30 Jul 06
Originally posted by googlefudgeOkay, you cannot define something yet you know it isn't real, how
The 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).
Saying god only proves his existence ...[text shortened]... and anything else in this vein, this is roughly what I would call the supernatural).
is that? I call God the Lord of all, the King of the Universe, the
creator of the universe, my Savior, Lord, and Friend, the God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the source of all life, the sustainer of all
things, the God of the living. These words still fail to say who God
is, so going back to the OT I still like what God said to Moses when
Moses asked who he should say was sending him God said, “I AM.”
I don't ignore anyone that I'm talking to when they are trying to
made a point, I may not agree with them, that happens to us all.
My point to you is that God's creation is not God, and God is not
His creation, the universe is simply the work of His hands nothing
more.
Kelly
30 Jul 06
Originally posted by spiritmangr8nessI am that I am.
How?
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 ...[text shortened]... he next religion, where as if you do it my way you can deal with all religions simultaneously.
"Plato discovered the real intelligible world which lies behind the merely sensible world, and which (as Aristotle emphasized after him) is to be found by inquiry into the sensible world. The whole subsequent development of science is a massive vindication of this discovery. Plato's Christian successors soon caught on to the fact that one intelligent will, which conceives and intends it rather as human beings conceive and intend their own actions and products, is ultimately the only satisfactory explanation for the existence and nature of such an intelligible world. Hume, as a consistent empiricist, in effect denied the world's intelligibility, and his account of knowledge, which has proved a fruitful source of atheism, leads just as ineluctably to scepticism. Kant, who was impressed by the sceptical conclusions which followed from Hume's premisses, strongly reasserted the intelligibility of the world as apprehended both by common sense and by science; but wrongly inferred that, since such apprehension plainly involves mental creativity, the world thus apprehended must be a merely seeming world of appearances dependent on human minds, and not, as would be held by all who are not subjective idealists, existing and being as it is largely prior to and independently of those minds.[34] The right conclusion is (following the idealists, and Kant's objections to Hume) that the world shows signs of mental creativity, but (following common sense and materialist objections to idealism) that it is absurd to say that this mental creativity is human. The creativity is consequently to be attributed to a Mind (or minds)[35] other than the human."
Hugo Meynell
30 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeThere is this little problem called Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle.
where in my sentence did I use the word proof?
And why don't you think you can determine everything about the universe from inside it?
The universe is based on quantum theory whether we like it or no.
There is no way to know everything about our universe from inside it because of that. We can't even know everything about MATHS because of unprovable postulates, etc. So it leaves us short when trying to understand the universe completely from the inside. It probably wouldn't even help if we were OUTSIDE the universe looking in.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
30 Jul 06
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay"Okay, you cannot define something yet you know it isn't real, how is that?
Okay, you cannot define something yet you know it isn't real, how
is that? I call God the Lord of all, the King of the Universe, the
creator of the universe, my Savior, Lord, and Friend, the God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the source of all life, the sustainer of all things, the God of the living. These words still fail to say who God is, so going back God is not
His creation, the universe is simply the work of His hands nothing
more.
Kelly
I call God the Lord of all, the King of the Universe, the creator of the universe, my Savoir, Lord, and Friend, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the source of all life, the sustainer of all things, the God of the living.
These words still fail to say who God is, so going back to the OT I still like what God said to Moses when Moses asked who he should say was sending him God said, “I AM.”"
In answer to your question, I would say that to know something exists (by definition of knowledge) you have to have proof that it exists, I have seen no proof for the existence of anything which I would class as the 'supernatural' which would certainly include the god you describe. as to knowing something doesn't exist, you look at all the stuff that does exist and all the evidence we have about the nature of the universe and how it behaves and ask 'If there were a god / the supernatural, then can we see any evidence for it, and if not can we not find any evidence we should see?' if the answer is no on both counts (which it is) then either there is a god or the supernatural but they don't actually do anything, or there is no god or the supernatural. if there is no detectable difference between the two adopt the simpler and more useful explanation, until you receive new evidence.
"I don't ignore anyone that I'm talking to when they are trying to
made a point, I may not agree with them, that happens to us all.
My point to you is that God's creation is not God, and God is not
His creation, the universe is simply the work of His hands nothing
more."
I am not saying, and have not to my knowledge, said that you were ignoring me. my point is that under the currently (and for the last century or so at the very least) used definition of universe everything be it heaven hell deity/s or space time, star planet, and anything else you can think of, it is included in it, if there were a 'creator' god of this bit of the universe then it could be outside of this bit of the universe but not outside of the whole universe, because otherwise it wouldn't be the whole universe as there would be something outside it. it is just how the word universe is defined.
if you want to mean something else you need a different word, perhaps visible universe for example, or maybe for our purposes physical universe and spiritual universe, but under the definition of the word, for Symantec reasons you can’t claim anything, god included is outside of the universe. the sentence just doesn't make any logical sense as it includes a self-contradictory miss use of the word universe. this is just the way the language works, if you don't follow the rules of English and language then no one is going to understand one another.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
30 Jul 06
Originally posted by sonhousethe idea behind Hisenburgs uncertanty principle is not that you can't know the exact position and velocity of a particle for example, but that that information does not exist. thus it might be theoretically (if not practicaly) possible to know everything there is to know, about the universe. also while current quantumn theory is very very succesfull it doesn't explain everything, and may yet be superceeded. and as there are theories contending for the title which do away with the quantumn uncertanty .... anyway my real point was not nescercerily to know the position of every particle.. ect ect. but the important information, how everything works, the laws of physics and such, could well be determined from inside the universe.
There is this little problem called Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle.
The universe is based on quantum theory whether we like it or no.
There is no way to know everything about our universe from inside it because of that. We can't even know everything about MATHS because of unprovable postulates, etc. So it leaves us short when trying to understand the ...[text shortened]... from the inside. It probably wouldn't even help if we were OUTSIDE the universe looking in.
31 Jul 06
Originally posted by spiritmangr8nessThere is no Flying Spaghetti Monster because my evidence says....
What?ðŸ˜
If you choose to believe in a mythical god you should have no problem with the concept of the FSM possibly being the true creator of the known universe. There is equal proof of both, i.e none.
31 Jul 06
Originally posted by Prvt HarrisRamen brother.
There is no Flying Spaghetti Monster because my evidence says....
If you choose to believe in a mythical god you should have no problem with the concept of the FSM possibly being the true creator of the known universe. There is equal proof of both, i.e none.
31 Jul 06
Originally posted by 7ate9Spot the difference.
Bush, Bin Larden, Blair, Polititians, Singers... etc, etc etc are gods which are feed by those in their systems. this is proof of false gods.
existance of the TRUE GOD would be more provable if His People started believing in Jesus more and not false gods.
"Bush, Bin Larden, Blair, Polititians, Singers... etc, etc etc are gods which are feed by those in their systems. this is proof of false gods.
existance of the TRUE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER would be more provable if His People started believing in Mozzarella more and not false gods."
01 Aug 06
Originally posted by 7ate9Likewise there is no true Atheistic concensus of disbelief. You guys are all over the map. It is more difficult to prove their is a God than to prove there is no God is no rational argument at all.
Bush, Bin Larden, Blair, Polititians, Singers... etc, etc etc are gods which are feed by those in their systems. this is proof of false gods.
existance of the TRUE GOD would be more provable if His People started believing in Jesus more and not false gods.