28 Jul 06
Originally posted by PalynkaYou accept what you have, but you have to tell me what, what you
What's wrong with accepting the evidence that we have?
have means, you have to define what you have, make it up as you
go. The fact of the matter is, there are not that many facts, and
what is called evidence to disprove is just evidence; the use of it
to say it means God is real or not real is a matter of opinion, not
justification on proving God one way or another.
Kelly
28 Jul 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf you find things in the universe we did not know about before, it
In which case you simpply haven't taken everything into account. Once you do, you realise that all that extra stuff is actually part of the universe, you just forgot it before.
does in deed expand what we think the universe is; however, my
point was that it does not mean that everything is within the universe!
If as as I believe, God created the universe and it is within God, but
cannot contain God, it is not apart of God's being, rather the work of
God; than the universe does not contain everything or everyone. To
say it must or must not is faith.
Kelly
28 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhat are you looking for when you say God does not exist? Define
That is the wrong question to ask. The correct question is what evidence is there that God does exist? The answer to that question is none.
God, since some believe god is the work of their hands, a piece of
rock or wood they carved, that to them is a god. You can touch it, feel
it, break it, is it real? Who are you talking about, how do you define
Him, and how have you looked for Him to know He isn't real?
Kelly
29 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJayThen you are not sticking to the definition of the word universe.
If you find things in the universe we did not know about before, it
does in deed expand what we think the universe is; however, my
point was that it does not mean that everything is within the universe!
If as as I believe, God created the universe and it is within God, but
cannot contain God, it is not apart of God's being, rather the work of
God; th ...[text shortened]... universe does not contain everything or everyone. To
say it must or must not is faith.
Kelly
29 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you wish to define God as a piece of rock, that's up to you. I am referring to the Christian god here however. My point is that it is more parsimonious to believe something does not exist, until it is proven to exist - you made that point yourself with your pink flying kittens.
What are you looking for when you say God does not exist? Define
God, since some believe god is the work of their hands, a piece of
rock or wood they carved, that to them is a god. You can touch it, feel
it, break it, is it real? Who are you talking about, how do you define
Him, and how have you looked for Him to know He isn't real?
Kelly
30 Jul 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI've never said I could prove God; moreover, I even don't take people
If you wish to define God as a piece of rock, that's up to you. I am referring to the Christian god here however. My point is that it is more parsimonious to believe something does not exist, until it is proven to exist - you made that point yourself with your pink flying kittens.
very seriously who say they can either. That doesn’t mean that I do
not believe God is real, only that I don’t think I or anyone else can
prove God is real, only God can do that. I believe God does too, but
only to those that are taking Him seriously, not those that are wishy
washy and playing games with Him or running through the motions.
Which is why I believe people who are at the end of their ropes do
find God, because when they are calling on Him they are down right
serious and mean businesses in no uncertain terms.
This discussion the word "god" should be defined before we start
saying He isn't real or not. The Christian God means what? I can
think of several different types of so called gods that people push,
the OT is quite clear when they speak of God they identify who they
are talking about so it is quite plain, least someone get the wrong
idea. I don't want to assume when someone uses the word god
or God we are talking about the same one, I don't even assume
when someone uses the name Jesus we are talking about the
same Jesus either. I spent 2 hours one day talking to a couple
of Mormons who came to my home, and we were using the same
terms, grace, Jesus and so on, but we were not saying the same
thing while doing so.
Kelly
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
30 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJaythe word universe means EVERYTHING. not some subset of everything or some types of everything. if there were a god then it and where it lived would be part of the universe because we (humans) have defined the word universe to mean everything. there can be nothing outside teh universe because if there were something outside the universe then it wouldn't be the universe. (please note there is a difference between the known or visible universe which is mearly the stuff we have discovered so far.) there is no way of puting it where you can have ANYTHING outside the universe. infact the very concept of 'outside' the universe is meaningless as the universe contains all the space for stuff to exist in. thus if there is a god then they exist inside the universe, allthough they don't have to exist in this bit of it.
What definition was put out there everyone was supposed to be
using?
Kelly
30 Jul 06
Originally posted by googlefudgeWhat part of any of that word below do you see, it means everything?
the word universe means EVERYTHING. not some subset of everything or some types of everything. if there were a god then it and where it lived would be part of the universe because we (humans) have defined the word universe to mean everything. there can be nothing outside teh universe because if there were something outside the universe then it wouldn't b ...[text shortened]... d then they exist inside the universe, allthough they don't have to exist in this bit of it.
I can see that the whole of something means everything within it,
I don't see where you get to put everything into something. Even
Webster refers to the creation when it points out:
COSMOS: as a : a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct intervention of divine power
This part puts the universe simply as the work of God, that which
God created, which is again not God but the work of God, which
again does not mean that it can fully contain God.
Kelly
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin universum, from neuter of universus entire, whole, from uni- + versus turned toward, from past participle of vertere to turn -- more at WORTH
1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated : COSMOS: as a : a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct intervention of divine power b : the world of human experience c (1) : the entire celestial cosmos (2) : MILKY WAY GALAXY (3) : an aggregate of stars comparable to the Milky Way galaxy
2 : a distinct field or province of thought or reality that forms a closed system or self-inclusive and independent organization
3 : POPULATION 4
4 : a set that contains all elements relevant to a particular discussion or problem
5 : a great number or quantity
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
30 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJayThe problem with defining god is that as you say people mean so many different things when they say it. You for example seem very clear that god is a he "only to those that are taking Him seriously" however others say she, or it, some believe in many gods, some believe in spirits, (nymphs and fairies and the like).
I've never said I could prove God; moreover, I even don't take people
very seriously who say they can either. That doesn’t mean that I do
not believe God is real, only that I don’t think I or anyone else can
prove God is real, only God can do that. I believe God does too, but
only to those that are taking Him seriously, not those that are wishy
washy a ...[text shortened]... ms, grace, Jesus and so on, but we were not saying the same
thing while doing so.
Kelly
Saying god only proves his existence to people who believe in him sounds very much like a self reinforcing delusion, you believe in god and then you see something (feel something, read something, you still haven’t adequately explained exactly what it is that made you believe in god) that you believe is god (getting aw struck at the world and deciding that it couldn't have come about by accident and thus must have been designed might be an example) but no one (or only other believers like you) see it that way, so you explain it by saying only us special people who believe can see gods works (or equivalent) and everyone else is blind and so on and so fourth.
As to 'god must be defined before you go looking for him/her/it/them/....' how about instead you define what isn't god/religion/supernatural, which appears to be a far easier task. And then look for phenomena, which aren't 'natural'. Because your way you have to define the religion you are looking to prove/disprove, prove disprove it and then do it all again for the next religion, where as if you do it my way you can deal with all religions simultaneously.
This way you can ignore things like people saying 'the whole of creation is god, the trees the rocks the air the mountains and streams the stars and the moon, it is all god, now I am going to go swallow a frog and hug a tree'. The person that said that would in this case simply equate the words universe and god to mean the same thing, they don't however seem to expect it to do anything scientist would expect and so the only difference seems to be how you view the world instead of thinking that there is something else beyond the stuff we see around us (like souls, spirits, magic, heaven and hell, and gods as beings, and anything else in this vein, this is roughly what I would call the supernatural).
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
30 Jul 06
4 edits
everything that exists anywhere; "they study the evolution of the universe"; "the biggest tree in existence"
Here are some definitions of universe from google.
the above 'everything that exists anywhere (plus the space it exists in' is about what I would use/have been using.
http://www.google.co.uk /search?num=100&hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define: universe&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
EDIT: please remove the spaces from the above link (before the slash and after define: as it just displayed word too long without them