God Doesnt Exist

Originally posted by saint4God
Hopes do not generate an outcome, it generates a positive outlook.

Perhaps you should define "hope" to avoid further confusion. In the context of Hebrews 11:1, it seems to be used synonymously with "desire" or "want", or possibly even "need", but I don't see how it could simply mean "optimism".

But I have little interest in debating definitions. If we can't come to an agreement on what words mean within the context of this conversation, we should cut our losses.

Originally posted by saint4God
Rationalizing to change the truth to conform to one's own selfish desires is emotional immaturity. One should always seek to understand though by using reason and logic.[/qoute]

Good then. Do you also agree that logic and reason alone are insufficient to understanding? Do they not also require sound premises (those based on evidence) to be of any use?

Originally posted by saint4God
If I use definition A and someone uses definition B, clarification is imperative as not to falsely assume an incorrect meaning.

Well we have plenty of common ground.

Would you also agree that the choice of definition A vs. definition B is not arbitrary for an honest discussion, but depend on context and typical expectations of which definition is in use?

Originally posted by saint4God
I didn't prove what didn't exist. I got proof of what does exist. What does exist informs me of what does and does not exist.

How you were informed that leprechauns don't exist? I thought you had said you concluded they don't exist because thre is no credible evidence in support of them. Perhaps I misunderstod.

Originally posted by saint4God
Per above, you did not seek Him out, you're waiting for Him to seek you out. From my experience and interactions with Him, I can say you may be waiting a looooong time.

Of course I don't seek him out. To do so would require that I already believe, which I don't. Is that really so hard to comprehend? I don't seek out leprechauns, I don't seek out invisible dragons, I don't seek out unicorns, etc.

But, I did what he supposedly requires in spite of that lack of faith as a test to falsify my conclusion. The Bible claims anything you ask in his name will be granted (with the context that what you are asking is in accordance with his will). Either this is a lie, he is planning to respond later on, or it isn't his will that I believe. Regardless, nothing changes in the interim. I can see no failure in my reasoning on this. Can you point it out?

What actions did you take to seek out leprechauns before you dimissed the idea?

Originally posted by saint4God
Even further, based on things known to be true to TRUST that everything flowing from that source is also true.

Well, you have "knowledge" I don't posess, and that is not within the power of either of us for me to gain beyond what I've already done.

Originally posted by saint4God
I will shoot things down when the things I know to be true contradict the things I know not to be true.

I'll be blunt. I seriously question that what you are calling "knowledge" really is. I know you've offered to give me your testimnoy, but we both know I'm not going to accept it at face value. Until I have a similar experience, I'm stuck.

Originally posted by saint4God
To say all Christians should care about science is like saying all professors should care about football.

I was referring to philosophy, not so much science per se. But since Christianity makes claims regarding truth, it's fair to pick those claims apart, even if the people making the claims aren't interested or don't understand why their suppositions are inconsistent. But really, if you are incapable of comprehending philosophical arguments, is it fair to say that your conclusions rest on a third party authority? In that case, your claims of truth are only as reliable as those authorities.

This is no different than a layman talking about quantum mechanics with no inkling of what the expression means. They are simply trusting the reliability of those who have told them about it. A rational layman would realize they have no actual knowledge on the subject, but merely knowledge of the reliability of the sources. A skeptic layman would go further and attempt some verification of the reliability of the sources.

Originally posted by saint4God
You run into the same problem with science. Everything has it's origin, yet science cannot define where particulate matter originated from. How is not knowing in science different than not knowing as a Christian?

There's a big difference. Science doesn't claim to provide the answer to that question. Yet, with no credible evidence whatsoever, Christianity does make such a claim (and a nonsensical one at that).

Originally posted by spamandham
Well of course anything can mean everything with insufficient specificity. In religious discussions, the context of faith is "belief without proof".

I disagree with your premise here. Which is the reason I suggested to not close your mind to the possibility of the existance of evidence, and the reason we are having this discussion.

In the case of Christianity, you provided Paul's definition as "faith is a confident anticipation of things hoped for, a full persuasion of events not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). The portion after the comma clarifies that it is not merely a reserved confidence (as in the case of planning a picnic), but a "full persuasion", i.e., no doubt. It also clarifies that this doubtless belief is in "events not seen", i.e. that which can not be proven.

All future events are not seen. (as in the case of planning a picnic)

Is it common to plan a picnic with no doubt about the weather, and without even checking the forcast? And even if the forcast is checked, is there full persuasion that the weather will cooperate?

Is it emotionally mature to worry about things over which you have no control?

The faith part was that the universe was fundamentally deterministic. There is no way to infer that from macroscopic observations, and it really was just a desired outcome, so I think that counts as faith. Yes, those who took such a perspective could have used a bit more emotional maturing, assuming they realized that's what they were doing.

They made a hypothesis. After years of observations being applied to the model, the model ultimately failed. How does that make them emotionally immature? Is it emotionally immature to hypothesize?

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

Originally posted by spamandham

The faith part was that the universe was fundamentally deterministic. There is no way to infer that from macroscopic observations, and it really was just a desired outcome, so I think that counts as faith. Yes, those who took such a perspective could have used a bit more emotional maturing, assuming they realized that's what they were doing.

They made a hypothesis. After years of observations being applied to the model, the model ultimately failed. How does that make them emotionally immature? Is it emotionally immature to hypothesize?

Hold up. I was very specific to include only those who made a conclusion based on invalid inferences simply because they found such a conclusion appealing, and knew that's what they were doing. Everyone makes mistakes, so those who simply draw an invalid inference without realizing it are not guilty of faith. But once informed of such an error, persistence is immature.

It was knowable before QM that properties from the macroscopic do not necessarily equate with properties from finer resolutions. There were some who stubbornly insisted that they did equate, even after the evidence came rolling in, including Einstein.

He was no dummy, so it's a stretch to blame this failing on lack of intellect or even knowledge in his case. But he was a human, subject to emotions like the rest of us, and capable fo letting emotion get in the way of reason.

Regarding QM, Einstein went as far as to say "God does not play dice with the universe". Clearly he was letting his emotions get the better of him on this.

At this point, I must formally accuse you of attempting to form a strawman. No reasonable person could conclude my comments equated to "making a hypothesis".

There is neither faith nor emotional immaturity in the formation of a hypothesis. A hypothesis is nothing more than a guess based on partial inferences, with the recognition that more often than not, such guesses are wrong.

Perhaps I should have asked for clarification of "universal determinism". There is "the universe is predetermined" perpective (western determinism), but also in a cause and effect perspective (eastern determinism).

QM still has not pulled itself completely away from either of these theories.

The Bell test experiments performed still have loophopes that allow for local hidden variables (western). If one considers Many worlds quantum theory, universal determinism takes on a whole new meaning (western).

The cause and effect (eastern) is clearly visible in QM wave forms. A cause creates a wave form. While a the collapse of a wave form creates an effect.

But, I didn't wish to debate the science, otherwise, I would have pointed out that universal determination could be inferred from macroscopic observations. (At least the eastern version thereof.)


All that said, making a hypothesis and testing it does require faith. If one did not have some measure of faith in one's hypothesis there would be no need to test it.


On Einstein and God:

here



[edit on 23-6-2005 by Raphael_UO]

Originally posted by spamandham
Perhaps you should define "hope" to avoid further confusion. In the context of Hebrews 11:1, it seems to be used synonymously with "desire" or "want", or possibly even "need", but I don't see how it could simply mean "optimism".

But I have little interest in debating definitions. If we can't come to an agreement on what words mean within the context of this conversation, we should cut our losses.

I was more focused on what hope generates, not what it is. I'll go with Merriam Webster to say "to cherish a desire with anticipation". It's all a question of motivation really. Do you hope for your personal wants/gains? of others? of the greater good? These concepts are hard to discuss, which is why they make such interesting conversation. I see where you're coming from, in that a lot of us (if not most) fire off hope because we want something and then do whatever we can to make it happen whether or not it is meant to be or true, and that is a misfire. That's not what it's supposed to be used for. Acceptance of truth is fundamental, because no matter what we hope for, we need to live in the reality that surrounds us else be forever lost. The proper usage of hope is the recognition that by doing so for the right reason builds strength and positive thinking to get through difficult situations. God tells us that we are to use this tool and that it helps us understand and get closer to him. 1 Corinthians 13:13 among others.

Originally posted by spamandham
Good then. Do you also agree that logic and reason alone are insufficient to understanding?

Yes. I believe the ancient Greeks understood that idea more than a lot of modern day folk.

Originally posted by spamandham
Do they not also require sound premises (those based on evidence) to be of any use?

Yes.

Originally posted by spamandham
Well we have plenty of common ground.

I think so too. I think I'm starting to understand your language better now, what you mean in your words and the thought processes behind them.

Originally posted by spamandham
Would you also agree that the choice of definition A vs. definition B is not arbitrary for an honest discussion, but depend on context and typical expectations of which definition is in use?

Did you just call me typical? ;-). I'm afraid the further I go in life, the more I consider myself atypical. This can be a communication problem on my part or simply a different perspective. Which it is, I don't know, but always welcome feedback.

Originally posted by spamandham
How you were informed that leprechauns don't exist? I thought you had said you concluded they don't exist because thre is no credible evidence in support of them. Perhaps I misunderstod.

I'm going to oversimplify for the sake of time and not crowding the thread space. I was very angry with all the things that were beyond the human realm because I believed that if they could produce no evidence, then they did not exist. It was either that or they refused to show that they exist. In case it was the latter, I called up any force that existed beyond the human realm to reveal itself to me. I cannot emphasize enough how stupid of a move this is. Do not do this, I don't like to talk about it because I'm afraid that someone else will try and have to go through it. Worse still, not make it through it at all. Anyhow, I had an attendee show up to which I seeked refuge from. The One, someone suggested, would be able to do so. With that success and those two proofs, I have been directed what is and is not the case in reality. I was told reality is not subjective, no shades of grey in the world beyond and we have a long history of mucking it all up. This summary doesn't give a whole picture, and is very oversimplified, but it's the best way I can get the meaning across with few words.

Originally posted by spamandham
Of course I don't seek him out. To do so would require that I already believe, which I don't. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

Not at all, but if you're wondering why "God failed to deliver" it certainly could be because you really didn't expect Him to in the first place....and how could you if you didn't believe He even existed. Just being the car mechanic for someone who says they have a knock in their engine.

Originally posted by spamandham
I don't seek out leprechauns, I don't seek out invisible dragons, I don't seek out unicorns, etc.

Perhaps it's an avenue worth exploring. Maybe by eliminating the impossible, the possible becomes clearer. "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes in "A Scandal in Bohemia" by Sir Author Conan Doyle. It's a long way of going about it, but if that's what it takes it's a journey worth taking.

Originally posted by spamandham
But, I did what he supposedly requires in spite of that lack of faith

I think you may have hit it on the head. It could have been in spite of that lack of faith. In other words, do you think he said "no" because there wasn't that trust? He does say "no" ya know, because He is God, not a magical wishing well.

Originally posted by spamandham
as a test to falsify my conclusion. The Bible claims anything you ask in his name will be granted (with the context that what you are asking is in accordance with his will).

Wow you are on it! That's exactly the context - accordance with His will. Now if you question why it's not, then that's perfectly fine. To stomp your feet and walk away does not demonstrate a mature line of thinking.

Originally posted by spamandham
Either this is a lie, he is planning to respond later on, or it isn't his will that I believe. Regardless, nothing changes in the interim. I can see no failure in my reasoning on this. Can you point it out?

I think you've hit on a lot of very important and powerful points here. Maybe he is waiting for a response later on. Maybe He is responding right now. In any case, to close the door never generates anything except resentment, ill-will, and no hope of understanding.

Originally posted by spamandham
What actions did you take to seek out leprechauns before you dimissed the idea?

Per above, have challenged before and am still challenging to this day.

Originally posted by spamandham
Well, you have "knowledge" I don't posess, and that is not within the power of either of us for me to gain beyond what I've already done.

I am not a special super-human at all. Everyone here is a brother or sister. I'd say with that statement you're lacking hope. Why not believe that you can gain more, that you can grow. If you're wrong, then what have you lost? If you're right, that hope can lead you to the answer. If you're looking for instruction on obtaining the proof you need in order to believe, well, that's exactly what I've been instructed to come here to do. So, let me help you and I myself will understand why on earth of all the places to be in the world right now I am here.

Originally posted by spamandham
I'll be blunt. I seriously question that what you are calling "knowledge" really is. I know you've offered to give me your testimnoy, but we both know I'm not going to accept it at face value. Until I have a similar experience, I'm stuck.

Blunt is good. Please do question what I call knowledge instead of dismissing and walking away. I agree, nothing I can say can make you believe. I'm fairly certain that your experience won't be the same as mine because we are different people of different experience and require different proof in order to believe. God doesn't go around trying to make clones. Beside the fact that it's boring, it's also pointless. Ready for instruction #1? Acquisition of hope. Can you believe that you are not stuck, that based on the fact that you've learned new things in the past, that you can learn new things going forward until you get the answer you're looking for?

Originally posted by spamandham
I was referring to philosophy, not so much science per se. But since Christianity makes claims regarding truth, it's fair to pick those claims apart, even if the people making the claims aren't interested or don't understand why their suppositions are inconsistent. But really, if you are incapable of comprehending philosophical arguments, is it fair to say that your conclusions rest on a third party authority? In that case, your claims of truth are only as reliable as those authorities.

I don't know what other people are basing their decision to believe on. I'm a skeptic. All I know is that if someone arrives a the truth without having to go through the Hell I had to, then hats off to that! That's all I can say.

Originally posted by spamandham
This is no different than a layman talking about quantum mechanics with no inkling of what the expression means. They are simply trusting the reliability of those who have told them about it. A rational layman would realize they have no actual knowledge on the subject, but merely knowledge of the reliability of the sources. A skeptic layman would go further and attempt some verification of the reliability of the sources.

This would assume that a Christian has no direct communication or interaction with God to verify. The Book itself says we need to seek God first. Respectable churches should say the same. The reliable sources inbetween are just there for reinforcement, thinking, discussion, etc. Us Christians tend to get wrapped up in the affairs of the world or what's going on personally and that can cause us to fall away for a little while. So in response to that, we try to maintain the discipline to focus on the original purpose of all of this.

Originally posted by spamandham
There's a big difference. Science doesn't claim to provide the answer to that question. Yet, with no credible evidence whatsoever, Christianity does make such a claim (and a nonsensical one at that).

Christianity doesn't claim to provide the scientific formula on the formation of particulate matter, it just speaks of who is responsible. Science says chance is responsible, God just steps in and says, "no, it was Me who did it." That causes a big problem for us humans, because now theirs a war between our intelligence and His. We do not want to admit we're wrong and we fear becoming drones (which is not true) to a superior force.

Hehe, that's interesting. I've got Matthew Sweet playing on the CD-player, and I didn't think he believed in God, but now I'm starting to wonder. Ironic really, because it reminds me of the things you've been saying. Here's the lyrics to Divine Intervention:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know where I'm gonna live
I don't know if I'll find a place
I'd have to think about it some
And that I do not wish to face
I guess I'm counting on His
Divine intervention
I cannot understand my God
I don't know why it gets to me
One day my life is filled with joy
And then we find we disagree
All depending on His
Divine intervention
Alright
(solo)
We're all counting on His...[divine]
Does He love us?
Does He love us?
Does He love us?
Does He love us?
Hmmm now does He love us?
I look around
And all I see is destruction
We're all counting on His
Divine intervention
When He comes the sun shine
When He comes the sun shine
Sunshine, the sunshine
Here it comes...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really do believe you're on the verge of obtaining your proof and hope you do. I think there's just a few obstacles to clear in order to get it. I have faith that if you seek it out, you'll get it. It's out of love as a brother/sister that I'm willing to do whatever I can to make that possible for "...with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26).


[edit on 23-6-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
But, I didn't wish to debate the science, otherwise, I would have pointed out that universal determination could be inferred from macroscopic observations. (At least the eastern version thereof.)

Not really. You must lean on hidden variables to make the leap, which merely pushes indeterminism back a level rather than eliminating it. But, I don't really want to get into QM here either as the specifics are irrelevant to the current discussion. Suffice it to say that at the time the first QM evidence started rolling in, it appeared to be truly indeterminate. Yet the possibility that it truly is indeterminate was automatically rejected by many including Einstein. Whether there is determinism in some sense behind it all is still not known some ~75 years later.

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
All that said, making a hypothesis and testing it does require faith. If one did not have some measure of faith in one's hypothesis there would be no need to test it.

By my definition, which IMHO is what faith is commonly understood to mean within a religious context, there is no faith whatsoever in the formation or testing of a hypothesis (you wouldn't bother to test something you had faith in). You are using a very loose and nonstandard definition of faith that I think is even looser than 'belief'.

Since we are not using the same definition of faith, and neither of us is willing to budge, it seems prudent to end this discussion.

Originally posted by saint4God
I'm going to oversimplify for the sake of time and not crowding the thread space. I was very angry with all the things that were beyond the human realm because I believed that if they could produce no evidence, then they did not exist. It was either that or they refused to show that they exist. In case it was the latter, I called up any force that existed beyond the human realm to reveal itself to me.

Ok, but leprechaun mythology does not have them being omniscient. They could be real, but simply unaware that you were summoning them, or possibly aware but didn't care to show up. Can you really simply dismiss those possibilities? If I base my belief on the existence of George WMD Bush on whether or not he personally returns my phone calls, I would have to conclude he doesn't exist.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Of course I don't seek him out. To do so would require that I already believe, which I don't. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

Not at all, but if you're wondering why "God failed to deliver" it certainly could be because you really didn't expect Him to in the first place....and how could you if you didn't believe He even existed. Just being the car mechanic for someone who says they have a knock in their engine.

Really, your claim that it is possible to truly seek what you believe to be fictional is absurd.

You didn't find leprechauns because you didn't truly seek them out. Had you earnestly sought them, you would have found them and they would have given you a pot of gold.

Bugs Bunny is real! But, only those who truly seek him can find him. If you fail to find him, it's because you weren't earnest in your quest.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
I don't seek out leprechauns, I don't seek out invisible dragons, I don't seek out unicorns, etc.

Perhaps it's an avenue worth exploring. Maybe by eliminating the impossible, the possible becomes clearer. "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes in "A Scandal in Bohemia" by Sir Author Conan Doyle. It's a long way of going about it, but if that's what it takes it's a journey worth taking.

It isn't possible to eliminate the impossibility of the existence of that which does not exist. You and I are forever stuck with the possibility that leprechauns, unicorns, and invisible dragons are real. But, we are justified to dismiss them out of hand because there is no credible evidence to suggest they are real.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Either this is a lie, he is planning to respond later on, or it isn't his will that I believe. Regardless, nothing changes in the interim. I can see no failure in my reasoning on this. Can you point it out?

I think you've hit on a lot of very important and powerful points here. Maybe he is waiting for a response later on. Maybe He is responding right now. In any case, to close the door never generates anything except resentment, ill-will, and no hope of understanding.

I gave him an invite, and the door is open. All he has to do is walk through it, or at least RSVP. You seem to think he's responded and I rejected the response. How can I reject that which is not recognized? I don't know what your specific experience is, although it sounds a lot like sleep paralysis, but I have not had such an experience.

Originally posted by saint4God
Why not believe that you can gain more, that you can grow. If you're wrong, then what have you lost?

You seem to think I am capable of willing myself to believe things. Perhaps your brain works that way, but mine doesn't. When presented with sufficient evidence, I believe. I have no choice in the matter, its subconscious. Likewise, I can not believe something simply because I want it to be true. Further, I would not want my mind to work that way as its counter productive.

There are two classes of believers as far as I can tell. The first class believes because they have obtained what they consider credible evidence. This is the vast majority I think. The second class does not think there is any credible evidence and believes anyway. The second group is practicing self deception. You believe not because you have faith, but because you receieved the proof you needed.

The conversation is starting to go around in circles.

Originally posted by saint4God
Christianity doesn't claim to provide the scientific formula on the formation of particulate matter, it just speaks of who is responsible. Science says chance is responsible,

Science doesn't say chance is responsible. There are questions that can not be answered either because the question implies an unsound premise, or because there is no basis to answer it. If there is no basis to answer the question, the proper response is to recognize that and leave it unanswered rather than inventing stories to fill the gaps.

Originally posted by spamandham
Ok, but leprechaun mythology does not have them being omniscient. They could be real, but simply unaware that you were summoning them, or possibly aware but didn't care to show up. Can you really simply dismiss those possibilities? If I base my belief on the existence of George WMD Bush on whether or not he personally returns my phone calls, I would have to conclude he doesn't exist.

Then why would I worship them? If they do not have ominiscient power nor care and someone shows up who does, guess what :-). As far as Bush goes, I see him, hear him, see the effects of him, but if you ask me what I think of him I'll say, "dunno, never met him." So yes, for me God is more real that George Bush.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Ok, but leprechaun mythology does not have them being omniscient. They could be real, but simply unaware that you were summoning them, or possibly aware but didn't care to show up. Can you really simply dismiss those possibilities? If I base my belief on the existence of George WMD Bush on whether or not he personally returns my phone calls, I would have to conclude he doesn't exist.

Then why would I worship them?

We weren't talking about worshipping them, we were talking about your rationale for dismissing their existence. You previously stated you do not believe leprechauns are real, but have yet to explain in a substantiative way how you arrived at that conclusion. I'm beginning to think you're dodging the question.

Originally posted by saint4God
...God is more real that George Bush.

...if only that were true.

Originally posted by saint4God
One of two things will happen. A) You'll find it or B) You will not find it. If you search and do not find, what have you lost? If you search and you do find, what have you gained? We're sitting here bickering about it. That, my friend, is more of a waste of time than truth seeking in my opinion.

The only reason we're bickering is because you refuse to accept that I have already done all I can do to search, which I suspect has been a great deal more effort than you expended searching for leprechauns. This part of the one-sided conversation is over.

Originally posted by saint4God
By the way, are you sure He has not answered yet?

If he hasn't answered in an identifiable way, then he hasn't answered. He's the omniscient one, not me. He knows what he needs to do to get my attention.

Originally posted by saint4God
Do you believe he will answer?

Of course I don't believe he will answer. To believe he will answer first requires that I believe he exists. Are you actually reading my posts or am I talking to myself here?

Originally posted by saint4God
Yeah yeah, heard it and explored it before, trust me. One thing I'm grateful for is the fact that science was my primary area of study. It helps to know what is and is not capable by physical an energetic forces.

Studying the work of others is not enough, you also need to understand and embrace the scientific method. I see no effort on your part to attempt to falsify the conclusion you've formed. It appears you are only interested in reinforcing it. I don't know that of course, but it's the impression I'm getting.

Originally posted by saint4God
Aha! I think we found the obstacle. Alright, you're telling me you're a slave to your own brain. Now, we can establish how you are not a slave, or we can accept the fact that your mind/soul is not your brain and it work on the other possibilities. Which route would you like to go? Only then can we talk about why such control over the brain/body is not counter productive. In other words, will you help me change your mind about changing you mind?

If you can prove duality, I would be compelled to believe in the supernatural. All evidence suggests that mind and brain are one. Demonstrating that no-one really understands qualia is not proof of the supernatural by the way, so maybe I just saved you a bunch of time.

Originally posted by saint4God
I received enough proof to know it's true, but hold in faith the Word that He tells me is true.

Ok, I get it now. Your experience was enough to tell you god exists, but not enough to tell you the Bible is his message to man. That counts as faith.

Originally posted by saint4God
If you're willing to say you do not know how particulate matter was created according to science, then it may relate well to me saying "I don't know how God created particulate matter". That being said, all that's in dispute is who the engineer is.

It does and doesn't relate. You latched onto the second part about admitting when we don't know the answers, but seem to have ignored the first part about examining the soundness of the hidden assumptions within the question.

What if I ask you "have you stopped beating your wife"?

The question assumes you have a wife, and it second assumes that you beat your wife.

Before you jump to "what created particulate matter", you first have to establish that it is necessary that particulate matter was created, which requires demonstrating that the concept of creation of matter is sound.

Has that been done?

Originally posted by spamandham
We weren't talking about worshipping them, we were talking about your rationale for dismissing their existence. You previously stated you do not believe leprechauns are real, but have yet to explain in a substantiative way how you arrived at that conclusion. I'm beginning to think you're dodging the question.

There's no intent on dodging the question. If I wasn't candid, it's because I'm either not understanding the question or not giving you the answer you're looking for. I think it'd take a 3rd party to distinguish which is which because I'm not that perceptive while being the questionee. Back on topic though...I suppose the answer you're looking for is that I cannot prove nor disprove that leprechauns exist. I don't understand how this relates since I told you I cannot prove to you God does exist. I can say that I can help you obtain proof God exists whereas I cannot help you prove leprechauns exist. Can anyone here prove to me leprechauns exist? I am keeping an open mind since I've established they are not worthy of worship and would be below God.

Originally posted by spamandham
...if only that were true.

Hehe, sorry to disappoint, but only half-quoting doesn't count as my complete statement. Both are real. God is more real to me because of the personal relationship. Just as your parents are more real to you than my parents. You have to imagine what my parents are like through my descriptions.

Originally posted by spamandham
The only reason we're bickering is because you refuse to accept that I have already done all I can do to search, which I suspect has been a great deal more effort than you expended searching for leprechauns. This part of the one-sided conversation is over.

You are correct that I did not expend a great deal searching for leprechauns. Once I found God I no longer saw a point. I have what I need, why am I going to continue shopping?

I do not know what truth-seeking you've done, but I can say that if the truth is not yet found, then you're not done truth-seeking. I also have many more truths the learn, but as far as the existence of God, I have that banked and am moving on.

Originally posted by spamandham
If he hasn't answered in an identifiable way, then he hasn't answered. He's the omniscient one, not me. He knows what he needs to do to get my attention.

If the phone is ringing, you need to pick it up. He gave you the will to choose, to make that decision on your own. Only one who loves us would allow us to make that move.

Originally posted by spamandham
Of course I don't believe he will answer. To believe he will answer first requires that I believe he exists. Are you actually reading my posts or am I talking to myself here?

I am. I'm also pointing out some obstacles. Here's #2 - no hope of getting an answer. If you're writting down the directions, I'm giving you the names of the streets to go down. Again, not MAKING you do or believe anything, just helping out if you care to be helped.

Originally posted by spamandham
Studying the work of others is not enough, you also need to understand and embrace the scientific method. I see no effort on your part to attempt to falsify the conclusion you've formed. It appears you are only interested in reinforcing it. I don't know that of course, but it's the impression I'm getting.

Why re-invent the wheel? History is there for us to pick up where our ancestors left off without making the same mistakes. Yes, verify that history, but re-living it wastes a lot of precious time we don't have. If you could see the efforts I put into this, I'd hope it would be sufficient enough to convey that it's a work out of love. Oops, I'm not allowed to say the l-word around here am I? Well, it's true. I'd be useless here if I didn't love my brothers and sisters here.

Originally posted by spamandham
If you can prove duality, I would be compelled to believe in the supernatural.

*cracks knuckles* Okay, here we go. What is instinct?

Originally posted by spamandham
All evidence suggests that mind and brain are one. Demonstrating that no-one really understands qualia is not proof of the supernatural by the way, so maybe I just saved you a bunch of time.

Perhaps not, but it's a step in the right direction. At the very least, the reward here is realization of control. With that comes self-discipline, growth and a whole slew of empowering benefits. Interested?

Originally posted by spamandham
Ok, I get it now. Your experience was enough to tell you god exists, but not enough to tell you the Bible is his message to man. That counts as faith.

Thank you, I really do appreciate this statement. It also shows that you're flexible in seeing someone else's point of view, which is very admirable quality I think. I'll bridge that statement if I may to say God directed me to the Bible. I didn't and couldn't read the Bible before that point.

Originally posted by spamandham
It does and doesn't relate. You latched onto the second part about admitting when we don't know the answers, but seem to have ignored the first part about examining the soundness of the hidden assumptions within the question.

Lost me on that one, can you reposition?

Originally posted by spamandham
What if I ask you "have you stopped beating your wife"?

The question assumes you have a wife, and it second assumes that you beat your wife.

I don't see the parallel...reposition please?

Originally posted by spamandham
Before you jump to "what created particulate matter", you first have to establish that it is necessary that particulate matter was created, which requires demonstrating that the concept of creation of matter is sound.

Has that been done?

Ah, are you saying matter was not created? Conservation of mass and energy (which I understand is coming up to a hot debate in the scientific community with quantum physics. I've only had a conceptual brushing of it, so please no detailed exams :-D ). Okay, so then, we know that some bits of matter in its current state is arranged in to particular formation. Atoms, molecules, etc. but we can agree the earth wasn't always here, right?


[edit on 24-6-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by AnarchistSuperstar
Nature and reality are congruent words, nature is reality, reality is nature. All that exists is real, and all that is real exists. Everything that is real is governed by nature, it is nature. From every dimension, to every black hole, hypernova, solar flare and gravity. If something does not exist, it is not real. Therefore if it exists, it becomes part of reality, ergo nature.

Nature and reality are congruent words based on what? Your ingenius-ness?

Sorry guy, but your argument sucks. Nature is defined as the physical universe. Reality is defined as what exists. It is completely logical for both the natural and the supernatural to be a reality.

So if something "supernatural," were to exist, by its own definition is illogical and non-existant, it would no longer be "supernatural," merely natural. That which does not exist is intangible [I.e. A concept] It cannot exist, being logically impossible.

Your next argument is false because you continue to connect nature and reality -- something that you can never do. If the supernatural exists then it is a reality.

In order for somthing to cause itself, it must preceed itself. Nothing preceeds itself. Therefore, it is illogical for somthing to cause itself. Q.E.D.

One thing does preceed itself - "I AM who I AM." The God of all reality eternally preceeds himself. The supernatural doesn't operate under the laws and logic of nature -- hence it being "supernatural." You fail to realize that in your contradictory arguments.

If God exists, that means that it is part of nature. If it's part of nature, it is not supernatural. Also, as something which exists, it cannot be inconsistent. There is nothing that is tangible that is inconsistent.

Again you say the only reality is nature... YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT! If God exists then he is a reality -- therefore the supernatural is a reality.

For example, A being which is omnipotent must be illogical. Can a God make a rock bigger than he can lift? If so, then he would be unable to lift it. If not, he wouldnt be able to create one bigger than he could not lift.

The "Rock" question can be explained here: forum.japantoday.com... _lift%3F/m_465053/tm.htm

Therefore god would be bound by the laws of logic. I.e., God is a natural entity which had a beginning and cannot do the impossible. A "God" that had a beginning, could not do the impossible, sounds alot like me, a human being. Nor would this God be omniscient, omnipresent... God(s) Can only exist as a concept, like invisible pink unicorns.

These arguments make me laugh. (I mean really laugh!) If your going to argue that God doesn't exist then let's have everyone choose a side: how about creationism versus evolutionism and actually use REAL evidence and science and not these illogical statements like you are making that contradict themselves every other sentence.

Through all of the contradictions in the bibles, and illogical claims, such as Jesus rising from the dead, meaning millions of people worship a 2,000 year old jew zombie nailed to two peices of wood... Magical trees, talking snakes, etc... God simply does not exist.

Your entire argument is a fallacy. You assume that reality is only in nature, yet you have no real idea if it is. If God exists then he is a reality, plain and simple.

Can you please cite one contradiction in the Bible?

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

1. HE IS ABLE. God has "love that endureth forever..." but he has self imposed restrictions as well (i.e., not to interfere with free-will). This doesn't mean He is incapable, but rather that He will never go beyond what he has limited himself to.

2. HE IS WILLING. Sin=evil. Evil=sin. Christ destroyed sin forever 2000 years ago.

3. HE IS ABLE AND WILLING! Christ died that all might be saved.

One day all evil will be destroyed and all will be made right, but that day is not today... perhaps tomorrow, but not today.

Why would anyone worship a deity that supposedly has the power to stop 40,000 children from dying of starvation every day, yet doesnt?

Why do you remain part of a society that has the power to stop 40,000 children from dying of starvation every day, yet doesn't? Mankind created the monster, not God.

Think of how many people have died for an "all loving" deity... Just in the christian religion alone! The holocaust, the inquisition, crusades, waco texas, salem witch trials, massacre of wounded knee, trail of tears, cortes and montezumo, the list goes on and on.

Isn't it interesting that the largest losses of life in the history of the world can be attributed to ATHEISM. That is undebatable.

Nazism - 45 million were slaughtered.

Soviet Communism - 50 to 80 million were slaughtered or killed.

Mao Communism - ~100 million were slaughtered or killed.

The crusades were only a minut fraction compared to what ATHEISM has done.

Were any deities listening to the prayers of a small boy asking for help while he was being molested by a priest?

God was, and that boy will surely receive ten-fold reward for what he had to endure.

Wake up people, Gods dont exist!

Scientifically speaking, God must exist. The universe is unintelligent and finite -- therefore something that is intelligent and infinite must have created it. The universe decays and declines -- therefore something that does not decay or decline must have created it. Time, energy, and matter must have a source... only a omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent essence can be that source: AND THAT'S WHAT GOD IS!

Now let's debate with real science, because even creationist Christians have plenty of that believe it or not.

Originally posted by nappyhead
Isn't it interesting that the largest losses of life in the history of the world can be attributed to ATHEISM. That is undebatable.

Well it would definently be undebatable if you are arguing with false information:

Nazism - 45 million were slaughtered.

Nazism has NEVER been atheist. The arean 'pure race' being 'GOD'S chosen.. [Hitler's words] traditionally the Jews have been which may be why they tried to exterminate them. They did not try exterminate allother religions.. [as you'd think an evil empire built on atheism would] it was specifically Jews at the top of their list. It should be obvious that this is not atheism so siting it as an example seems kind of ridiculous.

Soviet Communism - 50 to 80 million were slaughtered or killed.

Mao Communism - ~100 million were slaughtered or killed.

Communism has sanctioned religions OR atheism.. buddhist monks [and others] for example frequently get slaughtered in it's name if it goes outside these official guidlines. Buddhist for the most part do not believe in god so they are techinically atheists.. where is the special treatment for them then? Communism's main philosophy has nothing to do with not believing [or 'rebelling against'] god.. it's a political sytem that is meant to create equality not division and as religion has proven to be a main cause of division it is repressed [not that I agree with this idea.. humans are by nature hiarchial so communism [without corruption] could never work].

[edit on 24-6-2005 by riley]

Originally posted by saint4God
I suppose the answer you're looking for is that I cannot prove nor disprove that leprechauns exist. I don't understand how this relates since I told you I cannot prove to you God does exist. I can say that I can help you obtain proof God exists whereas I cannot help you prove leprechauns exist.

That wasn't so hard was it? It is not within my power to prove the existence or nonexistence of leprechauns either. Technically, I'm an agnostic leprechaunist as I contend that it is not possible to know whether or not they exist. Yet, I'm also an aleprechaunist since I dismiss the idea based on circumstantial evidence.

I see no distinction between god and leprechauns in that sense, except that the definition of a leprechaun is at least comprehensible. I have yet to see even a definition of god that makes any sense unless you are referring to physical idols.

I agree that you can't prove the existence of that which can not even be defined in a meaningfull way, let alone proven. If "finding god" requires me to seek earnestly, then I can't find him. It's a circular proposition that requires that I first believe. I can only search speculatively.

Originally posted by spamandham
If he hasn't answered in an identifiable way, then he hasn't answered. He's the omniscient one, not me. He knows what he needs to do to get my attention.

Originally posted by saint4God
If the phone is ringing, you need to pick it up. He gave you the will to choose, to make that decision on your own. Only one who loves us would allow us to make that move.

He gave you the will to choose to believe in leprechauns as well right? Are you capable of forcing yourself to believe in them? If so, I recommend you hone your critical thinking skills.

Originally posted by saint4God
I am. I'm also pointing out some obstacles. Here's #2 - no hope of getting an answer. If you're writting down the directions, I'm giving you the names of the streets to go down. Again, not MAKING you do or believe anything, just helping out if you care to be helped.

Believe it or not, I've heard the party line before. I used to spout it out myself. But I've moved beyond that. The directions you are giving equate to how to traverse a round about endlessly, without explaining how to enter it if you are not already going in circles.

Originally posted by saint4God
Why re-invent the wheel? History is there for us to pick up where our ancestors left off without making the same mistakes.

People lie. They also pass on false information that they believe to be true. They also embelish stories as they pass them on, as well as fill in gaps in memories with newly invented false memories.

If it's important to you personally, it's foolish not to do your best to validate it, which includes attempts to falsify your assumptions. If your assumptions are correct, they will withstand all sound attempts to falsify them.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
If you can prove duality, I would be compelled to believe in the supernatural.

*cracks knuckles* Okay, here we go. What is instinct?

It would seem to be a genetically encoded compulsion found in life forms, but I'm just making an educated guess. I assume this is part of some Socratic method since neither the question nor answer have anything to do with duality.

Originally posted by saint4God
Perhaps not, but it's a step in the right direction. At the very least, the reward here is realization of control. With that comes self-discipline, growth and a whole slew of empowering benefits. Interested?

Sure why not. Please continue.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
What if I ask you "have you stopped beating your wife"?

The question assumes you have a wife, and it second assumes that you beat your wife.

I don't see the parallel...reposition please?

We were discussing the creation of particulate matter as you recall. If you ask, "what created particulate matter", you are implicitly assuming that particulate matter was created, and that there is a "what" that is causally responsible for that creation.

Are those two implicit assumptions valid? A good first step would be to show that it is not possible for particulate matter to have existed for all time. Second, you must show that it is not possible for particulate matter to form by a non-creation method.

You must do both of those before we can know whether or not the question is even a valid question to try to answer.

Originally posted by saint4God
Ah, are you saying matter was not created?

No, I'm saying that if we don't know what created matter, then we also don't know that it was created at all, unless we can at least show that it is impossible for matter not to have been created (aka reductio ad absurdum for lovers of formal logic).

Originally posted by saint4God
... but we can agree the earth wasn't always here, right?

We can agree that the earth in it's current form wasn't always here (although the energy content of the earth has been as best we can tell), but if you try to extend that to spacetime itself (the universe), we will not be in agreement. It is impossible that spacetime has not always existed. This is one of the fundamental philosophical problems with god. His existence does not answer any significant question. He is irrelevant from a natural perspective, which as far as I know is the only perspective we have any insight into.

*yawnstretches* Sheesh! I haven't even had my coffee yet. Well, I did but it was at 10:30pm last night to feed my World of Warcraft gaming habit. That game is the sizzle. Alright, alright, a servant's job is never done I guess. Good morning everybody! It's good to hear from you again spamandham *bows*. Okay, to business...

Originally posted by spamandham
That wasn't so hard was it?

No, sorry if I was indirect before.

Originally posted by spamandham
It is not within my power to prove the existence or nonexistence of leprechauns either. Technically, I'm an agnostic leprechaunist as I contend that it is not possible to know whether or not they exist. Yet, I'm also an aleprechaunist since I dismiss the idea based on circumstantial evidence.

I believe then, you are a true agnostic. But just like flavors of coffee there are favors of people - agnostic included. I'll catagorize my agnosticism at the time as aggressive agnostic, which tastes a lot like French Roast or Kenya AA. It was strong and bitter, defiant. It was a lot to choke down before getting to the bottom of the cup.

Why are you dismissing the idea merely because you have no proof right now? I'm a Christian and do not dismiss leprechauns. Is there something out of line in my thinking? Is my willingness to accept new information making me 'God prone'? I ask to see if I can offer another paradigm.

Originally posted by spamandham
I see no distinction between god and leprechauns in that sense, except that the definition of a leprechaun is at least comprehensible. I have yet to see even a definition of god that makes any sense unless you are referring to physical idols.

I am willing to give you comprehensible definitions through characterization. In other words, when someone asks you what your best friend is like, you can describe her/him, right? Then, when you meet him/her, you're like "Hi soandso, I've heard so much about you it's like I already know you."

Originally posted by spamandham
I agree that you can't prove the existence of that which can not even be defined in a meaningfull way, let alone proven. If "finding god" requires me to seek earnestly, then I can't find him. It's a circular proposition that requires that I first believe. I can only search speculatively.

You said a swear word....can't. We'll work on this if you're willing. We're actually already addressing this later on in this entry.

Originally posted by spamandham
He gave you the will to choose to believe in leprechauns as well right?

Yes.

Originally posted by spamandham
Are you capable of forcing yourself to believe in them? If so, I recommend you hone your critical thinking skills.

It is everyones capability of forcing yourself to believe in anything. The difference lies in whether or not they are found. No no, the brain is not capable of a psychosis of having both feet in fantasyland and reality. Just speaking from my pre-Christian days. Yes, I blurred the lines and ended up in my own little world. Needless to say, the real world was trying to shake me out of it. So glad they did.

Originally posted by spamandham
Believe it or not, I've heard the party line before. I used to spout it out myself. But I've moved beyond that. The directions you are giving equate to how to traverse a round about endlessly, without explaining how to enter it if you are not already going in circles.

I give you my hand so that you can come in. I know it can be done because someone did the same for me. It's not necessary, but I can tell you it's a big help.

Originally posted by spamandham
People lie.

Ya think? ;-) Sorry, that was too easy. *serious face back on* Moving on...

Originally posted by spamandham
They also pass on false information that they believe to be true. They also embelish stories as they pass them on, as well as fill in gaps in memories with newly invented false memories.

Indeed they do. If they did not, this would be a piece of cake. I'd say something, you'd believe it, and we'd all go about our merry way as mindless drones without using our brains whatsoever. Seems pointless? It would be, yes.

Originally posted by spamandham
If it's important to you personally, it's foolish not to do your best to validate it,

I'm so freekin' tryin'. Cut me some slack (aka time and patience) please. By the way, it's not important to ME really. I'm scared of people getting upset and hate arguments, disagreements and the like. This isn't my nature, it's what I've been asked to do. It's a good work and love it most of the time, but it's hard. As someone once told me "nothing easy is worth having". *shrug* I dunno about that, I can appreciate things just given to me ;-D.

Originally posted by spamandham
which includes attempts to falsify your assumptions.

Are you calling me a liar?

Originally posted by spamandham
If your assumptions are correct, they will withstand all sound attempts to falsify them.

I agree. In fact, if anyone has any amount of love for me, they would point that out so I can destroy any falseness in my way of thinking. I'd hope for nothing less from any sister or brother.

Originally posted by spamandham
It would seem to be a genetically encoded compulsion found in life forms, but I'm just making an educated guess.

Indeed. So, our brains are pre-programmed to respond to various situations. Can I ask, do you do anything that is contray to that instict or are you a product of your genetic code?

Originally posted by spamandham
I assume this is part of some Socratic method since neither the question nor answer have anything to do with duality.

"Patience Iago, patience."



Love that line from Aladdin.

I don't know what the method is called necessarily. More or less an experiment in reasoning. Will I succeed? Will I fail? In either case I have nothing to lose, but a "whole new world" to gain. Hopefully you'll see what I mean further on.

Originally posted by spamandham
We were discussing the creation of particulate matter as you recall. If you ask, "what created particulate matter", you are implicitly assuming that particulate matter was created, and that there is a "what" that is causally responsible for that creation.

Are those two implicit assumptions valid? A good first step would be to show that it is not possible for particulate matter to have existed for all time. Second, you must show that it is not possible for particulate matter to form by a non-creation method.

Proving a negative? I thought we went through how impossible that is. Can we not assume that given the fact that matter exists in it's current form and does in fact change that it went through a change in the past? You really want me to go back in time physically and point out things that happened before I was alive? If we have no base reference point, then may as well throw everything in the air and say "who really knows anything?" We need to find a common ground on something we know exists before exploring the possibilites of how they came to be. So how about, what do you, personally, know exists and why?

Originally posted by spamandham
You must do both of those before we can know whether or not the question is even a valid question to try to answer.

I cannot do what I cannot do. So rather than focusing on that, let's look at what I can do...and what you can do. Else we'll just sit around telling each other what we can't do. Candidly that seems both demeaning, counter-productive and pointless. I've gone to goth concerts that made me feel better about myself ;-D

Originally posted by spamandham
No, I'm saying that if we don't know what created matter, then we also don't know that it was created at all, unless we can at least show that it is impossible for matter not to have been created (aka reductio ad absurdum for lovers of formal logic).

Physical things have a beginning and an end. I guess we could argue this point but it seems provable to me.

Originally posted by spamandham
We can agree that the earth in it's current form wasn't always here (although the energy content of the earth has been as best we can tell), but if you try to extend that to spacetime itself (the universe), we will not be in agreement.

Are there different physical laws for earth as opposed to the rest of the universe then? Maybe you can give me some education on those mechanics.

Originally posted by spamandham
It is impossible that spacetime has not always existed.

Ah, so you're saying there is was no beginning? *moves forward in the seat*

Originally posted by spamandham
This is one of the fundamental philosophical problems with god. His existence does not answer any significant question. He is irrelevant from a natural perspective, which as far as I know is the only perspective we have any insight into.

I will contend that his existence answers only the significant questions. Well, we're here right now to explore those other perspectives if you're willing.

I think we have a different using in language and vocabulary in a lot of the things we say and mean to say. The reason for all the questions is not because I'm making assumptions but trying to understand what you mean by what you say. It would not surprise me if I were to find out the fault in that lies on my end because I have no background in these kinds of discussions. Even at work, someone tells me to do something, I do it, and they ask "how'd you do that"? I'd explain and they look at me like I'm from another planet, shake their head and say "no, you're supposed to do it this way". Though a negative quality sometimes, I've also been rewarded for innovative and efficient changes. This does not mean however, that it's not possible to conform to what others say is the 'natural' process, just see a different approach on the onset. Pluses and minuses I suppose and again appreciate your patience.

[edit on 25-6-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
I believe then, you are a true agnostic.

Yes, I am, but don't make too much of that. Agnosticism in the sense I'm using it is a statement of what is knowable, not a statement of belief. Atheism in the sense I'm using it is a statement of belief, but not of knowledge. So I'm an agnostic atheist (sometimes referred to as weak atheism).

Originally posted by saint4God
Why are you dismissing the idea merely because you have no proof right now?

Occam's razor. All extrordinary claims made without comensurate evidence are dismissed summarily. That includes leprechauns and gods. If you can't determine whether or not something is real, then it's irrelevant.

Originally posted by saint4God
I'm a Christian and do not dismiss leprechauns.

I guess I misunderstood what you said previously. I thought you said you did dismiss leprechauns.

Originally posted by saint4God
I am willing to give you comprehensible definitions through characterization. In other words, when someone asks you what your best friend is like, you can describe her/him, right? Then, when you meet him/her, you're like "Hi soandso, I've heard so much about you it's like I already know you."

I don't think that will help, as you have no credible evidence that supports such characterizations, and they will not overcome the contradictions in the typical definition of the Christian god.

Originally posted by saint4God
It is everyones capability of forcing yourself to believe in anything.

You must prove that before I will accept it. It is counter to my personal experience and I count as part of 'everyone'. So either I am deluded, or you you are wrong (or both).

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
which includes attempts to falsify your assumptions.

Are you calling me a liar?

No, lying involves intent, not merely falsehood. One way of attempting to falsify your position (in your case) would be to examine the possibility that whatever experiences you had were natural rather than supernatural. Is it possible that your experiences were natural - a dream perhaps that you remembered as being real later on, or sleep paralysis, or an outright psychotic episode, hypnosis, a person dressed in a costume, etc. If it is not possible that they were natural (which I don't see how you could make that leap), then is it possible they were a form of supernatural deception instead of supernatural truth?

The problem from my perspective is I can not realistically attempt to falsify my position, unless there is something verifiable I can do to test for the existence of god. But you guys have defined everything in such a way as to make that impossible. All such 'tests' require first believing he is real.

That said, the claims of the Bible can be tested. Others who do have faith have asked for me to come to faith in Jesus' name. If I die without that prayer being answered, they at least will know the Bible is false, as they have fulfilled all requirements set forth by "whatever you ask in my name shall be granted". This experiment has already been played out by others who have died faithless but who had been prayed for, so "the Bible is the inerrant word of god" has already been falsified countless times.

I could potentially falsify the position of leprechauns if it is claimed there is a pot of leprechaun gold at the end of every rainbow, by examining the end of a rainbow and seeing if the claim is true. This isn't easy to do, but it's possible and I actually have seen the end of a rainbow before - no pot of gold I'm afraid.

Originally posted by saint4God
Indeed. So, our brains are pre-programmed to respond to various situations. Can I ask, do you do anything that is contray to that instict or are you a product of your genetic code?

I am a product of genetic code, environment, and experience. Pointing out that our thoughts are not absolutely controlled by instinct is merely stating the obvious. We would not be capable of learning if that were true. However, I would suggest that we are biological robots.

Originally posted by saint4God
Proving a negative?

No, it is proving a positive by demonstarting the absurdity of the opposite. It's probably the most used technique of formal logic.

Originally posted by saint4God
Can we not assume that given the fact that matter exists in it's current form and does in fact change that it went through a change in the past?

The question wasn't whether or not matter changes, but whether or not it makes any sense to discuss the creation of it. You've already noticed that matter does in fact change, so who's to say that present day matter isn't just the result of prior changes?

Originally posted by saint4God
You really want me to go back in time physically and point out things that happened before I was alive?

No, I'm asking you to examine what you mean by 'particulate matter was created' and whether or not the prospect makes any sense in light of what we know about the universe. Before you ask "what created it", you have to make sure it's sensible that it was created at all (in whatever context you are using the word 'create').

Originally posted by saint4God
Physical things have a beginning and an end. I guess we could argue this point but it seems provable to me.

You're generalizing from macroscopic observations to the very nature of matter - a categorical error. The things you are refering to that begin and end are merely different arrangements of pre-existing matter/energy. When they come to an end, that matter/energy still exists, just in a different form. This is a fundamental observation referred to as conservation of energy. Since we never observe the creation or destruction of matter/energy, the proper conclusion is that energy is eternal.

The creation of matter/energy violates our direct observations.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
It is impossible that spacetime has not always existed.

Ah, so you're saying there is was no beginning? *moves forward in the seat*

No I didn't say there was no beginning. I said there is not a 'before the beginning'. That conclusion is based on nothing more than the knowledge that time is part of the universe rather than something separate. We don't need to know anything about big bang cosmology to make that conclusion.

As best we can tell, the age of the universe is bounded. Yet it has still existed for all time. This is not intuitive, but it isn't contradictory either, and is the proper conclusion based on what we know.

Assuming the big bang model:
That said, in a sense there is no beginning, because as you move closer and closer in spacetime to the big bang singularity, space and time cease to appear as separate. If you could travel backward in time toward that singularity, you could never actually reach it.

Originally posted by spamandham
Yes, I am, but don't make too much of that. Agnosticism in the sense I'm using it is a statement of what is knowable, not a statement of belief. Atheism in the sense I'm using it is a statement of belief, but not of knowledge. So I'm an agnostic atheist (sometimes referred to as weak atheism).

Learn something new everday.

Originally posted by spamandham
Occam's razor. All extrordinary claims made without comensurate evidence are dismissed summarily. That includes leprechauns and gods. If you can't determine whether or not something is real, then it's irrelevant.

It's relevant if it decides your fate and the fate of others. A person may have not met their company's boss, but if s/he knows who you are and is interested in your progress, then maybe you should take an interest in him/her as well.

Originally posted by spamandham
I guess I misunderstood what you said previously. I thought you said you did dismiss leprechauns.

I did say that I know what exists and that advices me what does and does not exist. I did not get advice that leprechauns did not exist, nor do I care (see relevancy statement per above)

Originally posted by spamandham
I don't think that will help, as you have no credible evidence that supports such characterizations, and they will not overcome the contradictions in the typical definition of the Christian god.

Perhaps if you could share some contradictions then we can discuss.

Originally posted by spamandham
You must prove that before I will accept it. It is counter to my personal experience and I count as part of 'everyone'. So either I am deluded, or you you are wrong (or both).

I did intentionally include you in the statement in that I believe you are capable of controlling what you believe. In fact, I'd say you control yourself very well just gauging by this conversation with you. All I have to do is get you to see it. That's the tricky part, but will give it a go. Nothing to lose here, lots to gain (for you, not me).

Originally posted by spamandham
No, lying involves intent, not merely falsehood. One way of attempting to falsify your position (in your case) would be to examine the possibility that whatever experiences you had were natural rather than supernatural. Is it possible that your experiences were natural - a dream perhaps that you remembered as being real later on, or sleep paralysis, or an outright psychotic episode, hypnosis, a person dressed in a costume, etc. If it is not possible that they were natural (which I don't see how you could make that leap), then is it possible they were a form of supernatural deception instead of supernatural truth?

Validation. I lacked this a long time. There were even points where I doubted what I experience was external. In finding so many accuracies in the statements of others as well at the source itself slapping me upside the head, I got the reinforcement both positive and negative that I was not the creator of these events.

Originally posted by spamandham
The problem from my perspective is I can not realistically attempt to falsify my position, unless there is something verifiable I can do to test for the existence of god. But you guys have defined everything in such a way as to make that impossible. All such 'tests' require first believing he is real.

You can 'test' for yourself, verify and such. The problem is you're not going to convincingly publish, advertise or otherwise transmit your proof beyond words. Well, at least I don't think so. If you can, let me know, I could use the help. As far as believing first, I can say it is a big help. Whether it is a requirement or not I do not really know.

Originally posted by spamandham
That said, the claims of the Bible can be tested. Others who do have faith have asked for me to come to faith in Jesus' name. If I die without that prayer being answered, they at least will know the Bible is false, as they have fulfilled all requirements set forth by "whatever you ask in my name shall be granted". This experiment has already been played out by others who have died faithless but who had been prayed for, so "the Bible is the inerrant word of god" has already been falsified countless times.

I don't see any proof of this being false. You're claiming to know what happens after death? If you do, please share because it would be ground-breaking information I'm sure. It is not for us to decide who goes to heaven or hell, nor what they feel inside, nor what they believe, etc. All we can do is try to help.

Originally posted by spamandham
I could potentially falsify the position of leprechauns if it is claimed there is a pot of leprechaun gold at the end of every rainbow, by examining the end of a rainbow and seeing if the claim is true. This isn't easy to do, but it's possible and I actually have seen the end of a rainbow before - no pot of gold I'm afraid.

You would be falsifying intentionally in the first place. I thought we established I do not have this intention. By the way, where did the rainbow end?

Originally posted by spamandham
I am a product of genetic code, environment, and experience. Pointing out that our thoughts are not absolutely controlled by instinct is merely stating the obvious. We would not be capable of learning if that were true. However, I would suggest that we are biological robots.

Which is it, are we robots or our thoughts not controlled by instinct (genetic code, environment, and experience)?

Originally posted by spamandham
No, it is proving a positive by demonstarting the absurdity of the opposite. It's probably the most used technique of formal logic.

Would not an opposite be absurd? Relatively speaking of course. In other words, false seems ridiculous when paired with the truth. Evil seems absurd when paired with good. I'm not logic-trained, so education is welcomed here.

Originally posted by spamandham
The question wasn't whether or not matter changes, but whether or not it makes any sense to discuss the creation of it. You've already noticed that matter does in fact change, so who's to say that present day matter isn't just the result of prior changes?

This helps to understand the part about God having no beginning and no end and am glad you've put it this way. God then only has to re-organize existing parts of his universe. For example, man made from the dust of the earth (minerals, water, carbon, etc). And earth made from cooled energy. 'Creation' does not have to be something from nothing if you believe God has the ability to make all the changes of everything.

Originally posted by spamandham
No, I'm asking you to examine what you mean by 'particulate matter was created' and whether or not the prospect makes any sense in light of what we know about the universe. Before you ask "what created it", you have to make sure it's sensible that it was created at all (in whatever context you are using the word 'create').

It can mean different things. I'm not going to claim I know whether the Bible says 'create' in the context of something from nothing (a concept we know nothing about) or a re-arrangement of existing stuff. *shrug* By miracle or nature (God's created laws)? Who knows, would make a great thread-starter I'm sure. Worthy of investigation, no doubt, for how can we get closer to God if we don't care how He works?

Originally posted by spamandham
You're generalizing from macroscopic observations to the very nature of matter - a categorical error. The things you are refering to that begin and end are merely different arrangements of pre-existing matter/energy. When they come to an end, that matter/energy still exists, just in a different form. This is a fundamental observation referred to as conservation of energy. Since we never observe the creation or destruction of matter/energy, the proper conclusion is that energy is eternal.

So be it. How then can we say that when someone dies, all the 'stuff' that makes up more than matter disappears? We output more than physical things like thoughts, sound, feelings, love, memories, etc.

Originally posted by spamandham
The creation of matter/energy violates our direct observations.

Exactly! Miracle or nature (what we observe)? Well, I guess one would have to experience a miracle in order to believe that these violations can occur. I hope you get to experience one soon.

Originally posted by spamandham
No I didn't say there was no beginning. I said there is not a 'before the beginning'. That conclusion is based on nothing more than the knowledge that time is part of the universe rather than something separate. We don't need to know anything about big bang cosmology to make that conclusion.

As best we can tell, the age of the universe is bounded. Yet it has still existed for all time. This is not intuitive, but it isn't contradictory either, and is the proper conclusion based on what we know.

How is it not contradictory? It is bound and yet boundless.

Originally posted by spamandham
Assuming the big bang model:
That said, in a sense there is no beginning, because as you move closer and closer in spacetime to the big bang singularity, space and time cease to appear as separate. If you could travel backward in time toward that singularity, you could never actually reach it.

I'm glad you can appreciate infinity. It's hard to conceptualize. Think about our 80+- years on earth, then infinity. Seems very, very small. And it can be very, very depressing if you don't have a way of being a part of that energy that will continue on.

Vibrations. God spoke and there was. I think there's something with that tieing into vibrations, waves, energy, movement, resonance. It's all there, all the things that science breaks down into the smallest most common denominator. Hi-speed energy is God's voice. Perhaps God Himself is a spiritual energy. The science goes off the charts when you incorporate the possibilities. It's really quite fun. Formulae is the how, out of sight and abstract then forms observation as the final product. How do you get nothing (formulas) when paired with energy to create something visually formed as a final product? That in itself is a miracle especially when the science behind it is understood.


[edit on 27-6-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
It's relevant if it decides your fate and the fate of others.

I disagree. If I have no way of determining the truth of what you are claiming, or even of placing an educated wager because all the evidence you present is specious, then I have no knowledge on which to make a bet. For all I know, I'm going to be punished for faith rather than for lack of it. How can I know that isn't the case? After all, that's the claim of competeing religions, and even competing sects within the general classification of Christianity.

The real Pascal's wager is to make no claim of knowledge where you have none. At least then, if you do get punished for your ignorance, you have the satisfaction of knowing the guy is an irrational unjust jerk.

Originally posted by saint4God
I did say that I know what exists and that advices me what does and does not exist. I did not get advice that leprechauns did not exist, nor do I care (see relevancy statement per above)

We're finally starting to appreciate eachother I think. Your god has no more relevance to me than claims of leprechauns have to you. If I told you leprechauns eventually torture everyone who sees a rainbow but doesn't find a pot of gold, you would dismiss it as readily as I dismiss your claim that the all loving and all just creator of skepticism will punish all skeptics for eternity for the temporal crime of failing to believe blindly with one of these: the grave, a fiery pit, the Greek Hades complete with the pit of Tarsus ... whatever passage you feel like referencing today.

Originally posted by saint4God
Perhaps if you could share some contradictions then we can discuss.

I don't know how you view god, but typically he is claimed to have created the universe ex-nihilo. It is a contradiction of terms (and thus impossible) for the universe to have been created (in the typical usage of the word 'create').

Originally posted by saint4God
Validation. I lacked this a long time. There were even points where I doubted what I experience was external. In finding so many accuracies in the statements of others as well at the source itself slapping me upside the head, I got the reinforcement both positive and negative that I was not the creator of these events.

That doesn't sound very comprehensive. It appears you attribute your experiences to the supernatural because you want to. Ok, that's fine. But what I'm asking is not a question of belief, but rather possibility. Is it possible that these experiences were natural?

Originally posted by saint4God
You can 'test' for yourself, verify and such. The problem is you're not going to convincingly publish, advertise or otherwise transmit your proof beyond words. Well, at least I don't think so. If you can, let me know, I could use the help.

I have not experienced anything that I could not attribute to the natural world within the context of the way I understand nature to operate, so you're on your own on this one.

Originally posted by saint4God
I don't see any proof of this being false. You're claiming to know what happens after death? If you do, please share because it would be ground-breaking information I'm sure. It is not for us to decide who goes to heaven or hell, nor what they feel inside, nor what they believe, etc. All we can do is try to help.

I'm making no claims as to what happens after death, merely claims of what is observable in the here and now. There are numerous cases of the faithfull praying for a faithless loved one to find faith, only to witness that individual die without any sign they had achieved it. Are you claiming that there is a chance for redemption after death?

Originally posted by saint4God
You would be falsifying intentionally in the first place. I thought we established I do not have this intention.

I don't recall such an agreement. Regardless, it's up to you whether you want to subject your beliefs to the process of reason or not. It doesn't matter what we establish here.

Originally posted by saint4God
By the way, where did the rainbow end?

Roughly 50 feet in front of my car on the freeway. The angles were just right, and there was mist coming up off the road so that I could actually see the end of the rainbow hitting the pavement. Of course, I couldn't reach it as it stayed always ahead, but I could see it, and there was no pot of gold.

Originally posted by saint4God
Which is it, are we robots or our thoughts not controlled by instinct (genetic code, environment, and experience)?

Our thoughts are 100% controlled by genetics, environment and experience, and we are biological robots. There's no contradiction in those as far as I can tell.

Originally posted by saint4God
Would not an opposite be absurd? Relatively speaking of course. In other words, false seems ridiculous when paired with the truth. Evil seems absurd when paired with good. I'm not logic-trained, so education is welcomed here.

A direct way of proving that matter was created is to prove that it is not possible for matter to exist uncreated. Is this really so hard? There's a spectator who's been U2U'ing me on this topic trying to claim I'm arguing from ignorance by demanding that you validate the assumptions that are buried in your question "what created particulate matter".

This is basic reasoning that requires no training in formal logic at all. If you still don't get it, I don't think I can help, but it does go a long way toward explaining to me why you have faith.

Originally posted by saint4God
This helps to understand the part about God having no beginning and no end and am glad you've put it this way. God then only has to re-organize existing parts of his universe. For example, man made from the dust of the earth (minerals, water, carbon, etc). And earth made from cooled energy. 'Creation' does not have to be something from nothing if you believe God has the ability to make all the changes of everything.

You made the observation that matter changes. If we know that, and if you assume matter/energy has existed for all time, then what 'creative' role are you assigning to god that can not simply be explained by your basic observation that matter changes?

Originally posted by saint4God
It can mean different things. I'm not going to claim I know whether the Bible says 'create' in the context of something from nothing (a concept we know nothing about) or a re-arrangement of existing stuff. *shrug* By miracle or nature (God's created laws)? Who knows, would make a great thread-starter I'm sure. Worthy of investigation, no doubt, for how can we get closer to God if we don't care how He works?

So let me get this straight. You aren't even sure what the words you are using mean, but you're sure they are true? Ultimately, all you are doing is relying on the credibility of the Bible, which I don't find credible.

Originally posted by saint4God
So be it. How then can we say that when someone dies, all the 'stuff' that makes up more than matter disappears? We output more than physical things like thoughts, sound, feelings, love, memories, etc.

So we're back to qualia again. I readily admit I don't understand qualia, but that doesn't mean it's supernatural, it just means I don't understand. You have to do better than simply find something I don't understand and declare god did it. I will not accept such an argument from ignorance.

Originally posted by saint4God
Exactly! Miracle or nature (what we observe)? Well, I guess one would have to experience a miracle in order to believe that these violations can occur. I hope you get to experience one soon.

I can't see why you brought up the creation of particulate matter only then to say something to the effect of "it's magic". There is nothing I know about the universe that implies it was created (an inconsistent concept anyway), and that which we can observe implies it was not. Why would I accept "it's magic" when there is no reason to do so? It'd be like claiming that the sun rises every morning by magic because we understand the rotation of the earth. It makes no sense.

Originally posted by saint4God
How is it not contradictory? It is bound and yet boundless.

No, it is bounded, period. You are failing to recognize that time is part of the universe. There is no contradiction in saying that the universe has existed for all time and yet is bounded once you realzie that. I didn't say the universe was infinitely old, I merely said that it has existed for all time, and is eternal in that sense.

That knowledge is enough to recognize that it could not have been created, since the word 'created' implies a time when the universe did not exist, which implies that time exists separately from the universe.

However, we know that time is interdependent with space, and matter through relativity. So if time is transcendant, so are these. In other words, if time is not an aspect of the universe, but something external, then so are space and matter. In other words, all aspects of the universe are then transcendant, meaning the universe is no longer bounded by its own bounds - another contradiction.

Originally posted by saint4God
Hi-speed energy is God's voice. Perhaps God Himself is a spiritual energy. The science goes off the charts when you incorporate the possibilities.

None of this makes any sense, and even if it did, it would be pure speculation. There's no way you can even begin to call this science.

The typical definition of the Christain god has him being pure "spirit", which means he is in no way tied to physical energy.


[edit on 27-6-2005 by spamandham]

imho God is by far the most ridicoulous concept we humans ever came up with, to me it's right up there with ufo's and paranormal stuff.

If there is a god, he sure is a maniacal sadist, look at our world and tell me there's a GOD watching over this...no way

IMHO Religion has brought the world nothing but WAR death and destruction, troughout our entire history.

I believe in the power of nature myself, because i can sense feel and expirience it's power. Nature is a awesome force sometimes destructive sometimes creating.

Originally posted by spamandham
A direct way of proving that matter was created is to prove that it is not possible for matter to exist uncreated. Is this really so hard? There's a spectator who's been U2U'ing me on this topic trying to claim I'm arguing from ignorance by demanding that you validate the assumptions that are buried in your question "what created particulate matter".

In order to prove his statement using the law of excluded middle, he would also have to prove there was a finite number of other possibilities. Then, he would have to "disprove" these things through some logical method. However, he would conceivably be attempting to disprove every proposal which comes along because there is no discernible limit to the number of opposing arguments. Thus the request promotes a fallacy.

If one is interested in disproving the creation aspect, all one would have to do is prove a single item which affirms that the universe was not created. Which would be the correct application of the law of excluded middle in this case. To date, science has not accomplished this.

Your proposal that the universe has existed for all time is techinically correct. But from it, one could infer that the "singularity" which existed prior to the "big bang" has an unchanging existance. However, this could not be proven as there would be no time interval to reference the non-change of the singularity. Scientifically, one could not say the singualrity remained unchanged (non-creation) any more than one could say that there was a change (creation) prior to the "big bang".

Thus, this proposal does nothing to prove that the universe was not created. Ergo it cannot be applied to the law of excluded middle.

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

Originally posted by spamandham
A direct way of proving that matter was created is to prove that it is not possible for matter to exist uncreated. Is this really so hard? ...

In order to prove his statement using the law of excluded middle, he would also have to prove there was a finite number of other possibilities.

Let A = "universe was created"
!A = "universe was not created"
!!A = "universe was created"

There is no logical fallacy commited here, nor am I requesting a violation of the law of excluded middle.

To prove that the universe was created, is identical to proving that it can not exist uncreated. You and saint4god are claiming that the universe was created, without even circumstantial evidence that what you are saying is true. If you think the position is unsupportable, then why for cripes sake have you asserted it?

Is it possible for the universe to exist uncreated? If you can show why the answer to that question is "no", then you have a complete formal proof for the creation of the universe and may then ask "what created it" knowing your underlying assumptions are sound.

Until you do that, the answer to "what created the universe" remains "how do you know it was created".