What is God?

[clax]

It really annoys me when you do this clax. You do this a lot when it comes to technical topics- our discussion on monetary policy comes to mind. You can't just say no evidence exists because you haven't seen it. It does exist and it is out there on the internet for you to do a quick search with. The Hubble telescope has proven that other galaxies are getting farther than us amongst many, many other pieces of proof that show the universe is expanding. It is hard data.

you are an immovable object and I am an unstoppable force. This hard fact of which you speak doesn't exist, otherwise there would be no argument. I have seen no hard fact, so out therefor doesn't exist.

I am saying you don't know anything outside of the tiny amount of understanding humanity is capable of. I am amazed you are a scientest.

My argument is and always has been that we don't know anything outside of what is relative to earth. We can't know anything, we haven't the ability.

Open your mind to possibilities.

 

[myp]

you are an immovable object and I am an unstoppable force. This hard fact of which you speak doesn't exist, otherwise there would be no argument. I have seen no hard fact, so out therefor doesn't exist.

I am saying you don't know anything outside of the tiny amount of understanding humanity is capable of. I am amazed you are a scientest.

My argument is and always has been that we don't know anything outside of what is relative to earth. We can't know anything, we haven't the ability.

Open your mind to possibilities.

You are saying we can't know anything about the universe and you are telling ME to open my mind to possibilities?

And WE HAVE HARD PROOF THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp29hu.html

Check out Lawrence Krauss' lecture on cosmology for more- he does a good job explaining it. It is on Youtube.

I am sorry but I can't sit here and hold your hand to explain something as simple as why 1+1=2 because all you do is deny the evidence because of your pseudo-religious, anti-intellectual philosophy in which you make these grand statements and think they are just true because you think they are. Some things are above what you and I think- data and hard evidence is above our naked (factless) opinions.

 

[clax]

A way of thought is not a religion. You can think mathematically. You can think philosophically. You can think spontaneously. Etc. It is not religion. You just don't seem to understand the scientific method.

And either way, even if you were right and picking that way of thought was religion, that way of thought is science so my point that believing in God is not scientific still holds.

I never said it was scientific, people are not scientific. You want a scientific explanation for everything. Sometimes there isn't.

Religion means ritual, of course ritual isn't a form of thought, it is an action.

You do this every time we discuss this. Religion is a creation of man. And just because somebody believes in God doesn't mean they practice a religion, that I think is your difficulty.

You seem to think scientific method is all there is. There is definitely more.

 

[myp]

You seem to think scientific method is all there is. There is definitely more.

There might be, but the scientific method is superior

I have the last 400 years as proof for what I admit is a conviction in this case.

 

[clax]

You are saying we can't know anything about the universe and you are telling ME to open my mind to possibilities?

And WE HAVE HARD PROOF THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp29hu.html

Check out Lawrence Krauss' lecture on cosmology for more- he does a good job explaining it. It is on Youtube.

I am sorry but I can't sit here and hold your hand to explain something as simple as why 1+1=2 because all you do is deny the evidence because of your pseudo-religious, anti-intellectual philosophy in which you make these grand statements and think they are just true because you think they are. Some things are above what you and I think- data and hard evidence is above our naked (factless) opinions.

Name calling? You just lost this arguement. anti intellectual I guess is any body who disagrees with you.


You know one thing, the universe is expanding. One grain of sand in a beach.

 

[myp]

Name calling? You just lost this arguement. anti intellectual I guess is any body who disagrees with you.


You know one thing, the universe is expanding. One grain of sand in a beach.

Where did I name call? That post was not meant to offend or insult your character. I am arguing the ideas, not the person. I know the 1+1 analogy might have sounded mean, but it wasn't meant to be- that was the best analogy I could think of though.

And by universe expanding, we mean in distance, not in amount of matter- the amount of matter is actually not increasing.

 

[clax]

There might be, but the scientific method is superior

I have the last 400 years as proof for what I admit is a conviction in this case.

It is really sad that you think that.the scientific method fails at many practical tasks.

You have proof of things that are provable, good for you, you are in a rare club called everyone.

 

[myp]

It is really sad that you think that.the scientific method fails at many practical tasks.

I never said it is perfect, but merely that is superior to other forms of thought when it comes to learning about our universe. I admitted it is an opinion.

 

[clax]

Where did I name call? That post was not meant to offend or insult your character. I am arguing the ideas, not the person. I know the 1+1 analogy might have sounded mean, but it wasn't meant to be- that was the best analogy I could think of though.

And by universe expanding, we mean in distance, not in amount of matter- the amount of matter is actually not increasing.

distance between stars is getting grater but the universe consists of more than distance. How do we know that means the universe is finite, it would stand to reason that it isn't if it is expanding, where is it expanding to? Or is it hitting a wall?

If you reach the eadge of the universe and hold your arm out, your arm in the edge of the universe, therefore there is no limit, i forget the physicist that purposed that but, he was correct.

 

[myp]

distance between stars is getting grater but the universe consists of more than distance. How do we know that means the universe is finite, it would stand to reason that it isn't if it is expanding, where is it expanding to? Or is it hitting a wall?

If you reach the eadge of the universe and hold your arm out, your arm in the edge of the universe, therefore there is no limit, i forget the physicist that purposed that but, he was correct.

See now you are actually asking logical questions and these are questions that the scientists who study this already have asked and are still asking. What is defined as the universe is the universe though, not what is outside it. It is very possible that there is nothing outside that universe- look at some of the dark matter theories.

Also I find it funny how when a particular physicist agrees with you, then he is right, but when others suggest something they are wrong because "we haven't the ability".

 

[clax]

I never said it is perfect, but merely that is superior to other forms of thought when it comes to learning about our universe. I admitted it is an opinion.

Science is valuable for many things, very many things, finding a deity is not what out is good for, healing people, feeding people, increasing knowledge, expanding humanity, yes science has that value, and it is vital. But if you use science to find a God that is a importer use of it. As you stated, and I agreed many times.

 

[=Zoomer=]

Most things are possible. But most things are not probable. While your theory is possible, I do not find it probable and even if it were, if one were to follow the scientific method, they could not arrive at the conclusion that God exists even with your theory. Unless there was further proof of course.

Again, we're speaking in "context". Yes, you are correct. The nature of a god being interpreted as a singular, omniscient entity that created "everything" and "always" is not supported by scientific fact. But the idea that man was "created in his image", and "from Adam's rib" woman was created are good examples of how science can support a "creation" argument. If, for example, the entity we humans perceive as "God" is actually another intelligence in this universe (or even one from another universe), then we can reasonably connect both scientific and historical perspectives.

Wouldn't this also explain why bad things happen to good people (without the influence of a "just god") , etc., and be consistent with technology we know exists today?

 

[myp]

Science is valuable for many things, very many things, finding a deity is not what out is good for, healing people, feeding people, increasing knowledge, expanding humanity, yes science has that value, and it is vital. But if you use science to find a God that is a importer use of it. As you stated, and I agreed many times.

Actually science is perfect for learning about the existence of something real. So yes, it is a way to look into the God question and you quickly find that a lot of people are actually believing in a God delusion (h/t Dawkins ) than asking the God question.

 

[clax]

See now you are actually asking logical questions and these are questions that the scientists who study this already have asked and are still asking. What is defined as the universe is the universe though, not what is outside it. It is very possible that there is nothing outside that universe- look at some of the dark matter theories.

Also I find it funny how when a particular physicist agrees with you, then he is right, but when others suggest something they are wrong because "we haven't the ability".

I didn't hear any theories from anybody. But how can this be wrong? You are part of the universe can you then go outside of you? Of course the ones I agree with I think are right, don't you do the same thing?

 

[myp]

Again, we're speaking in "context". Yes, you are correct. The nature of a god being interpreted as a singular, omniscient entity that created "everything" and "always" is not supported by scientific fact. But the idea that man was "created in his image", and "from Adam's rib" woman was created are good examples of how science can support a "creation" argument. If, for example, the entity we humans perceive as "God" is actually another intelligence in this universe (or even one from another universe), then we can reasonably connect both scientific and historical perspectives.

Wouldn't this also explain why bad things happen to good people (without the influence of a "just god") , etc., and be consistent with technology we know exists today?

I'm not sure I understand what you are arguing for here. That God exists because history exists?

You can take small points in any two arguments and find a way to make some overlap, but that it is usually just cherrypicking data. That is why I would say no, science cannot support a creation argument based just on the fact that the Bible exists and can be true. You need hard, unbiased evidence- cherrypicking points like the ones you mentioned is biased.

 

[clax]

Actually science is perfect for learning about the existence of something real. So yes, it is a way to look into the God question and you quickly find that a lot of people are actually believing in a God delusion (h/t Dawkins ) than asking the God question.

Science can't not prove it either, so it is ineffective in the answering of the question is there a God? If you were to truly evaluate all science you would find a bauble propose that God sevres. But that gets into psychology, which was my major area of study.

 

[myp]

Science can't not prove it either, so it is ineffective in the answering of the question is there a God? If you were to truly evaluate all science you would find a bauble propose that God sevres. But that gets into psychology, which was my major area of study.

Science can't prove it- that is my whole point. Read this whole thread over. I said from the beginning that the possibility exists, but you can't believe in an endpoint (that God exists) without the scientific evidence.

To believe in God is to forego science when it comes to the God question. It doesn't matter if you think God serves a purpose (a belief that I disagree with), it is about whether God actually exists.

And psychology, when done properly is a science too and is not above the scientific method either. (I said done properly because psych has an unfortunate past history with some major "studies" being unscientific [that has changed in modern times thankfully] what with Freud and all).

 

[clax]

I'm not sure I understand what you are arguing for here. That God exists because history exists?

You can take small points in any two arguments and find a way to make some overlap, but that it is usually just cherrypicking data. That is why I would say no, science cannot support a creation argument based just on the fact that the Bible exists and can be true. You need hard, unbiased evidence- cherrypicking points like the ones you mentioned is biased.

I would take a simpler stance on the first point, the fact that any thing exists suggests it WA created some how. what is that energy put event that occurred but God, sure it could be some energy or some cataclysm, but prior to the big bang matter and energy had to come into existence, it either magiced into existence our was put there. Probability is not involved because either scenario and anything in between is possible, to rule one out because of a Bible or a religion seems rash to me.

 

[clax]

Science can't prove it- that is my whole point. Read this whole thread over. I said from the beginning that the possibility exists, but you can't believe in an endpoint (that God exists) without the scientific evidence.

To believe in God is to forego science when it comes to the God question. It doesn't matter if you think God serves a purpose (a belief that I disagree with), it is about whether God actually exists.

And psychology, when done properly is a science too and is not above the scientific method either. (I said done properly because psych has an unfortunate past history with some major "studies" being unscientific [that has changed in modern times thankfully] what with Freud and all).

My point is science doesn't need to.

 

[clax]

Not for me at least, I love my spouse, I don't know why, nor do I need to, I couldn't change anything by that.

I really like the idea that I don't have an explanation. It wouldn't change anything if I had one