Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Define God


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Define God Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Define God - 8/4/2009 1:33:34 PM   
Slavehandsome


Posts: 382
Joined: 9/19/2004
Status: offline 		God has already been scientifically defined as the only 12th dimensional being.

(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 241
RE: Define God - 8/4/2009 1:39:34 PM   
RCdc


Posts: 8674
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Slavehandsome

God has already been scientifically defined as the only 12th dimensional being.


Do you believe that many or some people understand/comprehend the dynamics of such, though?
 
the.dark.

_____________________________
RC&dc


love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to Slavehandsome)
Profile   Post #: 242
RE: Define God - 8/4/2009 2:06:35 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
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.



This is the same nonsense that the other lad was posting.

You are suggesting that physical items do not exist unless you personally have seen them.

The equivalent is saying that no sandwich exists in the world apart from the ones you personally eat; we know however that were you to walk into a shop tomorrow you will most certainly see a sandwich.

Here is the difference between god and the sandwich: you have seen a sandwich and everyone you speak with has seen a sandwich too and this experience suggests that you will again see a sandwich that you haven't seen as it stands. No one has seen god however; there is absolutely no experience from which to draw - unlike the existence of sandwiches the world over.

In the absence of experience god is an idea that exists in the mind whereas a sandwich - and a brain - is a physical item that exists in the world.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 243
RE: Define God - 8/4/2009 2:09:04 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


This is the same nonsense that the other lad was posting.

You are suggesting that physical items do not exist unless you personally have seen them.

The equivalent is saying that no sandwich exists in the world apart from the ones you personally eat; we know however that were you to walk into a shop tomorrow you will most certainly see a sandwich.



the whole thread related to heat/cold, darkness/light is based on a faulty understanding of science. Of course its going to followed up by more nonsense.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 244
RE: Define God - 8/4/2009 2:10:04 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		again, i ask... is it scientific proof you require?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 245
RE: Define God - 8/4/2009 2:17:33 PM   
pyroaquatic


Posts: 1535
Joined: 12/4/2006
From: Pyroaquatica
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
This is the same nonsense that the other lad was posting.


Yay I am a nonsensical lad.

Brains make thoughts.

I cannot manipulate thoughts through tactile motions, or use my other senses to perceive it. My brain translates thoughts and I can possibly (however limited) put it to words and send the data over to you. It will not be the same thought once your brain translates it into such. Our knowledge is imperfect. Our tools for measuring the environment are imperfect.

Individually, yes we are all imperfect. The sum of the parts becomes one perfect whole and then a bag of potato chips with a side of coke.

God will will not appear to everyone the same. Some may even give God a different name(Tao, Kosmos, Chuck Norris).

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 246
RE: Define God - 8/4/2009 2:24:19 PM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

So unless something is scientifically proven... it does not exist?

Kind of. Meaning, there is no veridical and informative reason to apply such a thing as factual and certainly not in a way in which there is emotional investment present. There can be scientific hypotheses that would be considered to be possible for the purpose of furthering testing to verify if it appears to be factual, but scientists are usually keenly aware of the fact that there is no merit in attaching any personal hope to an idea for hope's sake.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

many things cannot be scientifcally proven.

And all of those things, though they can be functionally worthwhile, are informatively useless (unless there are providing a sytem of potential testing to further the discovery of something that can be scientifically proven).


_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 247
RE: Define God - 8/4/2009 2:26:12 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		you do realize there is no scientific proof, outside of mathmatics and logic, yes?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 248
RE: Define God - 8/4/2009 2:27:34 PM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

After all, the universe cannot be 'measured'.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html
At least as of 2004.



_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 249
RE: Define God - 8/4/2009 2:29:13 PM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

you do realize there is no scientific proof, outside of mathmatics and logic, yes?

You'll have to explain how you arrived at this reductionist equation a bit more thoroughly...


_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 250
RE: Define God - 8/4/2009 2:36:22 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		"Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are sometimes even held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. I have dispelled some of them (misconceptions, not scientists) in earlier posts (for example, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, beauty is only skin-deep, and you can’t judge a book by its cover). Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun."

Need more?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 251
RE: Define God - 8/4/2009 2:46:59 PM   
RCdc


Posts: 8674
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
No one has seen god however; there is absolutely no experience from which to draw - unlike the existence of sandwiches the world over.


That depends.
If you 'believe' that you are god, and you look in the mirror, then you have seen god.
That comes down to what you call something.  Sandwiches included.
 
the.dark.

_____________________________
RC&dc


love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 252
RE: Define God - 8/4/2009 2:48:38 PM   
RCdc


Posts: 8674
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic
God will will not appear to everyone the same. Some may even give God a different name(Tao, Kosmos, Chuck Norris).



Then you get into the realms of what stella mentioned previously and the OP kind of touched upon.
 
the.dark.

_____________________________
RC&dc


love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to pyroaquatic)
Profile   Post #: 253
RE: Define God - 8/4/2009 2:50:25 PM   
RCdc


Posts: 8674
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

After all, the universe cannot be 'measured'.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html
At least as of 2004.




Pffft... 19.5 points.
 
the.dark.

_____________________________
RC&dc


love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 254
RE: Define God - 8/4/2009 2:53:49 PM   
dundreggen


Posts: 26
Joined: 8/3/2009
Status: offline 		if by scientific you mean observable, repeatable etc for all people then yes.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 255
RE: Define God - 8/4/2009 2:54:48 PM   
RCdc


Posts: 8674
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

"Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are sometimes even held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. I have dispelled some of them (misconceptions, not scientists) in earlier posts (for example, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, beauty is only skin-deep, and you can’t judge a book by its cover). Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun."

Need more?


By Satoshi Kanazawa

the.dark.

_____________________________
RC&dc


love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 256
RE: Define God - 8/4/2009 2:55:55 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
No one has seen god however; there is absolutely no experience from which to draw - unlike the existence of sandwiches the world over.


That depends.
If you 'believe' that you are god, and you look in the mirror, then you have seen god.
That comes down to what you call something.  Sandwiches included.
 
the.dark.

 
No it doesn't.
 
We are talking of god as non-specific deity rather than a human being who should be at work instead of poncing around in the mirror.
 
The sandwich is a physical item.
 
What we're really talking about is the physical world versus the metaphysical - regardless of what name we use to describe god or a sandwich.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 257
RE: Define God - 8/4/2009 2:57:45 PM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Need more?

The entire thing you quoted, without proper reference no less, is spoken with an understanding of "evidence" and "scientific proof" as being synonymous. You are taking a very well-worded description of science to support the making of irrational inferences from it. When it is said that

quote:

"In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives."


It is spoken with an understanding that some scientific theories are so recurringly and provably sound that it would be materialistically ridiculous to not function with the presumption that they are factual and functional. You cannot take the scientific awareness of scientists about their own realm of inquiry as being malleable as the suggestion that it's some sort of whimsy pulled out of thin air!

Sure, the word "theory" has two distinct definitions also. Colloquially, I can drum up any ridiculous conspiracy motion in my head about anything and it's a "theory". A scientific theory, however, is one that actually is peer tested, repeatedly and held up to constant scrutiny of logical, empirical and reliable tests until it passes so well so often, that it makes perfect sense to treat it as being factual.

You quote an excerpt by a practitioner of soft-science (evolutionary psychology does not hold to the same rigours as chemisty, physics and biology...but we'll take his words at face value nonetheless) to shove the entirety of reality into a dichotomy of either: a) it's "proof" true, or b) anything goes, since it could be wrong.


_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 258
RE: Define God - 8/4/2009 3:00:42 PM   
RCdc


Posts: 8674
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
No one has seen god however; there is absolutely no experience from which to draw - unlike the existence of sandwiches the world over.


That depends.
If you 'believe' that you are god, and you look in the mirror, then you have seen god.
That comes down to what you call something.  Sandwiches included.
 
the.dark.

 
No it doesn't.
 
We are talking of god as non-specific deity rather than a human being who should be at work instead of poncing around in the mirror.
 
The sandwich is a physical item.
 
What we're really talking about is the physical world versus the metaphysical - regardless of what name we use to describe god or a sandwich.


I was taking it from a Christian POV as such.  That man is god.  Therefore as man is god, then he is seen and touched blah.
Of course, that's not 'scientific' as such...well, unless you go on beyond string theory and the 10th dimension...
 
the.dark.

_____________________________
RC&dc


love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 259
RE: Define God - 8/4/2009 3:15:41 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

That man is god. 



Has anyone told god that he has billions of imposters down here?
 
 

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 260
Page:   <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Define God Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094