There Is No God

[Mriana]

There is no God. Prove me wrong

George Carlin.

 

 

Wait...what?! HE'S DEAD?!?!

 

 

 

 

Never mind.

 

No, Morgan Freeman is still alive. He's God, last I knew.

[bdp]

 

'God' is immaterial

 

Yep.

[Shyone]

 

'God' is immaterial

 

Yep.

As George Smith (Atheism: The Case Against God) wrote, To exist is to exist as something.

[Mostly Harmless]

There is no God. Prove me wrong

 

There is no "dark matter." Prove me wrong.

 

I can no more prove you wrong than you can prove me wrong. We both have separate equations to how the universe was made. Your equation (and I am making the assumption that you are an atheist and believe whatever popular theory scientists are putting forth) requires a tremendous amount of material that has never been observed directly by human senses. My equation relies on an all-powerful being who has been reportedly observed by human senses, but I must admit not by mine. We are both walking by faith.

 

(I do, however, think about Douglas Adams' Babelfish when someone wants to prove God exists. If we could prove His existence, would He disappear? I don't think so, but it is an amusing thought.)

[Mostly Harmless]

 

Well apparently when they (Xians) open their mouths (or post), they show they do not know anything.

 

And what is it that we are supposed to know?

[Mriana]

Well apparently when they (Xians) open their mouths (or post), they show they do not know anything.

 

And what is it that we are supposed to know?

 

I take it you are an Xian? Depending on what sect you are from, you take the Bible as the literal inerrant word of God. The Bible has no answers, at least not scientific ones and judging by your previous post, you don't know what dark matter is either.

[Ouroboros]

There is no God. Prove me wrong

 

There is no "dark matter." Prove me wrong.

Dark matter is currently the only explanation to why our galaxy (and other galaxies) have a huge amount more mass than is visible. It's a conclusion based on an observation and missing matter in the equations. The mass is there, but we can't see it, hence dark matter. It must exist, or we have to scratch everything we know about physics. So basically, dark matter is just as much evident to exist as radiation, oxygen, computer software, and 1 lb of apples.

 

I can no more prove you wrong than you can prove me wrong. We both have separate equations to how the universe was made. Your equation (and I am making the assumption that you are an atheist and believe whatever popular theory scientists are putting forth) requires a tremendous amount of material that has never been observed directly by human senses.

It has been observed by the fact of the rotation of the fringe stars in our galaxy and our current knowledge about gravity and mass. Dark matter is not a guess. It's the only thing currently that can explain the phenomenon.

 

My equation relies on an all-powerful being who has been reportedly observed by human senses, but I must admit not by mine. We are both walking by faith.

The cool part with dark matter is that you actually could take a couple of classes in math, physics, and astronomy, and do the calculations yourself and come to the realizations that there are a huge amount of additional mass that we can't observe. What do we want to call it? Unobservable additional mass? Or dark matter? It's all the same. But the key is, you can, I can, Bob can, and Ken can. However, having the experience of God through our human senses requires some unexplainable decision from a supernatural being and his finicky ideas of pre-determinism and free-will. We can't study our way, or achieve the knowledge, individually and from our own wish to do so, about God, only God can choose for us to know. To know about dark matter, it only takes your will to learn.

 

Basically, what I'm saying is that there is evidence for dark matter, and that this evidence is not just some haphazardly thrown together potpourri of random thoughts, hopes, and dreams, but currently the only explanation to the observations. In other words, dark matter is observed, not directly, but the effects of it.

 

So what effects of God can we observe, test, measure, calculate, and study? Is God testable?

 

And also, if you had compared to super-strings instead, I might have agreed on your comparison.

[Shyone]

There is no God. Prove me wrong

 

There is no "dark matter." Prove me wrong.

 

I can no more prove you wrong than you can prove me wrong. We both have separate equations to how the universe was made. Your equation (and I am making the assumption that you are an atheist and believe whatever popular theory scientists are putting forth) requires a tremendous amount of material that has never been observed directly by human senses. My equation relies on an all-powerful being who has been reportedly observed by human senses, but I must admit not by mine. We are both walking by faith.

 

(I do, however, think about Douglas Adams' Babelfish when someone wants to prove God exists. If we could prove His existence, would He disappear? I don't think so, but it is an amusing thought.)

[Guest end3]

However, having the experience of God through our human senses requires some unexplainable decision from a supernatural being and his finicky ideas of pre-determinism and free-will. We can't study our way, or achieve the knowledge, individually and from our own wish to do so, about God, only God can choose for us to know. To know about dark matter, it only takes your will to learn.

 

Seems like a pretty accurate statement all in all. The thing that immediately came to my mind was that the Bible, based on interpretation, seems to allude to pre-determinism and free-will, and is hard for us/me to grasp a surety either way. How do you propose that the Bible is written where what we observe seems to match what is written? Granted, the older I get, the more I realize past civilizations were much further along than I intuitively had given them credit, but still, do you think that the Bible was written to match what they observed with respect to pre-determinism and free-will and a God concept?

 

Basically, what I'm saying is that there is evidence for dark matter, and that this evidence is not just some haphazardly thrown together potpourri of random thoughts, hopes, and dreams, but currently the only explanation to the observations. In other words, dark matter is observed, not directly, but the effects of it.

 

Just for old time argument sake Hans, are you saying that thoughts, hopes, dreams, etc., have no value as evidence?

 

So what effects of God can we observe, test, measure, calculate, and study? Is God testable?

 

Is science capable of this testing methodology?

[Shyone]

However, having the experience of God through our human senses requires some unexplainable decision from a supernatural being and his finicky ideas of pre-determinism and free-will. We can't study our way, or achieve the knowledge, individually and from our own wish to do so, about God, only God can choose for us to know. To know about dark matter, it only takes your will to learn.

 

Seems like a pretty accurate statement all in all. The thing that immediately came to my mind was that the Bible, based on interpretation, seems to allude to pre-determinism and free-will, and is hard for us/me to grasp a surety either way. How do you propose that the Bible is written where what we observe seems to match what is written? Granted, the older I get, the more I realize past civilizations were much further along than I intuitively had given them credit, but still, do you think that the Bible was written to match what they observed with respect to pre-determinism and free-will and a God concept?

These are tough questions, and any answer will mostly be pure opinion, so here's mine:

 

I think the bible suggests that both are true for different reasons. Some were speaking of god's power and knowledge, and if you assume absolute power and knowledge, then deducing determinism is a no-brainer.

 

Some were speaking of the value of life, the importance of what we do, salvation, and such, and so our actions (including prayer) would "matter." That would mean that as individuals, we can disobey god, we can impose upon god, and our actions determine our fate.

 

Both really can't be true (despite what Forest Gump suggests). Attempts to reconcile the two have become hot topics for apologists. I think one even invented a new term: "Middle knowledge". This term/concept however is really inconsistent with omniscience unless you redefine omniscience and thereby deny the bible's claims to know the future of individual lives and fates.

 

It's a conundrum created by two different ways of thinking about religious views of fate in light of the apparent freedom we have versus the omni-propertied god.

 

Taking god out of the equation really doesn't solve the problem however. Only by invoking the Heisenberg uncertainty principle can you begin to think that there is no determinism.

[J.W.]

 

However, you have not explained the existence of mass, nor the origin of th laws governing attraction. You cannot merely posit their existence, you must explain how and why they exist. You are also incorrect in asserting that matter cannot be destroyed, it in fact can be destroyed and converted into energy. This occurs in a nuclear reaction. Energy is converted from usable to an unusable state.

 

BTW, I don't posit that God is complex. God is immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, but also not complex (no moving parts to immaterial beings, in fact, no parts at all). Your view has many moving parts and is a very complex explanation (which actually requires more explanation than you have offered), so I'm afraid that Occam's razor is able to shave away at your explanation showing that it is not the most parsimonious available.

 

LNC

 

[sighs]

 

Its called E=mc2

 

Thats Energy is equal to THE MOVEMENT OF MASS

 

A lot of people think because you can work both sides of the equation that you can exchange mass into energy [meaning mass disappears and energy appears] but that is NOT the case.

 

Energy is the result of moving mass. The mass does not go away. The mass was not created. The mass has always been there.

 

Just because you can work both sides of the equation to find a missing value does not mean that the material world exchanges something. Energy is a result of moving mass, but mass is always moving-- because mass attracts or repells other mass. The potential for energy is stored in the attraction of mass so the "E" never dies.

 

Splitting an atom is splitting an atom. The mass [Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons] still exist.

 

There is your answer.

 

By saying God is immaterial you are saying he does not exist. I can agree with that.

[Guest Valk0010]

. God existed timelessly causally prior to the existence of the universe, yet, that is not the same as saying that God has existed from eternity past, since again, that would imply that time always existed.

 

You must hate ideas like panentheism, or pantheism, or deism.

 

Anyway, seems really adhoc, to say, that god existed timelessly prior to the existence of the universe. Got to prove the idea of timeless to be more then a mental creation first.

[Ouroboros]

Seems like a pretty accurate statement all in all. The thing that immediately came to my mind was that the Bible, based on interpretation, seems to allude to pre-determinism and free-will, and is hard for us/me to grasp a surety either way. How do you propose that the Bible is written where what we observe seems to match what is written? Granted, the older I get, the more I realize past civilizations were much further along than I intuitively had given them credit, but still, do you think that the Bible was written to match what they observed with respect to pre-determinism and free-will and a God concept?

I think I understand what you're saying, the Bible is a recording of the subjective views of God, not the objective views.

 

Just for old time argument sake Hans, are you saying that thoughts, hopes, dreams, etc., have no value as evidence?

Not as scientific evidence for a scientific concept. Atoms are not proven to exist because people dream about them. Unicorns don't exist because someone wrote a fiction story. They only serve as evidence for a person as a fact having those thoughts, hopes, and dreams. In other words, in a sociological or biological study, dreams and thoughts would serve as evidence of the person's subjective experience, but they would not serve as evidence for an objective reality. The objective can only be observed indirectly through models we can agree on and confirm work for everyone, all the time, and everywhere.

 

So what effects of God can we observe, test, measure, calculate, and study? Is God testable?

 

Is science capable of this testing methodology?

Science is all about testing, is it not? Science is about having an idea, and then prove it to be true by testing it. God is an idea, but God can never be tested.

[Ouroboros]

. God existed timelessly causally prior to the existence of the universe, yet, that is not the same as saying that God has existed from eternity past, since again, that would imply that time always existed.

 

You must hate ideas like panentheism, or pantheism, or deism.

 

Anyway, seems really adhoc, to say, that god existed timelessly prior to the existence of the universe. Got to prove the idea of timeless to be more then a mental creation first.

And it's a contradiction since "prior" is a false relationship between beginning of time and a state that doesn't exist. It's like saying, which natural number comes before 1? (Answer: The natural number set starts with 1, there is no number before 1. So the question is moot, just like God's timeless existence prior to the existence of time.)

[Guest Valk0010]

 

 

BTW, I don't posit that God is complex. God is immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, but also not complex (no moving parts to immaterial beings, in fact, no parts at all). Your view has many moving parts and is a very complex explanation (which actually requires more explanation than you have offered), so I'm afraid that Occam's razor is able to shave away at your explanation showing that it is not the most parsimonious available.

 

LNC

 

But with any being, capability is needed to be considered, when determining complexity, and god can do and is way more then any human, so physical attributes aside, taken as a whole god is more complex then a human. A rock for example is not complex, because of its shape and matter, but it also, because it can only just sit there. If the rock was the same way physically and it could bounce itself up and down then it would be a more complex being then just the regular old inanimate rock. Get the idea?

 

Also, you can't really describe invisibility for the same reason as you can't describe immatural, and that is because its nothing, nadda, nothing.

 

Even if your right, and I don't think you are, you would be only doing the exact same thing, as a tribal people does, and that is come up with a immediate explanation for what is unknown. You posit, god, in the same way a tribeman says, ohh we need crops, so they must have power. Your, trying to shrink your own ignorance and "increase" understanding in the quickest possible way.

[Guest end3]

Not as scientific evidence for a scientific concept. Atoms are not proven to exist because people dream about them. Unicorns don't exist because someone wrote a fiction story. They only serve as evidence for a person as a fact having those thoughts, hopes, and dreams. In other words, in a sociological or biological study, dreams and thoughts would serve as evidence of the person's subjective experience, but they would not serve as evidence for an objective reality. The objective can only be observed indirectly through models we can agree on and confirm work for everyone, all the time, and everywhere.

 

Kind of interesting...why should a thought or dream be any less proof than evidence say of moving a shovel of dirt? We convict people on evidence that their actions were "at the scene of the crime" and in doing that then potentially condemn their thoughts as well.

 

Science is all about testing, is it not? Science is about having an idea, and then prove it to be true by testing it. God is an idea, but God can never be tested.

 

I don't know, it would seem at some point that thoughts, emotions, etc. could be just as real scientifically as a grain of sand....and in that opening the door for reductionism and God as well....

[Shyone]

Kind of interesting...why should a thought or dream be any less proof than evidence say of moving a shovel of dirt? We convict people on evidence that their actions were "at the scene of the crime" and in doing that then potentially condemn their thoughts as well.

 

Individual responses can't be duplicated, and reproducibility is a mainstay of science. If one person says he saw a dead relative in a dream, does that make it real?

 

Dirt, OTOH, is real, physical, and everyone can tough it, feel it, and analyze it. Our subjective impressions, fantasies, and dreams are not amenable to impartial and objective examination.

[Ouroboros]

Kind of interesting...why should a thought or dream be any less proof than evidence say of moving a shovel of dirt? We convict people on evidence that their actions were "at the scene of the crime" and in doing that then potentially condemn their thoughts as well.

It depends on what science we're in, right?

 

In psychology, dreams could be part of the support for some study, and be considered evidence for whatever they're meant to prove.

 

However, dreaming about unicorns cannot be considered evidence for the existence of unicorns. You can't reproduce dreams. You can't measure dreams. You can't analyze the surroundings, context, and contents of the dream.

 

With dirt, however, you can.

 

Science is all about testing, is it not? Science is about having an idea, and then prove it to be true by testing it. God is an idea, but God can never be tested.

 

I don't know, it would seem at some point that thoughts, emotions, etc. could be just as real scientifically as a grain of sand....and in that opening the door for reductionism and God as well....

When Einstein had the idea about relativity, it wasn't evidence for relativity.

 

When Einstein, with help from Merce Grossman, developed the mathematical formulas for general relativity, it didn't prove relativity.

 

When literally thousands of scientists made experiments to confirm if relativity was true, then evidence was building up.

 

It wasn't the dream, and it wasn't even the book, that were the evidence, but the actual tests (that can be reproduced over and over again, which they have) that became the evidence.

 

I dreamed last night that I had a house on the shores of a distant island. It was beautiful. Calm. The warm breeze touched my skin, and the sun, setting in the ocean, created a theater of glimmer delight on the waves. Is that evidence that I do have such a house and live there?

[Guest end3]

Kind of interesting...why should a thought or dream be any less proof than evidence say of moving a shovel of dirt? We convict people on evidence that their actions were "at the scene of the crime" and in doing that then potentially condemn their thoughts as well.

It depends on what science we're in, right?

 

In psychology, dreams could be part of the support for some study, and be considered evidence for whatever they're meant to prove.

 

However, dreaming about unicorns cannot be considered evidence for the existence of unicorns. You can't reproduce dreams. You can't measure dreams. You can't analyze the surroundings, context, and contents of the dream.

 

With dirt, however, you can.

 

Science is all about testing, is it not? Science is about having an idea, and then prove it to be true by testing it. God is an idea, but God can never be tested.

 

I don't know, it would seem at some point that thoughts, emotions, etc. could be just as real scientifically as a grain of sand....and in that opening the door for reductionism and God as well....

When Einstein had the idea about relativity, it wasn't evidence for relativity.

 

When Einstein, with help from Merce Grossman, developed the mathematical formulas for general relativity, it didn't prove relativity.

 

When literally thousands of scientists made experiments to confirm if relativity was true, then evidence was building up.

 

It wasn't the dream, and it wasn't even the book, that were the evidence, but the actual tests (that can be reproduced over and over again, which they have) that became the evidence.

 

I dreamed last night that I had a house on the shores of a distant island. It was beautiful. Calm. The warm breeze touched my skin, and the sun, setting in the ocean, created a theater of glimmer delight on the waves. Is that evidence that I do have such a house and live there?

 

I am trying to describe.....let's say that it's materialism and reductionism.....but the product of such can lead to endeavors out of these realms? Our thoughts are functions of an organization let's say for argument sake, but shouldn't a product of a material produce a material....regardless? A dream has a certain amount of energy associated with it I assume, but there are intangible products from the dream? Does this make sense in your mind?

[Ouroboros]

I am trying to describe.....let's say that it's materialism and reductionism.....but the product of such can lead to endeavors out of these realms? Our thoughts are functions of an organization let's say for argument sake, but shouldn't a product of a material produce a material....regardless? A dream has a certain amount of energy associated with it I assume, but there are intangible products from the dream? Does this make sense in your mind?

I think we're talking about different things, if I understand you correctly. The content of dreams vs the event of dreaming, two different things. The content of a dream can't be evidence, since evidence is something with certain conditions and criteria related to them. But regardless, someone is dreaming (as an event) is a fact.

[Guest end3]

I think we're talking about different things, if I understand you correctly. The content of dreams vs the event of dreaming, two different things. The content of a dream can't be evidence, since evidence is something with certain conditions and criteria related to them. But regardless, someone is dreaming (as an event) is a fact.

 

Why conditions? As I said, there is a given energy transfer with the event of dreaming, so where is the energy for the content? Do you believe the content to be real?

 

Are you saying intent does not add something to a crime? Intent is intangible, right?

 

How can this be Hans?

 

Again, what constitutes the product "content"?

[Ouroboros]

I think we're talking about different things, if I understand you correctly. The content of dreams vs the event of dreaming, two different things. The content of a dream can't be evidence, since evidence is something with certain conditions and criteria related to them. But regardless, someone is dreaming (as an event) is a fact.

 

Why conditions? As I said, there is a given energy transfer with the event of dreaming, so where is the energy for the content? Do you believe the content to be real?

They are just jumbled reflections of experiences.

 

Are you saying intent does not add something to a crime? Intent is intangible, right?

Intent is not a dream.

 

And is intent in itself a crime? Or does dreaming about a crime make you a criminal?

 

How can this be Hans?

Whatever. You're mixing multiple contexts into one big chaotic pot of ideas.

 

Again, what constitutes the product "content"?

Content is the content. The content of a movie is the story. The content of a dream is the imagery and mixed up stories. If you dream one night that you can fly, and the next night you dream you're a rock, does that prove that you are a flying rock?

[Guest end3]

I think we're talking about different things, if I understand you correctly. The content of dreams vs the event of dreaming, two different things. The content of a dream can't be evidence, since evidence is something with certain conditions and criteria related to them. But regardless, someone is dreaming (as an event) is a fact.

 

Why conditions? As I said, there is a given energy transfer with the event of dreaming, so where is the energy for the content? Do you believe the content to be real?

They are just jumbled reflections of experiences.

 

Are you saying intent does not add something to a crime? Intent is intangible, right?

Intent is not a dream.

 

And is intent in itself a crime? Or does dreaming about a crime make you a criminal?

 

How can this be Hans?

Whatever. You're mixing multiple contexts into one big chaotic pot of ideas.

 

Again, what constitutes the product "content"?

Content is the content. The content of a movie is the story. The content of a dream is the imagery and mixed up stories. If you dream one night that you can fly, and the next night you dream you're a rock, does that prove that you are a flying rock?

 

To some extent, thinking makes you guilty as does a physical act.....because both are a product of your body.

[Ouroboros]

To some extent, thinking makes you guilty as does a physical act.....because both are a product of your body.

So when you're reading a novel, a criminal fiction story, you are imagining the story, and hence you commit all those crimes you read about. This means also that the judge and jury listening to the criminal story in the case are thinking about it, and they are just as well guilty of all the crimes reported. Why don't we put all of them, and the whole audience (reporters, clerks, attorneys...) behind bars for the criminal acts they hear in court? They can't listen to them without reflecting on what people are saying. They must think about it.

 

And how about movie writers or authors? They're thinking about the stories as well. Or the authors for the old testament, they reflected and thought about the stories they wrote, so they are all criminals. Luke, Matthew, and the rest are all guilty of any crime depicted in the Gospels (killing Jesus). The stories are evidence that they are criminals and killers.

[Guest end3]

To some extent, thinking makes you guilty as does a physical act.....because both are a product of your body.

So when you're reading a novel, a criminal fiction story, you are imagining the story, and hence you commit all those crimes you read about. This means also that the judge and jury listening to the criminal story in the case are thinking about it, and they are just as well guilty of all the crimes reported. Why don't we put all of them, and the whole audience (reporters, clerks, attorneys...) behind bars for the criminal acts they hear in court? They can't listen to them without reflecting on what people are saying. They must think about it.

 

And how about movie writers or authors? They're thinking about the stories as well. Or the authors for the old testament, they reflected and thought about the stories they wrote, so they are all criminals. Luke, Matthew, and the rest are all guilty of any crime depicted in the Gospels (killing Jesus). The stories are evidence that they are criminals and killers.

 

Our reductionism pushes the thoughts through......so it's a finickly thing...the job that a jury has, mixing tangible and intangible.

 

And yeah, we are all sinners, so we all put a nail into Christ.....and I think that's the point even though you don't subscribe to it.