Come again; Why is it better?

[911]

The universe exists because of the big bang; cannot be proven

Every atom in the universe is a part of God; cannot be proven

[MrWhy]

The universe exists because of the big bang; cannot be proven

Every atom in the universe is a part of God; cannot be proven "Proof" is not a word that should be used in debating a god, the BB, etc. Evidence or preponderance of evidence will allow more progress on these questions.

Proof in this area is very hard to get.
Theories are accompanied by evidence.
Hypothesis is a basis for experimentation. To search for evidence.
Speculation/conjecture may be entertaining, or even interesting, but it's not likely to contribute much knowledge.

[Astreja]

There is actual evidence that appears to support the Big Bang theory, such as Hubble's Law.

No comparable evidence has been found to support the existence of any sentient being comprised of all the atoms in the universe. (If you have any actual scientific data that says otherwise, please bring it out so we can test it. That's Nobel Prize material for sure.)

And these are not the only two possibilities, either. The universe isn't as simple as "If A is wrong, then B must be correct by default."

[FatherMithras]

The universe exists because of the big bang; cannot be proven

Every atom in the universe is a part of God; cannot be proven

Well, you simply are making an incorrct statement. Nothing can be "proven" in science. Red shift and background microwave radiation are evidence for the big bang. Creation has no evidence. IE your statement should read

The universe exists because of the big bang; evidence exists and it's the best conclusion to fit the data

Every atom in the universe is a part of God; vilates ochams's razor and has no support in science or evidence for it.

[911]

There is actual evidence that appears to support the Big Bang theory, such as Hubble's Law.

No comparable evidence has been found to support the existence of any sentient being comprised of all the atoms in the universe. (If you have any actual scientific data that says otherwise, please bring it out so we can test it. That's Nobel Prize material for sure.)

And these are not the only two possibilities, either. The universe isn't as simple as "If A is wrong, then B must be correct by default."

How about this: man is made up of atoms; man is a sentient being

[David Vestal]

The universe exists because of the big bang; cannot be proven

Every atom in the universe is a part of God; cannot be proven

The first is our best explanation so far for the natural phenomena we observe around us. As such, it has significant value.

The second is just a moot sort of wondering. It explains nothing, predicts nothing, is evidenced by nothing, and accommodates everything. As such, it has very little or no value.

Thus, the first is better.

[911]

The first is our best explanation so far for the natural phenomena we observe around us. As such, it has significant value.

The second is just a moot sort of wondering. It explains nothing, predicts nothing, is evidenced by nothing, and accommodates everything. As such, it has very little or no value.

Thus, the first is better.

You sound really desperate if I may say so.
You are not saying that it is without basis.

Thus you have opened the floodgates for all the loonies, if you like, an excuse.

Thus 911 and the London bombing will continue.

Secondly, if we dismiss every idea on this basis - it becomes self fulfilling.

[Astreja]

How about this: man is made up of atoms; man is a sentient being
Man is made up of atoms: Appears to be a correct statement, based on my knowledge of science's current theories of matter.

Man is a sentient being: Also appears to be correct, but I would have to see a firm definition of "sentient" to hold a strong opinion one way or the other. For the purpose of simplicity, let's say yes, Man is a sentient being.

However, my cat Bastet is also a sentient being made up of atoms. I have not been proven to be Her and She has not been proven to be Me.

So, given that one can have two discrete atom-based sentient beings in the same room, how logical is it to postulate a universe comprised of Just One?

[911]

Man is made up of atoms: Appears to be a correct statement, based on my knowledge of science's current theories of matter.

Man is a sentient being: Also appears to be correct, but I would have to see a firm definition of "sentient" to hold a strong opinion one way or the other. For the purpose of simplicity, let's say yes, Man is a sentient being.

However, my cat Bastet is also a sentient being made up of atoms. I have not been proven to be Her and She has not been proven to be Me.

So, given that one can have two discrete atom-based sentient beings in the same room, how logical is it to postulate a universe comprised of Just One?

I agree how sentient" is defined is critical.

How about this? Is it possible that you and your cat are one sentient being after all?

[911]

Man is made up of atoms: Appears to be a correct statement, based on my knowledge of science's current theories of matter.

Man is a sentient being: Also appears to be correct, but I would have to see a firm definition of "sentient" to hold a strong opinion one way or the other. For the purpose of simplicity, let's say yes, Man is a sentient being.

However, my cat Bastet is also a sentient being made up of atoms. I have not been proven to be Her and She has not been proven to be Me.

So, given that one can have two discrete atom-based sentient beings in the same room, how logical is it to postulate a universe comprised of Just One?

or this; a distinct individual life can be made up of individual components of lives.

The humand body is made up individual living cells; but the question remains whether these individual living cells can be considered sentient beings in their own right.

[Gooch's dad]

I agree how sentient" is defined is critical.

How about this? Is it possible that you and your cat are one sentient being after all?

How could that hypothesis possibly be falsified in any way? If it can't, then it is meaningless as a scientific statement.

[911]

How could that hypothesis possibly be falsified in any way? If it can't, then it is meaningless as a scientific statement.

How about it is not meant to be a scientific statement - does its being not a scientific statement automatically makes it pointless and or useless?

and or; we have not yet been able to falsify it?

[Astreja]

Can I prove that my cat and I are not indeed the same being? I have purely anecdotal evidence to go on. I don't particularly like catmint, I don't sit on the neighbour's car and chase birds, and I type with greater accuracy.

The same argument could easily be extended to "Okay, now prove that *MY* brain, right here and right now, does not currently contain the magical collection of atoms that comprise The Will of God." That, IMHO, is an extraordinarily dangerous situation in the making.

[911]

Can I prove that my cat and I are not indeed the same being? I have purely anecdotal evidence to go on. I don't particularly like catmint, I don't sit on the neighbour's car and chase birds, and I type with greater accuracy.

The same argument could easily be extended to "Okay, now prove that *MY* brain, right here and right now, does not currently contain the magical collection of atoms that comprise The Will of God." That, IMHO, is an extraordinarily dangerous situation in the making.

I ask in the spirit of if we do not ask; we will never know; we are afterall: the www in http://www.xxx.xxx and only in recent history did www come into being.

if www does not know well it is very sad isn't it; since www is still new I have not dispaired as yet.

I do not accept that any idea can be: "an extraordinarily dangerous situation in the making."

As for "The Will Of God" are you jumping the gun a little?

[Gooch's dad]

How about it is not meant to be a scientific statement - does its being not a scientific statement automatically makes it pointless and or useless?

and or; we have not yet been able to falsify it?

Your OP was comparing a scientific statement (about the Big Bang) to your ideas about God. So yes, it does matter whether your conjectures qualify as scientific statements--and so far, they don't.

Regarding the falsification--you appear to misunderstand what I meant. I didn't ask if it IS false, but whether it could possibly be shown to be false, even hypothetically. If it cannot, it is equivalent to Last Thursdayism, which is the idea that aliens created the entire universe last Thursday, and all your memories of previous events were created at the same time. It's non-falsifiable, and therefore scientifically irrelevant.

[911]

Your OP was comparing a scientific statement (about the Big Bang) to your ideas about God. So yes, it does matter whether your conjectures qualify as scientific statements--and so far, they don't.

Regarding the falsification--you appear to misunderstand what I meant. I didn't ask if it IS false, but whether it could possibly be shown to be false, even hypothetically. If it cannot, it is equivalent to Last Thursdayism, which is the idea that aliens created the entire universe last Thursday, and all your memories of previous events were created at the same time. It's non-falsifiable, and therefore scientifically irrelevant.

Your OP was comparing a scientific statement (about the Big Bang) to your ideas about God. So yes, it does matter whether your conjectures qualify as scientific statements--and so far, they don't.

Regarding the falsification--you appear to misunderstand what I meant. I didn't ask if it IS false, but whether it could possibly be shown to be false, even hypothetically. If it cannot, it is equivalent to Last Thursdayism, which is the idea that aliens created the entire universe last Thursday, and all your memories of previous events were created at the same time. It's non-falsifiable, and therefore scientifically irrelevant.

and I say I did not mean that you say it is false.

just that we have not been able to show that it is false - YET

I know what you want to say - so show me that it is possible to show it to be false first!!!!

We are the www; give www a chance to show that it can be falsified or not;

[Astreja]

Can we go outside the universe? I don't think so.

Is there any physical evidence that gods exist? Haven't seen any peer-reviewed data lately.

Can you examine an atom to determine if it is (or is not) part of this thing you call 'God'? Unlikely. Even if we successfully identify the 'God' aspect of an atom, how do we determine that it's a universal phenomenon and not a localized one?

Based on the above, the statement "Every atom in the universe is a part of God" is a statement of faith rather than a scientific hypothesis that can be tested.

I do not accept that any idea can be: "an extraordinarily dangerous situation in the making."Then please, please be careful out there, 911. Anyone... You, me, the folks next door... can make an outrageous, untestable and unfalsifiable statement. And, if they have a modicum of people skills and some clever rhetoric, they can easily raise an army of well-meaning but fatally gullible followers.

It has happened before. It's happening right this minute. And it will keep on happening until we value reason over blind faith.

As for "The Will Of God" are you jumping the gun a little?<divine booming voice>Well, *I* don't think so...</divine booming voice> :D

[K]

911:

I know what you want to say - so show me that it is possible to show it to be false first!!!!

That's exactly his point. It doesn't appear that it is possible to show it to be false. And if there is no way to show it to be false, then it is of no real value.

For instance, I could say that I believe the moon is made of magical green cheese. This green cheese looks and behaves exactly like dust and rock when examined. In fact, there is no way to tell it apart from dust and rock. However, despite all that, it really is green cheese - magical green cheese.

There is no way to prove that is false. It can't be done. However, treating the moon as being made up of dust and rock makes sense since, even if it is made of green cheese, that cheese is indistinguishable from dust and rock.

Now let's look at "Every atom in the universe is a part of God."

It certainly doesn't look like that can be proven false. Even if every atom in the universe is a part of God, each atom in the universe behaves as if it isn't a part of God. Therefore, unless you have some kind of different operations of these atoms as a result of being part of God, it makes sense just to treat them as atoms. Just like it makes sense to treat the moon as being made of dust and rock instead of magical green cheese.

[911]

Can we go outside the universe? I don't think so.

Is there any physical evidence that gods exist? Haven't seen any peer-reviewed data lately.

Can you examine an atom to determine if it is (or is not) part of this thing you call 'God'? Unlikely. Even if we successfully identify the 'God' aspect of an atom, how do we determine that it's a universal phenomenon and not a localized one?

Based on the above, the statement "Every atom in the universe is a part of God" is a statement of faith rather than a scientific hypothesis that can be tested.

Then please, please be careful out there, 911. Anyone... You, me, the folks next door... can make an outrageous, untestable and unfalsifiable statement. And, if they have a modicum of people skills and some clever rhetoric, they can easily raise an army of well-meaning but fatally gullible followers.

It has happened before. It's happening right this minute. And it will keep on happening until we value reason over blind faith.

<divine booming voice>Well, *I* don't think so...</divine booming voice> :D

This certainly is tragic to me, personally.

I understand you completely and I understand the believers completely.

To ask them to not believe in God is almost like to ask them to not believe in themselves and surrender fully to "science."

It is like telling lovers; according to science and logic their love is ridiculous - yet billions fall in love.

It is like telling artists; according to science and logic their their work is meaningless;yet billions love their work

It is like telling gamblers; stop gambling, the house always wins... yet you will never stop people going to the casinos.

[Red Expendable]

You sound really desperate if I may say so.
You are not saying that it is without basis.

Thus you have opened the floodgates for all the loonies, if you like, an excuse.

Thus 911 and the London bombing will continue.

Secondly, if we dismiss every idea on this basis - it becomes self fulfilling.


Chime in here for a second.

Didn't you use this same faulty reasoning in another thread titled "God is God" - re: 911 and London bombings will continue?

First of all, let's make this very clear: If someone chooses to BELIEVE this b.s about god and then chooses to believe that god wants such and such person to kill and bomb in his/her/it's name, then that has NOTHING to do with ANOTHER person's lack of belief, and I might add it has nothing to do with the fact that there are some people will go on believing despite any evidence to the contrary.

If a non-believer can't convince a believer that his or her beliefs are irrational, it's not opening any "floodgates" as you say, and thereby causing 911's and London bombing type events to continue, which is exactly what you are implying.

If someone REFUSES to understand, or CHOOSES to remain in a state of ignorance and then launches his/her offenses, physical or mental at people who don't agree with them, that's their own doing.

Might I add that there are plenty of people that have committed worse atrocities than 9/11, etc. without religion and god on the brain. So even if the god concept did disappear, I would be willing to bet my left AND right nut, that 911's and London bombings and WORSE will STILL happen.

RedEx

[Mountain Man]

The universe exists because of the big bang; cannot be proven

Every atom in the universe is a part of God; cannot be provenYou need to prove the god exists BEFORE you can make any claims about it. Claiming that mater is god, is not proof.

[Mountain Man]

How about this: man is made up of atoms; man is a sentient beingSo. That is not proof of a god. It is only proof of you're getting desperate in trying to come up with an argument to support your god beliefs.

[MxM111]

This certainly is tragic to me, personally.

I understand you completely and I understand the believers completely.

To ask them to not believe in God is almost like to ask them to not believe in themselves and surrender fully to "science."

It is like telling lovers; according to science and logic their love is ridiculous - yet billions fall in love.

It is like telling artists; according to science and logic their their work is meaningless;yet billions love their work

It is like telling gamblers; stop gambling, the house always wins... yet you will never stop people going to the casinos.

Your first two examples are strange, and I would say incorrect. According to psychology, history and anthropology (which are sciences) love is not ridiculous and art is not meaningless.

The last example is about right how I would describe religious people - a gamblers who can not stop gambling. It is like mental deviation from norm, but on a mass scale and thus they are defying what norm is, and thus it is not considered as deviation, but rather as norm.

[-RRH-]

How about this: man is made up of atoms; man is a sentient beingThis is unusual. Most theists tend to not be materialists, and would propose that bot man and God are made of more than atoms.

[Autonemesis]

The universe exists because of the big bang; cannot be proven

But...


The universe exists
The universe was smaller in the past
If physics is uniform through time and space, then the expansion of the universe at the earliest epochs must have been very rapid.


No. 1 is not really testable, but I think we're safe assuming it. Forgive me if I wrongly assume you agree. I don't see how to proceed otherwise.

No. 2 is a fact, derived from astronomical observations collected for more than a century from all over the world.

No. 3 is a consequence of No. 1 and No. 2. The phase of rapid expansion is called the Big Bang. The universe we observe today emerged from it.

[FFT]

How about this: man is made up of atoms; man is a sentient beingRocks are made of atoms; rocks are sentient beings?

Bones are made out of atoms; bones are sentient beings?

Corpses are made out of atoms; corpses are sentient beings?

Sorry, doesn't work.

[911]

Chime in here for a second.

Didn't you use this same faulty reasoning in another thread titled "God is God" - re: 911 and London bombings will continue?

First of all, let's make this very clear: If someone chooses to BELIEVE this b.s about god and then chooses to believe that god wants such and such person to kill and bomb in his/her/it's name, then that has NOTHING to do with ANOTHER person's lack of belief, and I might add it has nothing to do with the fact that there are some people will go on believing despite any evidence to the contrary.

If a non-believer can't convince a believer that his or her beliefs are irrational, it's not opening any "floodgates" as you say, and thereby causing 911's and London bombing type events to continue, which is exactly what you are implying.

If someone REFUSES to understand, or CHOOSES to remain in a state of ignorance and then launches his/her offenses, physical or mental at people who don't agree with them, that's their own doing.

Might I add that there are plenty of people that have committed worse atrocities than 9/11, etc. without religion and god on the brain. So even if the god concept did disappear, I would be willing to bet my left AND right nut, that 911's and London bombings and WORSE will STILL happen.

RedEx

I only said what I said because many attributed "Belief in God to 911 and London."

All I am saying is that if this is the best you can do; I doubt that you can their their minds and so... 911 and London bombing will continue.

I fully agree with you that "that 911's and London bombings and WORSE will STILL happen."

I wanted to make a post about this and say China (suppresses religion;) the Muslim World (supresses theism for their own kind;) and the US (free for all.) You tell me which is best and which is worse?

But anyway you have given us a brilliant post and I will leave it as that.

[911]

Rocks are made of atoms; rocks are sentient beings?

Bones are made out of atoms; bones are sentient beings?

Corpses are made out of atoms; corpses are sentient beings?

Sorry, doesn't work.

Sorry I don't understand your post.

[FFT]

You were trying to equivocate "man is made of atoms, man is sentient" with "the universe is made of atoms, the universe is sentient." I was showing you why that doesn't work. Most things made of atoms are not sentient, are not even alive.

[911]

Surely not every part of the human body is "alive?"

[FFT]

No, but every part has a function. What function does a corpse have?

[911]

Is the tooth "alive?" and is it part of the human body?

[premjan]

parts of the tooth are alive.

[911]

not every part?

[premjan]

I guess the enamel is just an exuded mineral coating and not part of any cell.

http://www.animated-teeth.com/tooth_decay/t1_tooth_decay_cavities.htm

Enamel
The vast majority of the surface portion of a tooth that is visible is covered by enamel. You've probably heard that tooth enamel is the hardest tissue found in the human body. This is true. Enamel is over 95% mineral in composition. Most of this mineral is a compound called hydroxyapatite which, as you probably already know, has a high calcium content.


Dentin
You may be surprised to learn that teeth are not solid enamel. Only the portion of a tooth nature intended to lie at and above the gum line is covered by enamel. The bulk of a tooth, both its root and inner aspects, is composed of another calcified material called dentin. Dentin also contains the mineral hydroxyapatite, but to a lesser degree than enamel. Only about two thirds of the content of dentin is mineral so, relatively speaking, dentin is "softer" than enamel.

[David Vestal]

Originally Posted by David Vestal
The first is our best explanation so far for the natural phenomena we observe around us. As such, it has significant value.

The second is just a moot sort of wondering. It explains nothing, predicts nothing, is evidenced by nothing, and accommodates everything. As such, it has very little or no value.

Thus, the first is better.
You sound really desperate if I may say so.


:rolling:
Then I bet you're surrounded by desperate people.

[FatherMithras]

911 is clearly not very familiar with English or science. We can define sentience, and it's not "made of atoms" and no one would say brain cells are sentient if they know what they're talking about. I'm assuming the misunderstanding is due to the language barrier. If not, then you appear to be rambling about nothing and making free associations where none exist. Your OP was refuted, and now you're off in some tangent I can't even grasp due to the flawed logic...Why did you stray from the OP and refutation of it? The big bang has evidence, Got doesn't.

[Gawen]

How about this: man is made up of atoms; man is a sentient being
The Universe is made up of atoms; Universe is a sentient being.

Right?

[Gawen]

Disregard the above post. It appears my edit function does not work.

To ask them to not believe in God is almost like to ask them to not believe in themselves and surrender fully to "science." No one is asking anything of the sort. All I ask is for people to surrender to 'reason'.

It is like telling lovers; according to science and logic their love is ridiculous - yet billions fall in love.

It is like telling artists; according to science and logic their their work is meaningless;yet billions love their work

It is like telling gamblers; stop gambling, the house always wins... yet you will never stop people going to the casinos.

I cannot make much sense of your posts. I can't seem to grasp your point. I don't see the relevance of your posts to the Existence of God/s. Would you kindly help me out?

[911]

911 is clearly not very familiar with English or science. We can define sentience, and it's not "made of atoms" and no one would say brain cells are sentient if they know what they're talking about. I'm assuming the misunderstanding is due to the language barrier. If not, then you appear to be rambling about nothing and making free associations where none exist. Your OP was refuted, and now you're off in some tangent I can't even grasp due to the flawed logic...Why did you stray from the OP and refutation of it? The big bang has evidence, Got doesn't.

sentience does not exist outside a being and as far as we now know - all beings are made of atoms.... if we were to conform God into reality.... God must be made from atoms? Which particular atoms? Well all the atoms in the universe!

[911]

Disregard the above post. It appears my edit function does not work.

No one is asking anything of the sort. All I ask is for people to surrender to 'reason'.

I cannot make much sense of your posts. I can't seem to grasp your point. I don't see the relevance of your posts to the Existence of God/s. Would you kindly help me out?

You see, if for example if you tell me : Love does not exists - do not believe in Love

Let's say I take your advice.

Then all the Love experiences I might have from that day onwards become non-existent.

Everytime I feel like giving in to temptation I remember my promise to you and everytime I remotely admires somebody I banish the thought as ridiculous and so the flower died before it could bloom.

[regis]

911 Quote: Everytime I feel like giving in to temptation I remember my promise to you and everytime I remotely admires somebody I banish the thought as ridiculous and so the flower died before it could bloom.

You seem to be saying that if we rely upon science, all the mystery & wonder of life will evaporate like the morning dew. However, the more you get into the way science understands & explains the universe, the more magical & beautiful it becomes. Instead of looking at the sky in superstitious fear, you could be looking at it with scientific wonder . . .

No god, no Santa Claus, how wondrous!

:devil1:

[911]

911 Quote:
You seem to be saying that if we rely upon science, all the mystery & wonder of life will evaporate like the morning dew. However, the more you get into the way science understands & explains the universe, the more magical & beautiful it becomes. Instead of looking at the sky in superstitious fear, you could be looking at it with scientific wonder . . .

No god, no Santa Claus, how wondrous!

:devil1:

I agree... because God is in Science

Science is from God

No God? No science.

[Gawen]

You seem to be saying that if we rely upon science, all the mystery & wonder of life will evaporate like the morning dew. This is what I thought he was trying to say. Was trying to get him to be a little more clear.

However, the more you get into the way science understands & explains the universe, the more magical & beautiful it becomes. Instead of looking at the sky in superstitious fear, you could be looking at it with scientific wonder . . . I can go further than this. I like rain. Really, I don't need to know why it rains to enjoy it. Another example...I don't need to know the chemical composition of water to know I can swim in it and enjoy it as well.

As for 911, I don't need to know the scientific definitions (or the why's and how's) of emotions to know them OR experience them.

[911]

This is what I thought he was trying to say. Was trying to get him to be a little more clear.

I can go further than this. I like rain. Really, I don't need to know why it rains to enjoy it. Another example...I don't need to know the chemical composition of water to know I can swim in it and enjoy it as well.

As for 911, I don't need to know the scientific definitions (or the why's and how's) of emotions to know them OR experience them.

Are you putting words into my mouth or are you putting words into my mouth?

Stop believing in God - stop religious experiences that comes from believing in God

Stop believeing that going on a wild safari can be a rewarding experience and you will never go on a wild safari.

While you could be dragged screaming and kicking to a wild safari... nobody can surgically implant Faith into you.

[Barefoot Bree]

911, don't take this personally, but Firefox chatter does NOT belong in EoG. Splitting this off and sending it to ~E~.

Closing thread temporarily for split. BRB.

ETA: Firefox chatter split to here. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=146917) Carry on.

[FFT]

Stop believing in God - stop religious experiences that comes from believing in GodNo. Stop believing in God - Stop believing that so-called religious experiences come from God. A subtle but distinct difference.

Stop believeing that going on a wild safari can be a rewarding experience and you will never go on a wild safari.Well, yes, but that's just how preferences work. "I don't think going on a safari would be a rewarding experience." "Okay, well don't go on one then." I'm not really sure how you think this is an appropriate analogy.

[911]

No. Stop believing in God - Stop believing that so-called religious experiences come from God. A subtle but distinct difference.

Well, yes, but that's just how preferences work. "I don't think going on a safari would be a rewarding experience." "Okay, well don't go on one then." I'm not really sure how you think this is an appropriate analogy.

"religious experiences come from God" and "religious experiences come from believing in God"

A subtle but distinct difference.

============

Believing in God (like the safari trip) is a personal preference. Nobody puts a gun on your head.

[FFT]

There's the small matter of eternal damnation, isn't there?

[911]

There's the small matter of eternal damnation, isn't there?

Well it all depends on how you define damnation and if you accept the Christian definitions: separation from God rather than "hell fire;" damnation in the sense that your sentience is removed and as everybody knows; when a person's sentience is remove; the universe goes on.

[Alf]

How about this: man is made up of atoms; man is a sentient being

Man is a sentient being because we have a fairly advanced brain.

If you can provide evidence for a brain of the universe then we might start to believe you.

I am not holding my breath.

Alf

[ThorsHammer]

How about this: man is made up of atoms; man is a sentient being
So?

[ThorsHammer]

I agree how sentient" is defined is critical.

How about this? Is it possible that you and your cat are one sentient being after all?
No. And just to be able to put together a "what if" sentences doesn't make in valid.

[ThorsHammer]

or this; a distinct individual life can be made up of individual components of lives.

The humand body is made up individual living cells; but the question remains whether these individual living cells can be considered sentient beings in their own right.
Sentience is an emergent property of many nerve cells organized in a particular way and interacting in a particular way. I single cell (and type) isn't sentient.

[ThorsHammer]

This certainly is tragic to me, personally.

I understand you completely and I understand the believers completely.

To ask them to not believe in God is almost like to ask them to not believe in themselves and surrender fully to "science."

It is like telling lovers; according to science and logic their love is ridiculous - yet billions fall in love.

It is like telling artists; according to science and logic their their work is meaningless;yet billions love their work

It is like telling gamblers; stop gambling, the house always wins... yet you will never stop people going to the casinos.
In this, I agree with you. Emotions (and thats all they are) are difficult do dismiss, no matter how illogical they seem.

[Paul2]

I agree... because God is in Science

Science is from God

No God? No science.


Well that sounds really nice and all, but well if you don't mind, i don't want to be a bother, but do you happen to have anything to base that assertion on?

[ThorsHammer]

I agree... because God is in Science

Science is from God

No God? No science.
Useless assertions. They don't add anything to your arguments.

[Paul2]

You see, if for example if you tell me : Love does not exists - do not believe in Love

Let's say I take your advice.

Then all the Love experiences I might have from that day onwards become non-existent.



Let's explain somethings here.

The term "love" is multiple things. It can describe feelings you feel, and it can describe a state of being.

Examples:
"I am in love with my girl friend." That describes the relationship i have with her.
"I love pie." That says that i really enjoy pie.

Love can describe a feeling. Like when i see my girl friend for the first time after not seeing her for a while, my heart skips a beat.

Your "love experiences" exist, but you have to recognize what they are: your brain recognizes seeing something you "really like" which triggers endorphines, which then trigger chemical receptors in your brain that makes you feel the good love feeling that we all enjoy.

The idea that you seem to have about "love" is an abstract concept that doesn't exist outside of our own bodies.

There's nothing more to us than the reactions and interactions of chemicals.

[Barefoot Bree]

Getting to be an awful lot of one-liners in this thread. Can we try to keep to substantive posts, please, in keeping with the EoG guidelines? Thanks.

[911]

In this, I agree with you. Emotions (and thats all they are) are difficult do dismiss, no matter how illogical they seem.

That's where we part isn't it?

Emotions are real.

You then offer science and if I may say so; an inferior alternative when it comes to issues of emotions.

God on the other hand is an excellent alternative when it comes to issues on emotions.

Since science has disclaimers; well then, that sort of opens the door just a crack for Faith to slip in. Did you see th Gallup post thread about 94% believing in God one way or another?

[Astreja]

Emotions are real.Their manifestation is real. But what are they, really? A lot of them, such as fear, are chemical cascades intended to protect us from perceived or actual harm.

You then offer science and if I may say so; an inferior alternative when it comes to issues of emotions...God on the other hand is an excellent alternative when it comes to issues on emotions.It's an easy answer, but is it a correct answer? Not for me. I have yet to perceive any "god" content at all in my emotions, and I've been feeling emotions for nearly five decades. I think science is at least on the right track and am quite happy to consider its theories as they may eventually lead to "the truth."

Did you see the Gallup post thread about 94% believing in God one way or another?I saw it, and shrugged. Argumentum ad populum. (100%-1) would be equally unconvincing for me.

[911]

Their manifestation is real. But what are they, really? A lot of them, such as fear, are chemical cascades intended to protect us from perceived or actual harm.

It's an easy answer, but is it a correct answer? Not for me. I have yet to perceive any "god" content at all in my emotions, and I've been feeling emotions for nearly five decades. I think science is at least on the right track and am quite happy to consider its theories as they may eventually lead to "the truth."

I saw it, and shrugged. Argumentum ad populum. (100%-1) would be equally unconvincing for me.

I said that the reality is that 94% refused to discard it completely. The reality. As for the hows and whys; the reality remains that 94% flatly refuses.

The question then is: how do you reach such people? Through science?

Science if it is sentient would I suspect turn around and say - hold your horses; I never claimed to know everything - I calim that I am trying to find out more and more in a way that I think is the best alternative; I do not claim to know it all and I certainly do not claim that I will know it all; soon or another couple or billion years.

Until I tell you that I know all there is to know - let my people be.

[Afghan]

"I love pie." That says that i really enjoy pie.

Well let's hope so anyway.

[steamer]

Until I tell you that I know all there is to know - let my people be.

Your people seem to enjoy giving us the "good news". We enjoy letting them know that they have no basis for their news other than wishful thinking and self-delusion. Can you imagine your life without your invisible-magic-man-in-the-sky?

What would you think if I tried to convince you that I have a different but equally powerful invisible-magic-man-in-the-sky? Surely if one of these can exist then another is also possible. Hell, Why not populate our universe with an infinite number of them? Tell me how you know that your invisible-magic-man-in-the-sky exists but mine does not?

[911]

Your people seem to enjoy giving us the "good news". We enjoy letting them know that they have no basis for their news other than wishful thinking and self-delusion. Can you imagine your life without your invisible-magic-man-in-the-sky?

What would you think if I tried to convince you that I have a different but equally powerful invisible-magic-man-in-the-sky? Surely if one of these can exist then another is also possible. Hell, Why not populate our universe with an infinite number of them? Tell me how you know that your invisible-magic-man-in-the-sky exists but mine does not?

The question should be:

"Do I believe that my invisible-magic-man-in-the-sky exists?"
"Do I know that my invisible-magic-man-in-the-sky exists?"

You see, the "invisible-magic-man-in-the-sky" does not need you to prove his existence.

You of all people should not worry about the "invisible-magic-man-in-the-sky" as you cling on to science no matter what.

With all those disclaimers that comes with science and if you can believe that there are 11 dimensions in this universe and 6 of them compacted into tiny balls - well maybe not you, maybe not the scientists; but as far as I am concern; if you want me to believe that; well do not begrudge me for believing in the "invisible-magic-man-in-the-sky."

[K]

911:

With all those disclaimers that comes with science and if you can believe that there are 11 dimensions in this universe and 6 of them compacted into tiny balls - well maybe not you, maybe not the scientists; but as far as I am concern; if you want me to believe that; well do not begrudge me for believing in the "invisible-magic-man-in-the-sky."

I don't think many will begrudge your believing so long as your invisible magic man doesn't tell anyone but you how to live your life. And as long as he doesn't tell you to do anything that would violate the rights of others. However, since you are comparing belief in God to belief in an 11 dimensional time-space, I think it's important to point out that there is a fair amount of evidence that suggests that there may be 11 dimensions. There is a total of zero that suggests God exists.

You do have a point, though. The energies required to test some of the key aspects of M-Theory are unimaginably far beyond our current ability to deal with. So, for the time being, much of M-Theory, like God, remains relatively untestable. That being said, there is still a huge difference. The goal of scientists is still to find falsifiable predictions from M-Theory that can be tested. This is not and will never be the case with believers in God.

[911]

So, for the time being, much of M-Theory, like God, remains relatively untestable. That being said, there is still a huge difference. The goal of scientists is still to find falsifiable predictions from M-Theory that can be tested. This is not and will never be the case with believers in God.

You are certainly one of the more intellectually honest people here.

I understand the differences you mentioned in that M-Theory proceeded from well tested preceedence whereas believe in God proceeded from personal experience that one attributes to God.

I agree that a believer should not impose his beliefs onto another.

I am of the opinion that a believer can and should explain his belief in forums like these where people can simply ignore "all that rubbish" and or when someone actually comes to a believer and asks: What and why do you believe?

[steamer]

You see, the "invisible-magic-man-in-the-sky" does not need you to prove his existence.

No, but he needs you or people like you. Otherwise he will fade from the minds of men just like all the other gods. Zeus and Yahweh exist in exactly the same way, as ideas in the minds of men. Once they are forgotten, they no longer exist.


You of all people should not worry about the "invisible-magic-man-in-the-sky" as you cling on to science no matter what.

We all cling to science, to say otherwise is pretty dishonest in my opinion. I don't see any Christians moving mountains or walking on water. They have no magic powers. If they want to move a mountain, they get bulldozers like everyone else. If they try to walk on water they had better know how to swim. Your invisible-magic-man-in-the-sky doesn't need you or me to exist in the minds of men, he just needs some gullible minds.


With all those disclaimers that comes with science and if you can believe that there are 11 dimensions in this universe and 6 of them compacted into tiny balls - well maybe not you, maybe not the scientists; but as far as I am concern; if you want me to believe that; well do not begrudge me for believing in the "invisible-magic-man-in-the-sky."

Ah but I do. To compare science to religion is to claim all history is fiction. Would your god exist if he weren't written about by Hebrew goatherders? You assume that he exists...you assume that these goadherders were inspired by god to write these books...you assume the books were collected faithfully and god participated in the building of it....you assume that he exists now floating about in the sky. Without YOU and your many many assumptions, this god would not exist. Your god doesn't need me, he needs you. His very existence depends on you.

[911]

No, but he needs you or people like you. Otherwise he will fade from the minds of men just like all the other gods. Zeus and Yahweh exist in exactly the same way, as ideas in the minds of men. Once they are forgotten, they no longer exist.

We all cling to science, to say otherwise is pretty dishonest in my opinion. I don't see any Christians moving mountains or walking on water. They have no magic powers. If they want to move a mountain, they get bulldozers like everyone else. If they try to walk on water they had better know how to swim. Your invisible-magic-man-in-the-sky doesn't need you or me to exist in the minds of men, he just needs some gullible minds.

Ah but I do. To compare science to religion is to claim all history is fiction. Would your god exist if he weren't written about by Hebrew goatherders? You assume that he exists...you assume that these goadherders were inspired by god to write these books...you assume the books were collected faithfully and god participated in the building of it....you assume that he exists now floating about in the sky. Without YOU and your many many assumptions, this god would not exist. Your god doesn't need me, he needs you. His very existence depends on you.

You seem to have forgotten that there were believers before there were scriptures. It can never be the other way around.

You do not understand my position fully but that is fine. I am actually against many aspects of current religious beliefs and practices but that is another story. I am only interested for now in the apologetics of God; not Christianity or religion.

I have always maintained that I am for science but only as far as science can go. Where science fear to thread; go I by Faith.

Your last paragraph again assumes in error that scriptures came before believers; an absurdity.

[steamer]

You seem to have forgotten that there were believers before there were scriptures. It can never be the other way around.

You mean since the time men acquired imagination and the language to pass it on? I'll buy that.


You do not understand my position fully but that is fine. I am actually against many aspects of current religious beliefs and practices but that is another story. I am only interested for now in the apologetics of God; not Christianity or religion.

For every god you believe there is one you don't believe. What on earth can possibly be your criteria to decide between them?


I have always maintained that I am for science but only as far as science can go. Where science fear to thread; go I by Faith.

I can also imagine past what science can prove, multiverse anyone? Going by faith means you are speculating in a personified being? If not, then you are no theist and not even a deist.

Your last paragraph again assumes in error that scriptures came before believers; an absurdity.

I really don't see your point, of course someone imagined a story before they wrote it down. Still, if you are not Christian then this particular mention does not apply to you, but some scripture apparently does apply to you and all scripture is writing and all writings are written by men. The point stands.

[911]

You mean since the time men acquired imagination and the language to pass it on? I'll buy that.

For every god you believe there is one you don't believe. What on earth can possibly be your criteria to decide between them?

I can also imagine past what science can prove, multiverse anyone? Going by faith means you are speculating in a personified being? If not, then you are no theist and not even a deist.

I really don't see your point, of course someone imagined a story before they wrote it down. Still, if you are not Christian then this particular mention does not apply to you, but some scripture apparently does apply to you and all scripture is writing and all writings are written by men. The point stands.

The word in question is "imagined." Someone wrote down his or her experiences.

Since it is not falsifiable; you need to test it based on your own life experiences.

In fact you can be the originator of scriptures. Why not?

When you originate scriptures; you find that "hey this is what these people all those thousand of years ago are saying!"

So it comes down to whether you want to or should even try to compile a book and call it the Gospel according to "steamer?"

Whatever for? People will come to their understanding of God when they seek God. I have no doubt that as long as they are seeking and they are honest with themselves; God will guide them.

God is God

[Yahzi]

I have no doubt that as long as they are seeking and they are honest with themselves; God will guide them.
What if God guides them to understand there is no God?

Mystic Atheism (http://www.jhuger.com/mystic_atheism.php)

[911]

What if God guides them to understand there is no God?

Mystic Atheism (http://www.jhuger.com/mystic_atheism.php)

You know that part where he says: "All these might be true, but they are also all gross and insulting trivializations."

You know that part where he says: "I knew, in a way that those of you who haven't had a similar experience just can't understand."

You know that part where he says: "I asked if He existed. He said "No.""

Now I want you please meditate on: "All these might be true, but they are also all gross and insulting trivializations."

Why don't you find out for yourself? Why take it from me? Why take it from the Bible? Why take it from Buddhist or Hindu or Islamic scriptutres? Why take it from the writer of that link?

Once something is written down it becomes: "All these might be true, but they are also all gross and insulting trivializations."

You need to experience it for yourself.

God is God

[lenrek]

... Now I want you please meditate on: "All these might be true, but they are also all gross and insulting trivializations." ...

Huh? May I know just how to meditate on this?

[911]

They are all gross trivializations... meditate on God's infinity...

[FFT]

You seem to have forgotten that there were believers before there were scriptures. It can never be the other way around.Mormons.

[FFT]

Did I kill the thread?

I think I've got a pretty sound response, there.

[ouroborous]

You sound really desperate if I may say so.
You are not saying that it is without basis.

Thus you have opened the floodgates for all the loonies, if you like, an excuse.

Thus 911 and the London bombing will continue.

Secondly, if we dismiss every idea on this basis - it becomes self fulfilling.

Actually it's a very valid point. For something to be accepted as a (scientific) hypothesis, it must have explanatory power. The "everything is God" hypothesis has no such power. There's no theory to test, nothing to disprove. In fact, it can coexist 100% with the BB theory (the Big Bang could have been the beginning of all observable time and space, AND every atom could be part of God).

When a theory "explains" everything, then in reality it explains nothing. If a theory can't be tested, it's certainly not scientific in any way.

Hence the "everything is God" theory is really not a theory at all. It's just, as the respondant stated, a sort of vague wondering -- of the sort that seems really deep and meaningful at 3am or when stoned, but which in reality has just about no concrete meaning.

The Big Bang theory, on the other hand, produces specific, testable outcomes, many of which have been verified. It is therefore scientific and seems to fit the available evidence. Therefore, as an explanatory theory, it's clearly superior.

I blame the schools: it seems that people are so poorly educated in science and critical thinking that they can mistake the phrase "every atom is part of God" for a scientific theory. That statement may have some meaning in a theological context, but it has nothing to do with science.

[911]

Did I kill the thread?

I think I've got a pretty sound response, there.

I think the thread has moved on.

[FFT]

Interesting, since it's totally at the top of a new page.

[911]

Actually it's a very valid point. For something to be accepted as a (scientific) hypothesis, it must have explanatory power. The "everything is God" hypothesis has no such power. There's no theory to test, nothing to disprove. In fact, it can coexist 100% with the BB theory (the Big Bang could have been the beginning of all observable time and space, AND every atom could be part of God).

When a theory "explains" everything, then in reality it explains nothing. If a theory can't be tested, it's certainly not scientific in any way.

Hence the "everything is God" theory is really not a theory at all. It's just, as the respondant stated, a sort of vague wondering -- of the sort that seems really deep and meaningful at 3am or when stoned, but which in reality has just about no concrete meaning.

The Big Bang theory, on the other hand, produces specific, testable outcomes, many of which have been verified. It is therefore scientific and seems to fit the available evidence. Therefore, as an explanatory theory, it's clearly superior.

I blame the schools: it seems that people are so poorly educated in science and critical thinking that they can mistake the phrase "every atom is part of God" for a scientific theory. That statement may have some meaning in a theological context, but it has nothing to do with science.

After going past "blaming the schools" then what?

What does one do given this "reality?"

Bush I think would say I blame the schools for not teaching "God."

[David Vestal]

After going past "blaming the schools" then what?

Live life, be happy, and try not to screw the world up any more than it already is. Improve it, even. Why do so many people seem unable to see this as a valid godless approach to life?

[911]

Live life, be happy, and try not to screw the world up any more than it already is. Improve it, even. Why do so many people seem unable to see this as a valid godless approach to life?

This certainly is an excellent approach. Like I said - believe in God or not; it does not affect God. It is for your own sake. If you need God, seek God.