entropy.
9- I did not say science was at its Zenith, and look forward to many years of scientific discoveries.
10- OK, that the chance of it occurring during a period of time of the order of the age of the universe is minuscule, but not zero. I agree anything is possible. But possibilities that have a miniscule chance of appearing within the age of a universe, yet happen successively within one person’s lifetime and are interrelated was kind of my point.
11- That’s not an accurate metaphor, let me example this out for you. I have several synchronistic events about an individual I’ve met once in my life many years ago. I then get an email from that person, and start corresponding via phone. I get the prodding to ask about some obscure thing I would have no reference for (like selling his house, marriage, surgery, etc.). He seems floored that I would know such intimate details, as am I. What do I attribute that to? Deductive reasoning would require conscious cogitation, which there was none, and I think that would be the best alternate solution.
12-What I meant by detriment, was more about a social stigma, or inconvenience to self-directed actions. No my default assumption is that we are flawed and God’s purpose would frequently contradict that based off how flawed we were.
13-I wasn’t talking about reality and delusion, but experienced reality and supposed reality.
14-By adding arbitrary I assume you either mean a)depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law or b) not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority both of which I completely agree with.
15-Honourability isn’t a word in my dictionary. Actually, the Bible teaches the only provision for the parameters of ChristianGod are found in the intuitive knowledge of the spirit, not of reason or worldly ways. I don’t contend the Bible is absolute truth, but you learn from every knowledge input into our brains and to ignore any value from the bible would be unwise, IMO. You can only over define a word so many times before you’re arguing over the trees and missing the forest. As far as not taking a contextual approach, wtf? That would be plain stupid if you can’t see the things you read, you read in context. Picking and choosing words our of a paragraph derails any ability to comprehend the words message.
16- Currenty yes, all known instances of God’s ways are lost to us. However he did send us his son (assumption I know) to explain things. It doesn’t work to God’s detriment. It works for our betterment to have freewill and consequences. It’s not whether God listen’s to us, but rather we’re listening to him.
17- No. What is naïve, disbelieving the depth of evil within the human soul. It’s not stating that there is no understanding, because we can know and understand. It’s a statement about the errant nature of imperfect beings. Since then, we’ve grown up in our understanding quite a bit, but I don’t surmise humanity will ever be flawless.
18-God is responsible for Christ. Christ was packaged by religion. Christ was wise.
19-Having the Goal of deepest understanding of absolute truths requires a goal, typically perfection in the relevant field. If seeking wisdom and truth has no goal, then it is an epic fail.
20-I think we’re saying the same thing until h4. I don’t believe I’m a stupid cattle of ChristGod. Those who believe blindly though in anything are stupid cattle, agreed.
@JoeBlow
[quote]
1-At the moment you have merely assumed that there can be only one cause and that one cause must be god. You have further assumed that it is God's nature to exist outside the Universe! How could you possibly know that? You are merely avoiding the burden of proof. First you must describe your god and then prove it exists.
2-Again you avoid the burden of proof. You talk of "God's attributes in the creation story" so you are assuming the very thing that has yet to proved - God's existence.
Like you, I can marvel at the "apparent" design in the Universe, but it is impossible to go from a sense of awe to the claim that "God did it". I know I am harping on this point, but you cannot use God as an explanation until you first prove that God exists.
3-The bible is just a book. It tells us what some people think about the nature of God, but it does not prove that God exists.
4-You say "Where our understanding fails, God is there to provide understanding". In other words you are saying that you do not know how the Universe got here - and then immediately contradict yourself by saying that you do know that God created it! And again, you have assumed the existence of the very thing you are trying to prove.
5-I'm not sure what you mean. It sounds like you are saying that humans lack perception and human senses fall short of understanding reality, yet you infer that you do perceive things correcly and your senses do lead you to an understanding (of God). I think that idea needs a bit of work - or maybe I have misunderstood you (curse my limited perception).
[/quote]
1-Not can be one, easiest explanation is one thing. I assume God exists outside the known universe because various religions but God/Gods in a creator role. You have to create from a point extraneous to the creation. I don’t hink I avoid anything I can help. My intent is not to prove God exists but that I am able to discern anything about said entity from our perspective by revelation.
2-You have to be able to observe and define an object before you can deem it a part of reality, that is what I attempt to do here. I won’t try and prove “God exists”, so stop looking.
3-This is getting redundant
4-Where HUMAN understanding fails as a whole God attempts revelations into the nature of his creations.
5-
cute. As our understating of ourselves expands our perceptions of our reality and what is and isn’t expands. Our goal being an omnimax perspective, which is listed as an attribute of the Christian God.@padriac
[quote] Tacky,please pardon me for being thick.
I had a look at your interesting post.
Are you trying to infer God by logic alone? Is not that approach known as Neo Platonism ?
Why need the issue be complex and sophisticated ?[ in the literal sense]
Me: "I do not believe in god(s)"
Believer " I DO believe in god(s)
ME "Wonderful! Kindly show me God . (prove his existence epirically)
Believer "I can't--and--but (followed by an appeal to faith based on authority) or by appeal to one of a handful of arguments, all of which I first heard over 35 ago,and dismissed then.
ME "Fine. I'll continue to disbelieve.Please come back when you can prove your position"
I make no universal claims about my world view or life philosophy. I assert only that they were formed slowly, over decades and enable me to make sense of life. I do my best or remain open to new ideas,but admit I'm not as open minded as I'd like to be.--Of course ,I haven't so far noticed you present anything approaching a new idea. That's an an observation,not a criticism. In my opinion relatively few people have an original idea in a lifetime. [/quote]
-That was a fascinating read on Neo-Platonism, ty. I do agree with some points about the originating source not existing in reality and not describable and better described as a force. It’s also true I have a somewhat Augustinian approach to Christianity, who was influenced a lot by Plato apparently. My intent was not to impress you with anything new, simply to answer a question. I first must prove observance of God,define God in those terms, then that he exists. Thank you for your uncharacteristically kind and humble
j/k observations, feel free to sit this one out @Fr0d0- feel free to contribute as well, that goes for everyone actually.
I hope that it's not too difficult to read.
I need something mind numbing now.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
