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 3:19:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark That man is god. Has anyone told god that he has billions of imposters down here? [:D] Not imposters. (best monty pyton voice) Just very naughty boys.... and girls. the.dark.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 3:53:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl again, i ask... is it scientific proof you require? nope, just any objective evidence that REQUIRES intervention of a god based on our current understanding of physics and chemistry. that would be quite sufficient to make me an agnostic.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 4:03:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero 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. Well said. And I would add one thing. The claim that "science cannot prove anything" is in and of itself unprovable.

tazzygirl -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 4:05:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero 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. It has become clear to me that the distinction between a "scientific theory" and a "scientific law" is quite muddled in the minds of many people who wonder: "What is required for a scientific theory to be considered true?" That is a fundamental misconception, and one I wish we could somehow hammer into these gomers' heads. There is no scientific proof of anything�proof isn't something scientists deal with at all. It's an inappropriate demand in several ways. Unlike the theorems of mathematics, science does not seek to prove that its theories are true. One component of a theory that can frustrate scientists and non-scientists alike is that a theory is never proven and can always be revised. Experiments testing a theory either corroborate it or falsify it. Even Isaac Newton�s laws of gravity were revised after 200 years, when Albert Einstein found flaws and devised his theory of relativity. It is true that the theory of evolution has not been proven - if, by that term, one means established beyond any further possibility of doubt or refutation. On the other hand, neither has atomic theory, the theory of relativity, quantum theory, or indeed any other theory in science. The reason for this is that science does not deal in absolute proof, only in the balance of the evidence. Science, of course, does not deal with absolute proofs. Proofs are for closed systems of logic, like math. Science deals not with proofs but with evidence, deduction, and inference. Science also works with probability, not certainty. This is because we can never have a complete set of data � we are always extrapolating from a limited set of data. after all this, we are left with the things 1... we cannot prove the existence of god 2... we cannot prove the absence of god 3... until one or the other is proven.. there is always hope and faith and that is what binds both to their beliefs.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 4:11:22 PM)
after all this, we are left with the things 1... we cannot prove the existence of the FSM 2... we cannot prove the absence of the FSM 3... until one or the other is proven.. there is always hope and faith for those who disregard overwhelming evidence to the contrary (and yes, once again, in science lack of evidence is evidence when you know what youre looking for). I havent seen anyone challenge that, but to head off any, a good example is the consumption of organic foods. Consumption of organic food has been studied extensively for 50 years. We know what kind of evidence we are looking for...favorable morbidity and mortality experience. Yet despite knowing what to look for there is no evidence that eating organic food makes any difference. That doesnt "prove" that it doesn't make a difference to those who want to discredit the ability of science to prove anything using the "anything is possible" argument. To a scientist however, there is an overwhelming probability at this point that organic foods, in their current form, don't do anything. That is sufficient proof to make a knowledgable decision on the subject. Likewise we know what to look for as evidence for god...any evidence whatsoever of an event or circumstance that can be shown to be contrary to our best understanding of nature and science. Billions of people looking for thousands of years, no evidence. Moreover, that lack of evidence is dismissed by the people who claim that complexity can't arise out of randomness, when there has been 14 billion years and about 4x10^79 atoms of hydrogen alone interacting in myriad combinations with each other to form more complex elements which interact in myriad combinations with each other, and so on.

tazzygirl -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 4:23:58 PM)
grins... it works that way too! if someone wants to believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsters, UFO's, ect... then they will until its proven to them they do not exist.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 4:39:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl grins... it works that way too! if someone wants to believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsters, UFO's, ect... then they will until its proven to them they do not exist. And them living their life as if they do makes no more or less sense than living their life with a belief in god. In fact it makes MORE sense for them to live their lives with a belief in the FSM or UFOs because objective evidence of their existence has been searched for by far fewer people for far less time, so there is a higher probability that they exist than god.

tazzygirl -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 4:40:39 PM)
why does their life have to make sense to you?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 5:08:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl why does their life have to make sense to you? It doesnt, that just happens to be what you have been trying to justify using an incorrectly formed parable about heat/cold and darkness/light. So why are you trying to justify it?

Rule -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 5:10:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl It has become clear to me that the distinction between a "scientific theory" and a "scientific law" is quite muddled in the minds of many people who wonder: "What is required for a scientific theory to be considered true?" That is a fundamental misconception, and one I wish we could somehow hammer into these gomers' heads. There is no scientific proof of anything�proof isn't something scientists deal with at all. It's an inappropriate demand in several ways. Unlike the theorems of mathematics, science does not seek to prove that its theories are true. One component of a theory that can frustrate scientists and non-scientists alike is that a theory is never proven and can always be revised. Experiments testing a theory either corroborate it or falsify it. Even Isaac Newton�s laws of gravity were revised after 200 years, when Albert Einstein found flaws and devised his theory of relativity. It is true that the theory of evolution has not been proven - if, by that term, one means established beyond any further possibility of doubt or refutation. On the other hand, neither has atomic theory, the theory of relativity, quantum theory, or indeed any other theory in science. The reason for this is that science does not deal in absolute proof, only in the balance of the evidence. Science, of course, does not deal with absolute proofs. Proofs are for closed systems of logic, like math. Science deals not with proofs but with evidence, deduction, and inference. Science also works with probability, not certainty. This is because we can never have a complete set of data � we are always extrapolating from a limited set of data. That excerpt is one big muddle. In science one needs to distinguish between the observed facts (i.e. what a witness has observed, either directly or indirectly, or what someone relates him to have observed) and the interpretation of those facts. If the observation can be repeated frequently, the facts are considered reliable. If not, the fact may not be reliable and some probability of truth is assigned to it. The interpretation of the facts is always subject to scrutiny for it may be wrong. As long as it is scrutinized this interpretation is called a hypothesis. When scientists agree that it is a waste of time to scrutinize an interpretation any longer, it is considered to be an unassailable theory. The theory of evolution is such an unassailable theory. Einstein's theory of general relativity on the other hand may be expected to be taken down shortly and ought to be called a hypothesis instead. Yes, scientists often see truths as probabilities. Like the cautious A: "There is a probability approaching 1 that the theory of evolution will never be disproven". They also often solve problems by inspired guesses (plenty of examples of that in mathematics). Like the daring B: "Given A: I guess that the probability that the theory of evolution will never be disproven equals 1".

tazzygirl -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 5:11:17 PM)
LOL... you really thought you knew me, huh! i saw a whole bunch of men with a massive ego need to be "right" so i decided to spend some time messing with your heads. as i have said before, i do not believe in formal religion, nor in what most consider the concept of god. arrogance just happens to get under my nails, so to speak. and then i gotta scratch.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 5:18:44 PM)
~FR~ The answer to the question is God good, is yes and no. One needs to look to Christian Theology for the answers, if you are going to discuss that area. quote: Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Is Satan evil? Well Satan means enemy of god, which would also place Satan as opposed to god's will. This would mean by being opposed to the word, which is the morals that god wishes many to live by, the answer would be yes. Someone mentioned Lucifer, well that is a clouded area as there is very valid debate and proof that the word Lucifer is refering to a Babylonian King that held the jews in slavery. The name Lucifer was correctly identified by someone in this topic as meaning "light bringer". References to Venus, which rises quickly in the sky, and disappears quickly, could have been a mistaken translation of a reference to Venus, using the term light-bringer, when speaking of the babylonian King rising to power over the Jews and falling as quickly. In the Old Testament there is reference to Lucifer in some translations, but many question Jerome's translation as there are entire sections of the Old Testament that do not match any of the Judiac text they were supposedly translated from. So there is no real support for the name of Satan being Lucifer. As far as science, I suggest a study into the definition of the word science, and the scientific method, prior to using them in an argument for or against anything. Now the questions really should be, does faith exist? To me that answer is obvious, but to those without faith it would not appear so. Just as trying to convince someone that love does exist, that has never felt that emotion deeply, or identified it. Can faith accomplish things that the scientific method cannot explain? Absolutely, but the effects of something that cannot be explained, is not proof of it's existance using the scientific method, it only will prove or disprove the effects. I see the effects of faith in most all of the religions in the world, from Christianity to Taoism to Paganism. Where the problem arises is when we as people are led to believe that we require the assistance of others to find our faith, beliefs and paths within this life. This includes everyone from atheist, to devoit catholics. I feel that anyone that has to explain their beliefs in such a way as to convince others, may not know exactly what faith really is.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 5:19:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl LOL... you really thought you knew me, huh! i saw a whole bunch of men with a massive ego need to be "right" so i decided to spend some time messing with your heads. as i have said before, i do not believe in formal religion, nor in what most consider the concept of god. arrogance just happens to get under my nails, so to speak. and then i gotta scratch. I never said anything about "knowing you". I merely observed your actions in this thread. And if anyone on this board has a massive need to be right, it is you. And you started out by being so meticulous in your documentation that it passed for actually being objective, good job. The last few days have belied that objectivity, so keep scratching...it just exposes the wounds more.

Rule -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 5:23:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy any objective evidence that REQUIRES intervention of a god based on our current understanding of physics and chemistry. Evidence of the Divine is never objective, but always subjective. I wished, the Divine intervened and I "died", which was necessary to grant my wish. I recall my wish, thus my wish is a fact. I "died" (something occurred which I perceived as having died); that is a fact also. Objectively, there is no causal relationship between both events. Subjectively, to me there is a clear spiritual causative relationship between both events.

tazzygirl -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 5:31:35 PM)
Thank you Master Orion, i agree we dont need to explain our beliefs or have them definied by anyone else. well wishes tazzy

tazzygirl -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 5:33:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl LOL... you really thought you knew me, huh! i saw a whole bunch of men with a massive ego need to be "right" so i decided to spend some time messing with your heads. as i have said before, i do not believe in formal religion, nor in what most consider the concept of god. arrogance just happens to get under my nails, so to speak. and then i gotta scratch. I never said anything about "knowing you". I merely observed your actions in this thread. And if anyone on this board has a massive need to be right, it is you. And you started out by being so meticulous in your documentation that it passed for actually being objective, good job. The last few days have belied that objectivity, so keep scratching...it just exposes the wounds more. i have no wounds to scratch. too bad you view it that way. the discussion was due to fail from the beginning. many tried to join, and were put down and belittled for the efforts and beliefs. i have no desire to prove anything to anyone. but i did enjoy the textual scratching of people's heads today.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 5:50:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Evidence of the Divine is never objective, but always subjective. There is no reason for it to always be subjective, and if it is always subjective then it is insufficient evidence. And why would a supposedly benevolent god who demands observance of his rules to receive his rewards be so diligent about hiding? quote: I wished, the Divine intervened and I "died", which was necessary to grant my wish. I recall my wish, thus my wish is a fact. I "died" (something occurred which I perceived as having died); that is a fact also. Objectively, there is no causal relationship between both events. Subjectively, to me there is a clear spiritual causative relationship between both events.[/size] You "recall your wish" and that is a fact...your belief that you are recalling something is a fact. Whether you actually wished it is less clear, since memory is so fragile to begin with and humans are so adept at fitting thoughts to events after the fact. And of course your subjective experience during "death" may be profoundly moving to you, but it is worthless as evidence. AFAIK there have been no scientific studies that verify near death experiences as being anything but biological/psychological. For example one ongoing experiment in a hospital operating room hasnt experience a single out of body experience where something observable only from the classic "looking down on everything" experience has actually been observed. I had a couple of out of body experiences myself. (The 60s indeed were a wonderful and profound time to grow up.) They were quite vivid and quite "real", but totally non-spiritual. If your belief system includes spirituality (or if the nature of the experience causes you to embrace spirituality "just in case") then your hallucinations are not unlikely to be connected with that spirituality. Again, not at all objective, when evidence of a god could obviously be objective if the omni-powerful god wanted it to be.

Rule -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 6:14:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy There is no reason for it to always be subjective I recommend that you read my first sentence in my post 42. quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy and if it is always subjective then it is insufficient evidence. For others. For the one experiencing it, it is sufficient evidence. quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy And why would a supposedly benevolent god who demands observance of his rules to receive his rewards be so diligent about hiding? I assume that you are talking about the incarnate god of the Jews? He wanted people to worship not him, but the Divine. (Incarnate gods identify with the Divine.) quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy You "recall your wish" and that is a fact...your belief that you are recalling something is a fact. Whether you actually wished it is less clear, since memory is so fragile to begin with and humans are so adept at fitting thoughts to events after the fact. I recall suckling at my mother's teats and I recall that I had memories then that went back perhaps up to my birth. (I suspect that I slept during birth.) Who made you an authority on my memories? quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy And of course your subjective experience during "death" may be profoundly moving to you, but it is worthless as evidence. AFAIK there have been no scientific studies that verify near death experiences as being anything but biological/psychological. For example one ongoing experiment in a hospital operating room hasnt experience a single out of body experience where something observable only from the classic "looking down on everything" experience has actually been observed. I had a couple of out of body experiences myself. (The 60s indeed were a wonderful and profound time to grow up.) They were quite vivid and quite "real", but totally non-spiritual. If your belief system includes spirituality (or if the nature of the experience causes you to embrace spirituality "just in case") then your hallucinations are not unlikely to be connected with that spirituality. Where did I ever speak about an out of body experience or about hallucinations? You presume where you have no reason to presume. Who made you an authority on my "death"? quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Again, not at all objective, when evidence of a god could obviously be objective if the omni-powerful god wanted it to be. Considering the nonsense you are blathering about my person, clearly you are a mistaken human. Considering your wanton use of the word "obviously", you presume too freely about the nature of the Divine also.

lynk09 -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 6:26:00 PM)
I regard the 1. origin of life, which we still can't figure out, 2. "irreducibly complex" machines (such as the ATP synthase), 3. the strong analogy between various facets of the cell and human technology 4. the fine tuning of the universe 5. the fact that the universe had a beginning a finite time ago to be sufficient evidence that there just may be a god.

Rule -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 6:28:34 PM)
I do not.

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875