|
Author
|
Topic: Detecting God
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 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 |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 54 of 271 (567828)
07-02-2010 4:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 51 by sac51495
07-02-2010 3:57 PM
|
|
Re: Detection of God
My point was that if Woodsy can say that he does not have to understand everything about how the Big Bang worked, then why should I have to explain perfectly the nature of God, if he can't even explain the nature of the Big Bang? However there is evidence that there was some beginning to this Universe. We can determine that this Universe does exist. There is no evidence however that God exists.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 51 by sac51495, posted 07-02-2010 3:57 PM | | sac51495 has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 63 of 271 (567867)
07-02-2010 9:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by ICANT
07-02-2010 8:47 PM
|
|
Re: Detection of God
That says God caused the universe to begin to exist. So what do you say caused the universe to begin to exist? God Bless, That God said nothing. Who ever wrote and much later whoever redacted the Genesis 1 myth said that. Even if true, it tells us nothing worthwhile or of value. It has no more meaning, no more information than...
In the beginning there were only two: Tawa, the Sun God, and Spider Woman, the Earth Goddess. All the mysteries and power in the Above belonged to Tawa, while Spider Woman controlled the magic of the Below. In the Underworld, abode of the Gods, they dwelt and they were All. There was neither man nor woman, bird nor beast, no living thing until these Two willed it to be. Did anything cause the universe to begin to exist? If the answer is "We don't know yet" then the proper response is to place that question into the "Not yet known" folder, not to simply jump to some answer, particularly an answer that leaves us as ignorant as before. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." tells us nothing of value. The steps we are taking now do tell us far more. Also, as I said in the very post you are quoting; in fact in the very next sentence...
"jar" writes: There is no evidence however that God exists. "ICANT" writes: God Bless, Which God? Edited by jar, : No reason given.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 61 by ICANT, posted 07-02-2010 8:47 PM | | ICANT has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 77 of 271 (567925)
07-03-2010 9:22 AM
|
Reply to: Message 69 by sac51495
07-03-2010 12:44 AM
|
|
Re: Science over God?
Are you arguing against the Muslim god? Are you arguing against the Hindu "god"? Are you arguing against the Buddhist god? Are you arguing against the mythological Greek gods? The Roman gods? The Norse gods? The Egyptian gods? Are you an atheist? What is the positive position held by some on this forum that you are arguing against? If you are arguing against the Christian faith as an atheist, then you get to argue against it, and other religions are irrelevant. If I followed your logic, then I could cite all the other inherently atheistic worldviews that are out there, many of which you probably do not subscribe to, such as Behaviorism, Existentialism, Platonic Dualism, Monism, Deterministic Atomism, Pragmatism, or Egoism. I am not an atheist, but rather a Christian. I am arguing against the absurdity of detecting GOD. And yes, the Norse Gods and Egyptian Gods and Greek and Roman Gods are equally as likely as any of the different Gods found in the Bible. Again, is your only support that the god you market is more likely than any other god the fact that you can find dialog in some story where characters make that claim?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 69 by sac51495, posted 07-03-2010 12:44 AM | | sac51495 has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 78 of 271 (567927)
07-03-2010 9:40 AM
|
Reply to: Message 73 by sac51495
07-03-2010 1:29 AM
|
|
Re: Detection of God
"sac51495" writes: Firstly, if you believe your anecdote about Tawa and Spider woman to be as equally foolish as Genesis, then why are you arguing against the Christians, as if their beliefs had some meaning to them? Why don't you argue against the believers in Tawa and Spider woman? I don't believe either is foolish. They are both wonderful myths.
"sac51495" writes: Secondly, why shouldn't the Bible be believed? First, there is no such thing as "The Bible". There are many different canons, all determined by man, each one including or excluding material. Second, the collections we call a Bible are anthologies of anthologies, written by unknown authors, edited and redacted by unknown people, complied by unknown committees. Third, when we look at the Bibles we find that just as one would expect in any anthology, there are many contradictions between the stories different authors wrote and even more contradictions where the unknown redactors tried to combine and merge two or more stories by different authors from different eras together. A great example is in the Flood myth where at least two different stories were cobbled together. Finally, I believe the stories exist. Just like so many fables, myths, fairytales, there is lots that can be learned from them.
"sac51495" writes: But, most importantly: "As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:9) This vs. establishes the infallibility of the Gospel story, which itself refers back to the Genesis account of our earliest history (about 6000 years ago) as though it were also inerrant. Are you serious? Do you really think that because a character in a story refers to events in another story as factual it makes them factual?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 73 by sac51495, posted 07-03-2010 1:29 AM | | sac51495 has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 81 of 271 (567955)
07-03-2010 2:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 80 by ICANT
07-03-2010 2:05 PM
|
|
Re: Detection of God
"ICANT" writes: Hi jar,
jar writes: "ICANT" writes: God Bless, Which God? The God of Genesis 1:1 that created the Heaven and the Earth. God Bless, Ah, so not the God of Gen2&3; understood.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 80 by ICANT, posted 07-03-2010 2:05 PM | | ICANT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 84 by ICANT, posted 07-03-2010 3:36 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 85 of 271 (567967)
07-03-2010 3:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 84 by ICANT
07-03-2010 3:36 PM
|
|
Re: Detection of God
Nonsense. Yes I know about your claims but they are simply silly. It is also totally irrelevant to this topic even if it was true. The topic is on "Detecting God" and quoting what is said in stories is hardly support or evidence.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 84 by ICANT, posted 07-03-2010 3:36 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 115 of 271 (569862)
07-24-2010 10:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 113 by riVeRraT
07-23-2010 11:38 PM
|
|
How do you know it was from God?
riVeRraT writes: I've been in a room where everybody in it felt the same thing from God. How did you test that it was from God?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 113 by riVeRraT, posted 07-23-2010 11:38 PM | | riVeRraT has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 136 of 271 (571104)
07-30-2010 10:58 AM
|
Reply to: Message 134 by sac51495
07-30-2010 10:03 AM
|
|
sac51495 writes: So what implications do these passages have? None beyond being assertions in stories. Why would they have any more validity then Lord Vishnu's sleep being interrupted by a great Humming?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 134 by sac51495, posted 07-30-2010 10:03 AM | | sac51495 has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 171 of 271 (573660)
08-12-2010 10:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 165 by sac51495
08-12-2010 7:10 AM
|
|
Re: Science: objective? Nah.
sac51495 writes: Give me an example of a scientific proof for the existence of something. For example: gravity, the sun, etc...We'll see just how objective that proof really is... Which of course is not just a silly request but also another attempt to change the subject, palm the pea, smoke and mirrors. Nothing has been said about proving the existence of God rather the topic is "Detecting God". We can detect gravity, certainly well enough to be able to point to an event and all agree "Gravity caused the apple to fall". We can detect the sun, certainly well enough for folk to tell when it is night or day. How do we detect God with the same level of confidence we have about detecting gravity or the sun?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 165 by sac51495, posted 08-12-2010 7:10 AM | | sac51495 has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 172 of 271 (573661)
08-12-2010 10:41 AM
|
Reply to: Message 169 by riVeRraT
08-12-2010 7:49 AM
|
|
Re: Science: objective? Nah.
riVeRraT writes: Jesus's walk on the earth, and the miracles He performed are evidence. Very weak evidence. We may believe Jesus walked on the earth and that Jesus performed miracles, but honestly there is almost no evidence that is true and even if true that is not really evidence of God. Miracles are simply events that cannot be explained. They offer no strong evidence of God.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 169 by riVeRraT, posted 08-12-2010 7:49 AM | | riVeRraT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 177 by riVeRraT, posted 08-17-2010 8:25 AM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 186 of 271 (574748)
08-17-2010 3:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 181 by sac51495
08-17-2010 11:36 AM
|
|
Re: Correct, but uselessly so
sac51495 writes: Why do there tend to be more mis-interpretations of the Word of God than of physical laws? Two major problems there. First, there is no universal agreement of what the "Word of God" even is. There is not even a universal agreement what books should be in a "Bible". Since there is not even such a thing as "The Word of God" there cannot help but be misinterpretations. Second, physical laws can be tested and verified. The "Word of God" cannot be tested or verified.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 181 by sac51495, posted 08-17-2010 11:36 AM | | sac51495 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 190 of 271 (575114)
08-18-2010 10:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 189 by sac51495
08-18-2010 10:15 PM
|
|
Re: Correct, but uselessly so
sac51495 writes: Paul said that if anybody else preached a gospel other than the one that they (Paul, Peter, John, Matthew, etc.) preached, that that man should be accursed...the men who wrote the Bible were inspired by God, so that the words were products not of men, but of God. But that still offers no evidence or a way to detect a god nor is there any evidence that the men who wrote the Bible stories (remember no one wrote the Bible, that has always been the product of unknown committees) were inspired by god. If God was involved the God was NOT very consistent since there is no universally accepted Canon, there are many many gospels for example that never made it into the Western Canon. In addition none of the gospels you mention were even written at the time Paul wrote that.
sac51495 writes: What basis is there for believing the words in the Bible to be any more true than other so-called inspired writings? By deciding whether or not they conflict with God's Law, which He wrote down with His own finger. Huh? You mean "Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin"? What else did God write with his very own finger?
sac51495 writes: What reason do I have for believing God's Law and the books that it is put in to be true? By the impossibility of the contrary. HUH?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 189 by sac51495, posted 08-18-2010 10:15 PM | | sac51495 has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
bye, bye, first cause.
JBR writes: In the final analysis, virtually all concepts of god or gods, include an infinite entity, who is self sustaining and the originator of our current universe. Even though that is not true, (many, maybe even most, religions have gods that are not infinite), even if it was true it is irrelevant. If we look at the evidence that is available and can be examined what we find is that the cause of something most often does not continue to exist beyond the initial incident. The star that goes nova and produces the heavy elements that in turn make life possible does not continue to exist. The rock that starts a landslide in turn gets pounded into sand and then dust in the very landslide itself. The radioactive elements that cause a nuclear explosion no longer exist and are changed into other elements, heat and energy. If you want to make some claim of some uncaused first cause, there is still no reason to think that uncaused first cause might still exist and lots of reasons to think that it would be destroyed in the very process of creation. Edited by jar, : fix sub-title
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: bye, bye, first cause.
Jbr writes: jar writes: Even though that is not true, (many, maybe even most, religions have gods that are not infinite), even if it was true it is irrelevant. Oops, I think what we have here is a failure to communicate...  I meant to refer only to the majority of concepts about god, and not to imply that the majority of the conglomeration of all religions hold to this concept. Wouldn't you agree that the majority of this planet's religious population hold to one of the five or six main religions -- which do see their god as an infinite creator of the universe? And thinking about this further wouldn't you agree that this is relevant because if we are going to "detect god" we want to address the major religious populations concept of the term, rather than including all the obscure and less followed beliefs such as Greek mythology etc...? First, if we are going to detect god it doesn't matter what people believe. The goal has nothing to do with supporting any given belief in god, the goal is to detect god whatever that god turns out to be. What I or anyone else happen to believe about god has nothing to do with the reality of a GOD. If there is a GOD then the available evidence is that that GOD will not correspond to anything any human currently thinks is God or anything imagined by any peoples in the past.
Jbr writes: jar writes: If we look at the evidence that is available and can be examined what we find is that the cause of something most often does not continue to exist beyond the initial incident. The star that goes nova and produces the heavy elements that in turn make life possible does not continue to exist. The rock that starts a landslide in turn gets pounded into sand and then dust in the very landslide itself. The radioactive elements that cause a nuclear explosion no longer exist and are changed into other elements, heat and energy. But wouldn't you agree that we are not talking about events that "most often" occur? Rather we are discussing an event that is unique to our universe (its birth). So wouldn't you agree that all of your "most often" events (like rock slides and supernova's) can be traced back to that one unique event? Therefore we have a first cause that we must refer to as the first cause or expansion/big bang of the universe. It seems highly odd to suggest that before this event occurred that there was nothing. Because something can not come from nothing. Therefore it seems more likely to me that something must have always existed. And we call something that always existed, "infinite." And wouldn't you agree that something infinite in nature would logically have to infinitely survive? Even through a finite event like the big bang? No, I see no reason to think our universe is something exceptional or unusual. This universe is unique to us but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is an unique event. The only thing unique about this universe is that it happens to be the universe we just happen to be in. No one is suggesting that before the Big Bang there was nothing. What is said is that this universe evolved sometime after the Big Bang. And why can't something come from nothing? I also don't see where there is any need to speculate on something that is infinite. Even if there was something that caused the Big Bang there is no reason to suppose that whatever that was survived past the moment of creation, and all of the available evidence supports that position as I explained in the examples I listed.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
™ Version 4.2