Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Detecting God
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 31 of 271 (567760)
07-02-2010 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by sac51495
07-01-2010 4:03 PM


You are correct that God is not part of the measurable world. However, your logical progression fails in the second part of your sentence, because no one ever said that reality only includes the measurable world.
Then please demonstrate what reality is made of and cite evidence to support your assertions.
Since you do not believe in God, you do not view the universe in terms of God, and thus, you view it in terms of man.
What evidence would lead us to view the universe in terms of God? You don't view the universe in terms of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, so does this mean that you view it in terms of man?
If you really thought of God as God, you wouldn't even try to change His glory into something detectable, and corruptible!!
What evidence would lead me to think of God as God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by sac51495, posted 07-01-2010 4:03 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by sac51495, posted 07-02-2010 2:17 PM Taq has replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 32 of 271 (567769)
07-02-2010 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Peepul
07-02-2010 10:29 AM


Hello Peepul,
There is good reason now to believe that there are natural explanations for what exists, and there seems to be no need for the supernatural in any of it.
"Cosmologists use the term Big Bang to refer to the idea that the universe was originally extremely hot and dense at some finite time in the past" - Wikipedia.org...
But where did that hot, dense stuff come from? Did it come from nothing? From something? Is is eternal?...Sounds like a great, purely natural explanation for the origin of our universe, doesn't it? So I disagree quite strongly with your premise that there is good evidence for a natural universe, so the concluding question is irrelevant.
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead,..." [emphasis added] (Romans 1:18)
Though the order and complexity we see in nature is quite a testament to God's existence, this is not what Paul is talking about; note that he said "invisible". These invisible attributes are clearly seen, not by our eyes, but by our heart, mind, and soul. We can even come to the point of understanding (at least to a small extent) His eternal power and Godhead. These are the invisible attributes that Paul spoke of.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Peepul, posted 07-02-2010 10:29 AM Peepul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Woodsy, posted 07-02-2010 2:11 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 47 by Taq, posted 07-02-2010 3:43 PM sac51495 has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 33 of 271 (567770)
07-02-2010 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Taq
07-02-2010 1:28 PM


quote:
As logic demands, it is up to those who claim that there is a non-physical reality to provide evidence of its existence. That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.
And isn't it equally up to those who deny that there is a non-physical reality to provide evidence of its non-existence? Otherwise they are likewise asserting a claim without evidence.
BTW, logic also demands that one not insist on physical evidence for non-physical reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Taq, posted 07-02-2010 1:28 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Taq, posted 07-02-2010 3:54 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 57 by DBlevins, posted 07-02-2010 5:30 PM kbertsche has replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 34 of 271 (567774)
07-02-2010 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Woodsy
07-02-2010 1:00 PM


Re: Detection of God
Woodsy,
the fact that something is not understood just now is not evidence that it will never be understood.
And likewise, the fact that we do not fully understand the exact nature of God is not evidence that we never will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Woodsy, posted 07-02-2010 1:00 PM Woodsy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Huntard, posted 07-02-2010 2:12 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 42 by nwr, posted 07-02-2010 2:43 PM sac51495 has not replied

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 35 of 271 (567776)
07-02-2010 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by sac51495
07-02-2010 2:00 PM


"Cosmologists use the term Big Bang to refer to the idea that the universe was originally extremely hot and dense at some finite time in the past" - Wikipedia.org...
But where did that hot, dense stuff come from? Did it come from nothing? From something? Is is eternal?...Sounds like a great, purely natural explanation for the origin of our universe, doesn't it? So I disagree quite strongly with your premise that there is good evidence for a natural universe, so the concluding question is irrelevant.
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead,..." [emphasis added] (Romans 1:18)
Though the order and complexity we see in nature is quite a testament to God's existence, this is not what Paul is talking about; note that he said "invisible". These invisible attributes are clearly seen, not by our eyes, but by our heart, mind, and soul. We can even come to the point of understanding (at least to a small extent) His eternal power and Godhead. These are the invisible attributes that Paul spoke of.
You are making that silly claim that if science has not yet clarified something, then religion can. That has not been shown.
Why should anyone suppose that a book written thousands of years ago by a bunch of ignorant savages could be of any help in understanding the universe? Your last two paragraphs are just gibberish. Impressive gibberish, but still gibberish.
By the way, the heart is just a pump for blood. Why do you perpetuate these ancient errors?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by sac51495, posted 07-02-2010 2:00 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by sac51495, posted 07-02-2010 2:32 PM Woodsy has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 36 of 271 (567777)
07-02-2010 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by dwise1
07-02-2010 12:39 PM


Re: Detection of God
Hi dwise1,
dwise1 writes:
My father. After more than 20 years of smoking regularly, he then spent a year watching his own father die slowly and painfully of lung cancer. In all the remaining 35 years until he died, I only saw him with a cigarette once and that was 20 years after he had quit and was because of a period of very heavy stress in his business.
I am glad to hear your father stopped smoking. I notice you did not say the extent he was smoking and that he did eventually smoke at least one cigarette later.
I was smoking 4 packs of cigarettes a day. That is 80 cigaretts. I went to work at 6 AM and went to bed at 10 PM, that is 14 hours in which I consumed those 80 cigarettes. That is consuming a cigarette every 10 minutes.
dwise1 writes:
Others may find motivation elsewhere, such as in the belief that their god wants them to quit and will help them to do it.
I did not quit smoking because I thought or believed God wanted me to quit.
I wanted to quit because the cigarettes were in control as I had one in each hand and did not even know it.
I had tried to quit many times and could not so I knew I needed help. I ask for that help and got it in the form of never wanting another puff off a cigarette that has lasted 46 years. I can not be in a room with a bunch of smokers that are not even smoking it makes me sick.
This is just a minor thing that I have asked for and received but if I told the others everybody would be convinced I am a nut rather than just believing I am a nut.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by dwise1, posted 07-02-2010 12:39 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 37 of 271 (567778)
07-02-2010 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by sac51495
07-02-2010 2:04 PM


Re: Detection of God
sac51495 writes:
And likewise, the fact that we do not fully understand the exact nature of God is not evidence that we never will.
You'd first need to prove there is a god, before you can even begin to discuss its nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by sac51495, posted 07-02-2010 2:04 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by sac51495, posted 07-02-2010 3:57 PM Huntard has not replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 38 of 271 (567780)
07-02-2010 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Taq
07-02-2010 1:31 PM


Futile Materialism
Taq,
Then please demonstrate what reality is made of and cite evidence to support your assertions.
You appear to be a materialist, from this and other quotes, such as:
As logic demands, it is up to those who claim that there is a non-physical reality to provide evidence of its existence.
My basic argument against materialism is very simple: accounting for the yourself.
Now this argument entails a number of things, such as your self-awareness, your ability to think logically, your aesthetic sense, love, etc.
But what I particularly want to focus on is what exactly you think "you" are. If you are a materialist, then you probably think that "you" are your brain. But before I go any further, you need to confirm that you are a materialist; and if you aren't a materialist, then we need not have this discussion.
And by the way, my biggest reason for believing in an immaterial reality is not the previous argument, but this: "For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." - (Hebrews 4:12) This vs. assumes the existence of a spirit, which is immaterial. Therefore, standing firmly on the Bible and nothing else, I conclude that there must be an immaterial reality.
P.S. - Try to figure out why the following statement, which is made by a materialistic atheist, is self-contradictory: "I am my brain".
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Taq, posted 07-02-2010 1:31 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Huntard, posted 07-02-2010 2:26 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 48 by Taq, posted 07-02-2010 3:45 PM sac51495 has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 39 of 271 (567782)
07-02-2010 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by sac51495
07-02-2010 2:17 PM


Re: Futile Materialism
sac51495 writes:
My basic argument against materialism is very simple: accounting for the yourself.
Ok, here I am. Now what?
This vs. assumes the existence of a spirit, which is immaterial. Therefore, standing firmly on the Bible and nothing else, I conclude that there must be an immaterial reality.
Let me get this straight. Because an ancient text says there is a spirit, you say there must be a spirit. I've got an ancient text here that says Ra exists. Must he be real as well?
"I am my brain".
Because there is also a body attached to that brain.
Edited by Huntard, : spellings

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by sac51495, posted 07-02-2010 2:17 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by sac51495, posted 07-02-2010 11:42 PM Huntard has replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 40 of 271 (567783)
07-02-2010 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Woodsy
07-02-2010 2:11 PM


Science over God?
Woodsy,
You are making that silly claim that if science has not yet clarified something, then religion can.
It is common for atheists to cry "religion!" when they feel that "religion" has trumped science.
Firstly, what is the error in "religion" trumping science?
Secondly, "religion" does not clarify that which science has failed at; "religion" makes it possible for science to clarify anything! (by the way, that was a very lengthy argument compacted into one sentence, so I can give more details if you wish)
Lastly, you may notice that I have been putting quotation marks around the word religion. This is because you seem to think of religion as...well, I don't know for sure, but ultimately, you seem to equate Christianity with all the ancient, mythological religions, such as the Vikings, and the Romans, and the Greeks. But God is not religion. God is the immaterial, infinite, eternal, holy, just, merciful, loving being who is the focal point of this universe, and upon whom, and by whom, the universe is based and created. Religion is the belief in God, or the belief in false gods. So the "belief in God" does not attempt to clarify things, but God himself clarifies all, because of the impossibility of the opposite.
By the way, the heart is just a pump for blood.
As they always say; you learn something new everyday! (sarcasm)
My use of the word "heart" was not meant to be equated with the muscle in my body. Just like if you told your spouse that you "love them from the bottom of your heart", you would not expect them to actually think you meant the blood-pumping muscle in your body...
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Woodsy, posted 07-02-2010 2:11 PM Woodsy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by DrJones*, posted 07-02-2010 2:37 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 43 by Woodsy, posted 07-02-2010 2:56 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 44 by jar, posted 07-02-2010 3:16 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 45 by Coragyps, posted 07-02-2010 3:26 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 50 by Taq, posted 07-02-2010 3:56 PM sac51495 has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 41 of 271 (567785)
07-02-2010 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by sac51495
07-02-2010 2:32 PM


Re: Science over God?
God is the immaterial, infinite, eternal, holy, just, merciful, loving being who is the focal point of this universe, and upon whom, and by whom, the universe is based and created
Yup good old King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Odin the Allfather.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by sac51495, posted 07-02-2010 2:32 PM sac51495 has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 42 of 271 (567788)
07-02-2010 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by sac51495
07-02-2010 2:04 PM


Re: Detection of God
sac51495 writes:
And likewise, the fact that we do not fully understand the exact nature of God is not evidence that we never will.
I suspect that many of the athiest members of evcforum would tell you that they understand very well the exact nature of God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by sac51495, posted 07-02-2010 2:04 PM sac51495 has not replied

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 43 of 271 (567791)
07-02-2010 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by sac51495
07-02-2010 2:32 PM


Re: Science over God?
It is common for atheists to cry "religion!" when they feel that "religion" has trumped science.
Firstly, what is the error in "religion" trumping science?
The error is that there is no way to verify the accuracy of religious so-called explanations. Remember, the metaphysicist has no laboratory.
Secondly, "religion" does not clarify that which science has failed at; "religion" makes it possible for science to clarify anything! (by the way, that was a very lengthy argument compacted into one sentence, so I can give more details if you wish)
Please do so: that sounds like poppycock to me.
God is the immaterial, infinite, eternal, holy, just, merciful, loving being who is the focal point of this universe, and upon whom, and by whom, the universe is based and created.
Evidence, please? Impressive gobbledygook is still gobbledygook.
My use of the word "heart" was not meant to be equated with the muscle in my body. Just like if you told your spouse that you "love them from the bottom of your heart", you would not expect them to actually think you meant the blood-pumping muscle in your body...
I would not use the phrase. I dislike ancient errors. Why not just say what you mean? Preaching is offensive to those of us who are not religious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by sac51495, posted 07-02-2010 2:32 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by sac51495, posted 07-03-2010 12:19 AM Woodsy has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 44 of 271 (567792)
07-02-2010 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by sac51495
07-02-2010 2:32 PM


Re: Science over God?
God is the immaterial, infinite, eternal, holy, just, merciful, loving being who is the focal point of this universe, and upon whom, and by whom, the universe is based and created. Religion is the belief in God, or the belief in false gods. So the "belief in God" does not attempt to clarify things, but God himself clarifies all, because of the impossibility of the opposite.
Is there some reason that God should not be an evil, capricious, unmerciful, hating being?
Is the God you create any more likely than any other God?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by sac51495, posted 07-02-2010 2:32 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Coragyps, posted 07-02-2010 3:26 PM jar has not replied
 Message 69 by sac51495, posted 07-03-2010 12:44 AM jar has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 45 of 271 (567796)
07-02-2010 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by sac51495
07-02-2010 2:32 PM


Re: Science over God?
"God is the immaterial, infinite, eternal, holy, just, merciful, loving being who is the focal point of this universe, and who will fry your sorry ass forever in a place of unbelievable torment if you don't suck up to him NOW!"
Fixed it for you, 51495.
Christianity is one of "the ancient, mythological religions." Find me anything that sets it apart from them, other that that the three you mention are now extinct.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by sac51495, posted 07-02-2010 2:32 PM sac51495 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024