God can be proven

[watch]

God can be proven.

1.absolute nothing creates absolutly nothing.I believe in the big bang but something had to cause it. That means a first which some call God.

2.People then say the universe has always been here. Well if any thing existed from eternity without a creator it would have no design, shape, form or description it would just exist. It would be the first cause without any influence or design.

edited: Because some people are missing the point. I'm trying to prove God not the bible.

[CoHo]

oh goody

[attila_the_hunny]

Believing, for some reason, always falls under 'opinion' for me. Opinions can't be proven as facts.

[watch]

Believing, for some reason, always falls under 'opinion' for me. Opinions can't be proven as facts.

edited for your approval.

[Claverhouse]

I truly believe that it is good to breath air.

I sincerely believe that being shot with bullets is bad for your health.

I honestly believe that horses never put on swimwear and explore the ocean depths looking for mermaids.


Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

[meshou]

oh sweet fucking jesus, kill it now.Fixed.

[attila_the_hunny]

edited for your approval.

Believing, faith...what's the difference?

[watch]

Believing, faith...what's the difference?


I said bible takes faith but, God can be proven.

[euterpenc]

I truly believe that it is good to breath air.

I sincerely believe that being shot with bullets is bad for your health.

I honestly believe that horses never put on swimwear and explore the ocean depths looking for mermaids.


Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

Clever. Nice work.

Watcher, I too have thought about your #1 listed idea. If the universe or 11th dimension (m-theory and such) existed always and wasn't created, then therefore God always existing is a possibility too. But is it possible for things to exist in motion always? Our laws of physics may not apply in other universes, so what makes up existence as a whole, when it changes from universe to universe? What is God's role? Perhaps God isn't the creator or everything, perhaps god created only OUR universe. The possibilities are endless. As far as proving god is concerned, the new progress in physics certainly leaves the possibility for proving god open. I was thinking, accordgin to what I've heard about m theory and it's possibilites, the big bang was when two membranes in the 11th dimension struck each other, hence causing the big bang. So, what if one membrane was matter, and the other was life/conciousness/soul. If one was soul, then we have proof of something intangible. And that's certainly a start.

[euterpenc]

Believing, faith...what's the difference?

There's also knowing. Jung knew. Believing wasn't good enough for him, he had to KNOW. So, he found out. He didn't say whether god existed or not, just that he knew.

[Xylix]

God can be proven, the bible on the other had can be proven, but takes faith.

LOL

from: www.dictionary.com

faith Audio pronunciation of "faith" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.



If faith is required, it can't be proven. That's true by definition. :rofl:

[watch]

Clever. Nice work.

Watcher, I too have thought about your #1 listed idea. If the universe or 11th dimension (m-theory and such) existed always and wasn't created, then therefore God always existing is a possibility too. But is it possible for things to exist in motion always? Our laws of physics may not apply in other universes, so what makes up existence as a whole, when it changes from universe to universe? What is God's role? Perhaps God isn't the creator or everything, perhaps god created only OUR universe. The possibilities are endless. As far as proving god is concerned, the new progress in physics certainly leaves the possibility for proving god open. I was thinking, accordgin to what I've heard about m theory and it's possibilites, the big bang was when two membranes in the 11th dimension struck each other, hence causing the big bang. So, what if one membrane was matter, and the other was life/conciousness/soul. If one was soul, then we have proof of something intangible. And that's certainly a start.

Well what caused the two membranes to strick each other? And if "God" only created our universe, "what" created the other universe? If "God" created only this universe he wouldn't be God. There is "something" that is before every universe and demension, the first cause of everything. That is what God is. Otherwise you go into the infinite question "who created god".

[meshou]

Well what caused the two membranes to strick each other? And if "God" only created our universe, "what" created the other universe? If "God" created only this universe he wouldn't be God. There is "something" that is before every universe and demension, the first cause of everything. That is what God is. Otherwise you go into the infinite question "who created god".So God is limited only by the imagination of his believers.

I bet he finds it a teensy bit cramped.

[attila_the_hunny]

Ifif. I prefer Isis.

[watch]

So God is limited only by the imagination of his believers.

I bet he finds it a teensy bit cramped.

I think i just showed God has no limits.

[Leftfield]

You can argue that the Bible is a historical document, fine... but the "contents" of this document can not be proven either way, that is where belief takes over, and thus your basis that he exists, CAN NOT BE PROVEN, sorry!

[meshou]

I think i just showed God has no limits.I bet you do. *pat-pat*

[watch]

LOL

from: www.dictionary.com

faith Audio pronunciation of "faith" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.



If faith is required, it can't be proven. That's true by definition. :rofl:

Are you serious? please use better attempts to distract the thread cause you don't have counter argument to my original post. If you want to discuss we can discuss, if you want to act like your 13 the playground forum is still up.

[watch]

You can argue that the Bible is a historical document, fine... but the "contents" of this document can not be proven either way, that is where belief takes over, and thus your basis that he exists, CAN NOT BE PROVEN, sorry!

I'm not trying to prove the God of the bible.

[meshou]

Are you serious? please use better attempts to distract the thread cause you don't have counter argument to my original post. If you want to discuss we can discuss, if you want to act like your 13 the playground forum is still up.Actually, you sound like an idiot. He posted the actual definition of "faith." In fact, faith is the virtue of believing without rational proof or evidence, or in the face of evidence to the contrary.

So you are arguing something that goes against fundamental tenents of Christianity. It is by faith you're saved-- there is no proof. There is no concrete evidence. You have to believe without an ounce of proof.

Likewise, you rely on poor imagination and logic that'd get you laughed out of a high school philosohpy class. You're arguing pure gibberish, and you're not even smart enough to know it. You're either a troll or perhaps the dumbest forum member we have ever had. You're not even as entertaining as muffin.

[watch]

Actually, you sound like an idiot. He posted the actual definition of "faith." In fact, faith is the virtue of believing without rational proof or evidence, or in the face of evidence to the contrary.

So you are arguing something that goes against fundamental tenents of Christianity. It is by faith you're saved-- there is no proof. There is no concrete evidence. You have to believe without an ounce of proof.

Likewise, you rely on poor imagination and logic that'd get you laughed out of a high school philosohpy class. You're arguing pure gibberish, and you're not even smart enough to know it. You're either a troll or perhaps the dumbest forum member we have ever had. You're not even as entertaining as muffin.

1.Um, please don't quote the bible if you don't read it. You are saved by faith in believing in Jesus. but the bible says God has given evidence of his exsitence in creation.

2.The whole point of the post is God can be proven without faith.

3.Having no counter point yet throwing insults means your stumped. If not prove me wrong and write something besides insults to prove me wrong.

[Leftfield]

meshou: don't waste anymore time on this, these types of people are wasting our time on better arguments/posts spent elsewhere... the person is probably an SJ anyways... no info at all on the person... who cares?

[watch]

meshou: don't waste anymore time on this, these types of people are wasting our time on better arguments/posts spent elsewhere... the person is probably an SJ anyways... no info at all on the person... who cares?

= I'm stumped

[meshou]

meshou: don't waste anymore time on this, these types of people are wasting our time on better arguments/posts spent elsewhere... the person is probably an SJ anyways... no info at all on the person... who cares?One more? I've had a bad day, and the target practice does me good.


.Um, please don't quote the bible if you don't read it. You are saved by faith in believing in Jesus. but the bible says God has given evidence of his exsitence in creation.Believed for sixteen years, sweetie. Read the bible back to front probably a couple dozen times, and I have a good chunk memorized.

Page and verse. Where does it say there is concrete, rational proof? No where! In fact, proverbs ridicules people who want concrete rational proof! Wise men! The religious leaders of our time, the holy fucking Pope and Jerry Fallwell dismiss science for its obscene demand that there must be proof.

No scientist would take what you say in your first post for anything but nonsense. Any person with any logical background would tear into yours for the nonsense it is.

Read some fucking Aquainus, for God's sake. Get a beyond eighth grade grasp of the big bang and grammar before you come play with the adults, because you look like a fucking idiot. I'm not just saying that because you are one, I'm saying that because even the other Christians are rolling their eyes and preparing "We're not with him" posts.

God.

[Xylix]

2.The whole point of the post is God can be proven without faith.


I submit that, with the exception of tautologies, there is no statement that can be proven without faith... except, perhaps Descartes's "I think, therefore I am."

Assumed truth, in the form of a statement that something is true without proof, is an axiom. These can be used to prove further statements. However, they rely upon faith... by definition. (Typically, though, axioms are at least chosen in the form of statements that everyone or almost everyone will agree upon. For example, trust that one's perceptions reflect objective reality, is an axiom accepted in the study of Science.)

Please reference Solipsism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism).

I exhausted my faith in accepting physical reality and the axioms accepted by science, denying idealism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism) and, therefore, accepting the possibility that I'm not God. My knees are weak. It will be a long time before I'm willing to accept any more brutal leaps of faith. :D

[Trystorp]

I'm not really sure this is worth the bother...

Your first argument is the Cosmological argument which supposes that everything must have a cause.

- Prove to me why an infinite chain of events is impossible. It seems to me as probable as any other solution
- If God is uncaused, why can't the universe be uncaused?

Your second argument is essentially that of Intelligent Design.

- You are arguing that a closed system tends toward disorder and that complex designs could not have happened by chance. There is a large body of evidence in evolution that supports the idea that much complexity did indeed arrive by chance. Explain vestigal organs by design.

[watch]

One more? I've had a bad day, and the target practice does me good.


Page and verse. Where does it say there is concrete, rational proof? No where! In fact, proverbs ridicules people who want concrete rational proof! Wise men! The religious leaders of our time, the holy fucking Pope and Jerry Fallwell dismiss science for its obscene demand that there must be proof.

No scientist would take what you say in your first post for anything but nonsense. Any person with any logical background would tear into yours for the nonsense it is.

Read some fucking Aquainus, for God's sake. Get a beyond eighth grade grasp of the big bang and grammar before you come play with the adults, because you look like a fucking idiot. I'm not just saying that because you are one, I'm saying that because even the other Christians are rolling their eyes and preparing "We're not with him" posts.

God.

1.I'm going to hold my self from this insult game cause this is not the reason for the thread.


ROMANS 1:18
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

2. You claim my agruments would be torn to pieces by anyone with logic. So please post something then.

[watch]

I'm not really sure this is worth the bother...

Your first argument is the Cosmological argument which supposes that everything must have a cause.

- Prove to me why an infinite chain of events is impossible. It seems to me as probable as any other solution
- If God is uncaused, why can't the universe be uncaused?

Your second argument is essentially that of Intelligent Design.

- You are arguing that a closed system tends toward disorder and that complex designs could not have happened by chance. There is a large body of evidence in evolution that supports the idea that much complexity did indeed arrive by chance. Explain vestigal organs by design.

1. Well you could say the invisble universe(everything we cant see, and all dimensions) is uncaused. But you call it the universe, i call that God.
If the physical universe was uncaused, it would have no shape or design of any sorts. There would be nothing to cause it to have shape, design or any physical qualities.

[Trystorp]

If the physical universe was uncaused, it would have no shape or design of any sorts. There would be nothing to cause it to have shape, design or any physical qualities.

You are begging the question here. The universe has physical laws which create design, shape and physical qualities. You will now argue that if the univese has physical laws, then there must be a law-giver. Why? As I said before, I find it equally satisfying to suppose that the universe always existed and that these physical laws are an innate part of that existence. I've seen no 'proof' here yet and there can't be. This is why religion is founded on faith.

[Xylix]

1. Well you could say the invisble universe(everything we cant see, and all dimensions) is uncaused. But you call it the universe, i call that God.

Are you declaring yourself to be a Pantheist? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism)

Your definition of God is not necessarily an accepted one, especially by any church of which I know. However, I have no qualms with it.

Or do you only accept invisible things as being God? In that case I ask: How can you possibly prove something that cannot be perceived as real? It's hard enough proving something that can be perceived as real!

[Xylix]

You will now argue that if the univese has physical laws, then there must be a law-giver.

Well, that isn't what he said at all (though you may be accurate in assuming it is what he meant.) He said that those invisible things... like properties and laws that give the universe shape... are God. Under this possibility, it would be very difficult to ascribe any anthropomorphic traits to "God."

If you accept Pantheism, then study of science = study of god. Not a problem for me, really. However, separation of church and state might require we no longer teach science in schools...

[watch]

You are begging the question here. The universe has physical laws which create design, shape and physical qualities. You will now argue that if the univese has physical laws, then there must be a law-giver. Why? As I said before, I find it equally satisfying to suppose that the universe always existed and that these physical laws are an innate part of that existence. I've seen no 'proof' here yet and there can't be. This is why religion is founded on faith.

Read my post again im not sure we disagree. I think what you call the universe is what i call God. God is not a white beared man in sky. He is a formless invisible force, in everything and controllong everything.

[Xylix]

He is a formless invisible force, in everything and controllong everything.

Which one? gravity, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, or electrostatic?

[watch]

Are you declaring yourself to be a Pantheist? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism)

Your definition of God is not necessarily an accepted one, especially by any church of which I know. However, I have no qualms with it.

Or do you only accept invisible things as being God? In that case I ask: How can you possibly prove something that cannot be perceived as real? It's hard enough proving something that can be perceived as real!


I'm a christian through and through. But what i'm saying does not disagree with bible. Infact it biblical. I know some would wanna through me out of church but its biblical.

Ephesians 4:6
6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Colossians 1:17
17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

[Trystorp]

Alright then. If you are arguing that your God is the physical laws of the universe then I doubt you'll have too many dissenters here. I think we'll all agree that for the most part physics is provable. It's when these physical laws are prayed to and ascribed intelligence that you'll lose us.

[watch]

Alright then. If you are arguing that your God is the physical laws of the universe then I doubt you'll have too many dissenters here. I think we'll all agree that for the most part physics is provable. It's when these physical laws are prayed to and ascribed intelligence that you'll lose us.

Whoa! I didn't say God is only the physical laws of the universe.

[watch]

Which one? gravity, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, or electrostatic?

All that and more.

[abathur]

I've spent a fair amount of time pondering a universe theory or such in which we could be within a container, with defined rules such as causality that make it impossible to *know* how things began, while within this universe. Outside this container, the rules may be drastically different where causality is broken and spontaneous events really do happen.

Despite my personal belief that "God" should not be ruled out as an option, I believe your biggest problem, "watch," is going to be precisely your argument. Logical causality as we know it doesn't seem capable of describing the origin of things--be that by the infinite existance of a supreme being, the infinite existance of matter, or, a definiite point at which something--being or material--has come out of nothing. This would seem to indicate that logical causality has some flaws or holes which we cannot understand.

Presumably, following this line of thought--had a being crafted this existance, leaving us causality yet no causal indicator pointing squarely at and only at him, it would seem this being does not want us to KNOW he exists, nor does he want anyone to be able to PROVE this.

As for your second point (the lack of support for Universe Everlasting in causality)--it is RATHER foolish to go around presuming the qualities and properties of something that has always existed as the "first cause." I, personally, know of no such thing on which to base my assumptions of what other such things may be like.

Mind you, I do not dismiss a superior being at this point, and am still thinking it out. I think I might get a little closer to proving "god" than these attempts, yet still there are a few problems to "proving" such a thing. That is to say: due to the lack of explanation for the beginning of things as pertaining to causality, we can presumably assume one of a few things:
1. our knowledge of causality is flawed and, at LEAST once, causality has operated in a nature unobserved by us, this would be to say, some natural process took place violating what we know about causality.
2. there exists some being with the capability to circumvent the laws of causality

That list may not be complete. I'm still pondering it from time to time. Though I do think that a time, space or being at/for which the laws of causality (as we know them) do not apply may be a logical necessity for our existance.

[abathur]

Since you've pulled out the old book, as far as my thoughts on the ability to prove the Christian "God" (which makes the time I waste pondering it rather ironic)

John 14:6: Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Perhaps, were you ambitious, you could extrapolate that to mean: Any god that can be PROVEN through mental masturbation is not indeed the God of the Christians. Similarly ambitious scripture wielders could probably also take the inverse to heart: that the inability to prove this God is all the more reason he should exist. Prerogative, of course, will likely determine interpretation.

[watch]

Since you've pulled out the old book, as far as my thoughts on the ability to prove the Christian "God" (which makes the time I waste pondering it rather ironic)

John 14:6: Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Perhaps, were you ambitious, you could extrapolate that to mean: Any god that can be PROVEN through mental masturbation is not indeed the God of the Christians. Similarly ambitious scripture wielders could probably also take the inverse to heart: that the inability to prove this God is all the more reason he should exist. Prerogative, of course, will likely determine interpretation.

Thats incorrect, i already posted the verse but ill post again. I really didnt want to get into a God of the bible debate in this thread, but o well.

ROMANS 1
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

[Hexchild]

absolute nothing creates absolutly nothing


if any thing existed from eternity without a creator it would have no design, shape, form or description it would just exist

These are unproven axioms.



Incidentally, for many years now the one god I've been the most inclined to believe in is called Evolution.

[coffeezombie]

I've never understood why if a god exists, it should be worshipped anyway. I have much more of a problem with that than believing that there is a god.

[distraction tactics]

Likewise, you rely on poor imagination and logic that'd get you laughed out of a high school philosohpy class. You're arguing pure gibberish, and you're not even smart enough to know it. You're either a troll or perhaps the dumbest forum member we have ever had. You're not even as entertaining as muffin.

:worthy:

This made my morning.

[Serotonin]

God can be proven.

1.absolute nothing creates absolutly nothing.I believe in the big bang but something had to cause it. That means a first which some call God.

God implies a conscious, intent will to bring about change. Something that mass and energy can do without caring. Science has the logic of cause and effect fairly down-pat at this current age. Less and less of a reason to believe that a third-party (i.e. God) was involved.



2.People then say the universe has always been here. Well if any thing existed from eternity without a creator it would have no design, shape, form or description it would just exist. It would be the first cause without any influence or design.
Shape, form and description are attributes we human ascribe to objects. So by your logic something doesn't exist unless it is observed and defined by humanity. Tree. Fall. Woods. No-one. Still. Makes. Sound.
You're not even close to making your proof watertight.

[abathur]

Knowing v. proving via mental masturbation are two different things. Perhaps I should have stated, "for us to PROVE he exists" rather than "KNOW he exists" yet none the less, my statements stand as correct.

[jimore]

Actually, you sound like an idiot.
Likewise, you rely on poor imagination and logic that'd get you laughed out of a high school philosohpy class. You're arguing pure gibberish, and you're not even smart enough to know it. You're either a troll or perhaps the dumbest forum member we have ever had. You're not even as entertaining as muffin.
Amen! Praise the lord!

[watch]

God implies a conscious, intent will to bring about change. Something that mass and energy can do without caring. Science has the logic of cause and effect fairly down-pat at this current age. Less and less of a reason to believe that a third-party (i.e. God) was involved.


Shape, form and description are attributes we human ascribe to objects. So by your logic something doesn't exist unless it is observed and defined by humanity. Tree. Fall. Woods. No-one. Still. Makes. Sound.
You're not even close to making your proof watertight.

Why do you think mass and energy work without caring,or any intent?If you jump of a building the law of gravity will care and intended for you to fall. What you call mass and energy, I call God.And the name God only implies what you assign to it.

[eyebyte_atWork]

I've never understood why if a god exists, it should be worshipped anyway. I have much more of a problem with that than believing that there is a god.


Word. You said it.

[kuranes]

Word. You said it.

I agree. Unless you could define "worship" as "enjoying a sunset, and letting it remind you of good things etc."

[booyalab]

I've never understood why if a god exists, it should be worshipped anyway. I have much more of a problem with that than believing that there is a god.

Christians basically believe that we were created to be in unison with God, then we chose to sever that, and since then we've been seeking a similar connection/feeling with other things...like you and your pride. The idea behind worship is supposed to be an uncorrupted attempt at what was lost. We bless God, he blesses us.

That's why marriage was originally intended to be a metaphor for the relationship of man with God. You can't sustain a relationship with your partner by simply acknowledging them.

[booyalab]

I agree. Unless you could define "worship" as "enjoying a sunset, and letting it remind you of good things etc."

well people tend to have a very narrow view of worship....like God's some guy with an ego complex who just needs people to tell him how great he is. so if you use some imagination in your definition it can mean that as well.

[kuranes]

well people tend to have a very narrow view of worship....like God's some guy with an ego complex who just needs people to tell him how great he is. so if you use some imagination in your definition it can mean that as well.

Exactly.

*winks at Boo*

[file cabinet]

I'd prefer to think of life(and the universe etc) as some sort of chemical reaction rather then there being any sort of god.

[euterpenc]

Well, since everyone likes to be an arrogant jackass, I'll join the crew.

You guys don't believe in God because you're angry that you suck. You suck so bad how could there be a god? I mean he's not supposed to make mistakes, but here you are anyway. Maybe if I were in your position, I owuldn't believe in god either.

[euterpenc]

I'd prefer to think of life(and the universe etc) as some sort of chemical reaction rather then there being any sort of god.

Maybe that reaction is what is god. People seem to think god can't be a law or rule. Physics is a governing force is it not? God is a governing force is he not? Perhaps physics and other sorts of laws are what god is. Fate as well. Causality is an emperical fact, therefore proving fate, and god's hand is fate, therefore proving god's hand. and where would a hand be without a body.

[Trystorp]

Causality is an emperical fact, therefore proving fate, and god's hand is fate, therefore proving god's hand. and where would a hand be without a body.


:blink: :blink: :blink:

[kuranes]

Maybe that reaction is what is god. People seem to think god can't be a law or rule. Physics is a governing force is it not? God is a governing force is he not? Perhaps physics and other sorts of laws are what god is.

I'd have an easier time believing God to be such a function, vs. a "super person", but then the typical "sign from God" would simply be . . .reality itself. An UNtypical sign might be YOUR own personal USE of such a function, or humankind's COLLECTIVE use. ( Not sure what you're getting at about the "hand" and "body" of God though. ) There was an interesting book called "The Crack in the Cosmic Egg" written about the power of belief, which can be a catalyst if nothing else, even in cases of placebo.

[Apostasius]

The Invisible Pink Unicorn can be proven.

"The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being of great spiritual power. We know this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we logically know that she is invisible because we can't see her."
http://www.geocities.com/ipu_temple/

[panda]

:blink: :blink: :blink:
:rofl:

[panda]

The Invisible Pink Unicorn can be proven.

"The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being of great spiritual power. We know this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we logically know that she is invisible because we can't see her."
http://www.geocities.com/ipu_temple/
Blessed be the name of the IPU!

I think the principle and/or concept of the IPU amply illustrates the absurdity of most organized religion.

[Maniac]

LOL

from: www.dictionary.com

faith Audio pronunciation of "faith" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.



If faith is required, it can't be proven. That's true by definition. :rofl:

Just because faith does not REST on logical proof, doesn't mean that it doesn't necessarily contain logical elements. Most people usually want some kind of semblance of "evidence," and then they make what is commonly known as a "leap" of faith. Why a leap? Because you perhaps have SOME evidence, but not enough, so to get from A to B you take a leap (sometimes small, sometimes large).

[Maniac]

You are begging the question here. The universe has physical laws which create design, shape and physical qualities. You will now argue that if the univese has physical laws, then there must be a law-giver. Why? As I said before, I find it equally satisfying to suppose that the universe always existed and that these physical laws are an innate part of that existence. I've seen no 'proof' here yet and there can't be. This is why religion is founded on faith.

There is an argument against that. It goes something like this:

If time stretches back infinitely, then today wouldn't have been reached.
If today wouldn't have been reached, then today wouldn't exist.
Today exists.
If time doesn't stretch back infinitely, then there was a first moment of time.
Therefore, There was a first moment of time.

There are no proofs, only arguments.

[Maniac]

God implies a conscious, intent will to bring about change. Something that mass and energy can do without caring. Science has the logic of cause and effect fairly down-pat at this current age. Less and less of a reason to believe that a third-party (i.e. God) was involved.


Shape, form and description are attributes we human ascribe to objects. So by your logic something doesn't exist unless it is observed and defined by humanity. Tree. Fall. Woods. No-one. Still. Makes. Sound.
You're not even close to making your proof watertight.

Noone has proofs. However, there are arguments. I submit some more:

The universe is orderly (like a watch that follows complex laws).
Most orderly things we've examined have intelligent designers.
We've examined a large and varied group of orderly things.
If most orderly things we've examined have intelligent designers and we've examined a large and varied group of orderly things, then probably most orderly things have intelligent designers.
If the universe is orderly and probably most orderly things have intelligent designers, then the universe probably has an intelligent designer.
Therefore, The universe probably has an intelligent designer.

In addition, whether the bible is true or not, it cannot be taken literally. An argument that supports this:

If Genesis gives the literal facts, then birds were created before humans (Gensis 1:20 - 26)
If Genesis gives the literal facts, then birds were not created before humans. (Genesis 2:5-20)
Therefore, Genesis doesn't give the literal facts.

One more:

The world had a beginning in time.
If the world had a beginning in time, there was a cause for the world's beginning.
If there was a cause for the world's beginning, a personal being caused the world.
Therefore, a personal being caused the world. [The "kalam argument" for the existence of a higher power is from William Craig and James Moreland: they defend premise 1 by various considerations, including the big-bang theory the law of entropy, and the impossibility of an actual infinite]. (The argument in my previous post also is a decent argument against time always existing).

Not proofs, but good arguments nevertheless.

[kuranes]

There is an argument against that. It goes something like this:

If time stretches back infinitely, then today wouldn't have been reached.
If today wouldn't have been reached, then today wouldn't exist.




I love this "reached" usage.

Reminds me of the phrase "Things are getting more like they are today then they've ever been before."

[Maniac]

I love this "reached" usage.

Reminds me of the phrase "Things are getting more like they are today then they've ever been before."

??

[kuranes]

What is it that's not "reaching"? The existence of "time" itself is instantaneous, regardless of how increments of that entire span might be measured from a fixed position.

[Maniac]

What is it that's not "reaching"? The existence of "time" itself is instantaneous, regardless of how increments of that entire span might be measured from a fixed position.

You can't cross an infinite distance, by definition. Look at Zeno's paradox for further understanding of this concept.

[kuranes]

Who is it that's crossing? I'm familiar with Zeno. Haven't seen it used to demonstrate God's existence before.

[Maniac]

Who is it that's crossing? I'm familiar with Zeno. Haven't seen it used to demonstrate God's existence before.

Can time pass without anyone observing it? If no, then you've just asserted that "someone" must have been there observing it. If yes, then the above argument stands.

[watch]

In addition, whether the bible is true or not, it cannot be taken literally. An argument that supports this:

If Genesis gives the literal facts, then birds were created before humans (Gensis 1:20 - 26)
If Genesis gives the literal facts, then birds were not created before humans. (Genesis 2:5-20)
Therefore, Genesis doesn't give the literal facts.



I agreed with what you said before this. Genesis 1:20-26 shows when God created birds. Genesis 2:5-20 shows when God let Adam give them names. But everthing else I agree.

[Maniac]

I agreed with what you said before this. Genesis 1:20-26 shows when God created birds. Genesis 2:5-20 shows when God let Adam give them names. But everthing else I agree.

It was an argument made by Origen. I suggest you take a look at his works.

[Trystorp]

There is an argument against that. It goes something like this:

If time stretches back infinitely, then today wouldn't have been reached.
If today wouldn't have been reached, then today wouldn't exist.
Today exists.
If time doesn't stretch back infinitely, then there was a first moment of time.
Therefore, There was a first moment of time.

There are no proofs, only arguments.

Yes, and the counter-argument to that goes something like this:

In an infinite past there is no starting point. Thus, from any specific point in past time there is only a finite distance that needs to be traversed to reach the present.

[watch]

It was an argument made by Origen. I suggest you take a look at his works.

I did hes wrong.

[Maniac]

Yes, and the counter-argument to that goes something like this:

In an infinite past there is no starting point. Thus, from any specific point in past time there is only a finite distance that needs to be traversed to reach the present.

The real question comes down to whether time can be quantized or not...

[kuranes]

Can time pass without anyone observing it? If no, then you've just asserted that "someone" must have been there observing it. If yes, then the above argument stands.

Saying that time "passes" is just a figure of speech, again tied to your interest in the Zeno fixation on "instants". A line is not made up of a bunch of points. We tend to think of points as infinitesimally small objects, but in fact they are not objects at all. They are just descriptions of positions on a line. The same for what you refer to, the gap between instants and motion cannot be bridged by adding more instants. Your implying that causality is transmitted between instants is therefore misleading.

[Maniac]

Saying that time "passes" is just a figure of speech, again tied to your interest in the Zeno fixation on "instants". A line is not made up of a bunch of points. We tend to think of points as infinitesimally small objects, but in fact they are not objects at all. They are just descriptions of positions on a line. The same for what you refer to, the gap between instants and motion cannot be bridged by adding more instants. Your implying that causality is transmitted between instants is therefore misleading.

True. So it goes back to the quantization question then. If time is continuous, then there's no way to measure it. In other words, is it an infinitely countable set? I don't think there's an answer to that.

[kuranes]

True. So it goes back to the quantization question then. If time is continuous, then there's no way to measure it. In other words, is it an infinitely countable set? I don't think there's an answer to that.

I don't know that anyone will ever have a final "answer" to all questions about infinity. Certainly not me. Nor are my thoughts on a concept like "God' bounded by simplicities, which you'll see if you read my posts over time, or even in this thread.

There are actually many different levels of infinity. Infinity aleph null is the one we're discussing here. There is also Infinity-aleph 1 etc.

We could look at the difference between a mathematically infinite geometric series and the adjunct tool of the calculus of limits.

Planck length.

Lebesgue intervals

Limitations of the convergent series.

Etc.

[Maniac]

Ok now I feel pretty stupid. My knowledge does not extend to these concepts. Sorry I can't be more of an educated conversationalist at this time.

[kuranes]

Ok now I feel pretty stupid. My knowledge does not extend to these concepts. Sorry I can't be more of an educated conversationalist at this time.

Don't feel bad. We're always learning. All of us. Even Hustler. But he might not admit it. *grin*

There's a new book out on infinity. I haven't read it yet. Somebody mentioned A.W. Moore's "The Infinite" being good too. Wonder if its the same thing?

[Serotonin]

Why do you think mass and energy work without caring,or any intent?



Noone has proofs. However, there are arguments. I submit some more:

The universe is orderly (like a watch that follows complex laws).
Most orderly things we've examined have intelligent designers.
We've examined a large and varied group of orderly things.
If most orderly things we've examined have intelligent designers and we've examined a large and varied group of orderly things, then probably most orderly things have intelligent designers.
If the universe is orderly and probably most orderly things have intelligent designers, then the universe probably has an intelligent designer.
Therefore, The universe probably has an intelligent designer.

In addition, whether the bible is true or not, it cannot be taken literally. An argument that supports this:

If Genesis gives the literal facts, then birds were created before humans (Gensis 1:20 - 26)
If Genesis gives the literal facts, then birds were not created before humans. (Genesis 2:5-20)
Therefore, Genesis doesn't give the literal facts.

One more:

The world had a beginning in time.
If the world had a beginning in time, there was a cause for the world's beginning.
If there was a cause for the world's beginning, a personal being caused the world.
Therefore, a personal being caused the world. [The "kalam argument" for the existence of a higher power is from William Craig and James Moreland: they defend premise 1 by various considerations, including the big-bang theory the law of entropy, and the impossibility of an actual infinite]. (The argument in my previous post also is a decent argument against time always existing).

Not proofs, but good arguments nevertheless.


Intent means a conscious, previous plan, from some sort of external CPU, such as a brain, the brain of god if you like. We see mass and energy work as they are, but we have absolutely no concrete evidence of their actions being a result of a conscious, central will guiding their actions. Until this is demonstrated, the intelligent design theory is will remain very very shaky.

I will concede it's a subjective thing though. I base my worldview largely on science and empiricism, a Te thing, which I know runs counter to being an INTP, but sometimes Ti can only get you so far.

Interesting deductive argument Maniac, but an inductive argument would be better, though impossible.

Edit: Make that "separate" CPU, as in it is not contained in mass and energy themselves. Sorry, poor wording.

[chatoyer]

Just because faith does not REST on logical proof, doesn't mean that it doesn't necessarily contain logical elements. Most people usually want some kind of semblance of "evidence," and then they make what is commonly known as a "leap" of faith. Why a leap? Because you perhaps have SOME evidence, but not enough, so to get from A to B you take a leap (sometimes small, sometimes large).

Agreed. Many religious people rely on a "cumulative case argument" for God's existence that would make the "leap" somewhat smaller.

Here's a good link that illustrates this sort of "set" of arguments:

http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/theistic_apologetics/kreeft-arguments.html

[meshou]

I did hes wrong.You can read?

[panda]

You can read?
:rofl:

[watch]

You can read?

Absolutly hilarious, and yet so clever.

[Serotonin]

Absolutly hilarious, and yet so clever.

Careful watch! Mustn't get sidetracked by carping.
So how does mass and energy demonstrate "care" or more importantly, premeditation?

[nomir_dva]

There is an argument against that. It goes something like this:

If time stretches back infinitely, then today wouldn't have been reached.
If today wouldn't have been reached, then today wouldn't exist.
Today exists.
If time doesn't stretch back infinitely, then there was a first moment of time.
Therefore, There was a first moment of time.

There are no proofs, only arguments.

What could have come before time that could have caused time? If there is a cause-and-effect relationship, then time must apply to that too. I find it incomprehensible to envision a creation of something without time, as this presupposes that this 'thing' existed at some 'point' but did not exist at some other.


True. So it goes back to the quantization question then. If time is continuous, then there's no way to measure it. In other words, is it an infinitely countable set? I don't think there's an answer to that.

As I see it, there are three options with this issue: the Universe/reality has always existed, there was an absolute creation of the Universe/reality, or the Universe/reality is cyclical. The first two are absurd, and the third one does not seem much better. I am afraid that the origin of what we conisder to be reality may be connected with laws or prinicples that we cannot comprehend.

[watch]

Careful watch! Mustn't get sidetracked by carping.
So how does mass and energy demonstrate "care" or more importantly, premeditation?

Why cant universe and and all its laws and mysteries be what I call God. Where did we get life and energy from?where did we get intelligence? The universe. Why cant that be what God is, the universe? Other words we're both seeing the same thing, but giving it a different name. Even scientist call nature, "mother nature". Its like people do anything not to say the name God.

[panda]

I am afraid that the origin of what we conisder to be reality may be connected with laws or prinicples that we cannot comprehend.
I tend to agree. In the end, this is all anyone can honestly say: I have no idea.

[Architectonic]

Why cant universe and and all its laws and mysteries be what I call God. Where did we get life and energy from?where did we get intelligence? The universe. Why cant that be what God is, the universe? Other words we're both seeing the same thing, but giving it a different name. Even scientist call nature, "mother nature". Its like people do anything not to say the name God.

In other words you are a pantheist.

edit - xylix has already mentioned that...

This whole topic has been discussed in greater detail many times before anyhow..

[watch]

In other words you are a pantheist.

edit - xylix has already mentioned that...

This whole topic has been discussed in greater detail many times before anyhow..

No, i'm not. I'm christian. Infact don't like labels, lets just say i believe in the bible.

[panda]

Infact don't like labels, lets just say i believe in the bible.
I believe the bible exists as well.

No, but do you mean that you believe the Judeo-Christian "Bible" is the inspired word of God? If so, why?

[indie]

If "no God" is zero and "God" is one, can you prove that zero is necessary for one to exist?

Or would a more intriguing question be: Is -1 necessary to prove that 1 does indeed exist?

0 always does seem to be the defining point for curiosity in exploration.

[Serotonin]

Why cant universe and and all its laws and mysteries be what I call God. Where did we get life and energy from?where did we get intelligence? The universe. Why cant that be what God is, the universe? Other words we're both seeing the same thing, but giving it a different name. Even scientist call nature, "mother nature". Its like people do anything not to say the name God.

You haven't really answered my question. Mysteries can be unravelled, laws aren't laws insomuch as they represent the boundaries of the capacities of nature. There's a real difference between that and a conscious God that is guiding it all.
Yeah, from what you've described, you're a pantheist.
It's Ok, so was Samuel Taylor Coleridge. From the Aeolian Harp:
O ! the one Life within us and abroad,
Which meets all motion and becomes its soul,
A light in sound, a sound-like power in light,
Rhythm in all thought, and joyance every where-
........
And what if all of animated nature
Be but organic Harps diversly fram'd,
That tremble into thought, as o'er them sweeps
Plastic and vast, one intellectual breeze,
At once the Soul of each, and God of all ?


The most telling thing about the poem is that his wife brings his thoughts back into line with orthodox Christian thought:
But thy more serious eye a mild reproof
Darts, O belovéd Woman ! nor such thoughts
Dim and unhallow'd dost thou not reject,
And biddest me walk humbly with my God.
Meek Daughter in the Family of Christ !
Well hast thou said and holily disprais'd
These shapings of the unregenerate mind ;
Bubbles that glitter as they rise and break
On vain Philosophy's aye-babbling spring.
For never guiltless may I speak of him,
The Incomprehensible ! save when with awe
I praise him, and with Faith that inly feels ;
Who with his saving mercies healéd me,
A sinful and most miserable man,
Wilder'd and dark, and gave me to possess
Peace, and this Cot, and thee, heart-honour'd Maid !

but please, watch, don't feel constrained by the heart-honour'd Maids of the world.

[watch]

I believe the bible exists as well.

No, but do you mean that you believe the Judeo-Christian "Bible" is the inspired word of God? If so, why?

Yes, i believe the bible is the inspired word of God. Why? Prophecy, the bible predicted three of the last empires to conquer Israel.The coming of Jesus was prophecied to the excate day,400 years before he came. The words of Jesus, when reading something clicks in my gut thats hard to explain. The nation of Israel or Jews, being such a small nation yet always surviving is a miracle. Then there is the spiritual evidence,which some call sleep paralysis. All these things make God undenyable for me.

[Serotonin]

The nation of Israel or Jews, being such a small nation yet always surviving is a miracle.

Well, it's only been 57 years. And if you're a U.S. citizen, most likely your taxes have been contributing to it's survival. I think it's miraculous that there aren't more people complaining about this.

[watch]

Well, it's only been 57 years. And if you're a U.S. citizen, most likely your taxes have been contributing to it's survival. I think it's miraculous that there aren't more people complaining about this.

No, actually they were a nation 2,000 years ago.

[ACow]

The nation of Israel or Jews, being such a small nation yet always surviving is a miracle.



No, actually they were a nation 2,000 years ago.

And then in 70 years the romans kinda kicked the snot out of them... :blink:

And after that, things just got frick'n messy...but not exactly what i'd call the "miracle of continued existence"...

Unless this proof comes in a "he hits me because he loves me" form of evidence for god's love...

Not to mention that the "they're still around" logic can be used for practically every religion in existance today...

[Hamro]

watch....your arguements are very flawed. do we need a divine force to maintain your pathetic existance? waht is it? bad confidence? scared of dying? :rant:. its not even important if a god exists. because we, humans can stand on our own legs

what is heaven? self-deception

[distraction tactics]

Yes, i believe the bible is the inspired word of God. Why? Prophecy, the bible predicted three of the last empires to conquer Israel.The coming of Jesus was prophecied to the excate day,400 years before he came. The words of Jesus, when reading something clicks in my gut thats hard to explain. The nation of Israel or Jews, being such a small nation yet always surviving is a miracle. Then there is the spiritual evidence,which some call sleep paralysis. All these things make God undenyable for me.

Yeah, there's no chance of a little creative editing. None whatsoever.

[Melody]

fuck i wrote a longass reply with explanations and socratic progression and shit but it was too longass. so i'll jist it: causality is bidirectional; time/causality only exists from our perspective

my belief is that existence is a single static object

static because it does not even reference itself, much less a "temporal" parameter that only silly structures within it believe in

[Ivy]

You haven't really answered my question. Mysteries can be unravelled, laws aren't laws insomuch as they represent the boundaries of the capacities of nature. There's a real difference between that and a conscious God that is guiding it all.
Yeah, from what you've described, you're a pantheist.
It's Ok, so was Samuel Taylor Coleridge. From the Aeolian Harp:
O ! the one Life within us and abroad,
Which meets all motion and becomes its soul,
A light in sound, a sound-like power in light,
Rhythm in all thought, and joyance every where-
........
And what if all of animated nature
Be but organic Harps diversly fram'd,
That tremble into thought, as o'er them sweeps
Plastic and vast, one intellectual breeze,
At once the Soul of each, and God of all ?



I love Estici. He thought up String Theory right there! (This is mostly a joke, since I don't understand a single iota of string theory, but my passing understanding of the very most superficial outermost layer of it kind of sounds a little like that stanza.)

/romanticist physics

[Maniac]

I find it incomprehensible to envision a creation of something without time, as this presupposes that this 'thing' existed at some 'point' but did not exist at some other.

That's because you are "in" time. Theoretically, if you can travel faster than the speed of light, time becomes meaningless to you. Past, present, and future all blend into one homogeneous "thing."

[Maniac]

If "no God" is zero and "God" is one, can you prove that zero is necessary for one to exist?

Or would a more intriguing question be: Is -1 necessary to prove that 1 does indeed exist?

0 always does seem to be the defining point for curiosity in exploration.

I have thought of this many times myself. Some esoteric texts say something that the highest level one can reach is meditation on nothing, which is very dangerous and not for the uninitiated. Assuming a creator exists, and created this world, the closest you could get to him in when there is nothing. Why? Because then there is only him. That's a mindjob ;)

In any case, yes, 0 has interesting properties. 0 is the only number than cannot be divided by. There's some weird spiritual symbolism you can make. If God is one (united), then he contains all of us. So if you try to add God to yourself, you get yourself, since you're already part of God, so 1 + 0 = 1. If you try to subtract God from yourself, you get yourself, because you're a piece of him, so 1 - 0 = 1. If you try to multiply yourself by God, you get God, since you're a piece of him, so 1 * 0 = 0. And if you try to divide by him, you can't, because he's indivisible. That's a real mindjob ;)

Case in point, 0 is the answer to all of our questions. Heh.

[Apostasius]

Yes, i believe the bible is the inspired word of God. Why? Prophecy, the bible predicted three of the last empires to conquer Israel.The coming of Jesus was prophecied to the excate day,400 years before he came. The words of Jesus, when reading something clicks in my gut thats hard to explain. The nation of Israel or Jews, being such a small nation yet always surviving is a miracle. Then there is the spiritual evidence,which some call sleep paralysis. All these things make God undenyable for me.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/psychics.html

[nomir_dva]

That's because you are "in" time. Theoretically, if you can travel faster than the speed of light, time becomes meaningless to you. Past, present, and future all blend into one homogeneous "thing."

Theoretically, matter cannot travel at the speed of light. Without understanding the mathematics of relativity, I can hypothesize that this is an unreachable 'loophole' in the system.

If there is no time, then I still think that cause and effect become meaningless. Therefore, it makes little sense to wonder what caused the Universe to begin.

[Maniac]

Theoretically, matter cannot travel at the speed of light. Without understanding the mathematics of relativity, I can hypothesize that this is an unreachable 'loophole' in the system.

If there is no time, then I still think that cause and effect become meaningless. Therefore, it makes little sense to wonder what caused the Universe to begin.

Like the theory's name, it's all relative. Depends on who's observing. For us, cause and effect may mean something. For us, we see the sun giving light to the moon, so we see the sun as the giver and the moon as the receiver. To someone (something?) outside of time, it's all a matter of perspective. You can probably see both, the sun giving and receiving at the same time, and ditto for the moon. It's sort of like the difference between a painting and a piece of music, or visual and aural arts in general. Music is a temporal art, you need time to experience it. You can take in a painting all at once. I guess that's a crude analogy to the difference between being in time and out of time...

[watch]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/psychics.html

http://www.according2prophecy.org/11colleague.html
http://www.according2prophecy.org/13colleague.html
http://www.according2prophecy.org/14colleague.html

[watch]

And then in 70 years the romans kinda kicked the snot out of them... :blink:

And after that, things just got frick'n messy...but not exactly what i'd call the "miracle of continued existence"...

Unless this proof comes in a "he hits me because he loves me" form of evidence for god's love...

Not to mention that the "they're still around" logic can be used for practically every religion in existance today...

The romans where allowed to do this be cause they rejected the messiah.As Jesus says,

Luke 19
41As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you."

[mgb]

I'd like to go back to your original post.

I really don't understand how that proves God exists. It seems a lot like a theory, and not in the way that I think all things are theories, in that what you are saying in no way proves anything.

It's like me saying. Elephants move rocks. There is a rock in the parking lot. Because the rock is there an elephant must have put it there. Therefore, only elephants can move rocks.

I can't back that conclusion up, I didn't even see the elephant put the rock there. But there is a rock there and that seems to make sense to me, so it must be true.

[ACow]

The romans where allowed to do this be cause they rejected the messiah.As Jesus says,

Luke 19
41As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you."

Although my main reason for posting was to point out that the "miraculous continuation" of the nation of israel as evidence is flawed, given that it has in fact been neither miraculous nor continuous...

Have you ever considered the radical possibility that luke's gospel was compiled after 70 AD?

[Xylix]

Just because faith does not REST on logical proof, doesn't mean that it doesn't necessarily contain logical elements. Most people usually want some kind of semblance of "evidence," and then they make what is commonly known as a "leap" of faith. Why a leap? Because you perhaps have SOME evidence, but not enough, so to get from A to B you take a leap (sometimes small, sometimes large).

(edit: Reread the above text, and came to the conclusion I misunderstood what Maniac was saying... )


I'd certainly hope it included logical elements. If it doesn't, then it will have internal contradiction, and that makes it automatically untrue!

Which is why the church was forced to accept that the bible cannot be taken literally.


Note: I won't respond to your infinite time argument, because it is a misundertanding of the nature of infinity... and I think you have accepted that.



The universe is orderly (like a watch that follows complex laws).
Most orderly things we've examined have intelligent designers.
We've examined a large and varied group of orderly things.
If most orderly things we've examined have intelligent designers and we've examined a large and varied group of orderly things, then probably most orderly things have intelligent designers.
If the universe is orderly and probably most orderly things have intelligent designers, then the universe probably has an intelligent designer.
Therefore, The universe probably has an intelligent designer.



I'd qualify the first statment: The universe was a perfectly, or at least dramatically more ordered system that is continually descending into chaos.

I'd disagree with the second statment. Nearly all things humans observe are natural. Thus far we have yet to find a single natural thing that was created by an intelligent designer.

Further, I'd add to your second statement: Nearly all designed things we have obseved have been made by humans.

I'd generally agree with the third statement, but only if limited to Earth.

The rest of the argument is no longer valid without the other premisies.



Further I would point out, using my 'addition' to your second statement.

1) The universe is orderly.

2) Most orderly things we've examined have 'human' intelligent designers. Those that don't have animal intelligent designers.

3) We've examined a large and varied group of orderly things.

4) If most orderly things we've examined have 'human' intelligent designers and we've examined a large and varied group of orderly things, then probably most orderly things have 'human' intelligent designers.

5) If the universe is orderly and probably most orderly things have human intelligent designers, then the universe probably has an human intelligent designer.

C) Therefore, The universe was probably designed by humans.

:D


Obviously this conclusion is false. Therefore, I submit that given that humans are the most probable 'creator' therefore any other 'creator' is dramatically less probable.

Further, I submit that humans have neither observed a wide and varied number of things, but also that most of those things show no signs of being designed in the first place. As such it is likely that there is no designer.

Finally, I submit given that humans aren't the 'creators', that any other creator is much more improbable, and that most things show no appearence of being designed that the likeliness of a creator that is not human is dramatically unlikely and unbelievable.




The world had a beginning in time.
If the world had a beginning in time, there was a cause for the world's beginning.
If there was a cause for the world's beginning, a personal being caused the world.
Therefore, a personal being caused the world. [The "kalam argument" for the existence of a higher power is from William Craig and James Moreland: they defend premise 1 by various considerations, including the big-bang theory the law of entropy, and the impossibility of an actual infinite]. (The argument in my previous post also is a decent argument against time always existing).

Again, I accepet the first statement, but only necessarily as applying to Earth. I don't necessarily accept it is applying to the 'universe', if 'universe' includes existence prior to the big band.

Again, I accept statement two. Though I would point out fundemental forces of physics and other natural laws can be sighted as a cause. (e.g. Gravity)

Statement three is obviously false, given what I just said in connection of statement two. If you are using 'cause' in such a way that natural laws are excluded I will point out your use of 'cause' is disenginous and further, I would no longer accept statement two at that point.

The argument is no longer valid without premise 2 or 3.


Finally, the second law of thermodynamics does not limit time. It is perfectly acceptable by the law of thermodynamics for a 'closed system' to stay and remain at neutral entropy for infinite time. A completely closed system is just limited from become more ordered, not from remaining at the current order.




Why cant universe and and all its laws and mysteries be what I call God. Where did we get life and energy from?where did we get intelligence? The universe. Why cant that be what God is, the universe? Other words we're both seeing the same thing, but giving it a different name. Even scientist call nature, "mother nature". Its like people do anything not to say the name God.

It can be. However, if you believe that you are a Pantheist! Pantheists are defined as individuals that believe that 'God' is the universe and/or the laws of the universe.

Now there are 'sects' of Pantheists.



As I see it, there are three options with this issue: the Universe/reality has always existed, there was an absolute creation of the Universe/reality, or the Universe/reality is cyclical. The first two are absurd, and the third one does not seem much better. I am afraid that the origin of what we conisder to be reality may be connected with laws or prinicples that we cannot comprehend.

There is nothing even remotely absurd about assuming the 'universe' is eternal. If you assume time is infinite then you must assume the something is eternal.

Besides, a cyclic universe is just another form of an eternal universe.

Again, this depends on how you use the word 'universe'. Sometimes the word 'universe' discludes existence before the big bang, or indeed even the first moments of the big bang.

[panda]

fuck i wrote a longass reply with explanations and socratic progression and shit but it was too longass. so i'll jist it: causality is bidirectional; time/causality only exists from our perspective

my belief is that existence is a single static object

static because it does not even reference itself, much less a "temporal" parameter that only silly structures within it believe in
Very interesting post. I think I understand what you're saying. Extremely thought-provoking.

[watch]

Although my main reason for posting was to point out that the "miraculous continuation" of the nation of israel as evidence is flawed, given that it has in fact been neither miraculous nor continuous...

Have you ever considered the radical possibility that luke's gospel was compiled after 70 AD?

No, because they same thing was said by Daniel the prophet 400 years earlier.

[watch]

(edit: Reread the above text, and came to the conclusion I misunderstood what Maniac was saying... )


I'd certainly hope it included logical elements. If it doesn't, then it will have internal contradiction, and that makes it automatically untrue!

Which is why the church was forced to accept that the bible cannot be taken literally.


Note: I won't respond to your infinite time argument, because it is a misundertanding of the nature of infinity... and I think you have accepted that.




I'd qualify the first statment: The universe was a perfectly, or at least dramatically more ordered system that is continually descending into chaos.

I'd disagree with the second statment. Nearly all things humans observe are natural. Thus far we have yet to find a single natural thing that was created by an intelligent designer.

Further, I'd add to your second statement: Nearly all designed things we have obseved have been made by humans.

I'd generally agree with the third statement, but only if limited to Earth.

The rest of the argument is no longer valid without the other premisies.



Further I would point out, using my 'addition' to your second statement.

1) The universe is orderly.

2) Most orderly things we've examined have 'human' intelligent designers. Those that don't have animal intelligent designers.

3) We've examined a large and varied group of orderly things.

4) If most orderly things we've examined have 'human' intelligent designers and we've examined a large and varied group of orderly things, then probably most orderly things have 'human' intelligent designers.

5) If the universe is orderly and probably most orderly things have human intelligent designers, then the universe probably has an human intelligent designer.

C) Therefore, The universe was probably designed by humans.

:D


Obviously this conclusion is false. Therefore, I submit that given that humans are the most probable 'creator' therefore any other 'creator' is dramatically less probable.

Further, I submit that humans have neither observed a wide and varied number of things, but also that most of those things show no signs of being designed in the first place. As such it is likely that there is no designer.

Finally, I submit given that humans aren't the 'creators', that any other creator is much more improbable, and that most things show no appearence of being designed that the likeliness of a creator that is not human is dramatically unlikely and unbelievable.




Again, I accepet the first statement, but only necessarily as applying to Earth. I don't necessarily accept it is applying to the 'universe', if 'universe' includes existence prior to the big band.

Again, I accept statement two. Though I would point out fundemental forces of physics and other natural laws can be sighted as a cause. (e.g. Gravity)

Statement three is obviously false, given what I just said in connection of statement two. If you are using 'cause' in such a way that natural laws are excluded I will point out your use of 'cause' is disenginous and further, I would no longer accept statement two at that point.

The argument is no longer valid without premise 2 or 3.


Finally, the second law of thermodynamics does not limit time. It is perfectly acceptable by the law of thermodynamics for a 'closed system' to stay and remain at neutral entropy for infinite time. A completely closed system is just limited from become more ordered, not from remaining at the current order.




It can be. However, if you believe that you are a Pantheist! Pantheists are defined as individuals that believe that 'God' is the universe and/or the laws of the universe.

Now there are 'sects' of Pantheists.



There is nothing even remotely absurd about assuming the 'universe' is eternal. If you assume time is infinite then you must assume the something is eternal.

Besides, a cyclic universe is just another form of an eternal universe.

Again, this depends on how you use the word 'universe'. Sometimes the word 'universe' discludes existence before the big bang, or indeed even the first moments of the big bang.

No, im not a pantheist. What i am saying is biblical. I never said the universe is mindless, maybe that is what pantheist believe.

[Xylix]

No, im not a pantheist. What i am saying is biblical. I never said the universe is mindless, maybe that is what pantheist believe.

No, those that believe that the universe has no mind, and is generally percisely as described by science would be Natural Pantheists.

You would be a Classical Pantheist.

And it matters not how much you protest, because if you belive that the universe is god, then you are a Pantheist. That's the defining aspect of being a pantheist. :D



On a small note, if you are only replying to a tiny passage of someone's post, only quote that section. In this case that would have been:

"It can be. However, if you believe that you are a Pantheist! Pantheists are defined as individuals that believe that 'God' is the universe and/or the laws of the universe.

Now there are 'sects' of Pantheists."

[watch]

No, those that believe that the universe has no mind, and is generally percisely as described by science would be Natural Pantheists.

You would be a Classical Pantheist.

And it matters not how much you protest, because if you belive that the universe is god, then you are a Pantheist. That's the defining aspect of being a pantheist. :D



On a small note, if you are only replying to a tiny passage of someone's post, only quote that section. In this case that would have been:

"It can be. However, if you believe that you are a Pantheist! Pantheists are defined as individuals that believe that 'God' is the universe and/or the laws of the universe.

Now there are 'sects' of Pantheists."

Then a classical pantheists are christians.

[Maniac]

I consider myself somewhat of a Scholastic.

[Xylix]

Then a classical pantheists are christians.

That is not true at all. Most Christians don't believe that God is the universe. Most Christians believe that God is an anthropomorphic entity.

Further, not all classical pantheists are Christians. Some are Hindu, Catholics and various other spattered religions...

[watch]

That is not true at all. Most Christians don't believe that God is the universe. Most Christians believe that God is an anthropomorphic entity.

Further, not all classical pantheists are Christians. Some are Hindu, Catholics and various other spattered religions...

Are you christian? How do you know what we believe? Christians don't believe God is the universe, in a mindless scientfic way. Why believe God is in everything and holds everything together. Scientist call this the universe, I call it God.

Ephesians 4:6
6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Colossians 1:17
17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Acts 17:28
28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

[meshou]

Then a classical pantheists are christians.No. Christianity is not pantheisitc, it is panentheistic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism)

God =/= everything. God is in and with everything, but they are seperate entities. Christians do not worship the universe, nature, or each other, nor recognize God in the devil (in pantheisim, evil would be an element of God).

CS Lewis goes out of his way in Mere Christianity, a book he had read over and approved as correct by bishops and ministers from several sects, to reject pantheism.

Get your own religion straight.

[meshou]

Are you christian? How do you know what we believe? Christians don't be believe God is the universe in a mindless scientic way. Why believe God is in everything and holds everything together. Scientist call this the universe, I call it God.Look, you have the most outspoken religion in the fucking universe. It's not hard to comprehend.

And you're still wrong. If you believe God is WITH me, then you are panentheistic. If you believe I AM a part of God, and a microcasam of Godhood, and that all things and actions are holy, then you are pantheist.

Go to your pastor or your Bishop or your preist. He'll be glad to inform you Christianity is not Pantheistic, and that's for horrible heathens like Buddhists and Hindus.

[watch]

No. Christianity is not pantheisitc, it is panentheistic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism)

God =/= everything. God is in and with everything, but they are seperate entities. Christians do not worship the universe, nature, or each other, nor recognize God in the devil (in pantheisim, evil would be an element of God).

CS Lewis goes out of his way in Mere Christianity, a book he had read over and approved as correct by bishops and ministers from several sects, to reject pantheism.

Get your own religion straight.

Thats what I just said dummy.

[meshou]

Thats what I just said dummy.Pantheisim and panentheism are different things, jackass. Learn to read.

[Ivy]

Look, you have the most outspoken religion in the fucking universe. It's not hard to comprehend.

And you're still wrong. If you believe God is WITH me, then you are panentheistic. If you believe I AM a part of God, and a microcasam of Godhood, and that all things and actions are holy, then you are pantheist.

Go to your pastor or your Bishop or your preist. He'll be glad to inform you Christianity is not Pantheistic, and that's for horrible heathens like Buddhists and Hindus.

Surely you know that not all Christians line up exactly with C.S. Lewis or Joe Baptist. There is plenty of diversity in Christian thought. Plenty of Quakers (and others I can't speak for) do believe that everyone and everything is a part of God.

[watch]

Pantheisim and panentheism are different things, jackass. Learn to read.

learn to read corkey.

Ephesians 4:6
6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Colossians 1:17
17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Acts 17:28
28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

[Apostasius]

http://www.according2prophecy.org/11colleague.html
http://www.according2prophecy.org/13colleague.html
http://www.according2prophecy.org/14colleague.html

You can't possibly be serious. This chart made me chuckle:
http://www.according2prophecy.org/chart.gif

[watch]

You can't possibly be serious. This chart made me chuckle:
http://www.according2prophecy.org/chart.gif

I didn't see chart.scary. :lol:

[shum]

i dont understand how someone who believes in god would have started this thread.
i think that if having this god thing is so great then you would feel so fulfilled that you wouldnt want others to contradict you or challenge you. that you wouldnt need that kind of interaction.

sometimes i wish i had some god. it sounds tasty.

[distraction tactics]

Christians try so hard to prove the existence of their god, but are found lacking in a good reason to worship such a fucking tool.

[Lee]

1. Absolute nothing creates absolutly nothing. I believe in the big bang but something had to cause it. That means a first which some call God.You begin by saying that 'absolute nothing creates absolutely nothing'. This is puzzling, because you follow up by saying that God created the universe, in other words - something created something.

If you are trying to prove God out of a necessity of causality you will always run into the same problem, what created God? and no matter what answer provided, causality will demand that something created or caused it.

We are left with two possibilities:

1. The chain of causality goes on forever, in which case, there is no first cause.

2. There is a first cause, something that just exists by default.

Either way, trying to fit God into that chain of causality simply poses the question of what created God. Unless God is that first cause, which simply exists by default. Either way, you have done nothing to prove the existence of God, just suggest that in one form or another, God might exist.


2.People then say the universe has always been here. Well if any thing existed from eternity without a creator it would have no design, shape, form or description it would just exist. It would be the first cause without any influence or design.The universe is a set of rules, and within any system of rules, you will have patterns. What you describe as 'influence' or 'design' is just as easily described as the natural consequence of physical laws.

The universe can be defined as a set of physical laws, but a God did not necassarily create those laws. We simply end up with the same two part problem that I stated above, what caused the formation of these laws?

If you want to define God as those physical laws, then I cannot argue God's existence, but in that scenario, God is of the non-anthropomorphic variety, quite at odds with traditional views, since this God does not listen, does not observe, does not intervene and does not care if you worship him/her or not. This definition of God would also require that we are part of God, since we are part of that universe.

[watch]

i dont understand how someone who believes in god would have started this thread.
i think that if having this god thing is so great then you would feel so fulfilled that you wouldnt want others to contradict you or challenge you. that you wouldnt need that kind of interaction.

sometimes i wish i had some god. it sounds tasty.

Why wouldn't I want people to challenge me? I believe in God, and we are command by God to tell others. Trust me i never have and never will beg a person to believe. But When I hear people say there is no evidence for God, I have to answer that.Christians don't believe in a God because of the bible, they believe in the bible because theres a God.

[distraction tactics]

Christians don't believe in a God because of the bible, they believe in the bible because theres a God.

No, you believe that because you think it's a more clever idea than it actually is.

[watch]

If you want to define God as those physical laws, then I cannot argue God's existence, but in that scenario, God is of the non-anthropomorphic variety, quite at odds with traditional views, since this God does not listen, does not observe, does not deal judgement and does not care if you worship him/her or not. This definition of God would also require that we are part of God, since we are part of that universe.

I didn't say God is only those physical laws.God is not everything,but he is in everything. Now came from the universe, we are conscious of are being, yet the universe that we came from is not?

[Xylix]

sometimes i wish i had some god. it sounds tasty.


If that is your wish, may I suggest Pastafarianism (http://www.venganza.org/).




Why wouldn't I want people to challenge me? I believe in God, and we are command by God to tell others. Trust me i never have and never will beg a person to believe. But When I hear people say there is no evidence for God, I have to answer that.Christians don't believe in a God because of the bible, they believe in the bible because theres a God.

Which is of course the fallacy: begging the question. :D

Afterall, to believe in God, you must believe in the bible. However, to believe in the bible you must first believe in God.

[watch]

No, you believe that because you think it's a more clever idea than it actually is.

No, i believe that because its true.

[watch]

If that is your wish, may I suggest Pastafarianism (http://www.venganza.org/).




Which is of course the fallacy: begging the question. :D

Afterall, to believe in God, you must believe in the bible. However, to believe in the bible you must first believe in God.

Millions of people believe in a God, without the bible.

[Lee]

I didn't say God is only those physical laws. God is not everything, but he is in everything.I honestly do not understand what you mean here.

The universe is everything we experience, that universe is a set of laws. Everything we experience is a consequence of thse laws, so if God is those universal laws, then God is everything. Because God is everything, there is no need to also say that God is inside everything.

I can only think that you mean the knowledge of God is inside everything, but this cannot be true, since knowledge is contained only in the organisation of many parts, so the knowledge of God cannot be inside everything, even if God is everything.


Now came from the universe, we are conscious of are being, yet the universe that we came from is not?Our consciousness need not be anything more than a byproduct of a highly organised system, that exists as a part of the universe. There is not reason to ascribe it any special meaning, or proof of the existence of a God.

However it would seem that conscious experience is a feeling. All we do as human beings is feel, whether we feel what we see, touch, hear, emote, think etc. it is all a form of feeling. Consciousness is a feeling, without feeling there is no consciousness.

With that in mind we can theorize that a conscious being can only exist as part of the whole, not the whole itself. This is because we only have feeling where there is conflict, where I want something and have to overcome obstacles to get it. Without the possibility of making a mistake, i can always get what I want, but to want something requires the possibility that it might not come along, so without the possibility it may not, then I cannot want anything.

This would mean that God, as I have described him/her, cannot be conscious, since God is everything.

[watch]

The universe is everything we experience, that universe is a set of laws. Everything we experience is a consequence of thse laws, so if God is those universal laws, then God is everything. Because God is everything, there is no need to also say that God is inside everything.



So are you saying universal laws are everything? or a part of everything?

[mgb]

watch,

You said that the universe has to come from somewhere, that it had to be designed by something or it would just be nothing.

How do you reconcile that belief with your belief that God created it. By your own "reasoning" God would have to have come from somewhere as well. Where did God come from?

[watch]

watch,

You said that the universe has to come from somewhere, that it had to be designed by something or it would just be nothing.

How do you reconcile that belief with your belief that God created it. By your own "reasoning" God would have to have come from somewhere as well. Where did God come from?

Yes, if the universe had a beginning it had to come from something. example the big bang.There are many levels to the universe. I'm saying the part that has always been here( the infinite, invisible part) is what I call God.

[panda]

Yes, if the universe had a beginning it had to come from something. example the big bang.There are many levels to the universe. I'm saying the part that has always been here( the infinite, invisible part) is what I call God.
You didn't answer his question, though. Where did God come from?

[shum]

Why wouldn't I want people to challenge me? I believe in God, and we are command by God to tell others. Trust me i never have and never will beg a person to believe. But When I hear people say there is no evidence for God, I have to answer that.Christians don't believe in a God because of the bible, they believe in the bible because theres a God.

if i was god and i commanded you to tell others about me, i would want you to promote me in a more inviting manner. i would think that pleading with people to believe might actualy just be more effective than stubbornly arguing my existence. show the people how well things are working out for you because you believe in me. etc.
i wonder if you welcome the arguement idea as a way of questioning your beliefs rather than confirming them?

this is ok. it is ok to doubt what you believe in just as it is ok to change your beliefs.

why cant there be absolute nothingness? there is no such thing as absolute faith.

[Ivy]

watch,

You said that the universe has to come from somewhere, that it had to be designed by something or it would just be nothing.

How do you reconcile that belief with your belief that God created it. By your own "reasoning" God would have to have come from somewhere as well. Where did God come from?

BOOyah! Suck on it, watch!

(Sorry, I get carried away watching a good debate sometimes. If it were a spectator sport I would probably be the one painting my chest in the signature colors of my favored contestant and waving a big foam finger.)

Seriously, though, this is my problem with trying to logically defend God. The logic always fails somewhere. You're better off just going on faith, if you're so inclined.

Sign me "Not an apologist."

[Lee]

So are you saying universal laws are everything? or a part of everything?The universe is everything, it doesn't matter precisely what nature that everything is exactly, but the universe is everything.

And everything is a set of rules, these rules are what stop everything from being completely random, these rules are what create patterns. If you wanted to say that God is those rules, in other words - that God is the universe, than I could accept that definition of God.

However this is a God that is non-anthropomorphic. This is not the God in the bible, this God does not care, love, hate, intervene etc. This is a non-interventionist God who does not care if you beleive that God exists or not.

However, this God could be said to pass judgement (I edited my original post where I said that God did not do this, as it was a mistake). In fact, this God passes judgement upon us all of the time, we experience that passing of judgement as a mistake, and a mistake occurs when we run into conflict with the laws of the universe, which in this case is God.

A mistake occurs when we overlook an law of reality, we run into a law by trying something that is not possible, and we learn. This could be said to be how God passes judgement, albeit non-anthropomorthically.

However, what I have described is the basic principle of the scientific method. By which we take actions, make mistakes and learn. So if God is of the nature that I am describing, then God's will is that we understand God through science.

The practices of religions are actually in conflict with our attempts to better understand God.

[watch]

You didn't answer his question, though. Where did God come from?

God has always been here.

[watch]

The universe is everything, it doesn't matter precisely what nature that everything is exactly, but the universe is everything.


So you are the universe?or are you part of the Universe.

[panda]

God has always been here.
See, but you're adding an unnecessary element. You say that the universe had to have a first cause, so you add God. But why doesn't God need a first cause? And if God doesn't require a first cause, then why does the universe?

[Lee]

God has always been here.Yet you do not accept the explanation that the universe has always been here (as you stated in your original post).

[shum]

If that is your wish, may I suggest Pastafarianism (http://www.venganza.org/).






http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/th_iwant2believe1240x1024.jpg

thank you. i enjoyed that.

[Lee]

So you are the universe?or are you part of the Universe.I am part of the universe.

I have stated that in my last response. If you did not want to read it, fine. If you are a troll, then I can't bothered with you.

I am actually trying to explain hw you might reconcile the concpet of God and science, unlike others who would rather insult you. If you are not gonna read my posts, then I might as well stop.

[panda]

So you are the universe?or are you part of the Universe.
The universe is everything that exists. We are part of the universe.


EDIT: Well, there could be other "universes". It depends on how you define the word. I prefer using the term reality.

[watch]

See, but you're adding an unnecessary element. You say that the universe had to have a first cause, so you then add God. But why doesn't God need a first cause? And if God doesn't require a first cause, then why does the universe?

I said if the universe had a beggining it had have a first cause.

[panda]

I said if the universe had a beggining it had have a first cause.
You're missing the point. Why doesn't God need to have a beginning?

[shum]

watch, how is this discussion enhancing your walk with god?

is this making you happy? do you think god is enjoying this? god likes it when people argue?

how well do you know god anyway?

[watch]

You're missing the point. Why doesn't God need to have a beginning?

Then he wouldn't be God. Meaning whatever caused him then would be God.

[panda]

Then he wouldn't be God. Meaning whatever caused him then would be God.
Don't you see how this leads to an infinite regress?

[watch]

watch, how is this discussion enhancing your walk with god?

is this making you happy? do you think god is enjoying this? god likes it when people argue?

how well do you know god anyway?

why do you care?

[watch]

Don't you see how this leads to an infinite regress?

No, because that infinite as a whole would be what I called God, and what you called the universe.

[shum]

why do you care?

i cant help it.

[Xylix]

Don't you see how this leads to an infinite regress?

Clearly he doesn't. :D


Then he wouldn't be God. Meaning whatever caused him then would be God.

What then, would be the case, if we supposed that the Universe had not a cause? What if we supposed that the universe has no more need of a cause than does God?


Would the universe then be God? If the Universe was then God, then your God shows none of the aspects of the normal Christian God.

[Lee]

No, because that infinite as a whole would be what I called God, and what you called the universe.If you simply consider the universe and God as basically the same thing, then read my last larger post, and it explains why science is about understanding God, and religion is opposed to understanding God.

[meshou]

learn to read corkey.

Ephesians 4:6
6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Colossians 1:17
17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Acts 17:28
28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'None of those say all things are God. They say all things are with, in or through God.

[watch]

Yet you do not accept the explanation that the universe has always been here (as you stated in your original post).

I do but then Iwould call that God.

[panda]

I do but then Iwould call that God.
That would make you a pantheist, by definition.

[Conan]

someone should start a thread where we deconstruct the bible from beginning to end using specific verses of our choosing and the laws of logic, just for fun, nothing against the bible

[watch]

None of those say all things are God. They say all things are with, in or through God.

Is the universe all things? or is the universe part of all things?

[watch]

That would make you a pantheist, by definition.

and would make a pantheist christian.

[Ivy]

and would make a pantheist christian.

a christian pantheist, you mean.

[meshou]

Surely you know that not all Christians line up exactly with C.S. Lewis or Joe Baptist. There is plenty of diversity in Christian thought. Plenty of Quakers (and others I can't speak for) do believe that everyone and everything is a part of God.Is there any assumption that in order to usefully talk about anything, I can't speek for outliers, or am I supposed to cover all things ever? Am I supposed to say "Well, MORMONS say God once was like us, we and will be like God!" or am I supposed to talk in a manner that pretty much covers about 95% of the sects out there?

If we are to talk about Christians in any practical manner as a whole, they are not pantheistic. Frankly, I'm going to trust my reading abilities and knowledge of the bible and theology over someone who is clearly barely litterate. I'll trust the minister in my family and CS Lewis over watch.

Christianity is not pantheistic. (http://www.freebeginning.com/not-real/child-p.html) Lots of material in a google search by people smarter than him.

Genesis one. The whole thing. It always differentiates between God and the thing created.

[panda]

and would make a pantheist christian.
Ok. I thought you were saying earlier that you weren't a pantheist.

For the record, I don't care what other people believe. Whatever makes people happy (and as long as they don't trample on the rights of others... i.e. Muslim extremists). I just like these sorts of debates.

[watch]

a christian pantheist, you mean.

No, based on the statement it would also make a pantheist christian.

[meshou]

Is the universe all things? or is the universe part of all things?This is irrelevant, as God is not the universe, nor do I worship either.

[panda]

This is irrelevant, as God is not the universe, nor do I worship either.
Hmm, isn't it a valid position to view the universe as God, though? I suppose it's a matter of definition. People mean many different things by the word/symbol/concept "God".

[meshou]

I submit that if we are part of the Universe, and he believes the universe is us, then he needs to stop evangelizing. Even if we were chanting incantations to Lucifer, we are God and the Devil is God, and we are just as saved and holy as he is.

[panda]

I submit that if we are part of the Universe, and he believes the universe is us, then he needs to stop evangelizing. Even if we were chanting incantations to Lucifer, we are God and the Devil is God, and we are just as saved and holy as he is.
I agree with you.

[meshou]

Hmm, isn't it a valid position to view the universe as God, though? I suppose it's a matter of definition. People mean many different things by the word/symbol/concept "God"?Oh, I love Pantheisim. Close to it myself. But he is not a representative Christian, nor does Pantheisim make his argument for a provable God any better.

It is a valid view, but it is one that requires faith. I am fine with people of faith on this board. Just not stupid ones.

[Xylix]

Hmm, isn't it a valid position to view the universe as God, though? I suppose it's a matter of definition. People mean many different things by the word/symbol/concept "God"?

Which is percisely why I'm Agnostic. ;)


I submit that if we are part of the Universe, and he believes the universe is us, then he needs to stop evangelizing. Even if we were chanting incantations to Lucifer, we are God and the Devil is God, and we are just as saved and holy as he is.

But if he is part of God, then wouldn't he be doing God's will? ;)

Then again, You too would be part of God, and would be doing God's will by telling him to shut up.

[panda]

Oh, I love Pantheisim. Close to it myself. But he is not a representative Christian, nor does Pantheisim make his argument for a provable God any better.

It is a valid view, but it is one that requires faith. I am fine with people of faith on this board. Just not stupid ones.
Yeah, we are of like mind on this matter.

I grew up as an evangelical Protestant, so I'm quite familiar with Christianity. I was what one might call a "zealot" during my teenage years. C.S. Lewis was my idol.

[panda]

Which is percisely why I'm Agnostic. ;)
I agree with you, as well. I'm also an Agnostic. (I'm an Agnostic in theory, an Atheist in practice, and an Apatheist in attitude. :))

[watch]

I submit that if we are part of the Universe, and he believes the universe is us, then he needs to stop evangelizing. Even if we were chanting incantations to Lucifer, we are God and the Devil is God, and we are just as saved and holy as he is.

I don't believe the universe is God use nor do i worship stars and blacholes. I'm saying that what we know as God, the formless, eternal, all knowing creator, might be given the name "universe" or "mother nature" by people who hate the name "God". So, I don't believe God is the universe, in the scientific use of the word. But if people or scientist wanna substitute the qualities of God being that he is eternal,in everything, controlling everything. That is when I say, they call it the "universe", I call that God.

[watch]

Which is percisely why I'm Agnostic. ;)



But if he is part of God, then wouldn't he be doing God's will? ;)

Then again, You too would be part of God, and would be doing God's will by telling him to shut up.

Your correct.

[panda]

I don't believe the universe is use nor do i worship stars and blacholes. I'm saying that what we know as God the formless, eternal, all knowing creator, might be given the name "universe" or "mother nature" by people who hate the name "God". So, I don't believe God is the universe in the scientific use of the word. But if people or scientist wanna substitute the qualities of eternal,in everything, controlling everything. That when I say they call it the "universe", I call that God.
I wish I could understand what you're saying.

[watch]

I wish I could understand what you're saying.

read it again. I added some commas so it would'nt string out.

[meshou]

I don't believe the universe is use nor do i worship stars and blacholes. I'm saying that what we know as God the formless, eternal, all knowing creator, might be given the name "universe" or "mother nature" by people who hate the name "God".No, I think these people have seperate beliefs.
So, I don't believe God is the universe in the scientific use of the word. But if people or scientist wanna substitute the qualities of eternal,in everything, controlling everything. That when I say they call it the "universe", I call that God.Hon, I think that wonder in the stars and the size of the universe and the energy in it does not mean anyone gives it any more worship than a table. Those that do are in an entirely seperate religion all together.

Guess what? Buddhists, Hindus, Pantheists, Wiccans, Polytheistic Pagans, Satanists, and Naturalistic Pagans have very little in common with your ideas about what a God is and whether he exists. Most don't believe in an omnipitant nor omnipresent nor single nor male God. Some don't even believe in a God or worship one. Some know God(s) exist, but see no reason to worship something just because it's there.

Let me assure you, the people who worship the universe or mother nature are worshiping something quite different than your God, and they know it.

[Xylix]

I wish I could understand what you're saying.

*Makes ominious sounds* ~Be careful what you wish for.~



I think what he is trying to say is:

God, is an entity of certain qualites.

One of those many qualities is being the 'first' thing.
Others include being at least fairly equal to the God described in the Bible.

Therefore, should the universe be the first thing, then God must be the universe. This is true by his defintion of God.


It would be much easier if we could just get him to say percisely what his definition is. However, like most individuals, Watch is probably incapable of directly articulating what his God is. Even if he was capable, the definition itself is probably fuzzy.

[panda]

watch: Ok, I think I follow you. However, it only adds to my confusion. It sounds to me like you're saying you think God is separate from the universe. In which case, you're not a pantheist. But, you just said you're a pantheist.

So, I'm not really understanding what your position is. I think you're contradicting yourself. I could be mistaken, though.

[watch]

*Makes ominious sounds* ~Be careful what you wish for.~



I think what he is trying to say is:

God, is an entity of certain qualites.

One of those many qualities is being the 'first' thing.
Others include being at least fairly equal to the God described in the Bible.

Therefore, should the universe be the first thing, then God must be the universe. This is true by his defintion of God.


It would be much easier if we could just get him to say percisely what his definition is. However, like most individuals, Watch is probably incapable of directly articulating what his God is. Even if he was capable, the definition itself is probably fuzzy.

Yeah, I think you get what i'm trying to say.

[watch]

watch: Ok, I think I follow you. However, it only adds to my confusion. It sounds to me like you're saying you think God is separate from the universe. In which case, you're not a pantheist. But, you just said you're a pantheist.

So, I'm not really understanding what your position is. I think you're contradicting yourself. I could be mistaken, though.

I repeated again and again. I am not a pantheist.

[panda]

I repeated again and again. I am not a pantheist.
Didn't you say that you were a pantheist in this (http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=182485&postcount=167) post? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something...

Or are you saying that you'd be a pantheist if God required a first cause (due to the infinite regress, essentially voiding the utility of the concept)?

[shum]

so say that god exists.

is he a reason or an excuse?

[Xylix]

watch: Ok, I think I follow you. However, it only adds to my confusion. It sounds to me like you're saying you think God is separate from the universe. In which case, you're not a pantheist. But, you just said you're a pantheist.

So, I'm not really understanding what your position is. I think you're contradicting yourself. I could be mistaken, though.


The problem here arises from the nature of Watch's definition of God.

Take for example the following:

If we suppose that some primordial entity created the Universe that would be God.
If such an entity did not exist, and the Universe if first, the Universe is God.


The confusion results from the logical dismissal. Dismissing a prior creator 'before' the Universe does not dismiss his god, as by defintion his God is whatever is first. Thus, whether Watch is Pantheist, or Panentheistic is merely dependent on 'what is first'.

His defintion is very modular in that sense.

More, however to the point is this God, whether being the Universe, or being an entity predating the universe still has all the primary attributes of the Christican God.

[watch]

Didn't you say that you were a pantheist in this (http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=182485&postcount=167) post? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something...

Or are you saying that you'd be a pantheist if God required a first cause (due to the infinite regress, essentially voiding the utility of the concept)?

I meant to say it would make a pantheist, a christian.

[Xylix]

so say that god exists.

is he a reason or an excuse?

Neither, he would be a reasonable excuse. ;)

[panda]

The problem here arises from the nature of Watch's definition of God.

Take for example the following:

If we suppose that some primordial entity created the Universe that would be God.
If such an entity did not exist, and the Universe if first, the Universe is God.


The confusion results from the logical dismissal. Dismissing a prior creator 'before' the Universe does not dismiss his god, as by defintion his God is whatever is first. Thus, whether Watch is Pantheist, or Panentheistic is merely dependent on 'what is first'.

His defintion is very modular in that sense.

More, however to the point is this God, whether being the Universe, or being an entity predating the universe still has all the primary attributes of the Christican God.
You do a better job of explaining watch's position than watch does... :)

[panda]

I meant to say it would make a pantheist, a christian.
Do you mean "it would make a pantheist, a theist"?

[Xylix]

You do a better job of explaining watch's position than watch does...

Well, you see, God gave me the power to speak in tongues so that I could better spread the word of Agnostism...

err... wait. I think I went wrong somewhere. ;)

[watch]

You do a better job of explaining watch's position than watch does... :)

Hes does. Its kind of sad.:lol:

[watch]

Do you mean "it would make a pantheist, a theist"?

I'm not a pantheist, thats all that matters.

[panda]

Hes does. Its kind of sad.:lol:
Nah, don't worry about it. I'm going under the assumption that English is your fourth or fifth language, and you just started studying it a few weeks ago. :)

[panda]

I'm not a pantheist, thats all that matters.
Ok... so what is your answer to the original question: why doesn't God need a first cause?

I've never understood why people are convinced by the cosmological argument...

[watch]

Well, you see, God gave me the power to speak in tongues so that I could better spread the word of Agnostism...

err... wait. I think I went wrong somewhere. ;)

Xylix, i wanna hire you as my offical thread ambassador. :smooch:

[watch]

Ok... so what is your answer to the original question: why doesn't God need a first cause?

I've never understood why people are convinced by the cosmological argument...

If "God" had a first cause he wouldn't be God. Atleast as far as my definition of God.or the biblical definition.

[panda]

If "God" had a first cause he wouldn't be God. Atleast as far as my definition of God.or the biblical definition.
*enigmacrypt slowly shakes his head*

I can define and create concepts, too. It doesn't make them true, logical, or at all plausible, though.

[watch]

*enigmacrypt slowly shakes his head*

I can define and create concepts, too. It doesn't make them true, logical, or at all plausible, though.

Ok, why does God have to have a beginning?

[Xylix]

Ok... so what is your answer to the original question: why doesn't God need a first cause?

I've never understood why people are convinced by the cosmological argument...

You are missing it again.


God doesn't need a first cause because he can't have a first cause by Watch's definition.

However, the Universe doesn't need a first cause either. However, should it be first then it is god. If Swiss cheese predated all things, then God would be creamy, yummy and full of holes. ;)


Essentially this is the root of the problem. We all accept, or at least most of us do, that something must inheriantly be first. Whatever that which is first is God, by Watch's definition.

So the better question to Watch is: What proof do you have that the Universe / Divine essence / Primordial swiss cheese / whatever has the qualities of the Christian God.

Notably: That he created Jesus as our 'savior'. Split the Red Sea. Inspired the Bible, and filled it with only truth. Sent down Miracles. And far all that matter, even gives a shit about us.

[Ivy]

Is there any assumption that in order to usefully talk about anything, I can't speek for outliers, or am I supposed to cover all things ever? Am I supposed to say "Well, MORMONS say God once was like us, we and will be like God!" or am I supposed to talk in a manner that pretty much covers about 95% of the sects out there?

If we are to talk about Christians in any practical manner as a whole, they are not pantheistic. Frankly, I'm going to trust my reading abilities and knowledge of the bible and theology over someone who is clearly barely litterate. I'll trust the minister in my family and CS Lewis over watch.

Christianity is not pantheistic. (http://www.freebeginning.com/not-real/child-p.html) Lots of material in a google search by people smarter than him.

Genesis one. The whole thing. It always differentiates between God and the thing created.

I'm not sure why you assume that arguing against you means arguing with watch. I can assure you I am not. You were answering him, though, as if his personal beliefs (which, muddy as they may be, do seem to be a kind of Christian pantheism) were wrong and stupid because they didn't line up with the rest of Christianity. My only point is "lining up with the rest of Christianity" is not necessarily a compelling argument to any particular Christian.

[panda]

Ok, why does God have to have a beginning?
Why doesn't he?

[Ivy]

Why doesn't he?

I know you are, but what am I?

[panda]

You are missing it again.


God doesn't need a first cause because he can't have a first cause by Watch's definition.
Yeah, I understand what he's saying now. On a whim, I decided to reread the entire thread.

[panda]

I know you are, but what am I?
Nah ah! :)

[Melody]

well they did suggest god is the tower of infinite creators

i.e. using the symbol "<=" as "was created by" and "...." as "keep going"


god = (A <= B <= C <= D <= E <= F <= G <= H <= ....)


just pointing this out because the noob did not stress it

[edit]or i may have misinterpreted them. either way i thought the idea was nifty and mechanically in line with my ideas about existence

[Trystorp]

Just to further clarify, I'll post a definition for Pantheism:

Pantheism
It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence and/or the universe (the sum total of all that is was and shall be) is represented or personified in the theological principle of 'God'.

Watch, while continually denying that you are a pantheist, you consistently support the above position.

[meshou]

I'm not sure why you assume that arguing against you means arguing with watch. I can assure you I am not. You were answering him, though, as if his personal beliefs (which, muddy as they may be, do seem to be a kind of Christian pantheism) were wrong and stupid because they didn't line up with the rest of Christianity. My only point is "lining up with the rest of Christianity" is not necessarily a compelling argument to any particular Christian.Yes, I know this. However, he keeps asking "How do you know? Are you a Christian?" as if he DOES speak for all Chistianity.

[Trystorp]

Here's an except from What are Major Christian Beliefs? (http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/christianity/major.html) at soc.religion.christian:


God as Father and Creator

There are several branches of Christianity, whose beliefs vary in detail. However one standard that is accepted by most of them is the "Apostles' Creed". I will base my discussion here on it. I will go through it section by section.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of Heaven and Earth.

Christians believe in one God, who created the universe and all that is in it. God is a person, but of a somewhat different type than human beings. While humans have both physical and spiritual elements, God is entirely spiritual. That is, he exists in a sphere outside the normal physical universe. (Since he created the universe, and existed before it, this should be fairly obvious.)

Human beings are created in the image of God. Obviously there are differences, since we are physical and God is not. What we share with God is the fact that we are rational beings, capable of making responsible decisions, and capable of relationships with each other and with him.

Religions have had very different ideas of how God interacts with the world. On one extreme, some groups found it hard to explain how God could have any dealings with the world at all. These thinkers see God as a pure One, who is not in any way dependent upon anything else.

At the other extreme we have pantheism, in which there is no real distinction between God and the world.

The Christian concept of God as creator holds a middle ground. Christianity conceives of God as One. But it is not an isolated One. Rather, God is a person, who is capable of affecting and being affected by others. This is implicit in the concept of God as Father, which is one of the most characteristic teachings of Jesus. The concept of God as personal ultimately led to the Trinity, which is surely one of the most distinctive (and controversial) ideas in Christianity. (There is a separate page discussing the Trinity.)

In contrast to pantheist and related concepts, the creation is genuinely distinct from God. The world has a genuine existence of its own. God cares about and interacts with the creation. Human beings are responsible to God. As the creator, God is responsible for the world and its history. While I have said that the world is distinct from God, it is not completely independent. God is thought of as continuously sustaining the world.

The last paragraph is particularly pertinent. I'm not telling anyone what to believe, just trying to distill some logical framework to the discussion.

[watch]

Here's an except from What are Major Christian Beliefs? (http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/christianity/major.html) at soc.religion.christian:



The last paragraph is particularly pertinent. I'm not telling anyone what to believe, just trying to distill some logical framework to the discussion.

I'm not a pantheist. If your read my last couple posts you will see that.

[Trystorp]

I'm not a pantheist. If your read my last couple posts you will see that.

I'm having a hard time with all of this. At your suggestion I went back and reread all of your posts in this thread. My apologies, you're not a pantheist.
:blink:


Well you could say the invisble universe(everything we cant see, and all dimensions) is uncaused. But you call it the universe, i call that God.

God is not a white beared man in sky. He is a formless invisible force, in everything and controllong everything.

What you call mass and energy, I call God.

Why cant universe and and all its laws and mysteries be what I call God.

God is in everything and holds everything together. Scientist call this the universe, I call it God.

God is not everything,but he is in everything. Now came from the universe, we are conscious of are being, yet the universe that we came from is not? (Hardly understood a word of this but I'll assume it's pertinent)

No, because that infinite as a whole would be what I called God, and what you called the universe.

I'm saying that what we know as God, the formless, eternal, all knowing creator, might be given the name "universe" or "mother nature" by people who hate the name "God". So, I don't believe God is the universe, in the scientific use of the word. But if people or scientist wanna substitute the qualities of God being that he is eternal,in everything, controlling everything. That is when I say, they call it the "universe", I call that God.

I'm not a pantheist. If your read my last couple posts you will see that.





I'm not trying to prove the God of the bible.

1.Um, please don't quote the bible if you don't read it. You are saved by faith in believing in Jesus. but the bible says God has given evidence of his exsitence in creation.

[mgb]

Just to further clarify, I'll post a definition for Pantheism:

Pantheism
It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence and/or the universe (the sum total of all that is was and shall be) is represented or personified in the theological principle of 'God'.

Watch, while continually denying that you are a pantheist, you consistently support the above position.

I'm going to post a more important definition.


proof Audio pronunciation of "proof" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prf)
n.

1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2.
1. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
2. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
3.
1. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
2. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.
5. Law. The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.
6. The alcoholic strength of a liquor, expressed by a number that is twice the percentage by volume of alcohol present.
7. Printing.
1. A trial sheet of printed material that is made to be checked and corrected. Also called proof sheet.
2. A trial impression of a plate, stone, or block taken at any of various stages in engraving.
8.
1. A trial photographic print.
2. Any of a limited number of newly minted coins or medals struck as specimens and for collectors from a new die on a polished planchet.
9. Archaic. Proven impenetrability: “I was clothed in Armor of proof” (John Bunyan).


adj.

1. Fully or successfully resistant; impervious. Often used in combination: waterproof watches; a fireproof cellar door.
2. Of standard alcoholic strength.
3. Used in proving or making corrections.


Given these definitions combined with the title of this thread, I feel so lied to.

I was really hoping that someone had discovered the secret of man's existance and had chosen INTP Central to reveal all that was unknown to us. Turns out, not so much.

[panda]

I'm extremely disappointed, as well...

I don't know why I was bothering to (poorly) rehash things which were already covered earlier in the thread.

[watch]

I'm having a hard time with all of this. At your suggestion I went back and reread all of your posts in this thread. My apologies, you're not a pantheist.
:blink:


I'm not a pantheist. But Why would you care if im a pantheist?

[Trystorp]

You've previously stated that you were interested in a logical discussion of your proofs. Thus far, you do not seem capable of that. I do not care a whit whether you are or are not a pantheist. Your defense of some of your proofs seemed to rely on some pantheistic thought which you then denied. I'm trying to participate in logical discussion but it seems that this is not going to happen.

[mgb]

I'm trying to participate in logical discussion but it seems that this is not going to happen.

I'm sorry you thought it would.

These threads rarely do involve logic.

[watch]

You've previously stated that you were interested in a logical discussion of your proofs. Thus far, you do not seem capable of that. I do not care a whit whether you are or are not a pantheist. Your defense of some of your proofs seemed to rely on some pantheistic thought which you then denied. I'm trying to participate in logical discussion but it seems that this is not going to happen.

I think your misunderstanding my posts.

panthesim definition:
name used to denote any system of belief or speculation that includes the teaching "God is all, and all is God." Pantheism, in other words, identifies the universe with God or God with the universe.

1.I don't believe everything is God. I believe God is in everything. The bible teaches that God is in everything, so would that make the bible panthetic? Are you and me part of the universe? or are we the universe? I believe we are a part of the universe.

2.I think you are getting hung up on the word universe. When I mention it im usually talking about invisble and infinite universe.

3.I believe God is more than the visible universe, but the universe is an extention of his qualities.

4. I believe God created the visible universe. I believe the visible universe had a first cause.

[meshou]

or at least the third coming is upon us.I knew it! God is a woman!

[panda]

i am not well versed in the works of carl yung, but i am glad to hear he knew of the existance of god. what little i do know has led me to the conclusion that he indeed wet his pants on the supposition of knowledge to the existance of the father.Bob Marley was also aware and i follow him in saying that indeed almighty god is a living man, or at least the third coming is upon us. the bible lays testament to the early presence of god upon the earth, followed by his son,so its my belief that we await the holy ghost. he just needs to find his spirit.it is not my intention to come across as a religious anything as belief and religion are seperate issues.three months ago i had an open view, two months ago i believed for sure, now im hanging on. it would be nice if it was as easy as 123 or abc but i am a child no longer.
Something about this post strikes terror into my innermost being.

[panda]

watch, what is this invisible universe you keep talking about? You've mentioned it a lot, but I still have no idea what you're referring to.

[watch]

watch, what is this invisible universe you keep talking about? You've mentioned it a lot, but I still have no idea what you're talking about.

The part that isn't visible like energy,gravity,etc.

[panda]

The part that isn't visible like energy,gravity,etc.
You're referring to things that can't be detected with our naked, human senses? It seemed like you were referring to something far more... grandiose.

[watch]

You're referring to thing that can't be detected with our naked, human senses? It seemed like you were referring to something far more... grandiose.

I am, but I'm not God so i wouldn't know how grandiose to get.

[panda]

I am, but I'm not God so i wouldn't know how grandiose to get.
So what you're saying is that you don't know what you're saying.

[watch]

So what you're saying is that you don't know what you're saying.

Am saying how deep did you want me to go. I put etc. that should cover all invisible bases.

[mgb]

Am saying how deep did you want me to go. I put etc. that should cover all invisible bases.

How does that prove anything? I could say that their invisible elves running everything and by your logic everyone would have to believe it because I said it.

[panda]

I'm just trying to understand what watch is actually saying. His thoughts on God and religion don't seem very consistent.

[watch]

How does that prove anything? I could say that their invisible elves running everything and by your logic everyone would have to believe it because I said it.

Well then you would believe invisible elves are god. I'm not really sure why I was asked the question anyway.

[Serotonin]

It's threads like these that make you happy you're not an NF.

[Trystorp]

Disregarding the digression on pantheism, your defense of your "proofs" has been mere sophistry. Proof is incontrovertible evidence. There is none, and thus the debate. The existence of God cannot be scientifically or logically proven. Nor can I prove that God does not exist given the parameters attributed to him. For myself, agnosticism is intellectually honest, though some might call it atheism.

[watch]

Disregarding the digression on pantheism, your defense of your "proofs" has been mere sophistry. Proof is incontrovertible evidence. There is none, and thus the debate. The existence of God cannot be scientifically or logically proven. Nor can I prove that God does not exist given the parameters attributed to him. For myself, agnosticism is intellectually honest, though some might call it atheism.

Well If thats true then we can't prove the universe exists. You think I'm trying to prove bible, I'm not trying in this thread. Though some bring it up,and i get side tracked. I'm trying to prove a supreme being(I use this maybe ,you will see my point).

[mgb]

Well If thats true then we can't prove the universe exists. You think I'm trying to prove bible, I'm not trying in this thread. Though some bring it up,and i get side tracked. I'm trying to prove a supreme being(I use this maybe ,you will see my point).

We can't prove the universe does exist any more than you can prove God or any other supreme being/super elf does.

You can't blame anyone for sidetracking you either. You get sidetracked, we don't sidetrack you.

And as far as you proving a supreme being exists, you are doing a piss poor job. So far, you've just wasted a bunch of your time.

[watch]

We can't prove the universe does exist any more than you can prove God or any other supreme being/super elf does.

You can't blame anyone for sidetracking you either. You get sidetracked, we don't sidetrack you.

And as far as you proving a supreme being exists, you are doing a piss poor job. So far, you've just wasted a bunch of your time.

So you can't prove you exist?

[mgb]

So you can't prove you exist?

Nope. How would I be able to?

[watch]

Nope. How would I be able to?

You exist, I'm speaking to you. I don't know if your human or a computer program but your here.

[mgb]

You exist, I'm speaking to you. I don't know if your human or a computer program but your here.

Your own answer says that you don't even know if I am real or not.

And what does it mean to exist? Could your define existence for me?

[watch]

Your own answer says that you don't even know if I am real or not.

And what does it mean to exist? Could your define existence for me?

exist:to have real being whether material or spiritual

being:to have, maintain, or occupy a place, situation, or position. to take place.

Well we are having a conversation therfore you exist.

"I think, therefore I am"

[Hexchild]

The existence of God cannot be scientifically or logically proven.

This, afaik, is another unproven axiom.

By the way, this is the first time I've ever disagreed with you :)

[Dunearhp]

It's threads like these that make you happy you're not an NF.

It is threads like these that make me wish I was an NF.

Rationality is an illusion, this thread is exhibit A.

[PlayerOfGames]

It's about degrees of certainty. We can be take the universe as existing, since if it didn't exist it would mean that our senses do not report anything like reality. There is no such first hand sensory evidence for the existence of god, though. This is why the existence of god needs more "proving" than the existence of the universe, others, or the self.

This thread confuses me. It started off with a simple and logically falacious argument, which has been refuted over and over again, yet it still carries on. Maybe it represents the rationally unknowable nature of god and the sublime? Maybe, watch is enlightening us with a koan of sorts... :P

[mgb]

exist:to have real being whether material or spiritual

being:to have, maintain, or occupy a place, situation, or position. to take place.

Well we are having a conversation therfore you exist.

"I think, therefore I am"

You ended by telling me that you exist because you believe you exist. That's not proof of existence.

What if life is an illusion? What if life is something we can't even comprehend, the end result being that we don't exist. What if your "thoughts" are just some complicated algorithm and we aren't really here at all.

Right away, you'll tell me to prove that. I'll tell you that I no more can that you can prove we exist, or for that matter that God does.

[Trystorp]

This, afaik, is another unproven axiom.

By the way, this is the first time I've ever disagreed with you :)

And, perhaps I should have said, "The existence of God HAS NEVER been scientifically or logically proven." Not to say anyone shouldn't try, just that it's a Sisyphean task.

Edit: Had to come back and fix "should" to "shouldn't" - it's been bothering me all day!

[watch]

And, perhaps I should have said, "The existence of God HAS NEVER been scientifically or logically proven." Not to say anyone should try, just that it's a Sisyphean task.

Ok, lets wrap this thread up. lets say i'm a christian pantheist. Now has the universe been scientifically and logically proven? If I believe the "universe" is a name atheist use to replace God or supreme being,can you tell me he doesn't exist? If you can prove the universe exists I can prove God or a supreme being exists.

[watch]

You ended by telling me that you exist because you believe you exist. That's not proof of existence.

What if life is an illusion? What if life is something we can't even comprehend, the end result being that we don't exist. What if your "thoughts" are just some complicated algorithm and we aren't really here at all.

Right away, you'll tell me to prove that. I'll tell you that I no more can that you can prove we exist, or for that matter that God does.

Even if life is an illusion its still something that exists. An illusion is something.

[mgb]

Even if life is an illusion its still something that exists. An illusion is something.

No it's not. It's the opposite of something. It's intangible. A false conception. A human construct as reasoning to deal with our limited ability to perceive things.