Why its pointless trying to prove god

Originally posted by jedimiller
You see, as you are all discussing GOD, a thread was created and the topic is GOD. this in itself, proves GOD is real. If there was no GOD this thread wouldn't exist. that's the law of realism.

Jedimiller.

lol you really aren't helping with proving god exist and more of showing why people believe god exist.

I really do hope you see the flaw in logic in your statement. We can't have people thinking like this if we want to advance in society.

reply to post by AncientVoid


I suspect people only believe in god, because of this type of mentality......it's fkd up.

some people get really rude when it comes to GOD. Yes, my Logic is flawed, that's been proven, but what still continues to bug me is that people are tyring to prove that he doesn't exist and that is no way to getting close. In the end, it doesnt matter if scientists can prove that god is real, because people refuse to accept him. So even if I had a picture and a letter from god, i'm sure damian from hell wouldn't believe it either. I am saying these things because I am a messenger, I feel that I have the need to prove that god is real, but that's where I fail, because I know for sure that god is 100% real, but that's because I've seen god during my OOBE, so it's fair that others don't believe in him as they never met him or had contact with him. mentally, religiously or even in dreams. what's the conclusion? well, I could say that god exists, but I could also say that he doesn't. so it doesnt matter what I say, but what you believe..and with the world coming to war's end, I think it's better to believe in god than not.


Jedimiller.

Originally posted by melatonin
The information that DNA conveys is not separated from itself, it is not communication like arbitrary human language/code. It is a bunch of chemicals that results in the production of further chemicals (proteins).

Yes & no. The production of proteins & cells isn't the full story.

Originally posted by melatonin
So, you keep shifting goalposts.

I don't believe that's true.

Originally posted by melatonin
Now you want to say all is information (which is true, according to Shannon info theory), and further regress into how order develops in the universe at large. If that is the case, then I feel you were being disingenuous with the orignal issue and are now tending towards obfuscation, as this was not the original question.

I was only expanding on the original issue which is a natural process when investigating concepts. It's the nature & origin of information which forms the crux of the argument in my opinion.

Originally posted by melatonin
I would simply say it is an aspect of the universe, the natural physical laws that underpin how matter behaves etc etc. That a universe possesses physical laws.

Yes. But the physical laws we understand don't account for all the anomalies in human experience.

Originally posted by melatonin
Then I'm sure you'll attempt to regress further. Happy days.

Regression? Enquiries into new concepts is hardly regression.

Originally posted by melatonin
Out of my understanding, and also everybody elses. People might believe they understand such stuff, but they are mistaken.

Everybody else? How do we know how people understand & perceive these concepts? Some people may & some people may not understand.

Originally posted by melatonin
I just like to focus on questions that can be answered, that do allow an advance of understanding, rather than philosophical masturbation.

Doesn't challenging the status quo of what we think we understand advance our understanding? Philosophical 'masturbation' is a necessary process in the enquiry of all that is. How else are we to fully progress our understanding of our reality?

Originally posted by kininigen
I am neither anti-science nor anti-god which allows me to indulge my curiosity to my heart's content.

Originally posted by melatonin
Aye, some people like to play the emperor's courtier.

What? How did you arrive at that conclusion? You misunderstand. It simply means some people are curious and have a passion for learning & understanding the world around them.

Jedimiller you don't seem to get where I'm coming from, I'm not trying to disprove god, only religion. And there are PLENTY of pictures and letters from god, how about you have god come down to my house, say hi, shoot some lightning etc. I'm more then willing to believe I just need proof. OH and damien from hell. Witty, really you are a VERY VERY witty person. You should write a book. Call it: Witty names I call people. Best seller. I'll by a copy. Just for the wittyness. Which you have alot of.

but that's where I fail, because I know for sure that god is 100% real,

I know got is 100% fake. Well your logic fails AGAIN.
OBE's are easily duplicated in a lab it was all a hallucination.

and with the world coming to war's end, I think it's better to believe in god than not.

I'd like to take this moment to remind everyone that this and 99% of all other wars have been started by religion. No religion, no war, no end of the world. (end of the world is of course an overstatement(we couldn't possible destroy the planet itself. Just us and every other living thing on the planet))

Yes. But the physical laws we understand don't account for all the anomalies in human experience.

Name one

[edit on 14-11-2007 by Damien_Hell]

Originally posted by kininigen

Originally posted by melatonin
So, you keep shifting goalposts.

I don't believe that's true.

c.f.

Yes. But the physical laws we understand don't account for all the anomalies in human experience.

Regression? Enquiries into new concepts is hardly regression.

I mean regress as in, I provide an answer, you backtrack/shift to something else, essentially ignoring/discarding the original issue.

Doesn't challenging the status quo of what we think we understand advance our understanding? Philosophical 'masturbation' is a necessary process in the enquiry of all that is. How else are we to fully progress our understanding of our reality?

By science. Philosophy really does have little to add, it can ask questions, but can't really provide verifiable answers about reality. Philosophy had over a thousand years to provide real understanding about the natural world, where is it now? POMOism, heh.

ID advances nada. It is a science stopper. 'Goddidit' doesn't really advance anything, it's a non-explanation. If you think that original article you provided advances understanding in any way, then, errrm, OK.

What? How did you arrive at that conclusion? You misunderstand. It simply means some people are curious and have a passion for learning & understanding the world around them.

I don't really think discussions about god-type things provides any real understanding about nature. It is a non-explanation, a pseudo-answer that denigrates real enquiry. The provence of lazy thinking.

ABE: I meant to add, essentially the courtier likes to discuss the finery of the emperor's raiment, the intricacy of his frilly pink underpants and his feather boa.

[edit on 14-11-2007 by melatonin]

Psychic phenomena or how about Quantum Nonlocality.

Originally posted by melatonin
So, you keep shifting goalposts.

Originally posted by kininigen
I don't believe that's true.

Originally posted by melatonin
c.f.

I mean regress as in, I provide an answer, you backtrack/shift to something else, essentially ignoring/discarding the original issue.

The focus has been kept on the nature & origins of information. It's just that we don't agree.

Originally posted by melatonin
By science. Philosophy really does have little to add, it can ask questions, but can't really provide verifiable answers about reality. Philosophy had over a thousand years to provide real understanding about the natural world, where is it now? POMOism, heh.

I'm not sure that Einstein would have agreed with you.

Originally posted by melatonin
If you think that original article you provided advances understanding in any way, then, errrm, OK.

In my opinion it poses a question which is worthy of scientific enquiry. The fact that we disagree on the substance of that enquiry has no relevance.

Originally posted by melatonin
I don't really think discussions about god-type things provides any real understanding about nature. It is a non-explanation, a pseudo-answer that denigrates real enquiry. The provence of lazy thinking.

That depends on how you interpret 'god-type things'. There is research being conducted globally on what you might call 'god-type things' and it is hardly what I would describe as the province of lazy thinking.

Originally posted by melatonin
ABE: I meant to add, essentially the courtier likes to discuss the finery of the emperor's raiment, the intricacy of his frilly pink underpants and his feather boa.

Well I'm sure that's a comic analogy of something you have in mind. Hopefully that isn't a regression into denigration.

Originally posted by kininigen
The focus has been kept on the nature & origins of information. It's just that we don't agree.

In biology, yes. That has been answered, and so we descended into other areas. Which I also answered, so we finally descended into woo.

Like nailing jello to the wall.

I'm not sure that Einstein would have agreed with you.

Who cares? Philosophy won't answer questions about nature. It can ask them. Science is the optimal method for this.

I'm sure Einstein knew that philosophy wouldn't confirm the validity of e=mc2.

In my opinion it poses a question which is worthy of scientific enquiry. The fact that we disagree on the substance of that enquiry has no relevance.

Aye, and Schneider provided an answer. The problem is that the disingenuity of people who write these articles and raise these questions is apparent when he did so.

They are creationists, so most of us generally expect dishonesty and obfuscation. They have one aim in mind, proving their religious beliefs, not open and honest enquiry.

Well I'm sure that's a comic analogy of something you have in mind. Hopefully that isn't a regression into denigration.

You might need to understand the metaphor, yes.

ABE: Ai, I missed this...

There is research being conducted globally on what you might call 'god-type things'

Aye, as I said, some like to play the courtier.

[edit on 14-11-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
In biology, yes. That has been answered, and so we descended into other areas. Which I also answered, so we finally descended into woo.

Like nailing jello to the wall.

Yes. Answered in a way you find acceptable. I find that it doesn't completely answer my questions based upon research for which I've posted links etc. Fine, if you think it's 'woo' why bother.

Originally posted by melatonin
Who cares? Philosophy won't answer questions about nature. It can ask them. Science is the optimal method for this.

Philosophy raises the questions. Do you read any of the web pages I provide links to?

Originally posted by melatonin
I'm sure Einstein knew that philosophy wouldn't confirm the validity of e=mc2.

Obviously.

Originally posted by melatonin
Aye, and Schneider provided an answer. The problem is that the disingenuity of people who write these articles and raise these questions is apparent when he did so.

They are creationists, so most of us generally expect dishonesty and obfuscation. They have one aim in mind, proving their religious beliefs, not open and honest enquiry.

I agree that certain parties may have their own agenda but it doesn't mean that there aren't any genuine nonpartisans making enquiries into the deep questions surrounding the nature of reality. Maybe you're referring to religious zealots.

Originally posted by melatonin
You might need to understand the metaphor, yes.

Enlighten me please.

Originally posted by kininigen
Yes. Answered in a way you find acceptable.

I also framed the argument that they were using - language/codes are derived from mind-stuff; DNA is a code; Therefore DNA is derived from mind-stuff.

That's what we do in science, we focus on particular questions that can be answered. Schneider showed that this need not be the case, it is quite possible for 'codes' to evolve by evolutionary mechanisms.

A focused question that was answered. It doesn't show that DNA was produced this way, but it's fatal to that particular argument.

I find that it doesn't completely answer my questions based upon research for which I've posted links etc. Fine, if you think it's 'woo' why bother.

That's a different question than originally raised. If you want to discuss psi phenomena, then fine, I'm not that interested in it to be honest, it is generally tainted by poor methodology and tenuous inferences.

Philosophy raises the questions. Do you read any of the web pages I provide links to?

Why, did I miss something of interest? I quickly looked at the psi stuff, but I'm not that interested.

I agree that philosophy helps to raise questions. I accept that, I think I said that. I accept it has some value. I don't accept that it has great value in providing an understanding of nature. That's what science is for. Asking questions in science doesn't rely on philosophical training, just an eye for detail and curiosity.

We can sit around a table discussing the nature of reality, usually quite interesting to do so after some beers or a spliff, but it is pretty much philosophical masturbation. As we are bringing out the dead:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

etext.library.adelaide.edu.au...

I agree that certain parties may have their own agenda but it doesn't mean that there aren't any genuine nonpartisans making enquiries into the deep questions surrounding the nature of reality. Maybe you're referring to religious zealots.

Well, I think the people raising the questions about biological information tend to be involved in contemporary ID - the ugly ginger-haired sister of YEC. Schneider provided a good answer to this issue.

These people are not interested in science, just propping up the faithful, protecting them from the demons of eviluzion.

If you want some good (or better) ID-type arguments, they are generally related to fine-tuning. Prefer to say 'don't know' myself, as we can't tell the difference between that and ID.

Enlighten me please.

Heh. I'm playing on the emperor's new clothes. I find discussions of theology when pertaining to the nature of the beast to be comparable to discussing the nature of the emperor's new clothes, those partaking in such disciplines to the emperor's courtiers, defending and waxing lyrical over the natural beauty of the invisible raiment.

I have no time for it. Sorry. Science is working from the bottom up, we use cranes not sky-hooks as Dennett would say.

[edit on 14-11-2007 by melatonin]

I thought you meant things we EXPERIENCE like OBEs or NDEs etc etc.

Originally posted by melatonin
A focused question that was answered. It doesn't show that DNA was produced this way, but it's fatal to that particular argument.

Ok. That's where I tried to expand on the argument with information/quantum theory but I agree that Schneider's Ev program shows that the evolution of DNA/codes is reproducible to a degree from a particular starting point.

Originally posted by melatonin
That's a different question than originally raised. If you want to discuss psi phenomena, then fine, I'm not that interested in it to be honest, it is generally tainted by poor methodology and tenuous inferences.

Again that was expansion on my part but only because I don't see a problem with bringing in what I regard to be related disciplines & theories to the argument.

Originally posted by melatonin
Why, did I miss something of interest? I quickly looked at the psi stuff, but I'm not that interested.

Obviously I think so.

Originally posted by melatonin
We can sit around a table discussing the nature of reality, usually quite interesting to do so after some beers or a spliff, but it is pretty much philosophical masturbation.

Agreed. Nothing wrong with that.

Originally posted by melatonin
As we are bringing out the dead:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

etext.library.adelaide.edu.au...

Things have a come a long way since Hume's time.

Originally posted by melatonin
Well, I think the people raising the questions about biological information tend to be involved in contemporary ID - the ugly ginger-haired sister of YEC. Schneider provided a good answer to this issue.

Never heard of YEC. Just looked it up and it's not pretty.

Originally posted by melatonin
These people are not interested in science, just propping up the faithful, protecting them from the demons of eviluzion.

That's definitely not where I'm coming from. I've always had a keen interest in science and during the last few years in consciousness & spirituality (mainly Buddhist philosophy) too.

Originally posted by melatonin
Heh. I'm playing on the emperor's new clothes. I find discussions of theology when pertaining to the nature of the beast to be comparable to discussing the nature of the emperor's new clothes, those partaking in such disciplines to the emperor's courtiers, defending and waxing lyrical over the natural beauty of the invisible raiment.

Well I'm certainly not doing that. Not in my opinion anyway. I prefer intelligent & impartial debate. But I understand the metaphor.

Hopefully you may have noticed by now that I'm not taking sides with anyone on the Evolution/ID/Creation debate. What I endeavour to do is take on board those ideas & concepts which, for me, seem to fit into the bigger picture of 'reality'. When the information has been assimilated it never gets to the point where I feel the need to defend it zealously. What I try to do is make others aware of any relevant concepts & theories which I think pertain to the debate but with respect to others' beliefs no matter what they are.

That said, if they won't listen there's nothing you can do.

Originally posted by Damien_Hell
I thought you meant things we EXPERIENCE like OBEs or NDEs etc etc.

No, I meant the totality of human experience encompassing all things. I should have perhaps made that more clear.

Yah but religion does a worse job of explaining those things. Science can admit its wrong, religion never will

Originally posted by kininigen
Hopefully you may have noticed by now that I'm not taking sides with anyone on the Evolution/ID/Creation debate. What I endeavour to do is take on board those ideas & concepts which, for me, seem to fit into the bigger picture of 'reality'. When the information has been assimilated it never gets to the point where I feel the need to defend it zealously. What I try to do is make others aware of any relevant concepts & theories which I think pertain to the debate but with respect to others' beliefs no matter what they are.

Well, I suppose this is where we differ, 'sides' should be taken, otherwise we fall into POMO relativism. I'm on the side of science, rationality, and honest enquiry. And I don't feel beliefs deserve respect, people generally do, but not beliefs, I don't respect that people think vitamin C is a good treatment for HIV, or homeopathy is an efficacious treatment, that evil spirits cause disease, or that ID is science.

But I guess that comes from being involved in the natural selection of ideas/explanations that we call science.

Anyway, so, yeah, Schneider's stuff is good. It shows that particular line of thought outlined earlier to be incorrect, but also readily shows how complexity can evolve within the genome (which is another big ID moan).

As far as where information and order comes from in the bigger picture, I say natural laws and see no compelling requirement for external magical influence, other people see differently. But, of course, when they rely on such things, that is philosophy, not science - and is more a placeholder until science makes its way into these areas of ignorance. As I said, I prefer the placeholder of 'don't know', seems to me to be more honest.

There is a good discussion on consciousness somewhere in this forum, if that floats ya boat.

[edit on 14-11-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Damien_Hell
Yah but religion does a worse job of explaining those things. Science can admit its wrong, religion never will

Now there's a god, Yah. No offense, it just seemed appropriate somehow.

I know what you mean, but then not all what you may refer to as religions have the same dogma and rigid belief structures. As mentioned earlier, Buddhism involves no dogma although they have rigid practices once ordained but anyone can take it or leave it. Buddhist philosophy is fascinating. Science isn't squeaky clean either but it's not in the same league as orthodox religions. I know of scientists/engineers who've come up with fantastic inventions, some patented, only for the investment to dry up or don't even get past the application for further research funding when it's a blatantly brilliant invention that we could all benefit from. But then these people we talk of are in very powerful positions and certainly don't reflect the attitude of genuine scientists. Science is quite adept at proving itself wrong due to the nature of scientific enquiry but sometimes the research gets held back because it's controlled by money. In essence, I truly believe that science will prove just how amazing a world we live in but only when we are truly free of control from both sides.



Mod edit: big quote..please no nested quoting or more than 4 lines of text.

[edit on 11/14/2007 by kinglizard]

[edit on 14-11-2007 by kininigen]

Originally posted by melatonin

Well, I suppose this is where we differ, 'sides' should be taken, otherwise we fall into POMO relativism.

Ok. Prove it.

Originally posted by melatonin
And I don't feel beliefs deserve respect, people generally do, but not beliefs

But there must be something you believe in...oh yes, science, and only science. So when did your belief give you the impression it was ok to dismiss other peoples' beliefs?

Originally posted by melatonin
..which is another big ID moan.

That's their moan, not mine.

Originally posted by melatonin
seems to me to be more honest.

Well that all depends on where you're coming from.

Originally posted by melatonin
There is a good discussion on consciousness somewhere in this forum, if that floats ya boat.

Nice.

Originally posted by kininigen
Ok. Prove it.

Well, you are essentially saying not taking sides in the evolution vs. creation 'debate' is a good position. Thus, you take a virtual agnostic position, even though the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Therefore to hold an agnostic position, you would have to ignore a tonne of evidence supporting evolution to view it as equal to a long falsified mythical biblical story.

POMO relativism - all points of view hold equal value. A scourge in modern thinking, and another belief I have absolutely no respect for.

But there must be something you believe in...oh yes, science, and only science. So when did your belief give you the impression it was ok to dismiss other peoples' beliefs?

I don't believe in science. That's like saying I believe in football. I also don't believe in evolution, I understand the evidence and accept the validity of it.

I will dismiss beliefs, positions, or ideas that have no real-world basis or suitable supporting evidence. That's my perogative. If you enjoy POMOism, good for you. But I view certain positions as having greater value than others. I don't view homeopathy as an equal to proper medicine. I don't view creationism as equivalent in validity to evolutionary biology. I don't view flat-earthism as equivalient in validity to spherical earthism.

Science is like the natural selection of ideas about the natural world. There are good ideas, and there are bad ideas. I will dismiss bad ideas, and I think I am correct to do so. I will dismiss the idea that my being a Libran signifies any insight into my personality.

Well that all depends on where you're coming from.

I'm coming from somewhere that considers making sh!t up a bad thing.

[edit on 14-11-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Well, you are essentially saying not taking sides in the evolution vs. creation 'debate' is a good position. Thus, you take a virtual agnostic position

It is a good position from my position. Assigning a label to a point of view is of inconsequence. I'm not agnostic either.

Originally posted by melatonin
...you would have to ignore a tonne of evidence supporting evolution to view it as equal to a long falsified mythical biblical story.

Who says I hold both views as being equal? There is evidence of biological/physical evolution for sure but not as Darwin would describe. What about punctuated equilibrium. I don't subscribe to the biblical story of creation either, the Torah or first testament I believe to be of important metaphorical value.

Originally posted by melatonin
POMO relativism - all points of view hold equal value. A scourge in modern thinking, and another belief I have absolutely no respect for.

Guess I'm not a POMO relativist then. Some points, in whatever arena they originate from, may hold some value, some may not. Only the observer can decide when enough evidence is available. That doesn't mean those points can be dismissed either, that would be like dismissing Copernicus, in his time, for his theory on Heliocentrism.

Originally posted by melatonin
I will dismiss beliefs, positions, or ideas that have no real-world basis or suitable supporting evidence. That's my perogative.

And it's my prerogative to consider that which you believe has 'no real-world basis'. What do you consider to be 'real-world'?

Originally posted by melatonin
I'm coming from somewhere that considers making sh!t up a bad thing.

Couldn't agree with you more. But then you don't know what is made up until science proves otherwise.