|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:17 am
divineseraph It was in response to the argument that God must be readily observable. That's not true, and my response is one reason why. God does not need to exist as a giant old man in a white robe throwing around lightning bolts. God doesn't need to have a body, or as I believe, his body could be the universe itself. If god is the universe, why not just call it the universe? If you're implying the universe is sentient, how do you test that?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:05 am
Artto divineseraph It was in response to the argument that God must be readily observable. That's not true, and my response is one reason why. God does not need to exist as a giant old man in a white robe throwing around lightning bolts. God doesn't need to have a body, or as I believe, his body could be the universe itself. If god is the universe, why not just call it the universe? If you're implying the universe is sentient, how do you test that? I'm not saying that God is the universe. I'm saying that, in my belief, the universe is God's body. God is God, just like how you are not your body. How do you test for sentience anywhere? How do you know that a human, which is the same size, that you can look at, is conscious and aware and not just a clever mechanization? And then, how do you make that test on something that is too large to see clearly? And can something sentient simply say nothing? If, when one of these supposed sentience tests is done on a human, and the human simply ignores the test and process but is shown otherwise to not be mentally deficient, that would not prove a lack of sentience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:10 am
divineseraph How do you test for sentience anywhere? How do you know that a human, which is the same size, that you can look at, is conscious and aware and not just a clever mechanization? Well, I think we are just clever mechanizations smile divineseraph And then, how do you make that test on something that is too large to see clearly? And can something sentient simply say nothing? If, when one of these supposed sentience tests is done on a human, and the human simply ignores the test and process but is shown otherwise to not be mentally deficient, that would not prove a lack of sentience. So you're basically saying, since it's not disprovable, you should believe it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 12:12 pm
I pretty much stand with Artto on this. Although I do believe in God, I can't prove God exists to people who want to require that of me, and no one else can either. You can believe it, you can question it, or you can disbelieve it. You can't argue with someone about the proof of God, when there is no external proof. You may have personal evidence, but as soon as you try to present your own experience with the group, you will have those that believe you, question you, or disbelieve you.
God and religion are personal. You can't argue that, just because the capacity to understand is beyond us, or that it hasn't been disproved yet, well then it is most likely probable, and expect people to jump on board. On the same note, an argument trying disprove the existence of God based on the fact that their is no provable tangible evidence that God exist is not going to make people abandoned their faith that there is a God.
The only thing that I could actually believe would hold water is the fact that so many people through the ages have searched and found hope that they believed could only be inspired by Something more than they could find in this world. Yet, I cannot deny that people can be herded and corralled into similar thought patterns by well placed words during hard situations.
So, I guess what I am trying to say is that, if you go looking for outside proof of the existence of God, and if you try to require proof at someone elses' hands, then you will either be sorely disappointed, or extremely pleased, depending on the outcome you were hoping for or expecting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:16 pm
Eltanin Sadachbia So, I guess what I am trying to say is that, if you go looking for outside proof of the existence of God, and if you try to require proof at someone elses' hands, then you will either be sorely disappointed, or extremely pleased, depending on the outcome you were hoping for or expecting. It's not about hope and expectations, it's about believing what is true and not believing what is false. And belief is not a choice, just as love is not a choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 3:21 pm
God = supernatural.
Science, the world around us = the natural world.
God is not on the same plane as the natural world, so to suggest that we can prove or disprove God's existence based on the natural world is silly. It's a case of apples and oranges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:30 pm
freelance lover God = supernatural.
Science, the world around us = the natural world.
God is not on the same plane as the natural world, so to suggest that we can prove or disprove God's existence based on the natural world is silly. It's a case of apples and oranges. If god has no effect on the natural world, he is irrelevant. If he has an effect on the natural world, then there should be evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:49 am
Artto divineseraph How do you test for sentience anywhere? How do you know that a human, which is the same size, that you can look at, is conscious and aware and not just a clever mechanization? Well, I think we are just clever mechanizations smile divineseraph And then, how do you make that test on something that is too large to see clearly? And can something sentient simply say nothing? If, when one of these supposed sentience tests is done on a human, and the human simply ignores the test and process but is shown otherwise to not be mentally deficient, that would not prove a lack of sentience. So you're basically saying, since it's not disprovable, you should believe it? Then nothing is sentient, and I'm not sure why you would bother to ask. And no, a facade of sentience is not sentience, see Searle's Chinese Room argument. Not at all. I'm saying that it's simply not disprovable and is valid to accept given other evidence, or to fill in holes in current understanding. Once again, exactly like what physicists have done with dark matter and black holes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:51 am
Artto freelance lover God = supernatural.
Science, the world around us = the natural world.
God is not on the same plane as the natural world, so to suggest that we can prove or disprove God's existence based on the natural world is silly. It's a case of apples and oranges. If god has no effect on the natural world, he is irrelevant. If he has an effect on the natural world, then there should be evidence. Irrelevant? Really? So Rothko is irrelevant to his paintings?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:16 am
divineseraph Irrelevant? Really? So Rothko is irrelevant to his paintings? In a sense, yes. It doesn't matter who painted the painting, what matters is the painting itself. We also have evidence that he painted the painting, whereas we don't have any evidence pointing to the cause (if there is one), of the existence of the universe. Again, if god doesn't have any effect on the real world, we cannot get past pure guesswork, and god is not disprovable and not knowable, which makes him meaningless and we don't have anything to talk about. Even more so, when it comes to the way you live your life. Quote: Not at all. I'm saying that it's simply not disprovable and is valid to accept given other evidence, or to fill in holes in current understanding. Once again, exactly like what physicists have done with dark matter and black holes. Black holes and dark matter are disprovable, and are not just something scientists made up. Black holes are predicted by current theories and should exist, they don't "fill holes in current understanding". Dark matter is a term used to describe something that is evidently influencing other matter, but is not detectable in any other way save for the gravitational effects. It doesn't fill any "gaps", it's something that apparently exists, but we don't know much about. It's a term used to describe a gap. God is in no way analogous to these things, since there's no evidence that he exists or should exits, especially if he doesn't have any effect. Black holes and dark matter do have an effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:13 pm
Artto divineseraph Irrelevant? Really? So Rothko is irrelevant to his paintings? In a sense, yes. It doesn't matter who painted the painting, what matters is the painting itself. We also have evidence that he painted the painting, whereas we don't have any evidence pointing to the cause (if there is one), of the existence of the universe. Again, if god doesn't have any effect on the real world, we cannot get past pure guesswork, and god is not disprovable and not knowable, which makes him meaningless and we don't have anything to talk about. Even more so, when it comes to the way you live your life. Quote: Not at all. I'm saying that it's simply not disprovable and is valid to accept given other evidence, or to fill in holes in current understanding. Once again, exactly like what physicists have done with dark matter and black holes. Black holes and dark matter are disprovable, and are not just something scientists made up. Black holes are predicted by current theories and should exist, they don't "fill holes in current understanding". Dark matter is a term used to describe something that is evidently influencing other matter, but is not detectable in any other way save for the gravitational effects. It doesn't fill any "gaps", it's something that apparently exists, but we don't know much about. It's a term used to describe a gap. God is in no way analogous to these things, since there's no evidence that he exists or should exits, especially if he doesn't have any effect. Black holes and dark matter do have an effect. The maker MADE the painting. Without the conscious attempt, there would be no painting. If not proving something makes it meaningless, then human beings are meaningless as we cannot prove or disprove our consciousness. Meaning, we are all just stones rolling down a hill. If that's the case, then I propose legalizing murder, since it is no different from splitting a chain of proteins or shattering a rock. I also propose ignoring language, since you're not really reading. Furthermore, there is no "You" to read in the first place. Therefore, the logical course of action is to stop doing anything, since nothing matters and is all irrelevant if we are conscious of it. Then they DO fill in holes in current understanding. That's WHY they are predicted- Because they explain why we see some of the things we see when our current theory misses that bit. That is EVIDENTLY influencing, I notice you say- Which is to say, we see something influencing gravity, but we don't know what. So we FILL IN THE BLANKS with something that would meet the criteria. God is just like those- We see a gap in the logic of a closed system of infinite density and energy, moving outwards without an initial mover, especially because escaping a singularity is impossible even in the universe as it is, let alone when it has ALL of the mass of EVERYTHING. This leads to the possibility of an initial mover or conscious universe that chose to expand- Otherwise, it's not physically possible according to current understanding. God DOES have an effect, though, in having the universe as a body. How about upholding the laws of physics? How about simply existing? Since when did an "effect" have to be "perform miracles for mortal men"? What is this "effect" you're looking for?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:47 pm
divineseraph The maker MADE the painting. Without the conscious attempt, there would be no painting. If not proving something makes it meaningless, then human beings are meaningless as we cannot prove or disprove our consciousness. Meaning, we are all just stones rolling down a hill. If that's the case, then I propose legalizing murder, since it is no different from splitting a chain of proteins or shattering a rock. I also propose ignoring language, since you're not really reading. Furthermore, there is no "You" to read in the first place. Therefore, the logical course of action is to stop doing anything, since nothing matters and is all irrelevant if we are conscious of it. I meant meaningless as in having no noticeable effect, and having no significance on the way you live. divineseraph Then they DO fill in holes in current understanding. That's WHY they are predicted- Because they explain why we see some of the things we see when our current theory misses that bit. Black holes don't fill in anything. A black hole is just a very dense object massive enough so that the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. Black holes don't "explain what we see", in fact, the evidence that they actually exist is fairly recent and there is actually no direct evidence (i.e. pictures) of them. This is actually the opposite of what you are saying - they are predicted by the theory of general relativity, but missing (in spite of accumulating evidence, they are still not proven). [more on black holes]divineseraph That is EVIDENTLY influencing, I notice you say- Which is to say, we see something influencing gravity, but we don't know what. So we FILL IN THE BLANKS with something that would meet the criteria. Dark matter doesn't fill in a blank, it is a blank. [more on dark matter]divineseraph God is just like those- We see a gap in the logic of a closed system of infinite density and energy, moving outwards without an initial mover, especially because escaping a singularity is impossible even in the universe as it is, let alone when it has ALL of the mass of EVERYTHING. This leads to the possibility of an initial mover or conscious universe that chose to expand- Otherwise, it's not physically possible according to current understanding. I don't think you understand the big bang theory very well. It's not a singularity that "moved outwards" in a sense of an explosion. It's space-time itself expanding. It's not as simple as "a singularity exploding". It's very, very complicated. [more on the big bang] [read also]divineseraph God DOES have an effect, though, in having the universe as a body. How about upholding the laws of physics? How about simply existing? None of these "effects" are observable or testable. If this how you want to determine reality then I propose an Overgod, that contains an infinite amount of Gods with universes as bodies, and is the cause of their existence. He makes sure that all the Gods uphold their own laws of physics in their respective universe-bodies. I propose this, because only one universe with only one set of laws of physics is impossible, since we don't know that those laws must be the way they are - which means I can propose that they can be any imaginable way, in fact, there exists an infinite amount of different laws of physics. This is all contained in the Overgod, which is the ultimate cause and mind behind this infinite amount of Gods and universes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:06 pm
Artto divineseraph The maker MADE the painting. Without the conscious attempt, there would be no painting. If not proving something makes it meaningless, then human beings are meaningless as we cannot prove or disprove our consciousness. Meaning, we are all just stones rolling down a hill. If that's the case, then I propose legalizing murder, since it is no different from splitting a chain of proteins or shattering a rock. I also propose ignoring language, since you're not really reading. Furthermore, there is no "You" to read in the first place. Therefore, the logical course of action is to stop doing anything, since nothing matters and is all irrelevant if we are conscious of it. I meant meaningless as in having no noticeable effect, and having no significance on the way you live. divineseraph Then they DO fill in holes in current understanding. That's WHY they are predicted- Because they explain why we see some of the things we see when our current theory misses that bit. Black holes don't fill in anything. A black hole is just a very dense object massive enough so that the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. Black holes don't "explain what we see", in fact, the evidence that they actually exist is fairly recent and there is actually no direct evidence (i.e. pictures) of them. This is actually the opposite of what you are saying - they are predicted by the theory of general relativity, but missing (in spite of accumulating evidence, they are still not proven). [more on black holes]divineseraph That is EVIDENTLY influencing, I notice you say- Which is to say, we see something influencing gravity, but we don't know what. So we FILL IN THE BLANKS with something that would meet the criteria. Dark matter doesn't fill in a blank, it is a blank. [more on dark matter]divineseraph God is just like those- We see a gap in the logic of a closed system of infinite density and energy, moving outwards without an initial mover, especially because escaping a singularity is impossible even in the universe as it is, let alone when it has ALL of the mass of EVERYTHING. This leads to the possibility of an initial mover or conscious universe that chose to expand- Otherwise, it's not physically possible according to current understanding. I don't think you understand the big bang theory very well. It's not a singularity that "moved outwards" in a sense of an explosion. It's space-time itself expanding. It's not as simple as "a singularity exploding". It's very, very complicated. [more on the big bang] [read also]divineseraph God DOES have an effect, though, in having the universe as a body. How about upholding the laws of physics? How about simply existing? None of these "effects" are observable or testable. If this how you want to determine reality then I propose an Overgod, that contains an infinite amount of Gods with universes as bodies, and is the cause of their existence. He makes sure that all the Gods uphold their own laws of physics in their respective universe-bodies. I propose this, because only one universe with only one set of laws of physics is impossible, since we don't know that those laws must be the way they are - which means I can propose that they can be any imaginable way, in fact, there exists an infinite amount of different laws of physics. This is all contained in the Overgod, which is the ultimate cause and mind behind this infinite amount of Gods and universes. Then so it is with black holes and dark matter. They are not relevant to us because they do not affect our daily lives, aside from what they do by passively existing. ... No. I know what black holes are and how they work. By fill in, I mean that we came up with the theory based on PROBLEMS that we found with our theories, or aberrations from our theories. We haven't seen one, but we say that they likely exist because IF they do THEN they fill in the gaps of our current theories. I believe they exist, mind you, but what I am talking about is how we discovered this- Not from looking at one, but by finding a flaw with our current system and figuring out what we might have missed with logic and reason. And again, you missed my meaning. I know. But spacetime is relative to mass/gravitation and density, which is why a black hole is supposed to stop time in its center. If this singularity was infinitely dense with the mass of everything, then time could not exist in which any change could occur- Nor could spacetime expand since, again, it exists inside of a singularity that is infinitely dense. That is more than possible, and would probably be largely supported by Hawking with his interesting, literal interpretation on quantum mechanics. It doesn't phase my sensibilities, as I believe in the One Only One. If it's larger and more extensive than I assume, so much more the beauty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:36 am
divineseraph ... No. I know what black holes are and how they work. By fill in, I mean that we came up with the theory based on PROBLEMS that we found with our theories, or aberrations from our theories. What problem does positing a black hole solve? And again, black holes are testable and falsifiable, God is not. divineseraph I know. But spacetime is relative to mass/gravitation and density, which is why a black hole is supposed to stop time in its center. If this singularity was infinitely dense with the mass of everything, then time could not exist in which any change could occur- Nor could spacetime expand since, again, it exists inside of a singularity that is infinitely dense. If we don't know how it got started, that is still no reason to just make up a cause. Let alone a sentient cause. divineseraph That is more than possible, and would probably be largely supported by Hawking with his interesting, literal interpretation on quantum mechanics. It doesn't phase my sensibilities, as I believe in the One Only One. If it's larger and more extensive than I assume, so much more the beauty. I just made that bullshit up to demonstrate a point. If you think it's plausible, I guess you won't ever get my point. Positing anything that is neither testable nor falsifiable doesn't advance our knowledge in the slightest. Dark matter and black holes are both testable and falsifiable, God is not. Comparing your god "hypothesis" to dark matter and black holes is almost an insult to science. You're comparing advanced scientific concepts requiring decades of work, based on observations, testing and a lot of complicated mathematics, to your God, based on "We don't know the cause of the big bang, therefore god did it.". What you are doing is not scientific. It's not even philosophy. It's just making stuff up. I think I'm done here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:00 am
Artto divineseraph ... No. I know what black holes are and how they work. By fill in, I mean that we came up with the theory based on PROBLEMS that we found with our theories, or aberrations from our theories. What problem does positing a black hole solve? And again, black holes are testable and falsifiable, God is not. divineseraph I know. But spacetime is relative to mass/gravitation and density, which is why a black hole is supposed to stop time in its center. If this singularity was infinitely dense with the mass of everything, then time could not exist in which any change could occur- Nor could spacetime expand since, again, it exists inside of a singularity that is infinitely dense. If we don't know how it got started, that is still no reason to just make up a cause. Let alone a sentient cause. divineseraph That is more than possible, and would probably be largely supported by Hawking with his interesting, literal interpretation on quantum mechanics. It doesn't phase my sensibilities, as I believe in the One Only One. If it's larger and more extensive than I assume, so much more the beauty. I just made that bullshit up to demonstrate a point. If you think it's plausible, I guess you won't ever get my point. Positing anything that is neither testable nor falsifiable doesn't advance our knowledge in the slightest. Dark matter and black holes are both testable and falsifiable, God is not. Comparing your god "hypothesis" to dark matter and black holes is almost an insult to science. You're comparing advanced scientific concepts requiring decades of work, based on observations, testing and a lot of complicated mathematics, to your God, based on "We don't know the cause of the big bang, therefore god did it.". What you are doing is not scientific. It's not even philosophy. It's just making stuff up. I think I'm done here. Again, define falsifiable. Consciousness is not provable or falsifiable- This leads us to nihilism and nothingness, if we cannot accept any possibility that is not directly proven. Even then- They are provABLE and falsifiABLE- But not actually conclusively defined. So is it wrong to assume that it is true since we are not completely sure? It's not making up a cause any more than making up a secular cause. Making up the big bang based on the fact that things are still expanding is fine, but figuring that the big bang could have been sentient in order to bend the laws that should have made its movement impossible is wrong? A special stone is able to move, apparently at will, on its own. Should we assume that it is an ordinary rock because we can not prove consciousness? The only way for it to calculate or move on its own, after all, is sentience or some form of thought. In an entirely closed system in which escape is impossible because everything is still, only something that can DECIDE to move can move. I know. You were trying to offend my sensibilities by claiming a "better God", and you failed. I called your bluff. And even then, that idea WOULD be supported by Hawking- Minus the sentience, but that's what this discussion is about. I am basing my arguments on thousands of years of the work of the Alchemists. I hate nothing more than "God did it" as a reason for anything beyond creation. Even if it is true, that isn't HOW it works, it is WHY it works, and our learning is better suited by the HOW. I believe in the Big Bang, as it is written by both modern physicists and the ancient Alchemists. I just find it necessary for there to be an initial mover because, again, closed system with no such thing as time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
