RE: Define God

RE: Define God (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

RCdc -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 11:51:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Then lets open yours. Prove to me you have a brain by being willing to die to prove it. You do not die (these days) by showing your brain. So, the brain is there. Now what? the.dark.

tazzygirl -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 11:52:52 AM)
no, not now what. you havent proven it. i have not touched your brain, i have not seen your brain, i have not tasted your brain. if you wish to use that argument, you have to come here, have someone open your skull, and allow me to do those things, explore it with all of my senses before i can scientifically state you have a brain.

RCdc -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 11:55:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl no, not now what. you havent proven it. i have not touched your brain, i have not seen your brain, i have not tasted your brain. if you wish to use that argument, you have to come here, have someone open your skull, and allow me to do those things, explore it with all of my senses before i can scientifically state you have a brain. Never heard of trepanning? the.dark.

NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 11:59:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl http://upontruth.com/sciencevsgod.html Cute story. Except the fact that every entity the 2nd kid in the story references is measurable and has functional mechanisms that have been made based on an understanding of how those entities work. By being measurable, they are falsifiable. An rudimentary hospital scan could make the professor's brain visible (well, hypothetical professor who seems incapable of discussing where the flawed references to heat and light are mistaken. someone already mentioned heat as the transference of energy. The story also specifies between visible light and no light without the apparent realization that what we would consider darkness is still technically low-level visible light). The story seems to try and excuse the judeo-christian deity's responsibility for creating a horrific habitat for his apparent spawn by citing polar reality when the deity is actually responsible for putting that reality into effect.

Rule -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 12:01:46 PM)
I see all kinds of incomprehensible posts. After reading a couple I dropped out. It is good that I am sufficiently omniscient not to read them posts that want me to get rid of my brain in order to prove that I have one.

RCdc -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 12:02:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero The story seems to try and excuse the judeo-christian deity's responsibility for creating a hirrific habitat for his apparent spawn by citing polar reality when the deity is actually responsible for putting that reailty into effect. Hello Nihilus. Help!... what does hirrific mean? (accepts she may lose points for not knowing...)* the.dark.

tazzygirl -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 12:06:01 PM)
no excuses. Science requires, among other things, that everything be proven... and on that basis, many atheists try and discount the faith some have in god. However, science also reuires a certain amount of faith... such as the faith that you have a brain, unless you have the ability to take it out and display it. Science can prove heat by the energy it emits... it proves cold only by the basis of the LACK of that energy. Alot of what we "know" is based upon a form of faith, such as i have faith i have a brain, i have not touched it, i have not seen it. nor have i seen yours. in order to prove you, or i, have a brain, we have to be able to allow it to be under scrutiny of the five senses... the basic level of science... then allow for the retesting of that "proof" over and over again. Using science to prove faith, on either side, is a fallacy. quote: An rudimentary hospital scan could make the professor's brain visible All it provides is a representative of the brain. you cannot actually see it, all you can view is what the scan shows as a representation.

NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 12:06:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero The story seems to try and excuse the judeo-christian deity's responsibility for creating a hirrific habitat for his apparent spawn by citing polar reality when the deity is actually responsible for putting that reailty into effect. Hello Nihilus. Help!... what does hirrific mean? (accepts she may lose points for not knowing...)* the.dark. Typos fixed. Thank you for your concern, dark. [8D][8\|][:D]

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 12:13:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl thank you willbe... i agree... heat is the transfer of energy.. and its measureable. cold cannot be measured. it is simply the absense of that energy. now, is there darkness? Yes, cold can be measured, since it is the absence of heat. They are complementary terms. The convention is to call "temperature" a measure of heat content, it could just as easily be termed a "measure of cold absence". The underlying first law of thermodynamics is dE = T dS -p dV where T is temperature. The law is no different if you define C, cold, as -T and change the T in the equation to -C. It is just semantics on a scientific level. Since darkness is the absence of light it both exists and is measurable in exactly the same way as cold. And reading the later posts, the whole thing is pointless. Lack of something IS something, just measured by a reverse convention. The whole premise is nonsense, as the fundamental equations of physics remain unchanged when you replace measurements with an equivalent but complementary scale. Everything is relative. Consider "black", scientifically defined as "the absence of color". It is defined that way because we think of our vision in terms of what we sense..what is reflected, and black is the absence of photons hitting our eyes. However, color is just as easily and accurately defined in terms of absorption and what we DONT SEE, in fact that is the physical process in coloring or using filters...absorption of colors, so what you see is the colors remaining. Absence of color is no less real and no less measurable than color, just on complementary scales.

RCdc -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 12:15:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl no excuses. Science requires, among other things, that everything be proven... and on that basis, many atheists try and discount the faith some have in god. However, science also reuires a certain amount of faith... such as the faith that you have a brain, unless you have the ability to take it out and display it. Science can prove heat by the energy it emits... it proves cold only by the basis of the LACK of that energy. Alot of what we "know" is based upon a form of faith, such as i have faith i have a brain, i have not touched it, i have not seen it. nor have i seen yours. in order to prove you, or i, have a brain, we have to be able to allow it to be under scrutiny of the five senses... the basic level of science... then allow for the retesting of that "proof" over and over again. Using science to prove faith, on either side, is a fallacy. quote: An rudimentary hospital scan could make the professor's brain visible All it provides is a representative of the brain. you cannot actually see it, all you can view is what the scan shows as a representation. But 'we' know that the brain exists. We have seen them. Touched them. Smell and some of us have even tasted them. Medical - we know that functions exist that are controlled by the brain. Those that do not have those functions sometimes have parts of the brain that are damaged or removed. Comparing the reality of god to a human brain using the five senses is illogical and comparing apples to oranges. I cannot see you. I see only words. Therefore you do not exist? That makes no sense comparing to god or gods. The logic is flawed from a non religious and a religious POV using science. Because medicine has proven the brains existance. It is measurable. Darkness, in itself is a measurement, rather than measurable. Unlike Zero. Or Vacuum. the.dark.

RCdc -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 12:18:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero The story seems to try and excuse the judeo-christian deity's responsibility for creating a hirrific habitat for his apparent spawn by citing polar reality when the deity is actually responsible for putting that reailty into effect. Hello Nihilus. Help!... what does hirrific mean? (accepts she may lose points for not knowing...)* the.dark. Typos fixed. Thank you for your concern, dark. [8D][8\|][:D] Opps... thanks. I wasn't sure if it was one of the hir/xhe ways of writing I have seen people like yourself or Dame C explain before. the.dark.

NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 12:18:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl no excuses. Science requires, among other things, that everything be proven... and on that basis, many atheists try and discount the faith some have in god. Exactly. Faith is precisely the belief in something despite evidence. When science says "proven", by the way, it does so because the repeated testing of the notion consistently and deomnstrably shows replicated results. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl However, science also reuires a certain amount of faith... such as the faith that you have a brain, unless you have the ability to take it out and display it. Poor example. Science makes the brain visible. It's not "faith" that allows those machines they scan your bags with at airports to tell you mistakenly put a pair of shears in your pocketbook. The security people aren't "seeing" or "touching" it with their own senses directly when that happens. Yet, the mechanisms and tools they are using to determine its reality are sound and, those shears can demonstrably and continuously be shown to be there. Brain MRI's will consistently and demonstrably show the existence of a brain. If tests this absurd were really necessarily, the local coroner could do it for you just fine. Now, if you wanted to talk about certain theoretical sciences (quantum mechanics, early-moment astrophysics) then maybe some "guessing" is done based on available information...but that is certainly not "faith" because there is no determined investment that those ideas are "true" until evidence shows them to be. "Faith" again, is believing something fervently to be true when there is no reason for it to be. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Science can prove heat by the energy it emits... it proves cold only by the basis of the LACK of that energy. You are mistakenly paralleling the scientific concept of heat to what you refer to as "hot" or "cold", which are only individual assessment of temperature. And even those can be adequately measured (check your local thermometer). quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Alot of what we "know" is based upon a form of faith, such as i have faith i have a brain, i have not touched it, i have not seen it. nor have i seen yours. in order to prove you, or i, have a brain, we have to be able to allow it to be under scrutiny of the five senses... the basic level of science... then allow for the retesting of that "proof" over and over again. "Evidence" is not your personal experience of something. It is the demonstrable and repeated testing of something with replicated results. This is an intentionally disingenuous comparison. Refer to me "shears in the pocketbook" comments earlier. No "faith" needed. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl All it provides is a representative of the brain. you cannot actually see it, all you can view is what the scan shows as a representation. You realize that our eyes are just organic machines that function is a similar way that the MRI machines we use do, right? The only thing that makes either reliable is if they demonstrate consistent factuality. And an MRI machine is just as reliable as our eyes.

Slavehandsome -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 12:19:11 PM)
But Cheney said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction!

RCdc -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 12:27:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Slavehandsome But Cheney said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction! Ah...but... Bush used the Force. the.dark.

TheIceKing -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 12:34:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule It is good that I am sufficiently omniscient not to read them posts that want me to get rid of my brain in order to prove that I have one. [sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif]Best line in the thread :-) .

tazzygirl -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 12:43:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl no excuses. Science requires, among other things, that everything be proven... and on that basis, many atheists try and discount the faith some have in god. Exactly. Faith is precisely the belief in something despite evidence. When science says "proven", by the way, it does so because the repeated testing of the notion consistently and deomnstrably shows replicated results. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl However, science also reuires a certain amount of faith... such as the faith that you have a brain, unless you have the ability to take it out and display it. Poor example. Science makes the brain visible. It's not "faith" that allows those machines they scan your bags with at airports to tell you mistakenly put a pair of shears in your pocketbook. The security people aren't "seeing" or "touching" it with their own senses directly when that happens. Yet, the mechanisms and tools they are using to determine its reality are sound and, those shears can demonstrably and continuously be shown to be there. Brain MRI's will consistently and demonstrably show the existence of a brain. If tests this absurd were really necessarily, the local coroner could do it for you just fine. Now, if you wanted to talk about certain theoretical sciences (quantum mechanics, early-moment astrophysics) then maybe some "guessing" is done based on available information...but that is certainly not "faith" because there is no determined investment that those ideas are "true" until evidence shows them to be. "Faith" again, is believing something fervently to be true when there is no reason for it to be. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Science can prove heat by the energy it emits... it proves cold only by the basis of the LACK of that energy. You are mistakenly paralleling the scientific concept of heat to what you refer to as "hot" or "cold", which are only individual assessment of temperature. And even those can be adequately measured (check your local thermometer). quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Alot of what we "know" is based upon a form of faith, such as i have faith i have a brain, i have not touched it, i have not seen it. nor have i seen yours. in order to prove you, or i, have a brain, we have to be able to allow it to be under scrutiny of the five senses... the basic level of science... then allow for the retesting of that "proof" over and over again. "Evidence" is not your personal experience of something. It is the demonstrable and repeated testing of something with replicated results. This is an intentionally disingenuous comparison. Refer to me "shears in the pocketbook" comments earlier. No "faith" needed. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl All it provides is a representative of the brain. you cannot actually see it, all you can view is what the scan shows as a representation. You realize that our eyes are just organic machines that function is a similar way that the MRI machines we use do, right? The only thing that makes either reliable is if they demonstrate consistent factuality. And an MRI machine is just as reliable as our eyes. So unless something is scientifically proven... it does not exist? you require scientific proof? Surely with all the intelligent people posting here, someone can answer this.

RCdc -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 1:15:01 PM)
FR ~ Tony the fish. [;)] the.dark.

RCdc -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 1:21:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl So unless something is scientifically proven... it does not exist? you require scientific proof? Surely with all the intelligent people posting here, someone can answer this. I didn't answer before your amendment, because I believed you had focused the question on NZ... but since you changed it and opened the question, I'll profer that I don't need 'scientific' proof for something to exist. But my question is, why does anyone need to try and prove faith, particularly scientifically? the.dark.

tazzygirl -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 1:24:44 PM)
I have no idea either, dark. and i think you may have misinterpretted my intentions here. many things cannot be scientifcally proven.

RCdc -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 1:30:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I have no idea either, dark. and i think you may have misinterpretted my intentions here. many things cannot be scientifcally proven. I believe that is pretty much a high probability. I also do not believe in science being an answer to all things and I also believe that not all science or scientists hold measure as a ultimate qualifier. After all, the universe cannot be 'measured'. However it does exist. Scientifically. the.dark.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875